Several times in the comments the question has arisen as to how to tell whether a command is temporary (culturally limited) or permanent (not culturally limited). It’s a question that is, of course, much larger than this particular topic.
There are several factors we have to consider in working through this question, and I’ll start with some of larger factors, which may not necessarily apply in the case of the question at hand. I figure it’s worthwhile material whether or not applicable here. But most of it should be very applicable.
The direction of God’s redemptive movement
In church history, the issue of whether a command is a temporary concession to culture or a permanent command comes up most prominently regarding slavery. We live in an age when slavery is abhorrent. It doesn’t even occur to us that the Scriptures might be read to approve slavery, but before the American Civil War, the question was hotly debated. Consider these passages —
(Gen 21:10 ESV) 10 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” [Hagar was evidently a slave.]
(Exo 21:2-6 ESV) 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
(Lev 25:44-45 ESV) 44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property.
(Col 3:22 ESV) 22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.
(Col 4:1 ESV) Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.
(1Ti 6:1 ESV) Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled.
(Tit 2:9-10 ESV) 9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.
Although there were regulations requiring the Israelites to treat slaves humanely, slavery was clearly permitted to Israel — and later, to Christians. So why do we consider slavery wrong today? The Bible didn’t change. How could we be more moral than the Bible?
It’s a disturbing question, because as soon as we say, “We now know better,” we open up all sorts of other possibilities. Surely there’s a more disciplined way to make such a determination.
Alexander Campbell’s position on slavery is, as you might expect, nuanced. Leroy Garrett summarizes Campbell’s writings on slavery in a fascinating essay.
Recent scholarship has produced a helpful approach. William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis
Thus, Webb tests the treatment of slaves, women, and homosexuals in the surrounding, pagan cultures, under the Law of Moses, and under the New Testament. He finds that women and slaves are treated much better under the Law than under the surrounding cultures, and even better under the New Testament. Thus, the movement is strongly toward an increasingly improved, “redemptive” state for both women and slaves. (And God has always been all about helping the disenfranchised members of society.)
Thus, just as the general direction of the scriptural treatment of slavery is toward emancipation of slaves—although not fully realized until after New Testament time—the trend of Scripture also points toward the need to fully emancipate women—even though women may not have been fully freed during the First Century.
On the other hand, Webb finds that homosexuality is largely approved in the cultures surrounding both the Old Testament Jews and the New Testament Christians, and that the Law of Moses and the New Testament both strongly condemn homosexual practices. Thus, there is no tendency to redeem homosexuality—indeed, quite plainly, the scripture seek to change culture from acceptance to condemnation.
Webb’s thinking has gained wide acceptance because his is not a subjective test. It doesn’t depend on what 21st Century Westerners think. Rather, it’s built on a careful study of God’s redemptive movement throughout the Scriptures–one of the largest themes of the Bible, a theme we often ignore because it’s so big.
Now, many readers will not agree with Webb, because they won’t like the result he reaches as to women. But if Webb is wrong, then what is the basis for considering slavery sinful?
Ponder Webb’s argument for a while, and then ask yourself: In the qualifications lists in 1 Timothy and Titus (if qualifications lists they are), is Paul moving the church in a more redemptive direction that has not yet been fully achieved at the time of his writing? Indeed, does he intend that the standards for elders/overseers/shepherds will become higher that his lists indicate?
You see, my thinking is that looking for a man who is gifted for the work by the Spirit imposes a higher standard than the lists do. Yes, they require that the man be holy and blameless, but you can be holy and blameless and a terrible leader and shepherd. I think Paul was setting the bare minimum in a world where Christians were few and Christian leaders were even fewer. I think if he were asked to address the topic today, he’d ask our congregations to ordain only those men clearly gifted by God for the task.
That doesn’t entirely answer the question regarding whether a man must have children to be an elder, but it sets our thinking in a better direction. Indeed, one of the biggest mistakes I think we make as a denomination is to ordain anyone against whom there are no “scriptural objections,” limiting “scriptural objections” to the two lists. I think a man not suited by gifts for the role should never, ever be ordained.
We have far too many men in the eldership who are simply not gifted to do the work — and many were ordained with most of the church dreading their ordination but unable to protest because the men have good children and are the husbands of one wife. They might even be very good men but not gifted to lead a church — inevitably doing great harm to the work of the church.
I’ve said here as I’ve said many times: A church is better off with no elders than with the wrong elders.
Most churches ordain elders through a passive acceptance rather than a positive affirmation. In many cases, the existing elders choose the nominees and almost dare the congregation to object.
I have long been concerned that churches give very little attention to the spiritual qualities described by Paul – and certainly pay little attention to the leadership demanded by the noble task of the eldership.
The comments on your earlier posts on this quickly deteriorated into wrangling over hermeneutics in a way that mostly had us talking past each other instead of listening to each other. When Alan commented earlier that it is “scary” how much he agreed with Alexander and me in our recent comments, he showed that even when we come from very different directions, we are more united than we sometimes realize.
We just do not know how to listen to what each other is saying closely enough to see the heart of the speaker.
What I fear is that this also affects how we listen to the words of the Scripture. We do not hear the heart of God for trying to wrest the meaning we want from the text.
It’s about time for some good attention to hermeneutics again. I, for one, am looking forward to this line of posting.
Jerry
It’s pretty easy to discern which commands are permanent. If God said it, it remains in force until God says it no longer applies.
Jay:
I noticed you wrote: “Recent scholarship has produced a helpful approach. William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis suggests that we should look at the direction of God’s redemptive movement.”
That you are suggesting Webb’s study as “a helpful approach” is more than disconcerting. It is actually alarming.
Wayne Grudem’s incisive review @ CBMW clarifies how Webb’s ship hits a sandbar — with no way off. For example he observes how Webb’s hermeneutic approach garbles a text such as Ephesians 6:1. See the below for more info:
http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Book-Reviews/Slaves-Women-and-Homosexuals-by-William-J-Webb-Review-by-Wayne-Grudem
Webb’s foundation:
“The comparative outcome is this: the homosexual texts are in a different category than the women and slavery texts. The former are almost entirely transcultural in nature, while the latter are heavily bound by culture.”
And the problem (besides Ephesians 6:1)? Webb works VERY hard to try to take a text that actually read quites easily (1 Timothy 2:13) and twists and turns in every direction. Makes me think of all the good comments — including those on this weblog — about how we need to take the simple reading of Scripture (Alabama John has been on target when he has pleaded for such).
Webb does NOT take the simple reading of Scripture. Indeed, he spends much of his 300 pages “talking around” 1 Timothy 2:13 — including an appendix dedicated to the text.
Not the best tool for the task, Jay. I, for one, have little confidence about subjecting apostolic teaching about elders to the criteria William Webb suggests. I hope you will rethink.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
It disturbs me that people think the newer “scholarship” is better. It sounds very gnostic to me. People have studied the scriptures for thousands of years. Anyone who thinks he knows better than all who came before is self-deceived.
Jay:
Separately, this is not a webchain devoted to the issue of slavery and apostolic teaching. However, wanted to suggest that you also surface some other works regarding Paul’s teachings and slavery for weblog attention before you land on lauding William Webb’s conclusions. For example:
Pomeroy, Sarah B. Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves. New York: Schocken Books, 1995.
Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
In noticing the comments about identifying the qualities (or spirit) in man that would make him a good Elder, Leader. My question is, are you looking for men that are already doing the things that an Elder or leader is supposed to do? If that is the direction of your looking then, if there are no Elders or leaders appointed in that congregation, this man is already doing the job of an Elder without authority to do so. By the same token if Elders are appointed in a congregation and a man is found performing the leadership or Elder-ship role is he not in direct competition with the appointed Elders? Of course there is always the possibility that the Elders are really asleep. The actual point of this communication is that a good Lawyer, Doctor, Workman in any trade never enter the workforce as an experienced tradesman. It is not possible to train anyone to be a perfected tradesman prior to the burden of performing all of their job duties placed upon them. It is very common for men to exceed the expectations of their teachers, their peers, their electors, their family (most likely the very hardest to influence, even Jesus made a statement about that), men have become heroes far beyond anyone’s expectations but not prior to the burden being placed into their responsibility. I believe that many men that would have made great Elders have been totally ignored in the churches. I wonder if God will hold someone responsible if they stand in the way of placing a qualified by the lists man into the responsibility or better said “service” of the Lord’s Church. We must all remember that not all gifts of leadership were evident in an individual in scriptures prior to the responsibility being placed upon them, Moses, David, Solomon, Peter, Paul the list could be almost as long as the scriptures. Another question is why do we have ratios of how to arrive at the number of Elders at a congregation/ Wouldn’t it be great to have a congregation that say half of all of the members were qualified and appointed as Elders in the congregation? Jay, if half of the members in your congregation were qualified and appointed as Elders serving, shepherding, the congregation, would that be a thorn in the side to that congregation or could it be an great accelerator of the missionary efforts of the church. Could the world view the church more like Christ if that many men applied the actions of the Elders responsibility to the family and community.
When reading the NT I see that the OT law in its outward form (written on stone) were indeed temporary – but not cultural. They were meant to be temporary by God as a tutor until Christ came. Then the heart of the Law (the commands and will of God) was given a new form by being written onto our hearts in the New Covenant. This – as the Sermon on the ount exemplifies – actually raises the standard. In OT certain oaths were not only permisible but even commanded, but now we shall simply speak the truth and thus Christ forbids oaths in general (James confirms this in his letter). So the haert of the Law hs always been: Be truthful – but because of the hardened hearts (as with divorce) oaths were allowed and used to confirm truth among a people of “unclean lips”. That’s God’s wisdom how He led His people gradually towards Christ.
Even the law concerning slaves are very important, because Christ made himself a slave for our sake. They are not cultural, but prophetic in nature – and even today, in societies where there are slaves, these commands would be applicable. They don’t after all not say: “You must own slaves.” – and they don’t say: “Liberate the slaves!” either. Rather they say: Become like slaves (whether you are free or bound) and – at the same time – that all slaves are free in Christ.
So this has nothing to do with being cultural.
As for the NT, Christ said:
His commands are not temporary as they are to be taught until He returns. His commands are also not cultural, since they should be preached among all nations.
Both Peter and Paul made it clear that the Apostles teach the commands of Christ:
Jude towards the end ofthe Apostolic era wrote we have to hold fast the faith that has been once and for all delivered:
And back to Christ who said to those He sent out in His name:
Note also, what Paul said to Timothy:
He did not say: “Adapt and change my teaching according to time and culture”, when he looked a few generations ahead.
“Recent Scholarship” as you present ot, Jay, therefore is absolutely not in line with apostolic teaching. Therefore it is to be rejected.
Alexander
Jerry said “When Alan commented earlier that it is “scary” how much he agreed with Alexander and me in our recent comments, he showed that even when we come from very different directions, we are more united than we sometimes realize. ”
“And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:”
If three brothers were ask to describe “old Jerry” do you think they would describe him exactly the same, I doubt it, but does that mean they don’t know him?
Alan…so the Elder’s in your church today who would be disgusted at the thought of enslaving another human being…they are deceived because they would not agree with the church before the Civil War ?? not a very good argument brother…
Alexander…. so you’re telling your people in church that foot washing, holy kissing are commanded and braided hair and jewelry are sinful ? Watching that attendance drop, huh ?
The clear argument has always been that there were cultural reasons for some directions given…For some of you now to take a position that they aren’t, just because you don’t like giving up your holy grail of “qualifications” is remarkably hypocritical.
Bruce… got any specific concern with what the guy wrote or are you relying entirely upon Grudem, et al ? What argument did the guy make that was inconsistent with the cultural arguments made by the CoC against the items which they no longer feel compelled to do ?? How are they inconsistent ?
Alexander wrote:
Amen. Matt 28:18-20 settles the matter.
Price wrote:
I am unsure why you addressed that to me. I’ve said nothing of the sort.
Commands God has given are in force until he rescinds them. That includes the teachings on slavery. I think Alexander explained the slavery issue well when he said:
Price:
I am sensitive to the goal of this webchain focusing on elders, so will keep it down to a relatively brief note (compared to what I could write). Webb’s hermeneutic focuses a good deal of attention on culture vs. “transculture,” as Jay has highlighted. But then he adds his Criterion 17: Pragmatic Basis Between Two Cultures. And suggests that Ephesians 6:1 is “neutral.” (pp. 134-136). What does that mean? He does not seem to want to apply all that he has written to a text as simple as Ephesians 6:1, so he calls it “neutral.”
When he gets to 1 Timothy 2;13, he really does not know what to do with it; that is most evident in his conclusion and his dedicated appendix. He has actually argued earlier for why 1 Timothy 2:13 is not a cultural statement… but does not agree with the conclusion.
Eventually he comes to the real root of his study and this is where it is most glaring. He falls back on Phyllis Trible’s conclusions (p. 249) but never cites Trible. Another example regarding why I challenged Jay to open Trible’s study to this forum — nothing like letting folks see the roots of all of this.
One quote:
“Second, the patriarchal elements in the creation narrative in Genesis may tell us more about the audience to whom the story is being told than about the original event itself.” (p. 249) What?! He does not tell us the “criterion” he uses to draw the conclusion. Just states it! And he writes that in the middle of a section where he is discussing 1 Timothy 2:13….
It amazes me where Webb eventually goes to “draw water”… since Trible never lets 1 Timothy 2:13 speak to her conclusions; she ignores. As a result, Webb ends up arguing that 1 Timothy 2:13 must be cultural… because we know that Adam being created first was a cultural statement… because 1 Timothy 2:13 is not relevant to the discussion!
And you wonder why I point to 1 Timothy 2:13. It is a clarifying teaching for our culture as much as for Ephesian culture. We struggle to hear it as much as the Ephesians probably did.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
The biggest problem in churches today is that we have become too much like the culture around us. The whole NT is warning us not to be like the culture. The world is under the power of the evil one. We are to be in the world but not of the world. We are warned not to love the world. We are warned not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed.
Satan is having a field day with this. We need to reject the siren song of the world. Churches that succumb to it will eventually die. When the salt loses its saltiness, it will be thrown out on the manure pile.
Price:
Decided to tackle the “culture” question beyond 1 Timothy 2:13 separately. How about greeting one another with a holy kiss? The one we cite most often. Webb spends a great deal of time with culture, but his “criteria” are focused on the gender question more than anything. That is what his 300 pages are about.
So, let me offer the below briefly regarding Romans 16:16:
2 Sam 20:9 gives background. A kiss was an expression of friendship among the Jews. And as such it was a frequent expression, but not an “always” expression. F.F. Bruce notes that the kiss of peace plays a part in Eastern Orthodox liturgy. (Bruce, Romans, p. 273) But was it intended as a “ritual?”
As we think about Romans 16:16 (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:20), we should also factor in such phrases as “greet warmly.” (1 Corinthians 16:19) And yes, I believe Western society has carved out too much “distance” between people; it has done great harm. And it has hindered the expression of Christian love among many. We need to let “greet warmly” soak in far more deeply than it has.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alan:
I will make an offer of a book to you as I have offered to others in this weblog. If an interest in browsing/reading, please feel free to send me an email at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net.
Appreciate your post regarding a spiritual siege we all experience.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jay:
One further post to address the below that you wrote:
“Now, many readers will not agree with Webb, because they won’t like the result he reaches as to women. But if Webb is wrong, then what is the basis for considering slavery sinful?”
One quick question: Do we find any statement in the OT or apostolic teaching suggesting to us that slavery reaches back to creation? No, none. Nothing even close to 1 Timothy 2:13.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alan… you said…”Anyone who thinks he knows better than all who came before is self-deceived.” I was wondering if you thought that those that felt like a man or woman should not be involuntarily enslaved were self-deceived… You now make the argument that the Bible does not say to “liberate the slaves either.” Are we to assume that the abolishion of slavery without a direct command is sinful ?? It seems that if there is anything that points to dealing with the culture of the times it is this topic… There were instructions for slaves and masters of slaves but God didn’t prevent the idea of all men being free in the natural world..
The same thing seems to apply to many of the instructions given to the churches of the first century… according to your response that once a command is given that it is in place until rescinded…what about women and jewelry? Hair styles ? How does one determine what is and what is not cultural ? Whatever reasoning has to apply equally… right ?? What am I missing ??
Bruce… I understand that you don’t agree with Webb but what do you offer as a correct way to differentiate between what is custom and what is a command for all times ?? Curious.. You pointed out that “kissing” or a “warm greeting” was a custom.. Jay pointed out that a man’s prominence in society at the time was connected to his having a family… If kissing is different than having a family…how is that determined ?? A man might agree with Paul that being celebite is a greater committment to God than being distracted by family and children… Some marry and find out that they can’t have children… I just don’t see a consistent hermaneutic being applied but maybe I’m missing something…
To All … I apologize for being somewhat defensive earlier…I am disappointed that as Jay brings these things to the surface to discuss that he is often directly attacked for doing so… what’s up with that ? Isn’t that one of the problems in the church today that we can’t freely and openly discuss matters ? I know Jay has thick skin and doesn’t need me to try and defend him but it just grates on my nerves to see brothers in Christ attack one another with that much passion… Disagreement is expected on matters of interpretation…but we should all put down the rocks and quit throwing things at each other… IMHO
Price wrote:
The abolition of slavery in the USA was a good thing, and in keeping with Christian principles. However it was not commanded by God. In countries where slavery exists today, the biblical commands for how to conduct oneself as a master and as a slave would apply, but there would be no biblical command to abolish it. The abolition of slavery in the USA was an act of the government, not of the church. If it is abolished in other countries, it will likewise be an act of government.
Modern biblical “scholarship” and “new hermeneutics” are not improvements over the past, in general. IMO it’s rather arrogant for someone today to claim to understand scripture better than all those Christians in the past 2000 years did. Arrogant, and out of touch with reality.
Price:
Let’s take this in steps. First, beyond my disagreeing with William Webb, I hope you and others will look closely at the flaws in what he has suggested. I encourage you to grab a copy of Webb’s book and wade in; read the conclusion. Compare it with Paul’s writings for yourself. By all means do not take Jay’s conclusions or mine as clear assessments. Have at it! I encourage it!
Jay needs to think hard about where he lands here. And he needs to take up a brother’s challenge: open Trible’s work to this weblog’s review and prayerful thought. I have offered the same challenge and encouragement to another friend and brother of late: Mike Cope. If we really think that egalitarian conclusions are rock solid, then let’s test them… with a read of Trible’s God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality.
Now as to Christ vs. culture:
First, let’s notice the importance when Paul bases his teaching on creation. That is why Webb spends so much time there. He understands the point… and tries hard to get around it. But he cannot because it is at the heart of what Paul writes. Paul is being guided to look back to creation as a foundation for what he writes in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” was not intended to be a “cultural” conclusion. That is why Paul refers to the first people. This is God’s initial action. God’s beginning point for all of society. So, where we find such statements as 1 Timothy 2:13, we need to grab them and then understand how they are being used. What is the Spirit saying by guiding the writer back to the beginning?
Beyond creation statements, seems to me that the love of God represents another one of those ways that we see “culture” transformed (and overruled) and determines how we should live versus a given cultural expression. That seems to be the point of 1 Corinthians 13. Correct? And the purpose of Ephesians 5:21ff. The fall of humanity came because we lost sight of God’s love instead of seeking to grow by loving as He loves. Loveless patriarchy (and matriarchy) is one example of just what darkness can come about when evil drenches a society. But that is not announcing what the Lord intended, only how we struggle to love (cf. the importance of Ephesians 5:21 to 22ff.).
I think that is enough for one post versus attempting to apply all of the above to teachings about elders.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alan offered: “It’s pretty easy to discern which commands are permanent. If God said it, it remains in force until God says it no longer applies.”
At least this is unambiguous in its intent. But in accepting this interpretation, I hear: “Pucker up, my brother!” “Get rid of the Pepto and buy some Thunderbird.” And, “Don’t complain if your son-in-law decides to add another wife to his family.”
Bruce…. I get it about the creation…What the history of the man/woman thing doesn’t answer is why are the qualifications necessarily a rule not to deviate from and head coverings, hair style and jewelry not a rule ??
Also, it’s been hotly debated but there is a clear consensus among many theologians that I Tim 2:11 is referring to women who are doing the work the work of a deacon in the same equal sense of those mentioned. As I mentioned earlier, Carroll Osburn, a long time NT Greek expert at Abilene, strongly contended for “women” instead of “the deacon’s wives” I’m no expert but he was… They were rare, only Phoebe is mentioned by name, indicating her prominence in the church, so only a passing mention is made toward their character considerations…
It seems to me that the cultural argument should be thrown out entirely and we go back to commands concerning dress, greetings, etc., or we come up with a more consistent approach to understanding what is a command for all cultures at all times and what is not.
Price wrote:
Who said those are not rules?
Charles:
I am familiar with Carroll Osburn’s work (and will offer a copy of a work that discusses what Dr. Osburn has written; if an interest please feel free to send me an email at MortonBLSL7 at earthlink dot net. Glad to send a copy.).
I believe Dr. Osburn is correct here. The 1 Timothy 2 text offers no exegetical guidance that suggests we should narrow down “woman” to “deaconness” in Paul’s teaching.
As for cultural aspects of the gender leadership question, the same applies to 1 Corinthians 11. Paul is appealing to more than culture; he is being guided to look back to the beginning. And that is why a “sign of authority” transcends culture. But that “sign of authority” can vary as he reveals in the text. And we know from Pausanias’ writings that at least one Corinthian cult included the ritual of women shaving off their hair as a gift to deity. So, not too difficult to gather what is probably happening in Corinth. Previous students of Corinthians probably have gotten it right in the past to note that the principle of covering is “from creation,” while the various expressions (including a hat in some generations) would express the principle.
I think enough for one post.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Price:
Should have included you at the heading of the previous post too as was thinking about comments by both you and Charles.
Shouldn’t we understand the jewelry comment by Peter (1 Pt. 3:3) as addressing a cultural issue (which most cultures face), with the transcultural principle being what he offers immediately after: the “inner self” as the portrait of the Spirit’s work within (that transcends culture)?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce…are you willing to apply that same reasoning to the other issues as well ? If not, what is the one hermaneutic that addresses all of these in the same manner… it seems convenient to apply your theory to just a few selected items…
Also, I believe you mis-characterize Osburn’s conclusion…He was quite adamant that Phoebe was serving in the same capacity as the others that are mentioned as deacon… And he was quite explicit in that Women in the I Tim 2 passage is related to the subject at hand which was the character attributes of a deacon… To suggest that Osburn is relating that women should not be considered as deacons is an incorrect reading of Osburn..
Price:
I do not want to fill this webchain with gender role discussion, given the focus on elders. So, to clarify, yes I know what Dr. Osburn believes broadly; was only speaking about a specific part of his exegetical work. To clarify for all, Dr. Osburn has written:
1 Tim. 2:11-12 was “not intended as universal norms for all women in all times and places.” (Women in the Church, p. 244).
To confirm I believe his path to getting there is flawed by how he deals with 1 Timothy 2:13 (Osburn believes Paul was not looking at Genesis 1-3).
As to applying further, I do believe “creation” and the love of God do present us with guidance for understanding Scripture. But no, I am not suggesting that both constitute all of Christ vs. culture guidance. Price, folks have written many volumes on this subject, so please do not expect me to try to wrap all into a few posts; I cannot. Will not even try to do so — including about the qualifications for elders texts. I have read numerous posts in the discussion of elders and have seen some good stuff. So, will leave it at that for now.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce… Osburn notes on page 146 that “some Ephesian women were involved significantly in servant roles.” What I find interesting is that rather than condemn the role that some women were playing in the function of church hierarchal structure, Osburn points out clearly that Paul puts forth the type of character traits one would espouse for women that served in these roles… Apparently, Paul didn’t choose to be violently opposed to women serving in an Ephesian culture…
Likewise, Osburn says that there are FIVE notable proofs for the term in verse 11 to refer to female deacons… And based on his expert familiarity of NT Greek text, he presents it for the readers benefit. I believe that he was just explaining what Paul actually said rather than trying to superimpose some a priori application of creation on the matter.
Please understand that I’m not looking for you to go into all the women’s role issues…I just asked for a consistent approach to ascertain if something was cultural or not… It seems you do not have a suggestion to offer. If Osburn is right in the quote you offered, then what else is could be appropriately said that “it is “not intended as universal norms for all women in all times and places.” And on what basis is that determined… So much disagreement over these issues and for some time now… it must be a very difficult thing to establish rules for others to follow without knowing why or how the rules are made or to whom they apply in what era or culture…
I am more likely to be persuaded that women can be deacons than to be persuaded that commands in scripture expire at some point due to cultural changes. Far more likely. But you’ll have to do the persuading from scripture, not some book written recently, and not some extra-biblical historical evidence.
Price:
Did anyone ever tell you that you can be abrasive… and even goad by statements like “It seems you do not have a suggestion to offer.”? This reminds me of the last time that we talked gender issues and you got to the point of challenging my manhood. Remember? My wife does; she laughs about some of your previous posts. I just shook my head and decided to bow out.
You know well that I believe Dr. Osburn is ignoring 1 Timothy 2:13. I am confident that Dr. Osburn is following Trible’s analysis and that takes all this (including the discussion of culture) and renders it garbled. Maybe instead of pressing me you ought to open Trible’s book and take up the same challenge I offered Jay.
And to be clear: I find nothing in Scripture that prohibits women from servant roles — similar to “women ministers.” I see numerous congregations appointing women ministers to women’s teaching efforts, childrens ministries, etc. And you know well what I have stated clearly in a book that you have. I believe congregations have good reason to appoint women as “ministers” in those specific areas (i.e. we are indeed all servants/ministers). But that does not follow that we then suggest that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 becomes cultural. Verse 13 tells us (or should tell us) that whatever the specific situation, the apostle’s guidance in the situation transcended Ephesus. Nor should we confuse “serving” with the teaching and authority actions Paul speaks of in verses 11-12.
As to cultural guidelines and the like, I am less a person who likes to toss out “18 criteria” or some such, similar to Webb. I prefer to let Scripture and context tell us much. Paul does in 1 Timothy 2:13 regarding gender and leadership. As to the qualifications of elders, I hope we spend more time soaking up apostolic teaching and less time trying to talk around it. Perhaps not good enough for you, but I think I have said enough.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Well, Price, I like these topics, as you know. 😉
If you go down church history, especiellay before Constantjne, you will see that the churches of Christ practiced footwashing, kissed one another with a holy kiss and taught their women not to dress up like Barbie Dolls.
If you look at the cherch in general (all denominatins) you will notice that quite a number among them still practice one or all of these four examples you mentioned without discontinuation fromthe beginning. What does that tell me?
Things got lost along the way! And we – being a restoratin movement – should not justiofy the loss, saying: “Good we got rid of this unnecessary baggage!” but rather return zto the “Ancient Order of Things”.
See, a church practicing all of these things, can never be accused of being inconsistent (as long as there is love as the foundation). But as soon as we drop one or more of them, we open a door for more changes: In fact, when you or others use these examples they say in effect something like:
“We don’t do these things anymore, because we think they were just cultural. We hold to this conviction because of “recent scholarship” that also shows, that there are even more things in scripture that actually became obsolete! So when we agree on e.g. not footwashing any more because of “cultural” reasons, why not also allow women to teach?
I see that most churches of Christ today are vulnerable in this point. That’s why I work towards the restoration of all things in our church. I even preached on footwashing, and we do it once a year in our house church. We postponed the teaching on headcovering because of too much resistance, but we began laying further foundation upon which we can again speak about it. Restoration is a process that involves time, patience, love and persistance (among other skills).
And so, this is my answer: It’s about consistency.
Alexander
Amen, Alexander!
Alexander…I guess if one chooses to return to a ancient practice of Christianity then you should do it. I think it’s patternism at it’s finest but that’s just me… But, you sounded a lot like somebody trying to change the order of what has been for some time…using patience and teaching…sort of like those who would do the same with IM…LOL
Bruce.. Of course I’m goading you… With my sincere apologies to your better half…you talk about scripture being the basis and yet you can’t come up with a systematic way of determining rules for an era and rules for all eternity… It’s divided the church of Christ into 2 dozen different denominations, all of whom declare scripture as their one and only source. Maybe it’s not fair to put that on you certainly!! But for heaven’s sake, let’s not avoid it… What’s the recipe for unity on these matters ?? You say Osburn is wrong,,Webb is wrong… OK…Why ? What do you offer that can be applied consistently across the board to determine if something is cultural of not?… If you’re going to criticize (in a polite way of course) then offer something in it’s place.. Seems fair…But, ask your wife…:)
Also, you say that we “shouldn’t confuse “serving” with the teaching and authority actions Paul speaks of in verses 11-12. Osburn clearly makes the argument from the Greek that the authority is EXACTLY what Paul is referring to.. Being an expert in NT Greek lends considerable credibility to his conclusions…
Alan… If Phoebe, who is the only “deacon” referred to as a deacon in a specific church can’t convince you…then you can’t be convinced…or perhaps you prefer not to be convinced… Anyone reading this passage without a conviction to the contrary would be totally convinced that she was whatever ANY deacon was, and perhaps at a level above most. She was a “patron” which meant she was most likely a successful business woman, gave generously to Paul’s ministry, and conducted business in such a good way that Paul told the Elders to do whatever SHE required… Pretty impressive. Too impressive to ignore… She was powerful, she was influential and she was a deacon in the church… So says Paul…
Price wrote:
The essence of patternism is binding examples from the scriptures. The questions we’ve been examining in these threads concerns commands, not examples. Do those commands expire when the culture changes, or not? It has nothing to do with patterns and “ancient practice.” Rather, it has to do with what God commanded via the scriptures.
Alan… I think you just named the culprit of most of our conflicts within the church… ” The ESSENCE of patternism is BINDING examples…. That is one scary proposition …having binding rules based on the “essence” of patternism… In the absence of clear command, we add our personal interpretations so that the clear “essence” of what God has spoken…or not spoken….can clearly be interpreted and applied to all who wish to worship with US…. Yuk !!
Price, I’m no patternist. You won’t find me binding examples.
Price:
I see no Christian kindness in your action and your words. And I think you (and many others) know very well what, for me, is the taproot of this discussion. But I will patiently tackle again.
CONCERNING CULTURAL
From what I can tell, in the discussion of gender roles, you judge much (or all) as “cultural” (similar to Jay). So, any “rule” would likely be judged as… legalistic?! You see the point? I am well aware from reading much egalitarian literature that the folks that shout “cultural” actually do an astute job of directing the discussion into a way of thinking that ensures “cultural” cannot fall as a dominant way of viewing Scripture. Either virtually everything becomes “cultural” or… they are justified in screaming “legalism!”
THE ALTERNATE PERSPECTIVE
Let’s start with a remarkable comment by Brian McLaren:
He writes about dialog with other religions that, “Christianity has discovered what it is about in large part through this kind of dialogue. Without non-Christian dialogue partners, there would be no Christian theology as we know it.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 257-8)
What has he just done? He has rendered Ephesians 6:10-18 as absurd and rewarded Satan’s tools (the Asian mystery religions) with “partner” status. Blindness!
Price, that is what is at the taproot of all of this.
Do you see Ephesians 6:10-18 as only “cultural?” Was Paul’s talk about evil spirits and the work of Satan “cultural?” Is “the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Eph. 2:2) a “cultural” phrase only? Are the threats Paul highlights in Ephesians 4:17ff. no more than “cultural?”
Our day largely judges Scripture as “cultural” because we have given away belief in a spiritual siege (even when we do not see it). In actuality very little of apostolic teaching is “cultural.” Why? It was written to address spiritual issues — even when embedded in social situations and practices. Those issues have not changed. Whether gender and leadership, the qualifications of elders, the issue of jewelry, all reveal the consequence of a spiritual siege. All was given in light of a spiritual siege. It is just that Americans DISLIKE such conversations about “spiritual sieges.” The more I chat with folks (even followers of Jesus), the more I am convinced that people really do not believe a spiritual siege takes place today. And the consequence? Oh, let’s let apostolic teaching… collect dust. After all, we all know it was meant primarily for folks 2000 years ago.
I have appreciated what Alexander and Alan have written in this area. From what I can tell, you and Jay (for two) underestimate the closeness of a spiritual siege. We do not need the “rules” you or Jay suggest we need. Instead, people need to see that what Paul writes about elders, gender roles, and modest dress is as applicable to our day as it was for the Ephesians.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce wrote:
Bruce, I am curious. How do rules about head dress, jewelry, foot-washing, and such fit into the context of a spiritual siege in view of Paul’s observation in Colossians 2:20-23?
Those things would fit into a spiritual battle under certain cultural conditions. Yet, in and of themselves, what value do they have in restraining the flesh? I can easily see how these things can let me look at someone else as “unenlightened” or “careless” – even as “sinful” – while congratulating myself on my deep spirituality and commitment. But I fail to see how these things contribute to the restraint of the flesh or the elevation of holiness.
I do not ask this doubting what Paul said about elders needing to have children or being men. As I said, I am just curious as to how the rules you and Alexander say we should still observe fit into the covenant of grace.
It seems to me that we derive spiritual strength for the battle from the Spirit of God within us. I also believe that spiritual people (men or women) have no interest in ostentatious dress or display (preferring modest dress and simplicity of life-style). Yet, you seem to be making the observation of the rules you keep talking about the source of the strength we need for the battle.
Respectfully,
Jerry
Jerry and Price,
I can’t speak for Bruce and Alexander… but for me the question of how to reconcile Col 2:20-23 with the teaching about jewelry, clothes, etc is a valid discussion. But I reject the solution that says we like Col 2 but we don’t like 1 Peter 3…. or that Col 2 still applies but 1 Peter 3:3 no longer applies (whether for cultural reasons, or any other reason). What those passages meant when they were written, properly understood, is what they mean today.
BTW, how would one determine that 1 Peter 3 no longer applies, but Col 2 does? Why not the other way around? On the surface it looks like we choose the one we like.
Jewlry etc … are ver interesting, Jerry. For several reasons – and I would like to add that this again is an area where there is a strinking difference between OT and NT. But this might go bit far …
a) Jewelry are (quite often) expensive – they are worn to show “status” (knowingly or unknowingly). We can agree, I suppose, That Christians should not boast about their riches, but rather be modest in nature and share their wealth rather than display it.
b) Jewelry and make-up – and certain kinds of dress or hairdress are meant to enhance outward beauty. Yet Peter made it very clear that we should not focus on our outward beauty but on our spiritual beauty.
c) Who is it that says we can have both? “We can have both riches and the Kingdom.” “We can focus both on our outward beauty as well as on our spiritual beauty.” The texts – as they are written – don’t contain a “both – and “but rather a “not this – but that”. Do we care for the reason behind it?
d) As I observe it, the world destroys the self esteem of men and women by imposing on them standards of beauty, status and appearance that are hardly to be reached. This enslaves them! Women take beauty surgeries and men are worried about the size of the penis (that’s why they go forthe bigger cars, maybe …).
e) Tertullian was absolutely right when he said: “Who is it that thinks he can “improve” God’s works b overpainting them (talking about cosmetics – free redidition)”? Isn’t that deeply irreverent? It’s Satan who by trying to improve actually corrupts the good works of God.
See, Jerry, this is a deeply spiritual matter. It is about a siege, about the way Satan destorts and destroys what God has made.
As I said, there is much more to the story …
Alexander
Still waiting on a ruling from my brothers here on puckering and Pepto and the junior wife. Eternally binding, or eternally prohibited, or what? I’m trying to reassemble my list of rules and it’s full of holes.
Charles, when I get confused about what I think God requires, I remember what Mark Twain is reported to have said. It’s not the things I don’t understand in the Bible that worry me. It’s the things I do understand.
Jerry:
Hmmm? Paul notes “human commands and teachings” as the issue in Colossae — and notes the various aspects of such. Correct? Are you suggesting that apostolic teaching can and should be equated with that problem? Whoa! I do not think so. Indeed, it seems to me that is what is causing much of the issue here. This weblog is looking at apostolic teaching and some are wrestling with it as if the words of apostles represented legalistic Judaism or as if we were looking at the Mishnah or no more than a Jewish Midrash!
But as one point, let me highlight that Paul’s discussion of head covering is filled with the issue of a spiritual siege. Numerous commentaries spanning decades have gotten the background generally correct. Women adherents in some (or many?) of the city cults would cut their hair as part of cult worship and leadership. Spiritual siege? Yes, indeed. Corinth was drenched in Satan’s work and Paul is working to correct.
I think I should stop for now.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Alan,
I never said that 1 Peter 3:3 did not apply. I asked how not wearing jewelry or braiding hair contribute to spirituality. In 1 Peter, the emphasis is on letting beauty be within, not in the externals. When we take a statement like that and turn it into an absolute prohibition of any external cosmetic grooming, we go much further than Peter’s actual words warrant. Yet, some of the comments on this blog seem to suggest that not wearing jewelry is of some sort of assistance in our spiritual battle.
Now, if a person has taken great pride in external grooming, as a matter of spiritual discipline, a “fast” from such practices might be in order. Yet, I do not see that Peter’s statement about outward adorning not being the source of the beauty of holiness is a general condemnation of any kind of external beauty enhancement.
As in many other things, moderation here is a key to a healthy spiritual life that is in the world but of the world. We can certainly refrain from the “same flood of dissipation” that the heathen of this world plunge into (1 Peter 4:4) without all of our women dressing like nuns or Saudi Arabian women!
Yet, if we were attempting to evangelize Saudi Arabia, our ladies probably should wear the veil as being modest dress in that place. And to me, that means that the application of at least some texts of Scripture are cultural and not firmly fixed. This does NOT mean that the Scripture means one thing in one culture and something else in another culture. It means that the application of Biblical principles sometimes needs to take culture into account.
However, it is a far stretch from that to setting aside Paul’s statements to Timothy and Titus about elders needing to have children who demonstrate his ability to care for the house of God. While we may debate exactly what he meant by what he said, we must give full credence to the words he has given us.
Respectfully,
Jerry
That should have been ” moderation here is a key to a healthy spiritual life that is in the world but ,b>not of the world.”
Jerry
Let me try again.
That should have been ” moderation here is a key to a healthy spiritual life that is in the world but not of the world.”
Jerry
Bruce wrote:
Exactly! But is the application of what he is saying the same today as it was in ancient Corinth? In Saudi Arabia, it might be – but is it the same today in our Western world?
Or would application of this principle show itself in other ways that may be just as radically different from the Western way of dressing as long hair was different from the usual dress in Corinth?
In other words, again the application of the eternal principle may change while the principle itself never changes.
Jerry
I didn’t mean to imply that you did say that. I’m ok with a discussion about what that passage has always meant, including on the day it was written. Personally I think it means a woman shouldn’t let her adorning be external, but rather internal. There’s something not to do, and something to do instead. But whatever it meant when Peter wrote it, it still means. That’s my point.
Jerry and Bruce were discussing:
But as one point, let me highlight that Paul’s discussion of head covering is filled with the issue of a spiritual siege. Numerous commentaries spanning decades have gotten the background generally correct. Women adherents in some (or many?) of the city cults would cut their hair as part of cult worship and leadership. Spiritual siege? Yes, indeed. Corinth was drenched in Satan’s work and Paul is working to correct.
Exactly! But is the application of what he is saying the same today as it was in ancient Corinth? In Saudi Arabia, it might be – but is it the same today in our Western world?
I’m not with Bruce on this one. Paul’s instruction in 1 Cor 11 was based on the order of creation (verses 8-10) and on nature itself (verse 14). Those arguments transcend culture. In fact the teaching apparently flew in the face of their culture. Paul apparently knew there would be objections — this was not a popular teaching with those women, but it was commanded of them anyway (verse 16).
Actually I think the reception to this teaching in Corinth was very much like what it would be in a typical US metropolitan church today. They didn’t like it.
Once again I’ve tried to be elegant with my quotes and messed up. Sorry — but let me try again.
Jerry and Bruce were discussing:
I’m not with Bruce on this one. Paul’s instruction in 1 Cor 11 was based on the order of creation (verses 8-10) and on nature itself (verse 14). Those arguments transcend culture. In fact the teaching apparently flew in the face of their culture. Paul apparently knew there would be objections — this was not a popular teaching with those women, but it was commanded of them anyway (verse 16).
Actually I think the reception to this teaching in Corinth was very much like what it would be in a typical US metropolitan church today. They didn’t like it.
As a matter of fact, Tertullian pointed to the women in Saudia Arabia when dealing with the headcovering (in hs work “On the Veiling of Virgins). In a different work (Corona Militis) he refers to the Jewish women who stand out because of their headcovering in Carthage. You see, it was generally not a custom in Carthage that women covered their heads. But the church of CHrist nonetheless required their women to cover their heads based on Apostolic teaching even if it went against the norms of society.
And today in our Western world NO ONE misunderstands the significance of the Muslim headcovering – it’s just totally against OUR culture. While Muslim culture is more or less in line with the headship-order (man over woman), since their faith is based on the same Abrahamitic roots, our culture has rejected God. So, why – please WHY? – are we so willing to look down at the Muslims and to follow atheists and mockers?
But let’s go into a little more detail on this:
In 1Co 11:2-16 Paul argues on different levels:
a) Headship within the deity (V 3) – certainly not cultural
b) Headship of men over women – based on creation
c) A symbolic application of this headship with covered and uncovered heads (even in Greek it is the same word, also in German: The man is the head of the woman, therefore the woman must cover her head). This is not a reflection of local culture, but a fitting symbol for the divine and creational order of headship.
d) Further this is linked with glory: A man is the glory of God, woman the glory of a man, long hair the glory of a woman – the first two are based on creation, the last on one nature (which is part of creation – not of culture)
Let’s say, these are the primary reasons for the headcovering.
Beside these Paul “throws in” illustrations and secondary arguments:
a) If she is uncovered she is like a shaven one. As most commentaries reveal, we don’t really know what Paul is referring to with this comparison. There are educated guesses however, and I think Bruce correctly pointed out some of these. I think he might refer to the cult of Isis, where male and female priests were shaven: yes they had female priests, even an egaliterian view of men and women. Paul may be referring to them, we don’t know for sure.
b) Another secondary argument – although also certainly not cultural – are the angels. He does not explain how or why the angels are involved in the headcovering issue. We can guess, make a Bible Study on angels and find some clues – but we can’t be sure. After all, it’s just a side remark – but one thing this side remark tells us: Since we don’t really grasp the heavenly realities we should not object to a symbol that is connected to these. Got my point?
c) The way Paul uses nature seems to indicate that this is not the primary reason for the headcovering, but rather a confirming illustration. However we view th lessons from nature, this does not rule out Paul’s primary argument.
Paul did not take the headcovering from Corinth, but it was a “tradition he handed down to them”, something he brought to Corinth from … from the practice of all churches of God. In fact it is a combined sign: Men must uncover their heads, women cover theirs. This runs contrary to all religious practices of this time: Either both men an women were covered (Jews and Romans) or both weren’t (Greeks).
What most commentaries today do is focus on these illustrative secondary arguments. Finding connections to culutral norms anr feelings of the ancient world that don’t exist today they conclude the whole chapter is cultural and therefore obsolete. THey normally never address (nor seem to understand) the primary reasons for the headcovering, since they started on the wrong end (V 15) instead of the beginning (V 3).
Or do you know of any commentary that correctly points out the creation order and its symbolic application that then goes on to say: “But that’s all cultural and not binding”? This wouldn’t work, would it.
I don’t want to make this too big, but it is an excellent example for this idea that we can reduce Apostolic commands (1Co 11:17 – is actually referring to the whole chapter 11) to cultural adaptions.
Alexander
Bruce…It’s difficult to communicate with you..at least for me… Once again in reply to my question of what is the correct hermaneutical approach, you avoid it entirely and go off on some spiritual siege thingy…Forget I asked..
Alan… Your post about why Col is OK and I Peter isn’t is EXACTLY the point… It does seem that we choose what we like because that’s essentially what is being done… There is no consistent application…it’s just this “essence” or whiff of what MIGHT be right and then as a church we bind them on people until we decide we might have messed up and then we try again… Didn’t we forbid women to wear pants at one time? Discouraged them from voting? Our history is full of stuff that if we tried to make binding on people today they congregation would revolt… so, right or wrong, I think if we’re going to decide for OTHERS what the RULES should be (not you personally) then we need to be more consistent on how to determine what applies to us today and what does not… Isn’t this area of our study where we fall apart at the seams with one another ?? Surely, we can do better than what we’ve done…
I’ve been commenting on this series from the perspective of what I need to do, not so much what someone else needs to do (well, in some cases, what my wife and daughters need to do…).
If I’m right about all those commands, then of course they also apply to others. But my understanding of them applies to me whether I am right or not. I have to follow my conscience. And you have to follow yours. If by following our consciences we fail to obey a command, then we might be self-deceived. As Paul said, our consciences may be clear, but that does not make us innocent.