WHOOOOPS. hehe. The man can write. Shining One, did you write that yourself?
The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?
by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Shining One
Hello Again Jgnat,
Yes, I did write that. I am happy that it was sufficient to explain my position. You had a question about the roles in a Christian congregation. When the apostle Paul explains the respective roles for men and women He is agreeing with the patriarchal order as set by God in Genesis. He allows not that a woman have authority over a man in the church. Christianity was actualy an improvement in women's rights. This does not speak to the role of women in general society. That is determined by the particular culture at that point in the stream of time. This is why scripture does not have to change for society. We as Christians are called to be 'salt and light', not the other way around. When society influences the church then the church begins the downhill slide. You can see this in the decline of the liberal mainstream denominations and conversely, the blessing of the moderate and conservative evangelical churches.
A woman who is 'called' can hold any office except pastor. This is not an equality issue. It is an issue of orderliness and Paul cites this in his reasoning. When you view scripture as inspired it is totally irrelevant what society thinks of any particular teaching in the church. Pastor and elder are both terms for the same office (as is Bishop). Deacons are another issue. The pastor is the herald of the word of God. It is just as important to be an evangelist, missionary, teacher, etc...
An additional bit of information about Corinth is in order. The pagans had female priests and this was not one of the examples for the infant church. Paul stressed the importance of separation from the world in general. This is the reason for the head covering for women and cutting of hair for men. This is why the women were to remain silent in the congregation. I hope this answers some of your questions. I am rather tired today and may sit down later and go into the scriptural references to help clarify this.
God Bless,
Rex -
jgnat
I see. You thought I was ASKING for your interpretation on the matter. I think your fatal flaw is in thinking you have mastered the Truth, at least 99.99% of it.
My own preference is to give God the benefit of the doubt in each instance until proven other wise; to take text at literal reading until it proves to be otherwise; and always insist on the contextual interpretation. This is something that we all do to some extent naturally and with training it is a real skill to master.
A quote from Twain suits:
We are always hearing of people who are around seeking after the Truth. I have never seen a (permanent) specimen. I think he has never lived. But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after the Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment- until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.- "What is Man?"
-
Narkissos
Shining One,
I understand you are tired, but your last post is a strange mix of logically disconnected absolute statements and relativising appeals to context
When the apostle Paul explains the respective roles for men and women He is agreeing with the patriarchal order as set by God in Genesis. He allows not that a woman have authority over a man in the church. Christianity was actualy an improvement in women's rights. This does not speak to the role of women in general society. That is determined by the particular culture at that point in the stream of time. This is why scripture does not have to change for society. We as Christians are called to be 'salt and light', not the other way around. When society influences the church then the church begins the downhill slide. You can see this in the decline of the liberal mainstream denominations and conversely, the blessing of the moderate and conservative evangelical churches.
A woman who is 'called' can hold any office except pastor. This is not an equality issue. It is an issue of orderliness and Paul cites this in his reasoning. When you view scripture as inspired it is totally irrelevant what society thinks of any particular teaching in the church. Pastor and elder are both terms for the same office (as is Bishop). Deacons are another issue. The pastor is the herald of the word of God. It is just as important to be an evangelist, missionary, teacher, etc...
An additional bit of information about Corinth is in order. The pagans had female priests and this was not one of the examples for the infant church. Paul stressed the importance of separation from the world in general. This is the reason for the head covering for women and cutting of hair for men. This is why the women were to remain silent in the congregation.Sounds like you mean:
(1) headscarf and long hair (1 Corinthians 11), silence in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14) --> contextual and only applies to the 1st-century Corinthian church.
(2) no teaching or authority (Pastorals) --> absolute, applies to any church at any time, whatever the changes in society.
Did I misunderstand you?
Of course you know that the appeal to patriarchal (or even creational) order runs against fundamental Pauline theology according to Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Yet you insist that sexual discrimination in the Church is an all-time rule.
If you think this is just a "spiritual principle" with no social and ecclesial implications, do you think those Christians who fought for the abolition of slavery on the very same grounds were wrong?
You also know that the special office of "pastor" (actually distinct from "bishop," "elders" and "deacons") as exists in most Protestant churches today doesn't belong to NT ecclesiology. Yet you apply to this non-scriptural function a supposedly scriptural rule. Don't you find that strange?
My point: you too "pick and choose" in the Bible, and thereby reveal who you are. Hiding behind "scriptural authority" doesn't help.
-
Shining One
Dear Narkissos,
I am going to handle this in two parts:
>Sounds like you mean: (1) headscarf and long hair (1 Corinthians 11), silence in the congregation (1 >Corinthians 14) --> contextual and only applies to the 1st-century Corinthian church.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
>(2) no teaching or authority (Pastorals) --> absolute, applies to any church at any time, whatever the >changes in society. Did I misunderstand you?
NO, you did not misunderstand me.
>Of course you know that the appeal to patriarchal (or even creational) order runs against fundamental Pauline theology according to Galatians 3:28: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Yet you insist that sexual discrimination in the Church is an all-time rule.
Let's establish the context of this verse. It is not speaking specifically to women's roles in the church. To use it in that manner is faulty exegesis and instead of letting scripture say what it says, you are 'reading something into it' that is not there.
Galatians 3
1. You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3. Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4. Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing?
5. Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? 6. Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7. Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.
We have to go clear back to the start of the chapter to establish the context of verse 28. The Galations were going back to the law covenant, having been misled by Judaistic false teachers. Paul is correcting them and in verse seven he emphasizes that ‘those who believe are children of Abraham…Christians.
8. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9. So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10. All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11. Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."
Paul continues to admonish the Galations that they do not need to ‘become Jews’ in order to be Christians, as the Judaizers were teaching.
12. The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."
This is a reference to Christ 'becoming sin', (incurring God's wrath on the cross) that we who believe can attain righteousness.
14. He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
15. Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.
20. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 21. Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
22. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Throughout this passage, Paul is building the case that none of us can be justified by observing the law. The purpose of the law was to lead us to Christ. The one mediator and redeemer of mankind and that we gain life by our faith in Him.
26. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27. for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 8. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Therefore the purpose of the passage is to show that we are all saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus: Jew, Gentile, slave, freeman, man, woman. We are all heirs to the promise as we are all ‘Abraham’s seed’. You can’t build a teaching around single scripture exegesis, Narkissos.
Blessings,
Rex -
Shining One
Hi Again Narkissos,
Let's get into part two of my answer now, you said:
>If you think this is just a "spiritual principle" with no social and ecclesial implications, do you think those Christians who fought for the abolition of slavery on the very same grounds were wrong?
A wrong premise to begin with results in a wrong interpretation. We must not be too quick to make assumptions. Don't feel bad though, as I am guilty of this as well. I was referring to this below:
(1) headscarf and long hair (1 Corinthians 11), silence in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14) --> contextual and only applies to the 1st-century Corinthian church. Now, slavery was the result of the worst kind of exegesis that caused things to be 'read into' scripture to justify prejudice.
>You also know that the special office of "pastor" (actually distinct from "bishop," "elders" and "deacons") as exists in most Protestant churches today doesn't belong to NT ecclesiology.
It absolutely does belong to NT doctinal teaching. It is not an 'essential' but it is a clear teaching. This is one of my points about the church letting the mores of society influence it instead of vice versa.
>Yet you apply to this non-scriptural function a supposedly scriptural rule. Don't you find that strange?
My point: you too "pick and choose" in the Bible, and thereby reveal who you are. Hiding behind "scriptural authority" doesn't help.
I have just explained my understanding here. I agree that 'pick and choose' is not the way to observe scriptural commands. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.(1) This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:12-14).
At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Act 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity"(1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer'.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male. He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things" (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14).
This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women. Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
Let's review my points on Galations 3:28 again for clarity. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28).
You used this verse to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.
Unfortunately, you totally missed the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).(2) The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.
This verse is not talking about church structure. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." It cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1.
I realize that this answer is getting long but please bear with me. In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority of men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:11-14.
Male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not.
Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. In the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. The chain of command is Jesus, the man, the wife, and the children.
Let's now deal with the question of women who say they are called by god to be pastors.
There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have stated that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. Instead, I believe they have usurped the position of men and gone against the norm of scriptural revelation.
This is very important here: Those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture.
The issue is simple: are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?
As Christians we apply what we learn from the word, to the situations at hand. So, what about the situation where a woman missionary has converted a group of people, say in the jungle somewhere, and she has established a church? In that church, she is then functioning as a pastor and teacher having authority over men in the church. Should she not do this?
First of all, she should not be out there alone. She should be with her husband or, at the very least, under the oversight of a church body in the presence of other women and men. Missionary work is not a lone endeavor to be handled by single women and is almost universally not done!
Second, if in some highly unusual set of circumstances there is a woman in a lone situation, it is far more important that the word of God be preached and the gospel of salvation go forth to the lost than not. Whether it be male or female, let the gospel be spoken. However, I would say that as soon as there is/are males mature enough to handle eldership, that she should then establish the proper order of the church as revealed in scripture and thereby, show her submission to it.
Does this also mean that women shouldn't wear jewelry?
Some argue that if we are to forbid women to be elders then the context of 1 Tim. 2:9-13 demands that we require women to no have braided hair, wear gold, or have costly garments. Since no one wants to put that sort of a demand on a woman (since it is cultural), then why should we also demand that they not be elders since it would logically follow that it was also a culturally based admonition?
The problem here has many sides. First, the objection ignores what the scriptures plainly teach about the elder being the husband of one wife. Second, it fails to address the real issue of biblical headship residing in the male.
Third, it fails to properly exegete the scripture in question.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-13 Paul tells us that women should be modestly dressed. He uses the example of then present day adornment as an example of what not to do, definitely culturally based assessment by Paul. Notice that Paul emphasizes good works and godliness as a qualifier (as does Peter, see 1 Pet. 3:2). This is not a doctrinal statement tied to anything other than being a godly woman in appearance as well as attitude.
In verse 11, Paul says that a woman should quietly receive instruction. Please note that "The word, heµsychia, translated “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11 and silent in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly.
A different word (sigaoµ) means “to be silent, to say nothing” (cf. Luke 18:39; 1 Cor. 14:34).”3 Paul is advocating orderliness in this verse.
Then in verse 12-13, Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Notice that Paul directly relates the authority issue with the created order. He does not do this with the woman's dress code. Therefore, the dress code can be seen as cultural and the authority issue as doctrinal since the later is tied to the creation order and the dress code and authority issue are not, especially since they are separated by the conjunction "but" which is showing contrast, i.e., here we have one thing, but over here we have another.
So, what is the 'bottom line'? God's word clearly tells us that the elder is to be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot qualify for this position by virtue of her being female. Whether anyone likes it or not is irrelevant to the fact that this is what the Bible teaches.
Blessings,
Rex -
Shining One
Hi Jgnat,
You said: I see. You thought I was ASKING for your interpretation on the matter. I think your fatal flaw is in thinking you have mastered the Truth, at least 99.99% of it.
This was in reply to what I said below:
My own preference is to give God the benefit of the doubt in each instance until proven other wise; to take text at literal reading until it proves to be otherwise; and always insist on the contextual interpretation. This is something that we all do to some extent naturally and with training it is a real skill to master.
I am not a master by any means. I am a pupil who has some good practical experience at hermenutics. I have been taught by some very intelligent pastors and am a seminary student who will soon have a degree to go with my experince.
Whenever we read anything we are in the mode of interpretation without even realizing it. Methodical interpretation of scripture is a science that is never truly mastered. We often bring our own axioms to the table so to speak. We read things into scripture that is not there. I am trying to be a 'empty vessel' and go through a logical method of interpreting scripture. I also let scripture itself interpret other scripture to secure the context. I recommend Virkler's 'Hermeneutics' and McQuillan's 'Understanding and Applying the Bible as a good place to start. Your own pastor should be a good source for guidance and I would ask him about the doubts you have expressed here. If you don't feel comfortable doing that then by all means consult a pastor or seminary professor.
God Bless,
Rex -
Narkissos
Shining One,
My real question is: What authorises you, exegetically, to dismiss 1 Corinthians 11 & 14 (which btw flatly contradict each other, but this is another topic) as provisional? Did the author(s) mean those instructions as limited in space and time? Just weigh them by the same scales you use for the Pastorals:
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. (Appeal to permanent creation order.) Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. (Appeal to Genesis as the chart of permanent creation order.) For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature (Greek notion, yet evocative of creation order in the broad Jewish or Christian sphere) itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious--we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (Potentially illimited scope of application.)
As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? (Here the author insists that the rule applies to all churches and that the destinataries are no exception.)
My interpretation: the true reason why you invite the priestesses of Cybeles etc. into the discussion is that you are embarrassed with the "Corinthian instructions" and feel like dismissing them. I don't think the text of 1 Corinthians authorises you to do so anymore than the text of 1 Timothy. You just use the principle "Scripture doesn't change with society" for those scriptures which suit you or your church environment. That's what I meant by "picking and choosing". And, mind you, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
Only it takes intellectual and/or spiritual courage to admit it to oneself. For at this very moment the imaginary shadow of "objective authority" vanishes and you have to stand by faith.
-
Leolaia
With the dead sea scrolls we have some of the Old Testament that goes back to 200 BC and the 'errors' are miniscule. They do not compromise the texts from the 10 and 12th centuries.
What does "miniscule" mean? Some books, like Isaiah, have only minor discrepensies. But there are very significant discrepensies between the MT and the Qumran texts of such books as 1-2 Samuel, Jeremiah, the Psalter, and so forth. When compared with the LXX and other evidence, it is clear that some books circulated in more than one edition. It is just not possible in many cases to reconstruct the "originals" of OT books because the evidence is too fragmentary and the standardized MT is not always correct. We need more information about the complex textual history of the OT than what we already have.
-
ithinkisee
Tetrapos said:
considering that mystics have no data for their assertions, and atheists (weak) are awaiting data, simply put.
I haven't read alll 5 pages of this thread yet, but I like this. Simply put ... yes ... but I understood it ... LOL.
-ithinkisee