The previous post was a paper I prepared for a discussion in a bible study that I attend. One of the men in the bible study asked the question to a man named Andrew Wommack of Andrew Wommack Ministries. The response was typically liberal and sought to distort what the bible says in order to achieve a preconceived end. But judge for yourselves.
"1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
Note 6 at 1 Tim. 2:11: There is a great controversy in the church today over these verses. The contention has increased with the change of women's roles in society. There isn't a simple answer, but a subtle point in this passage should defuse much of the contention.
Paul is not teaching that women in general, are to submit to men in general (Col. 3:18). Paul is speaking about a wife not taking by force, the leadership role over her husband.
That is the point of Paul specifying that women should not usurp authority over "THE man." This singles out an individual man, not mankind. It refers to a wife not being her husband's boss. Paul is saying that a wife is to let the husband take the leadership role in the church (Eph. 5:22-24). She is to let her husband speak.
The word "usurp" in this verse further strengthens this interpretation. Usurp means, "To seize and hold, . . . by force and without legal right or authority." Paul is talking against a woman lording it over her husband. We've all seen boisterous women with timid husbands. That's what Paul is speaking against.
This is similar to what Paul goes on to say about the men in the next chapter. He told Timothy not to make a man a bishop who couldn't rule his own house. Likewise, he is saying that a woman should not speak in the church if she's trying to usurp her husband's authority. If a man's home isn't in order, he shouldn't minister, and if a woman's husband isn't in agreement with her saying something, she should be quiet.
The reason for Paul's instruction about the wife keeping quiet is to keep her from usurping authority over her husband. This does not forbid women to speak in the church if their husbands are in agreement.
Paul spoke of women praying and prophesying in the church services (1 Cor. 11:5). Priscilla instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26) and Paul instructed the older women to teach the younger women (Tit. 2:3-4). It appears that Paul does not forbid women to teach under appropriate circumstances.
________________________________________________________
Our letter continues....................
The Greek word for "woman" in the verse above is 'gune'. Here is the definition of this word:
1135. gun guns, goo-nay' a woman; specially, a wife:--wife, woman.
So then, Paul was referring to a wife, not women in general. Paul is dealing with a husband and wife relationship issue here and NOT an issue with women in ministry or being quiet in general!
Paul is talking about each wife being in subjection to her own husband. However, this is NOT a subjection of being lorded over but is one of the husband loving (giving himself for) his wife even as Christ gave Himself for the church (Eph. 5:25). In other words, the husband gives first and then his wife's subjection is the spiritual/natural response, even in the same way the church (the body of Christ) responds to her Lord Jesus.
Otherwise Paul would be saying that all women (in general) are subject to all men (in general). That is clearly not the case!
Similarly, look at Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 14:34-45:
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Again, the Greek word for woman is 'Gune' or wife as it was above in 1 Tim. 2:11 above. This makes perfect sense because Paul says specifically in verse 35 that they should ask their own husbands. So, here the word "women" is plural referring to all wives and the word "husbands" is plural referring to all husbands.
Most of this has to do with the authority that is resident in man as God's natural order and that most people will still receive from a man when they might not receive from a women, due to some of the ways these doctrines have been applied. It is a shame that what Paul may have meant to only be used at the time to correct a localized situation has become engrained into being something which affects women in ministry in the here and the now.
Andrew also believes that if there is no man who is willing or able to do the job, then a woman certainly should fill that position and do the work of the ministry. It's better to have a woman in a position and the work of the Lord be done rather than have an empty position.
It is the fruit that identifies the ‘root.’ There are many men who claim to be pastors but have no fruit. They are not in their gifting. And there are women who claim to be pastors and are not. But, there are both men and women who have the fruit of a true pastoral calling in their life. If people are being fed and spiritually cared for and edified by a man or a woman, then that person is a pastor. There is the fruit to prove it.
It is not our position at the Andrew Wommack Ministry that women should not minister. To the contrary, we applaud it!
The bottom line is, Paul instructed us that we each are members in particular of the body of Christ. He also told us that in Christ there is neither male nor female."
This was my response to that letter:
"Gentlemen, there are a number or errors in here that are worthy of noting.
1) 1 Tim. 2 does not stand alone and can be found just as clearly in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, which clarifies that he is speaking to all women in context and that it is shameful for them to speak in the church. The issue hasn't changed as it relates to the bible and he is at least right when he says that the issue is prevalent now because of the change in culture. This has always been the established truth of the church and only in the last century has that come into any serious question. But since when is God subject to the changing whims of man? He is immutable or He is not. We are told in Mal. 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." He doesn't change, it is man that changes and God does not come along for the ride. We either submit to His Word or we do not.
2) The context that Mr. Wommack is trying to give to the verses in 1 Tim. 2 is not even logical. Paul begins by speaking of the men praying (1-8); then he addresses women in general about being modest (9-10); then he instructs them to learn in silence (11-13); then he qualifies their lack of character for speaking in the churches (14); and lastly, he tells them how they will be saved (be made whole) and serve (15). Nowhere in there does this relate to the institue of marriage specifically. Then after making those qualifications he goes into detail about the qualifications for elders and deacons which are exclusively addressed to men.
3) It is misleading to represent the word "women" in vs. 9 as referring to wives only and once again uses the word out of context. Context is of vital importance in the exegetical study of the Word of God. When we forgo context we can use any one of a number of possible interpretations into English in order to fit our argument without being honest to the passage we are referring to. The definition can certainly be used in the context of a wife (for instance in Matt. 1:24). The other definition which makes more sense in relating to the passage in question here is: a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow. Contextually that is why we read "women" here and not "wife". He uses it out of context again in 1 Cor 14. The chapter is discussing issues and behavior in the church. In vs. 26-40 it is specifically addressing behavior in organized church services. In both passages it is intellectually dishonest to claim they are being used in the context of marital propriety versus church structure. They are not; although, there are other passages that do and should be used in support of this issue. The theme is continued about the general behavior and demeanor of a godly woman in 1 Pet. 3:3-6, "3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement." These are not disorganized themes that run contrary to each other. They are systematized themes that are in perfect harmony with each other.
I read a great quote recently which I think applies very well to instances such as these and the interpretation of this passage in particular. The quote says, "It is absolutely necessary that the person who cultivates any branch of knowledge first of all and most of all study to be modest and humble. This applies especially to the theologian. He should not think of himself more highly than he ought to think. All knowledge is dependent upon its object; it has no right to falsify or deny the phenomena which come under its observation, not even in order to satisfy a certain preconceived theory. Thus, theology is absolutely dependent upon the facts and evidences which God reveals in nature and Scripture. It must allow these to stand intact and unimpaired. If it cannot explain them, it must confess its ignorance. God's will, which expresses itself in facts, settles every argument as far as Christian theology is concerned. For, Christian theology rests in God's sovereignty." - Herman Bavinck. That must be our standard and it cannot be deviated from for any reason; even if it is to satisfy our own personal feelings on a matter.
4) The matter of subjection or submission is indeed in the context of obedience contrary to what was written by Mr. Wommack.
In the original Greek it is one word and that word is ‘hupotasso’ which means:
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one’s self, obey
4) to submit to one’s control
5) to yield to one’s admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
As a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader". In non-military use, it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". So, we see, it is voluntary to be sure and her doing so is more of an act of obedience to the Lord than to her husband, although the command is certainly that she is submitting to her husband. And yes, analogy of Christ over His church is also applicable. Yes, we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church and all that would entail. But it also has in mind the fact that the church submits to the authority of Christ as its head... its king.
Mr. Wommack says, "The reason for Paul's instruction about the wife keeping quiet is to keep her from usurping authority over her husband. This does not forbid women to speak in the church if their husbands are in agreement." Nowhere in scripture can he make this assertion and find support and it is quite frankly the antithesis of what the bible actually says."
No comments:
Post a Comment