Frank

Paula, as I mentioned before, I didn’t expect my brief summary of my OEC viewpoint would win anyone over; I wrote it, as I said, to remind each other that though we had different interpretations as to the “duration” of the six creation days, we all had a high view of Scripture; we all tried to interpret it as consistently and coherently, as best we could; and where we could agree, we should, and where we couldn’t, to allow liberty of opinion and treat each other with love and respect. And I think we all agree, yes?

Still, while I respect your view, I will briefly point out why I still disagree. And then I will say no more, because I believe we want to move on.
1. It does not seem to me that whether you translate the refraining clause as “And there was evening, and there was morning–the first day” or as “And there was an end of the day, and there was a beginning of the day–Day One” at the end of each day–which are both literal and legitimate translations of the Hebrew words,’ereb and boqer, respectively,– iyou can automatically say this is a 24 hr rotational. First of all, when such literal days are described elswhere in the Hebrew text as from “by evening to evening” or “by morning to morning,” but not “by evening was and to morning was”. A clue that perhaps something other than a 24 hr rotational day may be in view? At least I think so, but again, you may disagree. Context and usage must decide.

2. Even if you are correct that Day 1 to Day Six are literal 24 hr rotational days, yom (“day”) in 2:4 must be being used in a metaphorical sense by Moses and refer to a “period” or “time” longer than 24 hrs, otherwise, you not have a linquistic problem but a logical one: 6 days cannot equal 1 day if they are all 24 hrs long!

3. And the closing refrain, “And it was evening and it was morning–Day 7” is not to be found. A very significant missing item, I would think, unless Day 7 is itself distinct from the previous six days in length. So I still standfast to my view.

Don, I, like you, have various reasons for being an old earth creationist, and while I agree quite a deal with Cheryl as regards the events occuring on Day Six, I personally believe Day Six, though less than an age, was certainly more than 24 hrs. And I also believe Days One through Five, are indefinite periods of various length. As I have indicated elsewhere, I view Gen 2:4 both as a summarization of 1:1-2:3 and as a lead into 2:5-3:16, which I view as a “historical” commentary on the events, on Day Six, that occurred prior to and after God gave both Adam and Eve the “cultural mandate” of Gen 1:28. Gen 2:4 clearly states, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.” (NASB) Long ago, I came to the conclusion that–on the basis both of same word (Yom), being used here as it is of the individual days 1:3-2:3; that only in 1:14 doe God declare that 24 hr, rotational days are now to be marked; and that God’s Sabbath rest from his creating work continues to this very day, even as he carries on his work of providence and redemption (cf. Gen 2:2 with John 5:16-18 and Heb 4:1-7)–Gen 1:1-2:3 describes an Age of Creation, each of the days being of various length, and Day Six being the shortest. And in this way I am able to harmonize the Scriptures and the proven facts of astrophysics, geology, biology and history, though not in the way insisted on by either Neo-Darwinians or “Scientific” Creationists. For I had serious problems with a number of arguments pressed not only by the Neo-Darwinians, but also with a number of those pressed by the “Scientific” Creationists as well. But that is something to be discussed elsewhere under Creation vs. Evolution, not Women in Ministry.

Now, my point in stating my OEC viewpoint is not necessarily to win everyone to my position. I state it because I want us all to remember that whether we are YEC’s and OEC’s, the majority of us have a high view of the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of Scripture; believe that whatever role reason, history and experience play in our formulation of doctrine, from first to last, Scripture has the final say; and, I think, we all try to live by the Puritan dictum, enunciated by Richard Baxter, “In essentials, unity; in disputable matters, liberty; but in all things, love.”

Just recently, CT had a review on a book by OEC authors, THE BIBLE, ROCKS, AND TIME, who argued that this passage was “allegorical.” Though the reviewer made some valid critiques of the book, he then went on to imply that if you were of the OEC persuasion, you inevitably denied that there was a historical Adam and Eve, or that there was a historical Fall that had universal spiritual and physical consequences. I felt compell to comment on the review, first stating where I thought my fellow OECers had erred, but then correcting the reviewer on his misrepresentation of OECers as a whole. And so this commentary I write is an exercise in caution, not persuasion. But I felt this was something I needed to say for the benefit of us all.

In the last series of exchanges between Cheryl and Don about the historicity of Genesis 1 and its polemic usefulness, I think that we should remember that the Torah is the covenantal document of Israel, and so history and polemic are in many places combined. I don’t think it is always an either/or situation. The Torah, its parts and the whole, have to be studied in their historical, literary, and cultural context. And the whole point of the history in the Torah is to show how the descendants of Adam, Shem and Abraham became the covenantal people of God.

As a progressive creationist (or older earth creationist, if you will, much like Hugh Ross, author of The Genesis Question and The Creator and the Cosmos), I see no problem with Cheryl’s “meshing” of Day six in Gen 1:24-31 with Gen 2:5-25, or with Gen 3:1-24, for that matter. (Note: I regard 2:4 as summary of the general historical account given in 1:1-2:3 and also as a transition to 2:5-25, which explicates what happened before God’s giving the “cultural mandate” to both Adam and Eve in Gen 1:28. And both 2:5-25 and 3:1-31 are connected to Gen 1:24-31 by the Hebrew word translated “Now” in 2:5 and 3:1, indicating these are further elaborations of Day Six.) Whether the total time involved in Day Six was 24 hrs or a year, I think, is of secondary importance. For my judgment is that when you put the two passages together, the sequence of events, at least chronologically, appear to be 1) God’s decision to make human beings, male and female, both in his image and set them up as co-regents and stewards of the garden placed under their rule and care; 2) He creates Adam, places him in the garden, where he begins his “scientific work” of naming the animals and tending the plants God placed there; 3) Going through this process, he recognizes, what God already knows and plans to rectify, that he is alone and incomplete; so God creates a female counterpart, whom he acknowleges as such by calling her isha, “woman”; 4) Shortly after this, God gives them both what theologians have called the “cultural mandate” in Gen 1:28; 5) some time after this, Satan invades the garden and tempts the human pair; and 6) they embrace the lie, are judged and then shown grace before being expelled from the garden. Perhaps some might disagree with my view about the length of the six creation days, which is fine. But I think we can at least agree that Day Six was long enough for all these events to take place sequentially and to be completed within that time period.

Cheryl, it is good to have you back and up to top form in expounding the Scriptures, and if I may say so, giving a solid, well-reasoned and biblical answer to Chris’s comments (41). And thank you for your kind words regarding my comments (48), by which I also stand. And so, if I may, I wish to briefly respond to Chris’s last comment to me (49).

Chris, the short answer to your questions are my trouble with your syllogism was not its formal validity, but, how shall I say this, the misleading if not false content of your premises; yes, it is the motive, and not merely the possession of, or lack of knowledge, that distinguishes the Deceived heretic from the Deliberate heretic. In fact, in the Catholic Dictionary of Theology, the terms for these types of heretics are, as I recall, an Informal Heretic, one who teaches a heresy in ignorance, not realizing it is contrary to orthodox Christianity; and a Formal Herectic, who not only knows what orthodox Christianity but rejects it and deliberately teaches a heresy for his own reasons. And it is made on the basis of the same Scriptures and reasoning Cheryl uses. At least the Catholics got something right.

Of course, I am most intriqued by your question regarding 1 Timothy 1:13. Why would Paul, or even I, for that matter, ever think that ignorance and unbelief somehow “merit” God’s saving grace in Christ? I know there is no exegetical justification for such an idea in any of Paul’s writings, let alone in 1 Timothy 1:12-17. Or don’t you think I have ever read and studied Galations and Romans, where Paul clearly teaches we are not saved by “works of the law” but “by divine grace appropriated by faith” in the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ? And if you want the reason why our Lord Jesus took pity on Paul, saved, and transformed him, might I suggest you find it in 1 Timothy 1:16, “I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who believe in him and receive eternal life” (1 Tim. 1:16, TNIV). The Lord Jesus saved and transformed Paul for the benefit of others and for his own glory, not because Paul merited it. Is that explanation sufficient?

Still, I wonder why it was necessary, Chris, for you to suggest I thought Paul taught this and so had to give an explanation? Son, I’m not as stupid, nor as biblically and theologically illiterate, as you apparently think I am. I may not have a Phd., but I have certainly been trained in biblical studies, theology, and apologetics. And I know when someone misuses hermenuetics and logic. And I have been in enough debates to know someone is using a diversionary tactic when his own position’s weaknesses are being heavily assaulted. And I apologize to others if these final remarks seem blunt and to the point, but on the basis of Prov. 26:4-5, I believe they are called for.

Chris, as regards your critique of Cheryl and Don concerning the irrationality of their distinction between Paul and the false teachers Alexander and Hymaneus–that Paul sinned against the truth in ignorance and unbelief, while the others deliberately perverted aspects of the Gospel to promote their heretical views and were therefore subject to greater condemnation–I would have to say that you are in error. First of all, you neglect the full context of 1 Tim. 1:12-14, which we know from both Acts and Paul’s others letters (e.g., Philippians), clearly reveal that Paul was a strict and devout Pharisee who viewed the Nazrene sect and its teaching about Jesus the Messiah and the Kingdom as a threat to all he held dear about Israel, the Temple, and the Mosaic Law. And that is why he was so hell-bent on eradicating what he considered a dangerous and heretical sect. It was not until he had his life-changing encounter with the Risen Christ, and took time to rethink his understanding of Messiah, the identity of God’s people in connection with Messiah, etc., that Paul comes to view his former life and actions as he describes them in 1 Tim. 1:12-14.

Secondly, in Acts 20, before his imprisonment in Rome, Paul had met with the elders of the Ephesian church and then given them this prophetic warning, “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers…I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among and will not spare the flock. EVEN FROM YOUR OWN NUMBER SOME WILL ARISE AND DISTORT THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO DRAW AWAY DISCIPLES AFTER THEM. So be on your guard!” (Acts 20:28-31, TNIV, italics mine) Sadly, before his final imprisonment and martydom in Rome, to which 2 Timothy refers, Paul lived to see this prophecy fulfilled in the Ephesian church, sent Timothy to silence the heretical teachers, which included such elders as Alexander and Hymenus who, violating their faith and own conscience, were leading themselves and their followers to destruction (cf. 1 Tim. 1:18-20 with 5:17-22), and sent the letter we know as 1 Timothy to explain to Timothy the proper way to discipline the erring leaders and set things right. And Paul surely would have agreed with Peter who, dealing with other similar heretical teachers, wrote, “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in [sin] and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them” (2 Pet. 2:20-21, TNIV).

As for the appeal to Gordon Clark and the application of his teaching on logic. I knew Gordon Clark, though not intimately; and I am familiar with a number of his works, including his Handbook on Logic. I think he would argree with me that a sylogism may be formally true, but if the premise or any of the arguments flowing from it, are false, then the sylogism itself is false. And there are problems with your sylogism, because both your premise and several logicisms (if that is the right term for them), as far as I can tell, are based on ill-founded assumptions or misrepresentations of your opponents’ arguments. I am not impressed.

Well, Cheryl, as some of my CBE friends will tell, I see my sharing of “the big picture” as a means of engaging in what Carolyn James describes, in The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough To Break The Rules, as a “Blessed Alliance,” between men and women as equals and partners under God, join their gifts and abilities to spread Christ’s Gospel of the Kingdom and fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20. So thank-you for letting me cooperate with you in proclaiming, defending, and confirming the Gospel of Christ. And, now with your leave, I will complete my discussion of the “big picture” for 1 Cor 14:33b-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15.

As I pointed out in the previous comment (42), when Paul commended the Corinthian congregation for praying and prophesying in accordance with “the traditions” he had passed on to them (1 Cor. 11:2-16), he was referring to the authoritative teaching which he had given regarding “the New Creation in Christ,” which he had set forth in Gal. 3:26-4:7, and which he further developed in 2 Cor. 5:11-6:4, Rom. 4:13-17 and 8:12-21. Furthermore, I agree with the consensus among most NT scholars (e.g., George E. Ladd, Geerhaus Vos, James D.G. Dunn, Gordon Fee, et al), that this tradition is the eschatological heart of Paul’s theology and it colors everything else he has to say about salvation, justification, sanctification, the Spirit’s gifting and calling of people to ministry, the nature and mission of the church, etc. Essentially, according to this “tradition,,” by means of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection and his pouring out of the Spirit upon his assembled people (i.e., the Church), the eschatological promise of the Abrahamic Covenant is now being realized as the Old Age Passes away, and the New Age To Come dawns with the coming of Christ and the Spirit, but which will come to full bloom only at the Second Coming. And this fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise is now being manifested in the new family of Abraham, the New Israel, the New Humanity, reconstituted around Christ, the Seed of Abraham. And what this means is that the New Humanity, the Body of Christ, is made up of all who are united with Christ by faith, have received the New Covenant sign of baptism, now live by the Law of Christ and not the Law of Moses, and who are renewed by the Spirit of Sonship and equipped by him to lovingly worship God and serve humanity as did Christ their Lord, the Son of Abraham and the Son of God.

Anyway, this is the tradition Paul has in view in 1 Cor. 11:2-16, which is the first half of the introduction to 12:1-14:32. But he has to gently rebuke a partial misunderstanding of this tradition that appears to exist in Corinth. He reminds them that this tradition does not obliterate natural distinctions existing among the sexes. Rather, it renders these distinctions, however defined by their culture, as invalid as barriers and restraints to both men and women engaging as partners in those ministries for which the Holy Spirit has gifted and called them. For, again, the equal possession of the Spirit and his gifts, is their inheritance right as those united with Christ, the Seed of Abraham and as coheirs with Christ in all the promised blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant: Full membership in the family of God; equal and full possession of the Spirit and his gifts apart from any limitation due to to age, race, gender or social status; and co-rulership of the world with Christ in the future. But Paul gives no word of condemnation or censure here the would lead us to ever believe he forbade men and women praying and prophesying together, as long as the general rules were followed. However, when the general rules are violated, such as 11:17-34 indicates was the case in connection with the Lord’s Supper, not only does he not gently rebuke them, but takes them to task for their ungodly attitudes and practices: “In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good…Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!” ( 1 Cor. 11:16-22, TNIV). And this is something we will want to consider when we look at the conclusion of this literary section, 14:33b-40.

Then in 1 Cor. 12:1-14:32, Paul answers questions in the letter from Corinth, explaining, once again, the origin, nature, and purpose of the Spirit’s gifts, 12:1-31; that the gifts must be exercise out of love both for God and God’s people, otherwise they are useless, even harmful, 13:1-13; and then after distinguishing between tongues, interpretaion of tongues, and prophecy, Paul then reminds them what he had previously taught regarding the “how, when and why” of their employment in congregational worship, 14:2-32. And throughout this section, Paul never says anything that indicates that any spiritual gift is the special privilege of either sex, nor that the Spirit gives men certain gifts that he never gives to women. None of that at all.

That is why, for a long time, when Christians come to 1 Cor. 14:33b-35, it is like a slap in the face. Such is the sterness and discord of the language of these verses with all that has proceeded them, it is not surprising that some have thought them an interpolation from a later commentator who didn’t want women preaching. And unlike the introduction of 11:2-34, there is no commendation, followed by a gentle rebuke, and then a stern censure of outrageous behavior, but an immediate censure of apparently one group. Something out of the ordinary certainly is being dealt with here. But what is it, and why is it being treated in this manner, which clearly departs from Paul’s normal practice in the previous sections? Though I am convinced they were written by Paul, I am also convinced they are not Paul’s own view. For as Gilbert Bilizekian, Cheryl Schatz and others have ably demonstrated, 14:33b-35 is the view held by and being promoted by a Judaizing faction in Corinth, which Paul then sternly rebukes and refutes in 14:36-40. And since Cheryl deals with this in some great detail in her postings on 1 Corinthians 11-14, I refer the readers there if they have questions about this interpretation. It is well worth the read.

Now here is the point of my little exercise on seeing “the big picture.” If we are to properly interpret and apply 1 Tim. 2:11-15, it is not enough to understand the grammar and syntax of this passage alone, though that is very important in itself, and Cheryl is doing a great job in that regard. 1 Tim. 2:11-15 must first of all be understood as regards it place within the total context of 1 Timothy, then within the total Pauline corpus which has proceeded 1 Timothy–i.e., 1 and 2 Thessalonians; Galatians; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Colossians and Philemon; Philippians; and lastly, Ephesians (though some may include Titus as a later witness after 1 Timothy). Since we all believe in the progressiveness of revelation given in Scripture, including that given by Paul himself, there are several questions we need to ask about 1 Timothy in general, and about 1 Tim. 2:11-15 in particular. If this little passage is connected with what Paul has previously taught on men and women praying and prophesying together, in what way? And does 1 Tim. 2:11-15 represent 1) a clear regression in Paul’s teaching and practice on this issue; or 2 ) is it a clear progression in Paul’s teaching and practice on this issue; or 3) is this another example of a special, Spirit-given ad hoc ruling peculiar to certain situations existing in Ephesus and which Paul sought to correct when he wrote 1 Timothy? And so to properly answer these questions, our detailed study of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 must be constantly examined in the light of the greater Pauline corpus, if we are not to lose our bearing and sail off on a false and harmful course. Thank-you for letting me share my observations and comments. I hope they prove both informative and helpful.

Cheryl, I would like to amend the first sentence, of the third paragraph in Comment 10 to read, “Now, in 1 Tim. 2:8-15, we again have the same pattern of general rules for the churches, rooted in Paul’s own teaching and practices…,” and not as “rooted in the Lord Jesus’ teaching and practices.” And the original error was due to a trick of eye or mind (I’m not sure which), I here now correct it. And as one who has translated and exegeted NT texts myself, I want to express my appreciation for the great care you have taken in navigating us through 1 Tim. 2:11-15. From what I have seen in consulting the various commentaries available, this is a very complex and difficult passage for any exegete to sail through without running aground somewhere. Yet, I think it is fair to say, if I may so put it, that you have done a fine job in piloting us around some of this text’s more dangerous shoals and reefs. So with your permission, I would like to finish my comments on the parallels between 1 Cor. 11:33b-40 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15, and the necessity, as gengell succinctly puts it (41), of setting them in their proper place within the entire Pauline corpus.

Most NT scholars acknowledge that 1 Corinthinans 11-14 is a subsection of a larger literary unit that begins in 7:1 and ends in 15:58. And in this section, as a result of both a letter and an oral report from Chloe’s house church, Paul finds himself again addressing problems that he had previously dealt with (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10-17; 5:1-12; 7:1-16). Whether it has to do with sexual ethics, marriage and divorce (Ch 7); food offered to idols (Ch 8); the difference to be made between liberty and license (Chs 9-10), etc–Paul is constantly having to define and clarify, rebuke and correct, chastise and remind the Corinthians of teachings and rules and guidelines that he has reviewed with them several times, and which he had expected them to have learned and understood now before visiting them again (Cf. 2 Cor. 13:1-4, which indicates Paul is primarily referring to the second of three visits he was to make to Corinth in order to deal with these persistent disorders).

Now what I find most interesting about 1 Cor. 11:2-14:40, is what I would describe as the “stark contrast” between 11:2-16, which serves as the introduction of this literary section, and 14:33b-40, which serves as its conclusion. In 11:2-16, Paul “commends” the Corinthian congregation for praying and prophesying in compliance with “the traditions,” or authoritative teachings, he has passed on as regulating all Christian belief and practice. And in agreement with many NT schloars, I believe he is referring to the tradition of “the New Creation in Christ,” which he first sets forth in Gal. 3:26-4:7, and then further develops in 2 Cor. 5:11-6:4; Rom. 4:13-17; and Rom. 8:12-21. But in this passage, he gently rebukes a partial misunderstanding of this tradition. However, I will have to finish the rest of this comment tomorrow. I have some errands I must run now. To be continued…

I was reviewing the comments on this posting, and was reminded how, as my friend and mentor Rober K. Wright told, you must always question your pressupositions in interpretation, or you may wind up at a meaning of a text that is far from what the original author intended. And so it seems to me that some assume a hierarchical “order of creation,” assume that was Paul’s view of the “order of creation,” and then exegete and defend this view from the text, without ever establishing that Paul truly held this view in the first place, let alone warranted by Scripture as a whole. Here is what Sue and Larry Richards say about this:

Some have taken Paul’s observation that “Adam was formed first, then Eve,” to imply that men are to be leaders in the church and women are to be the followers. Similarly the reference to Eve being deceived is taken as support for the notion that women are more susceptible to error than men and should not serve as teachers or leaders.

One problem with this view is that the Genesis 2 creation story to which Paul appealed emphasizes the EQUALITY of Adam and Eve as possessors together of the divine image, with co-dominion over the creation. That Adam was not deceived when he ate the forbidden fruit hardly exonerates him. In fact it makes him more responsible: It was Adam’s Fall, not Eve’s. Whatever reason Paul had for referring to Adam and Eve here, it cannot to be establish a subordiante role for women, or to indicate a weakness of character that would prevent them from teaching.

But what if Paul is developing an analogy between Adam and Eve’s experience and the situation in Ephesus rather than basing teaching on a text? Surely there are points of comparison between what happened in Eden and what is taking place Ephesus. Because Eve was deceived she took the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam. The deception of Eve started the chain of events that led to disaster. In Ephesus, women were also being deceived.

But what does Paul mean by saying Adam was created first, then Eve? Paul is simply reminding the Ephesians that woman was created to complete man. Without Eve, Adam was incomplete. Thus men need women as partners for our race to reach its full potential! If the women in Ephesus are deceived, this can lead the whole church to disaster! (“Paul on Women,” Every Woman of the Bible, p. 230 ).

Then they go on to explain that the solution is for the women to be properly educated and trained, then they can serve as equal partners in teaching and so on. But if you assume a “hierarchical order of creation,” you will be blind to this as alternative interpretation.

I see the discussion has moved on to a further discussion (Part 5) of the “grammatical issues” connected with “she” and “they” in 1 Tim. 2:15. And when I can do some further research, I may comment on this newest posting. But in this comment, in part a refocusing on the “big picture” (i.e., the historical, cultural and literary context) in response to comments made by Chris and Donald (20, 12)–some elements of which I agree with and some of which I do not–I would like to add to and expand upon my own (10), if I may.

As I had stated in my previous comment, as general rules and guidelines Paul had laid down for the churches he had founded, there are striking parallels between 1 Cor. 11:2-14:32 and 1 Tim. 2:1-15. Both passages, as revealed by commonalities in concerns, terms and phraseology, are examples of standard rules and guidelines designed to both define and regulate the proper conduct of men and women as they together engage in intercessory prayer, adoration of God, and in prophesying in the house church meetings. And by means of this mutual, cooperative ministry, everyone present was instructed, encouraged, and built up in their common union with their living and exalted Lord Jesus Christ, as well as being trained and equipped “for good works of service” (Cf. Gal. 3:26-4:7, 1 Cor. 12:1-13, and Eph. 4:1-16).

Moreover, on the basis of the principle of a legal pronouncement or a word of testimony requiring confirmation and validation by two or three witnesses, which Cheryl has argued so well from the Scriptures, we can firmly and without reservation state that Paul himself, as long as the standard rules and guidelines were followed, both approved and urged men and women to engage together in mutual, complementary prayer, adoration of God, and prophesying. For here is what Paul actually said about this:

1. “Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. Do not put out the Spirit’s fire. Do not treat prophecies in contempt but test them all; hold to what is good, reject what is harmful” (1 Thess. 5:16-17, TNIV).

2. “What then shall we say brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two-or at most three-shall speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret…Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said…[Y]ou can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace-as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people” (1 Cor. 14:26-33, TNIV).

3. “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Col. 3:15-17, TNIV).

Now you would think, in light of this clear, threefold testimony given by Paul himself, that when people read what he says in 1 Cor. 14:33b-40 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15, they would immediately recognize that these passages are clear departures from his regular rules and guidelines and that they must be Spirit-given, ad hoc rulings pertaining to special problematic situations arising in Corinth and Ephesus either 1) such was the nature of the problem that the standard regulations did not apply or 2) as the historical, cultural and literary context of both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy indicates, there were deliberate violations of these Pauline regulations due to certain rebellious factions, influenced by heretical teaching, that were to be found among the members of the congregations in Corinth and in Ephesus. And I would like to say some more on this. But it is getting late, and I must run some errands before bedtime. So this comment is to be continued…

Cheryl, an observation on 1 Tim. 2:12 based on 1 Cor. 7:17-31. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about “the rule of conduct” for congregational relationships and practices that he lays down for all the churches (1 Cor. 7:17). Then in 7:25-31, he responds to the question as to what engaged couples should do in the light of the eschatological end in which the Church lives between now and the 2nd coming of Christ. When he addresses this issue, having stated his general rules, which are based in the teaching of Jesus himself, Paul says, “Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are…” (1 Cor 7:25-26, NIV). Since he is addressing a specific issue, limited to a certain place and time, and since no general command of the Lord Jesus exists to address, Paul, by the wisdom of the Lord granted him by the Spirit of Christ ” (i.e., “the mercy of the Lord” to which he refers), he gives an hoc rule that suits this issue and its attending circumstances.

Now, 1 Tim. 2:8-15, we have the same pattern of general rules for the churches, rooted in Paul’s own teaching and practices, with a specific situation considered and ruled on in vv. 11-15. In 2:1-10, such is the wording that the “rule of conduct for prophesying,” which we recognize in its full form in 1 Cor. 11-14, is here given in summary form, because it was teaching Timothy was well acquainted with and needed no further instruction on (Cf. 2 Tim. 3:14-4:5). But such is the subject and language in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, that it is clear that Paul is no longer focused on general rules arising out of the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, but is again, by the Spirit of Christ, giving a word of wisdom and a ruling that addresses the specific situation that Timothy is facing in Ephesus at the time and on which he sorely needs advice and counsel. So this something else we need to keep in mind regarding this passage.

Cheryl, you and others might be interested to know that Sue and Larry Richards have co-authored a book, EVERY WOMAN IN THE BIBLE, that considers the various OT and NT texts refering to the stories and roles of various women within their appropriate historical, cultural and literary contexts. Then they demonstrate that many traditional, complementarian interpretations and applications of these texts miss the mark. And in regards to 1 Tim. 2:8-15, our present passage of discussion, the authors give a point by point comparison of both the complementarian and egalitarian interpretation, along with charts, and show clearly the inconsistency and incoherence of the complementarian interpretation. I don’t agree with everything they say in this book, but it seems to be a valuable resource for interpreting and applyings those biblical texts often used to restrict women in ministry. So I would recommend it.

Thirdly, other complementarians, such as Gary Crampton, (who wrote “The Bible and Women Preachers” in the Trinity Journal), have admitted that on the basis of both the major Greek lexicons and NT texts such as Colossians 3:16-17, this distinction often made between “prophecy” and teaching has little, if any, biblical authority and so is invalid. Indeed, because he tightly holds on to a complementarian view of this issue, Mr. Crampton reinterprets 1 Cor. 11-14, say Paul didn’t really mean to teach that men and women could prophesy together as equals–it was all a hypothetical sham!

Fourthly, this intepretation of these Pauline passages (1 Cor. 14:33-34 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15), divorces them from their historical, cultural and literary contexts, ignores what the rest of Scripture says who is gifted and called to prophetic ministry, and makes two ambiguous Pauline texts the rule of all the other Scriptures that go against the complementarian understanding. A terrible violation of basic biblical intepretative methods, that all Protestants, in principle, hold to.

Well, enough said on this for now. God’s blessing on you, Cheryl!

Cheryl, your third installment of the Doug/Paul interview is as good as the first two, and certainly brought up a number of key interpretive issues that complementarians, in my experience, are either ignorant of or deliberately ignore. And as someone who has researched and written on the subject of prophecy and prophetic ministry (e.g., “Prophecy, Past and Present, And Its Significance for Women in Ministry,” Journal for Biblical Equality, Vol 4, 1992), I would like to make a couple of observations on this fallacious distinction complementarians, following the example of Wayne Grudem, make between “prophecy,” or the proclamation of God’s revealed word, and “teaching,” or instruction from God’s revealed word.

First of all, neither in the OT or in the NT, is there a clear distinction made between prophecy or teaching in terms of “forthtelling” or “proclaiming” God’s revealed word. When I wrote my original paper, one of the questions I had to answere was, “What were the prophets in the OT and NT doing, when they were not predicting future events?” And what I discovered, and revealed in that article was that they were expounding and applying the Word of God that had been given through their predecessors, the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Christ. For example, Deborah and Samuel in the OT calling erring Israelites to the Mosaic Law, and Judas and Silas, NT prophets, who instructed, exhorted and encouraged the Antiochian church on the basis of the Edict of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:22-35). Furthermore, while Jesus is called a prophet, it is his teaching that is most recorded. So this is not a biblical distinction.

Secondly, as we all now know, 1 Cor. 14:33-34, is not the actual teaching of Paul himself, but of a Judaizing group in Corinth that he repudiates in 14:36, as Cheryl Schatz, Gilbert Bilizekian, and other scholars have demonstrated over the last 15 years or so.

After I wrote my comment the other day, referring to the testimony of Hebrews 2:2-4 to the Scriptural rule that every word of testimony or declaration must be confirmed by two or more witnesses, out of curiosity, I consulted the Expositor’s Bible Commentary on Hebrews and the NIV Application on Hebrews, curious as to the “scholarly” understanding of this passage. The only difference of opinion seems to have been if the author had two or three witnesses in mind in this “courtroom” scene. According to one understanding of Heb. 2:2-4, there are two witnesses, the Apostles, and then God the Father, who confirms Jesus and his message to the world by signs and wonders done among them, and to the church by the granting it the Spirit and his gifts. But according to the other understanding of this passage, which is viewed as being Trinitarian in nature, much like 1 Cor. 12:1-12, it is both God the Father and the Holy Spirit who, in confirmation of Jesus and his message as divinely approved, are the “divine” witnesses who take the stand in the courtroom of the universe. But in either interpretation the Scriptural rule of confirmation by two or more witnesses is still upheld. Nice to know the scholars agree with us, eh?

Cheryl, this second “interview” with Paul is just as good as the first, and the Scriptural rule that any testimony must be confirmed by two or more witnesses couldn’t have been explained better. And I think your comments on the debate between Jesus and the Pharisees confirms that this rule does not only apply to “legal pronouncements,” but to even the proclamation of the Gospel itself. Consider what the author of Hebrews says on this matter: “Since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will” (Heb. 2:2-4, TNIV). Here the Gospel of God’s Present and Future Kingdom, first proclaimed by our Lord Jesus is confirmed 1) by the Apostles, who were eyewitnesses of all he said and did, and so knew what Jesus proclaimed; 2) by God the Father, who performed signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, showing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and that his message had divine approval; and 3) the Gospel proclaimed by Christ was further confirmed by coming of the Spirit and his gifting everyone who believed and lived by that message. So here is a most powerful example of a message or testimony being confirmed as true and binding by the three most important witnesses to appear on any witness stand.

Brilliant, Cheryl, brillant! Looking forward to Paul and Doug’s discussions on 1 Cor. 11-15. Hope it is just as good.

Well, Cheryl, I thank you for affirming that I am apparently fufilling my gifting and calling to be a prophetic teacher, like my hero and role model, who instructs, encourages and equips the saints in their life and work for our Lord and his Kingdom. And may the Holy Spirit always help me to do so, while keeping me from pride and arrogance, so often encouraged by the devil in sly, enticing ways.

Lin, I certainly understand what you are saying about the days for the understanding and practice of “the priesthood of believers” apparently being past. I hope and pray they are not, but I will admit things do appear rather bleak. Still, even the Church is not beyond the renewing, healing and restoring grace of our Sovereign God. I can’t help but wonder if Pastor Wade Burleson and others, whether they recognize it or not, have been called by the Spirit to a prophetic ministry, where they are calling “Israel” (i.e., the Church) to turn away from false doctrine and sinful practices and once again be the true bearer of Gospel light in the world, as did the prophets in the OT and the Apostle John in Rev. 1-3. We can certainly hope and pray the churches will hear what the Spirit is saying to them today, if they do not wish their lampstand to be removed. But whether they will or not, I cannot say.

As someone who has studied Scripture, Christian history and theology for several years, I find myself in essential agreement with Cheryl and Paula as to the nature and function of Christian leadership. I believe that a synthesis of what Jesus, Paul and Peter teach in the NT on this subject leads one to conclude 1) the men and women who were leaders were mature, Spirit-gifted and called individuals whose responsibility was to nurture, train and equip the entire congregation for works of ministry (cf. Eph. 4:1-16); 2) in the NT situation, the term “elder” as described the maturity and stability of those who served as leaders, while the terms “overseer” and “minister” describe their primary functions (cf. Titus 1:5-2:5); and 3) when the Spirit-gifts and calls people in the congregation to ministry to the congregation or to the outside world, besides doing their part to train and equip these people for ministry, the elders are to lay hands on these people as an act of recognition and blessing upon them as ministers of Christ, called by him and having his power and authority to carry on this ministry (e.g., Acts 13:1-3). And while elders have responsiblilites to nurture, train, and equip the saints, and to also guard them from spiritual wolves, having Christ’s power and authority for the work they do, they are not lords and masters of the congregations (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-4). And as for decision making in the church, whether it has to do with doctrinal or practical issues, I think Acts 15 indicates a process of open discussion and mutual consent, first, among the leaders as advocates of the congregations, and then between the leaders and the congregations. Though I know others may not fully agree with me, I do think this a biblically and theologically sound analysis of the nature and function of NT leadership.

Furthermore, I think it is interesting that Alister McGrath, in his recent book the history of Protestantism, PROTESTANTISM’S DANGEROUS IDEA, points out that the doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers” was understood to involve, among other things, mutual accountability for doctrine and practice between the church leaders and congregations. The leaders were to teach the congregation sound Christian doctrine and ethics so as to live godly lives and be effective witnesses for Christ, but the congregation, on the basis of this same sound Christian doctrine and ethics, also had the responsibility to test the doctrine and practice of the leaders, and to call for their rebuke and discipline when they clearly had strayed. This understanding of the “priesthood of believers,” according to McGrath, was the Protestant answer to the Roman Catholics charge that Protestants had no means of restraining false doctrine or immoral living in their midst. Perhaps, if Protestant churches really understood and practiced “the priesthood of all believers,” some of these present church leaders would be humbled and reminded what their true role and function in the congregation is supposed to be. The question is, of course, whether or not Protestant churches and seminaries are willing to really practice what they preach.

Cheryl:  I just recently received an e-mail from Jon Zens that had a “preview” copy of your Trinity DVD.   I was so impressed, I went and ordered a copy!  I look forward to receiving it and using it as a further resource in “the Battle for the Trinity” that is now going on in the Evangelical Church.  May the the knowledge of the truth that brings godliness prevail.  Amen!

There was an important debate on the Trinity, 10/09/08, at TEDS.  W. Grudem and B. Ware argued for the semi-Arian position of CBMW, while Tom McCall and Keith Yandell argued for the historic, “Orthodox” view of the Trinity.  And you will find a good report and summary of the debate at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-23.0.hmtl.  But the indications are that “the Battle for the Trinity” is far from over. 
      And so if we want to better understand this doctrine and how to contend for it in these times, I recommend the following books:
1.  The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief, by James R. White.
2.  God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, by Millard J. Erickson.
3.  One God in Trinity: An Analysis of the Primary Dogma of Christianity, eds. Peter Toon and James Springster. 
4.  The Trinity: Global Perspectives, by Velerie-Matti Karkarharen.
      Now, if you have read my blog on the Trinity, you will understand how serious I view the perversion of this centeral doctrine by certain persons to ground their false teaching regard the permanent subjugation of women to men.  Therefore, I have written a revised version of my “The Trinity and Evangelical Neo-Arianism” to Jon Zens, encouraging him to use it as one of several articles in a special edition of Searching Together on the Trinity debate.  For, as urged in Jude 3-4, I intend to contend for the Faith against all dangerous heresies, and will continue to encourgae others to do the same.

An excellent article about the relationship between Deborah and Barak.  It has always amused me that certain writers, who say they believe in God’s sovereignty, when they come to this story, suddenly deny that doctrine because they just can’t believe God would, with approval, choose a woman to be a prophet and leader equal to her male counterparts.  Very sad.

Though the traditional understanding of 1 Cor 14:34-35 as an absolute prohibition against women preaching and teaching has been shown to be without any sound foundation in any other OT or NT, it is still being used to silence women.  In the May issue of The Trinity Review, Gary Crampton an article in which he pitted 1 Cor 11:2-11 and  1 Cor 14:34-35, arguing that the first passage was “hypothetical” in nature while the second passage is a clear and definite denial of and prohibition against what Paul apparently granted in the previous passage.  Jon Zens (whom some of you may know) that I had previously written a study on prophets and prophecy from an egalitarian viewpoint, and asked me to write a reply to this article.   And one of the first things I targeted was this matter of “the elusive law.”   Still, people stick to their opinions, regardless of the contrary evidence presented to them.  Very sad.

My dear friend and theological mentor, Dr. Robert K. Wright, told my about your sight, Cheryl, and the discussion on the current Neo-Arian heresy that has arisen within the Evangelical churches, thanks to George Knight III and Wayne Grudem.   Several years ago, Bob’s wife, Julia, gave a presentation on the Trinity and Suboridinationism, in which she predicted that the traditionalists would consider this cardinal Christian and its application to the “women in ministry and leadership” issue, and see the errors of their ways.  Her predication came true, partly; they did consider this doctrine, but lacking the necessary moral and intellectual integrity they profess, perverted this doctrine and threaten the life of the church, as did Arius in the fourth century.
       I recently read Kevin Giles’ Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Trinity.  By the time I got to the end of the third chapter, where he clearly outlines the concepts and arguments of Grudem and company, I realized, “My God!  These people are Arians!”  And they have embraced this damned heresy solely for the wicked and injust purpose to “keep women in their proper place,” as some say!  From that point on, I determined, like St. Athanasius before me, to dedicate myself, in every way I can, to fight and defeat this heresy that will eventually destroy the Evangelical churches if not stopped.  And so on my website, I have written a three part article, “The Trinity and Evangelical Neo-Arianism” where I not only expose this teaching as damned heresy, but call concerned Christians to rise up and fight it!
             Now, as to resources to combat this heresy, I would refer you not only to Kevin Giles’ The Trinity and Subordiantionism and Jesus and the Father, but also high recommend Millard J. Erickson’s God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation  and B. B. Warfield’s “The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity,” Biblical and Theological Studies.  And this heresy we must fight, because, as far as I am concerned, these people are preaching a different God, a different Jesus, a different Spirit, and a different Gospel (cf. 2 Cor 11:1-14).
            And I see that some of the commentators on this blog are friends I have previously contacted on the CBE blog, “The Scroll.”  Hello, my friends; hope all is well with you.  And Cheryl, my Christian sister, I also support you as one who preaches, teaches and defends the true Gospel Faith.  Don’t let anyone rob you of your confidence as one gifted to preach and teach God’s Word because they misuse two Pauline texts to put you down.  They err, because as Jesus said of the Pharisees, they do not really know and understand either the Scriptures or the gifting and calling of the Holy Spirit, who is the Power of God at work in all true children of God.