In Mk. 2:27 Christ tells us, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." I saw this not too long ago quoted by a man I highly respect, Dr. Bud Powell, in refutation of the Sabbatarians that would put undue legalistic restrictions on the Sabbath. Since I read that I have really been mulling it over in my mind as to what it really means and what its application is to our lives. It simply wasn't something that I had really noticed before, in spite of the many times I have read the Gospels.
In Heb. 4:1-10 the author of Hebrews spends some time discussing this matter. The Sabbath is a day that we were told by God was for rest and to be kept holy (Ex. 23:12; 20:8). So then, upon reading this passage, we see that the Sabbath is a shadow of what will be when we enter our rest in heaven. It gives us rest from our labor and time to focus on God and worship Him. Which is what we will eternally have when we reach heaven. "For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His." (Heb. 4:10)
The Sabbath, then, gives us a glimpse of what we will have when we finally come home to the Lord. It forces us to stop what we are doing, to turn our eyes to God and to cherish, worship, commune, and draw near to Him. For truly, when we reach heaven, we will finally rest from our labors. Then we will spend eternity worshipping Him in all righteousness; the curse of sin and death no more able to reach its wicked hand into our hearts. The Sabbath may only give us the barest of tastes; but, that one morsel on our tongue is savored throughout our lives and it never lets us forget where we are going to be.
With that in mind let us "press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Php. 3:14) And may the Sabbath fix your eyes ever more intently on heaven until you are called home forever.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Friday, August 13, 2010
Death and the Christian (Part 1)
Recently people I care about have lost loved ones. The death of those they cared so deeply for, moved me and caused me pain as well. Not because I personally knew those they loved and lost, but because I cared for them, I prayed daily for them, and thus I feel a small measure of their pain as well. On top of this I had a conversation with one of my own loved ones and their struggle with the idea of death and the pain that is caused by it. So as a result I desired to discuss it here.
Death is a reality. We are born and we will die. Ge 3:19, "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." It is a fact of life. But it is not a natural fact of life. That is to say that God did not create man to die. It is a result of sin and the fall of man. Sin kills us. So in dealing with death we feel naturally averse to it. As we should. But that leaves us with how to react to it as believers.
The Christian has two things he must deal with when it comes to death. The death of himself and the death of others. Since I believe the more prevalent fear comes from death to self then let us deal with that first. (The death of others will be dealt with in part 2.)
In the book "The Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan we have a wonderfully true and accurate depiction of what the saints should feel as they are about to die. Mr. Standfast has come to the river, ready to cross over into heaven that awaits him, and begins to wade out into the water to cross over. Half way over he stops and this is what he says:
Saints must not fear death but relish the thought of finally being where they have been going. The trip was long and hard, the battles great, the energy has been sapped, and many are left behind. But when we see Him as He is all of that will go away. No more sin, worry, hunger, or pain. The only thing we are left with is to relish and worship our God forever with Him in heaven. The narrator of our story in "The Pilgrim's Progress" ends Mr. Standfast's speech by saying,
Death is a reality. We are born and we will die. Ge 3:19, "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." It is a fact of life. But it is not a natural fact of life. That is to say that God did not create man to die. It is a result of sin and the fall of man. Sin kills us. So in dealing with death we feel naturally averse to it. As we should. But that leaves us with how to react to it as believers.
The Christian has two things he must deal with when it comes to death. The death of himself and the death of others. Since I believe the more prevalent fear comes from death to self then let us deal with that first. (The death of others will be dealt with in part 2.)
In the book "The Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan we have a wonderfully true and accurate depiction of what the saints should feel as they are about to die. Mr. Standfast has come to the river, ready to cross over into heaven that awaits him, and begins to wade out into the water to cross over. Half way over he stops and this is what he says:
This river has been a terror to many, yea, the thoughts of it also have often frightened me; but now methinks I stand easy, my foot is fixed upon that upon which the feet of the Priests that bare the Ark of the Convenant stood, while Israel went over the Jordan. The waters indeed are to the palate bitter, and to the stomach cold; yet the thoughts of what I am going to, and of the conduct that waits for me on the other side, doth lie as a glowing coal at my heart.
I see myself now at the end of my Journey; my toilsome days are ended. I am going now to see that Head that was crowned with thorns, and that Face that was spit upon for me.
I have formerly lived by hear-say and Faith; but now I go where I shall live by Sight, and shall be with Him in whose company I delight myself.
I have loved to hear my Lord spoken of; and wherever I have seen the print of His shoe in the earth, there have I coveted to set my foot too.
His name has been to me as a civet-box; yea, sweeter than all perfumes. His voice to me has been most sweet; and His Countenance I have more desired than they that have most desired the light of the Sun. His Word I did use to gather for my food, and for antidotes against my faintings, He has held me, and I have kept me from mine iniquities; yea, my steps hath He strengthened in His way.What a wonderfully godly view of how we should perceive death and prepare for it as that day approaches. For Bunyan's depiction is in full agreement with the Apostle Paul when he says, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Php. 1:21) One of my favorite passages in the entire Word of God is when Paul says in 2 Tim. 4:7-8, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing." This is the crowning achievement of our lives! This is the hope we all live in and for. For those that are saved there is nothing to fear for "we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man." (Heb. 2:9) He has defeated death so that we do not feel its sting... there is nothing to fear! Because of this we may boldly proclaim, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. 15:55)
Saints must not fear death but relish the thought of finally being where they have been going. The trip was long and hard, the battles great, the energy has been sapped, and many are left behind. But when we see Him as He is all of that will go away. No more sin, worry, hunger, or pain. The only thing we are left with is to relish and worship our God forever with Him in heaven. The narrator of our story in "The Pilgrim's Progress" ends Mr. Standfast's speech by saying,
Now, while he was thus in discourse, his countenance changed, his strong man bowed under him; and after he had said, Take me, for I come unto Thee, he ceased to be seen of them.Perhaps we will not all have such luxuries in passing. But our eyes must be equally fixed on where we are going and rejoice that we will be there forever more.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Homophobia is a Lie
Phobia is defined as "an irrational, excessive, and persistent fear of some particular thing or situation; fear, dread, hatred." Websters New World College Dictionary, Fourth Ed.
So then, this word, homophobia (or more specifically the accusation hurled is homophobic), is used to claim that those that stand against homosexuality do so based on irrational fear and hatred. Yet this is not so, at least not for biblically inspired Christianity. We make our claims and indeed our every stand based on what the Word of God tells us. It has nothing to do with, or should not, the cultural currents and whims of man. Whether or not the world will agree and endorse our beliefs hardly can dictate whether or not we proclaim it as truth. In fact, it is almost certain that if you are proclaiming the Word of God to the world they will despise, ridicule, and persecute you. For we are told in our bibles that, "the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing." (Ps. 2:1) They hate you for speaking the truth and they fear you for condemning them in their sin. Thus in order to try and shut you up they use the tactic of the scoundrel and accuse you of bigotry by calling you homophobic.
Yet, the Word of God is plain on this matter. Not one single place in the bible can be found to testify to homosexuality being a natural act, thus it is a sinful choice; or to it being acceptable in the eyes of God, it is an abomination to Him. They have leveled every argument they can to say the opposite is true and utterly failed in their attempts at every step. For regardless of what they say we still have the plain truth of Scripture to light the way. Rom. 1:26-27 says, "God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Pretty blunt and to the point. Not something that logically could be misunderstood unless one is blinded by their hate for God and hardened to His Word. We know when we read this and they refute it that the only possible answer is that "hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Calvin says on this passage in Romans, "Respecting the judgment of God: he brings, as the first example, the dreadful crime of unnatural lust; and it hence appears that they not only abandoned themselves to beastly lusts, but became degraded beyond the beasts, since they reversed the whole order of nature." This is true, that is exactly what they have done as a result of their denial of God.
Their sin has caused them to hate God. Their hate of God causes them to sin in ever more decadent ways. Total Depravity is alive and well and shows itself abundantly true in this matter. In fact, the heart of the matter is this: they accuse us of what they themselves are guilty of. Perhaps instead of calling them homosexuals we should call them Theophobic. This is the truth of the matter. Let us view their argument in light of the aforementioned definition and in consideration of their view of God. They have "an... excessive, and persistent fear of [God and of His judgment against their sin]; [they] fear [God], [they] dread [God], [they feel] hatred [towards God]." The only word that we need to drop from the definition to make it applicable is the word "irrational". It is most certainly not irrational that unrepentant sinners that hate God and ridicule His people should fear Him. Not only is it rational... it is the only rational option for them. They must feel this way if this is how they choose to live their lives.
We should love them and seek to lead them to repentance that they too may partake in the love of God and drink a full measure of His grace. But in their current state they have no favor from Him. A righteous God cannot look down upon sin and be indifferent. That would make Him a complacent God of no consequence, a false God altogether. A holy God must despise the sin of the world and accordingly punish it; which He will do when He is ready. We must proclaim His truth and declare Him boldly to the world. Anything less would make the church complacent and a false church. We too must despise the sin of the world just as we despise it in our own hearts.
In the end, they may call us what they wish, it is a lie. They may try to self-justify their sin, it is fruitless. For in the end, the reality is that they are theophobic sinners that will perish in their sin if they do not repent and turn to God.
So then, this word, homophobia (or more specifically the accusation hurled is homophobic), is used to claim that those that stand against homosexuality do so based on irrational fear and hatred. Yet this is not so, at least not for biblically inspired Christianity. We make our claims and indeed our every stand based on what the Word of God tells us. It has nothing to do with, or should not, the cultural currents and whims of man. Whether or not the world will agree and endorse our beliefs hardly can dictate whether or not we proclaim it as truth. In fact, it is almost certain that if you are proclaiming the Word of God to the world they will despise, ridicule, and persecute you. For we are told in our bibles that, "the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing." (Ps. 2:1) They hate you for speaking the truth and they fear you for condemning them in their sin. Thus in order to try and shut you up they use the tactic of the scoundrel and accuse you of bigotry by calling you homophobic.
Yet, the Word of God is plain on this matter. Not one single place in the bible can be found to testify to homosexuality being a natural act, thus it is a sinful choice; or to it being acceptable in the eyes of God, it is an abomination to Him. They have leveled every argument they can to say the opposite is true and utterly failed in their attempts at every step. For regardless of what they say we still have the plain truth of Scripture to light the way. Rom. 1:26-27 says, "God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Pretty blunt and to the point. Not something that logically could be misunderstood unless one is blinded by their hate for God and hardened to His Word. We know when we read this and they refute it that the only possible answer is that "hearing they hear not, neither do they understand."
Calvin says on this passage in Romans, "Respecting the judgment of God: he brings, as the first example, the dreadful crime of unnatural lust; and it hence appears that they not only abandoned themselves to beastly lusts, but became degraded beyond the beasts, since they reversed the whole order of nature." This is true, that is exactly what they have done as a result of their denial of God.
Their sin has caused them to hate God. Their hate of God causes them to sin in ever more decadent ways. Total Depravity is alive and well and shows itself abundantly true in this matter. In fact, the heart of the matter is this: they accuse us of what they themselves are guilty of. Perhaps instead of calling them homosexuals we should call them Theophobic. This is the truth of the matter. Let us view their argument in light of the aforementioned definition and in consideration of their view of God. They have "an... excessive, and persistent fear of [God and of His judgment against their sin]; [they] fear [God], [they] dread [God], [they feel] hatred [towards God]." The only word that we need to drop from the definition to make it applicable is the word "irrational". It is most certainly not irrational that unrepentant sinners that hate God and ridicule His people should fear Him. Not only is it rational... it is the only rational option for them. They must feel this way if this is how they choose to live their lives.
We should love them and seek to lead them to repentance that they too may partake in the love of God and drink a full measure of His grace. But in their current state they have no favor from Him. A righteous God cannot look down upon sin and be indifferent. That would make Him a complacent God of no consequence, a false God altogether. A holy God must despise the sin of the world and accordingly punish it; which He will do when He is ready. We must proclaim His truth and declare Him boldly to the world. Anything less would make the church complacent and a false church. We too must despise the sin of the world just as we despise it in our own hearts.
In the end, they may call us what they wish, it is a lie. They may try to self-justify their sin, it is fruitless. For in the end, the reality is that they are theophobic sinners that will perish in their sin if they do not repent and turn to God.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
But "Trinity" Isn't a Word Found in the Bible...
Some have made this claim and followed this faulty line of reasoning in denying the trinity. And yes, it is true that you cannot find the specific use of this word in the bible. But that does not make this word not so or invalid. So, why do we use the word and how do we justify our use of it? Herman Bavinck discusses this very well in his book "The Doctrine of God".
He says, "As soon, therefore, as the data of Scripture became the object of theological reflection, it became necessary to use various phrases which do not occur in Scripture but are, nevertheless, indispensable for the twofold purpose of giving expression, albeit imperfectly, to the trinitarian truth and of defending it against misrepresentation and error. It is true that this use of terms not found in Scripture was condemned by the Arians and other advocates of various other religious tendencies; e.g., Socinians, Anabaptists, Arminians, and representatives of Biblical theology. Nevertheless, Christian theology has always defended it as proper and valuable. This attitude on the part of Christian theology is entirely correct, for Scripture was not given to us in order that we should merely repeat its exact words in parrot-like fashion but in order that we should digest it in our own minds and express it in our own words. That use was made of Scripture by Jesus and the apostles, who not only quoted the exact words of Scripture but also by a process of reasoning arrived at inferences and conclusions based upon these words. The Bible is neither a statute-book nor a dogmatics-text but it is the source of theology. As Word of God not only its exact words have binding authority but so have also all conclusions that are properly derived from it. Furthermore, neither study of Scripture nor theological activity is at all possible unless one uses terms that do not occur in the Bible. Not only are such terms used in connection with the doctrine of the trinity but in connection with every doctrine. Every phase of theological thinking requires them. The Christian's right of independent reflection upon the truth of Scripture and theology's right of existence are involved in this use of terms that do not occur in the Bible. Finally, such terms are not used in order to serve as means for the introduction of new dogmas that are foreign or even contrary to Scripture but in order to achieve the very opposite result; in order to defend the truth of Scripture against all error. Consequently, they have a negative rather than a positive function. They indicate the boundary lines of the sphere of Christian thought, beyond which it is not safe to venture forth lest one should sacrifice revealed truth. While pretending close adherence to Scripture, Biblical theology has drifted farther and farther away from the Bible; while the orthodox, ecclesiastical formulation of doctrine with its employment of terms that do not occur in the Bible has been fully justified in its claim of being scriptural."
There is a reason, and it is a valid reason, why we use these terms. The trinity is clearly taught in our Bibles, especially in the New Testament. To deny the doctrine of the trinity because we have given a theological name to the biblical teaching regarding it seems foolish at best. It is the same as saying that TULIP doesn't exist simply because we don't find that acronym in the bible; or, for that matter, that soteriology doesn't exist altogether because that theological term is nowhere to be found in the Word of God. If we excluded every theological term simply based on that logic we would have a dumb faith to be sure. The terms help us to understand and systematize the plain truths of Scripture. They are as necessary to your walk as the memorization of verses from the Bible. The trinity is real, it is taught plainly in our Bibles, and it is a basic foundational truth that must never be rejected and must always be embraced. If you deny the trinity you deny God. If you deny God you are not of Him. That is how important this is.
He says, "As soon, therefore, as the data of Scripture became the object of theological reflection, it became necessary to use various phrases which do not occur in Scripture but are, nevertheless, indispensable for the twofold purpose of giving expression, albeit imperfectly, to the trinitarian truth and of defending it against misrepresentation and error. It is true that this use of terms not found in Scripture was condemned by the Arians and other advocates of various other religious tendencies; e.g., Socinians, Anabaptists, Arminians, and representatives of Biblical theology. Nevertheless, Christian theology has always defended it as proper and valuable. This attitude on the part of Christian theology is entirely correct, for Scripture was not given to us in order that we should merely repeat its exact words in parrot-like fashion but in order that we should digest it in our own minds and express it in our own words. That use was made of Scripture by Jesus and the apostles, who not only quoted the exact words of Scripture but also by a process of reasoning arrived at inferences and conclusions based upon these words. The Bible is neither a statute-book nor a dogmatics-text but it is the source of theology. As Word of God not only its exact words have binding authority but so have also all conclusions that are properly derived from it. Furthermore, neither study of Scripture nor theological activity is at all possible unless one uses terms that do not occur in the Bible. Not only are such terms used in connection with the doctrine of the trinity but in connection with every doctrine. Every phase of theological thinking requires them. The Christian's right of independent reflection upon the truth of Scripture and theology's right of existence are involved in this use of terms that do not occur in the Bible. Finally, such terms are not used in order to serve as means for the introduction of new dogmas that are foreign or even contrary to Scripture but in order to achieve the very opposite result; in order to defend the truth of Scripture against all error. Consequently, they have a negative rather than a positive function. They indicate the boundary lines of the sphere of Christian thought, beyond which it is not safe to venture forth lest one should sacrifice revealed truth. While pretending close adherence to Scripture, Biblical theology has drifted farther and farther away from the Bible; while the orthodox, ecclesiastical formulation of doctrine with its employment of terms that do not occur in the Bible has been fully justified in its claim of being scriptural."
There is a reason, and it is a valid reason, why we use these terms. The trinity is clearly taught in our Bibles, especially in the New Testament. To deny the doctrine of the trinity because we have given a theological name to the biblical teaching regarding it seems foolish at best. It is the same as saying that TULIP doesn't exist simply because we don't find that acronym in the bible; or, for that matter, that soteriology doesn't exist altogether because that theological term is nowhere to be found in the Word of God. If we excluded every theological term simply based on that logic we would have a dumb faith to be sure. The terms help us to understand and systematize the plain truths of Scripture. They are as necessary to your walk as the memorization of verses from the Bible. The trinity is real, it is taught plainly in our Bibles, and it is a basic foundational truth that must never be rejected and must always be embraced. If you deny the trinity you deny God. If you deny God you are not of Him. That is how important this is.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Conversation
“I am truly sorry my dear
That you can’t preach in here,
That there are other things you’re called to do,
Other things that God has for you.”
“Why? When this you desire?
When you feel called and full of fire?
Why when others have done and would do
And say it’s imperative for you?”
“Because my dear, the Word proclaims,
That other things should be your aim;
That you will be saved in childbearing
And in your home preparing,
The children for the world to come,
And caring for your husband some,
And instructing younger women too…
All of this He has for you.
A helpmeet for your given man
In the church a nurturing hand,
Ready to help and modest it’s true…
All of this God has for you.
Far too busy it would seem
To sinfully follow or pursue this dream;
Be content in what He’s done
Be a godly woman within your home.”
“O! I understand what the world says
And for your use in all things it begs!
But when can they ignore
What has been given from the Lord?
So worry not, I beg this day,
You’re vital to His church in every way,
Beautiful you are as He created you dear,
Yet your given path is abundantly clear.”
And true to form she walked away
Oblivious to the things I say;
This worldly woman bound in pride
Finds that her beauty has finally died.
That you can’t preach in here,
That there are other things you’re called to do,
Other things that God has for you.”
“Why? When this you desire?
When you feel called and full of fire?
Why when others have done and would do
And say it’s imperative for you?”
“Because my dear, the Word proclaims,
That other things should be your aim;
That you will be saved in childbearing
And in your home preparing,
The children for the world to come,
And caring for your husband some,
And instructing younger women too…
All of this He has for you.
A helpmeet for your given man
In the church a nurturing hand,
Ready to help and modest it’s true…
All of this God has for you.
Far too busy it would seem
To sinfully follow or pursue this dream;
Be content in what He’s done
Be a godly woman within your home.”
“O! I understand what the world says
And for your use in all things it begs!
But when can they ignore
What has been given from the Lord?
So worry not, I beg this day,
You’re vital to His church in every way,
Beautiful you are as He created you dear,
Yet your given path is abundantly clear.”
And true to form she walked away
Oblivious to the things I say;
This worldly woman bound in pride
Finds that her beauty has finally died.
A Response to Women Being Ordained
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."
"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."
Biblically, Are Women Allowed to Be Ordained in the Church?
Ordination:
First, we need to take a serious look at the places in the bible where it discusses being ordained to office in the church. 1 Tim. 3: 1-13; Tit. 1:5-9; Acts 6:1-7. In all of these cases there are many qualifications that are given that one must possess in order to be ordained into church office and any of them can be a disqualifier. But one thing is clear in all is that the qualifications are directed to men, not women, but men exclusively. Acts 6:3, “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men…” 1 Tim. 3:1-13, “1 This is a faithful saying: if a man desires to be a bishop, he desires a good work…. 2 The husband of one wife… 4 who rules his own house well, having his children in submission… 5 for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God… 6 he fall… 7 he must have a good testimony… lest he fall into reproach… 11 their wives must be reverent… 12 the husbands of one wife…” Tit. 1:5-9, “6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife…9 holding fast the faithful word he has been taught, that he may be able…” So that there is no doubt about the fact that the issue of being ordained to church office is clearly set aside for men, for not even in one single instance does it refer to women or present itself in an ambiguous manner so that it might be up for debate.
Issues with Definitions:
There are undoubtedly those that have rewritten some passages to fit with their desire to ordain women. An example would be in 1 Tim. 3:8. Some have re-written it to say that, “Likewise the women must be…” rather than “Likewise the deacons must be…” The original word was ‘diakonos’ which means “a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use; a minister or a servant; to run errands.” So that it becomes unclear how they can translate that into women. Furthermore, if it did say women we would have quite a contradiction with 1 Tim. 3:12 in discussing their wives. That, of course, unless it is to be believed that here the bible further contradicts itself and where it has banned homosexuality prior will now ok it. But as far as accuracy in translation and comparative study, the KJV, NKJV, 1599 GB, Amplified, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV all agree that it is translated as deacons and not women. The only ones that seemed to take any exception at all with it were The Message (which changes it to servants but still keeps in the spirit of diakonos), The NLT which adds people in to the verse to make it more sexually ambiguous, and The Good News translation which calls them church helpers (once again not contrary to the word in question). That said, even where it doesn't stand opposed to the definition one has to ask why the last three versions mentioned would not just accurately translate the word as Deacons? Out of 25 versions of the bible I went to in study of this it seems highly unlikely that the actual translation would be women.
Prophetesses:
Then there are those that would cite the use of the prophetesses in the OT. While they were rare there were indeed women in that position. But why? In Isa. 3:12 the Lord speaks to the people on this matter and He says, “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” The fact that women have been placed over them is an indictment, a judgment, of God upon them; not an endorsement that this is they way it should be. In Jud 4:8-9 Deborah rebukes Barak for not taking the lead and for his spineless character and lack of trust in what God had told him to do. She tells him he will have no glory, “for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” She does what he was intended to do but it is once again an indictment against the character of the men that it is so.
A Woman’s Role in the Church:
Then we come to the specific dictates of scripture in dealing with women in the church. 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:9-9-15; 1 Tim. 5:2; Tit. 2:3-4; 1 Pet. 3:4. The command in 1 Cor. 14, 1 Tim. 2, and 1 Pet 3 is that they are to be silent in the churches with the specific verses saying exactly that. “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. 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.” “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” “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.” So that once again this is not an ambiguous topic that the bible is unclear about. They are not to be ordained, they are not to preach, and they are not to pray on behalf of the church in organized services.
But what are they to do? Are they allowed to teach anyone at all? Of course they are and it spells that out too in 1 Tim. 2:15 (raising their children to the Lord); 1 Tim. 5:2 (teaching the younger women); Tit. 2:3-4 (teaching the younger women to behave properly and to act appropriately to their husbands and children). So that they have a function in the church as well but that function does not reach church office in any way.
A Woman’s Role in the Home:
Lastly, there is the ever present issue of a woman’s command to be submissive to her husband. Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5. The words used here are “submit” and “subjection”. 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
++++
This is 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".
It is apparent that this is a literal and voluntary submitting of the wife under the authority of her husband. In 1 Cor. 11:7-10 this idea is continued with man being the head of woman. But, since the bible is explicitly clear on this matter how can the husband be head of the wife in the home and the wife be head of the husband in the church? It creates a spiritual paradigm. For the two are not in unity with each other and thus problems will undoubtedly arise.
Conclusion:
All this said, it is clear that there is no biblical merit for ordaining women in the church and that to do so is actually a direct violation of the roles God has set up for men and women and their functions in the church. They are equally important to the vitality of the church and the home but they are different in application and purpose. We harm the growth and maturity of the home and the church when we buck God’s commands and try to use men and women for what they were not intended to be. As a result, doctrine goes to the wayside; the home is a mess; men become effeminate; women become ever more masculine in their personalities. Both become the antithesis of what they are to be biblically and the church suffers because we refuse to be obedient to the commands of God. This is not about women’s liberation and equality, it is not even about ability, it is about what God has prescribed in His word to be executed by man. Are we going to be obedient to that word or pay the price of disobedience at the hands of God? I leave you with Ecc. 12:13 which is my default verse anytime I am inclined to choose my own path against the obvious teaching of the word of God. It says, “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” Amen!
First, we need to take a serious look at the places in the bible where it discusses being ordained to office in the church. 1 Tim. 3: 1-13; Tit. 1:5-9; Acts 6:1-7. In all of these cases there are many qualifications that are given that one must possess in order to be ordained into church office and any of them can be a disqualifier. But one thing is clear in all is that the qualifications are directed to men, not women, but men exclusively. Acts 6:3, “Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men…” 1 Tim. 3:1-13, “1 This is a faithful saying: if a man desires to be a bishop, he desires a good work…. 2 The husband of one wife… 4 who rules his own house well, having his children in submission… 5 for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God… 6 he fall… 7 he must have a good testimony… lest he fall into reproach… 11 their wives must be reverent… 12 the husbands of one wife…” Tit. 1:5-9, “6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife…9 holding fast the faithful word he has been taught, that he may be able…” So that there is no doubt about the fact that the issue of being ordained to church office is clearly set aside for men, for not even in one single instance does it refer to women or present itself in an ambiguous manner so that it might be up for debate.
Issues with Definitions:
There are undoubtedly those that have rewritten some passages to fit with their desire to ordain women. An example would be in 1 Tim. 3:8. Some have re-written it to say that, “Likewise the women must be…” rather than “Likewise the deacons must be…” The original word was ‘diakonos’ which means “a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use; a minister or a servant; to run errands.” So that it becomes unclear how they can translate that into women. Furthermore, if it did say women we would have quite a contradiction with 1 Tim. 3:12 in discussing their wives. That, of course, unless it is to be believed that here the bible further contradicts itself and where it has banned homosexuality prior will now ok it. But as far as accuracy in translation and comparative study, the KJV, NKJV, 1599 GB, Amplified, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV all agree that it is translated as deacons and not women. The only ones that seemed to take any exception at all with it were The Message (which changes it to servants but still keeps in the spirit of diakonos), The NLT which adds people in to the verse to make it more sexually ambiguous, and The Good News translation which calls them church helpers (once again not contrary to the word in question). That said, even where it doesn't stand opposed to the definition one has to ask why the last three versions mentioned would not just accurately translate the word as Deacons? Out of 25 versions of the bible I went to in study of this it seems highly unlikely that the actual translation would be women.
Prophetesses:
Then there are those that would cite the use of the prophetesses in the OT. While they were rare there were indeed women in that position. But why? In Isa. 3:12 the Lord speaks to the people on this matter and He says, “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” The fact that women have been placed over them is an indictment, a judgment, of God upon them; not an endorsement that this is they way it should be. In Jud 4:8-9 Deborah rebukes Barak for not taking the lead and for his spineless character and lack of trust in what God had told him to do. She tells him he will have no glory, “for the LORD shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” She does what he was intended to do but it is once again an indictment against the character of the men that it is so.
A Woman’s Role in the Church:
Then we come to the specific dictates of scripture in dealing with women in the church. 1 Cor. 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:9-9-15; 1 Tim. 5:2; Tit. 2:3-4; 1 Pet. 3:4. The command in 1 Cor. 14, 1 Tim. 2, and 1 Pet 3 is that they are to be silent in the churches with the specific verses saying exactly that. “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. 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.” “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” “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.” So that once again this is not an ambiguous topic that the bible is unclear about. They are not to be ordained, they are not to preach, and they are not to pray on behalf of the church in organized services.
But what are they to do? Are they allowed to teach anyone at all? Of course they are and it spells that out too in 1 Tim. 2:15 (raising their children to the Lord); 1 Tim. 5:2 (teaching the younger women); Tit. 2:3-4 (teaching the younger women to behave properly and to act appropriately to their husbands and children). So that they have a function in the church as well but that function does not reach church office in any way.
A Woman’s Role in the Home:
Lastly, there is the ever present issue of a woman’s command to be submissive to her husband. Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1, 5. The words used here are “submit” and “subjection”. 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
++++
This is 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".
It is apparent that this is a literal and voluntary submitting of the wife under the authority of her husband. In 1 Cor. 11:7-10 this idea is continued with man being the head of woman. But, since the bible is explicitly clear on this matter how can the husband be head of the wife in the home and the wife be head of the husband in the church? It creates a spiritual paradigm. For the two are not in unity with each other and thus problems will undoubtedly arise.
Conclusion:
All this said, it is clear that there is no biblical merit for ordaining women in the church and that to do so is actually a direct violation of the roles God has set up for men and women and their functions in the church. They are equally important to the vitality of the church and the home but they are different in application and purpose. We harm the growth and maturity of the home and the church when we buck God’s commands and try to use men and women for what they were not intended to be. As a result, doctrine goes to the wayside; the home is a mess; men become effeminate; women become ever more masculine in their personalities. Both become the antithesis of what they are to be biblically and the church suffers because we refuse to be obedient to the commands of God. This is not about women’s liberation and equality, it is not even about ability, it is about what God has prescribed in His word to be executed by man. Are we going to be obedient to that word or pay the price of disobedience at the hands of God? I leave you with Ecc. 12:13 which is my default verse anytime I am inclined to choose my own path against the obvious teaching of the word of God. It says, “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” Amen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)