For His Renown

That the glory of the Lord might cover the dry land as the waters cover the sea

88 Responses to “May Women Teach Men at Church?”

  1. Jimmy Stanfield Says:

    Excellent and very needful stuff! You’ve posted a few times on this. Egalitarianism affects almost every aspect of our lives and culture today and needs to be confronted by what God’s word says and very few in the church have the courage or knowledge to do it. Might this be a future book topic?

  2. Michael Bird Says:

    James,
    Good analysis of the text. I think you’re right - this prohibition applies to both the home and to public worship. But I wonder why we do not apply this prohibition to all areas of life: even the work place. If the text is given its full force it must mean that any circumstance where a woman has authority over a man is a perversion of the created order! Unless one adopts a religious-secular dichotomy where we have one set of rules for life in the church and another set of rules for life in secular society (which I do not think that the Bible envisages) I don’t think it can be taken any other way. That would have serious implication for a Christian man who has a female boss - should he resign? Should we petition against women in congress? This led John Knox to renounce the reign of Elizabeth I since a woman should not rule over men in a Christian nation. Viewed this way, what Paul says would resonate with Greco-Roman attitudes that thought it wrong for a man to let himself be dominated by an inferior. Jim, do you see an alternative to this perspective or is this taking the prohibition too far? I confess to be playing the devi’s advocate here, but this is something I’ve really been thinking about. That and the head-covering issue since Paul grounds that topic in the ordering of creation as well. A penny for your thoughts?

  3. jimhamilton Says:

    Mike,

    Hey great to hear from you! Thanks for your kind words.

    I don’t want to adopt a sacred/secular dichotomy, but I do want to recognize that it is not the church’s job to impose biblical morality on the unregenerate. Paul refused to judge outsiders (1 Cor 5:12), and I think he would tell us that we should preach the Gospel to the society and if/when they believe the contours of the faith will leaven into their thinking, even their thinking about gender (assuming the word is being boldly proclaimed!).

    What about Christian ladies in the workplace? I think we should encourage women to take the text seriously, submit themselves to it, and wrestle with God in prayer as to how it should affect what they do. It may be possible for women to be very feminine in the way they handle themselves in corporate contexts. Perhaps they will exercise a “matronly” authority, and maybe there’s something from Proverbs 31 for them. But I think that the teach/authority prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 matches what elders are commended for in 1 Tim 5:17–ruling well and preaching and teaching. So women should definitely not do these things in the church–teach/preach and exercise authority. Nor should women be elders in Christian churches.

    Head coverings: I think that Paul is happy for women to pray and prophesy in the church as long as they do so in an explicitly feminine way–so in that context women were to cover their heads and men were not to cover their heads. I think head coverings are like holy kisses–we’re not necessarily bound to the expression but we are bound to the principle. We need to greet each other warmly, even if we don’t kiss each other. Similarly, women need to be clearly distinguishable from men, even if they don’t have their heads covered.

    Your thoughts are welcomed.

    Great to hear from you!

    Jim

  4. Steve Walker Says:

    Jim,
    I always appreciate when people interpret scripture in light of both the immediate and broader scriptural context. Good words!

    You’ve probably heard about the Sunday School teacher (81-year-old Mary Lambert) being removed from her class she had been teaching for 54 years. (See story here, and an example of someone taking 1 Tim 2:12 out of context.) Actually, I think the whole article is a good example of bad exegesis. :~)

    Do you see teaching and exercising authority as being inseparably joined in this verse (1 Tim 2:12)? I do. (In other words, its not either teach or exercise authority, but it is both teach and exercise authority, i.e., hold a governing position in the church.) I think because of the context flowing into chp3, Paul is specifically prohibiting women from being elders. Like Mike, I also see the connection with 1 Tim 5:17. However, I do not think removing Mary Lambert from her Sunday School class is a proper application of 1 Tim 2:12. What do you think?

  5. jimhamilton Says:

    Steve,

    Thanks for your note. Andreas Kostenberger’s chapter in the book Women in the Church has established beyond dispute that teaching and exercising authority are indissolubly linked in 1 Timothy 2:12 (the grammar also establishes this, as both “teach” and “exercise authority” are infinitives that complement the main verbal clause “I do not permit”). Kostenberger says that teaching is one manifestation of exercising authority. I would add that in the church, authority comes from teaching the Word of God. I think Kostenberger is right when he says that Paul moves from the particular (teaching) to the general (exercising authority).

    On that lady Sunday School teacher, well, Paul says women are not to teach or exercise authority over men. So if she was teaching men (I think it’s okay for women to teach boys) the options are (a) take the men out of her class and put them under a male teacher, or (b) put a male teacher in that class.

    Hope this helps!

    JMH

  6. codepoke Says:

    I am egalitarian, but I agree with your dismissal of this argument. I cannot imagine that it was advanced with much authority. As you thoroughly point out, Paul was without a doubt addressing public teaching.

    More to the point, Paul was addressing women used to having authority in their spheres and who were bringing that habit of authority into the church without understanding Christian truth. They had been deceived by early local gnostics, and were promulgating their errors. Among those was that Eve was created before Adam, and that Eve actually gave Adam life.

    Paul forbids to Timothy that these women should be allowed to teach that women were above men.

  7. casey bourland Says:

    Dr. Hamilton, I was reading from the email that spurred this post on just a minute ago and decided to try to find your website and was so encouraged that you have a biblical response to the email already posted. I first want to encouarage you in that my father who decided to leave a class taught by a couple after I preseneted him with I Tim 2 got a call from his friend who attended your presentation. The friend apologized to my father because a year ago when he asked my dad for the reason he left, he said he almosted laughed but after hearing your presentation he is being convicted about the stance that he took. Praise be to God! Hearts were changed that night and I wanted to encourage you in that.

    Thank you for making the clarification that there is no distinction between home and public worship here in those scriptures. I agree with you and am perplexed by those who say that there is. The church has taken those scriptures and turned them backwards to make something from them that will fit into the femminist society we live in, not a biblical one. Many have conformed to the world on this. One comment I heard from your presentation from a lady was “this was the society that Paul lived in.” My heart is so saddened by that comment. May we be a church that believes that every God breathed word in the Bible has complete and utter authority over our lives.

    I have had many people laugh or get mad at me when I have spoken out against women teaching over men in my church but I know the stance that I take is in line with scripture and I will not conform to anything else. People need to hear a biblical response to this issue. Thank you again and again for presenting a hard subject to my church and not leaving it there but you are still responding.

  8. jimhamilton Says:

    Dear codepoke,

    That’s an interesting interpretation. If you’re right, why doesn’t Paul forbid women to “teach false doctrine”?

    I don’t find your view persuasive because “teaching”–when it’s not modified by something like “false” or the like, is always used positively in the Pastoral epistles. I think if Paul was only forbidding false teaching, he would have said so.

    Thanks for your affirmation of what I wrote!

    JMH

  9. jimhamilton Says:

    Casey,

    Hearty thanks for this encouraging word!

    JMH

  10. Steve Walker Says:

    Jim,
    Thanks for the response. However, I doubt she was exercising authority over anyone. As you point out, teaching and exercising authority are two sides of a coin. I understand that coin to be eldership. She was not an elder. Nevertheless, I can live with our disagreement.

    I should have stated this in my previous comment, but it didn’t come to mind until I was out cutting my grass. I do not believe there is a biblical distinction that creates two classes of elders — ruling and teaching. I interpret 1 Tim 5:17 to be speaking of one class of elders who both teach and rule (like 1 Tim 2:12, both/and not either/or). This is a common interpretation held by conservative scholars and pastors. Mark Dever discusses the debate over this issue in his article Baptists and Elders (link). He states, “What Baptists finally, largely and rightly—I think—concluded, is that there can be no distinction between ruling and teaching in the eldership.”

    Grace & peace to you!

  11. jimhamilton Says:

    Thanks Steve,

    I agree that there should be no distinction between teaching and ruling elders, and I agree that 1 Tim 5:17 is informative for interpreting 1 Tim 2:12.

    But since 1 Tim 2:12 says “I don’t permit a woman to teach . . . a man” rather than “I don’t permit a woman to be an elder,” I don’t think women should teach men.

    With you for the Gospel,

    Jim

  12. Jimmy Stanfield Says:

    Well…at least we can all still agree that they shouldn’t be allowed to drive.

  13. Denny Burk Says:

    Jim, this is a good word, and a timely one. Complementarians are divided on this very issue, and we need to be talking about it so that we can reach a consensus on what the Bible teaches.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  14. Debbie Wimmers Says:

    Jim, What about in Timothy when Paul commends Timothy for learning from his mother and grandmother? I thought the role of the moms were to teach. I agree that dads should be the spiritual leaders in the home, but what about the homeschooling moms.
    i also agree that boys that are being taught by moms only tend to be confused about certian things when he grows up. I heard James Dobson talk the other day of some men not devoloping their masculinity because of tthe lack of male teaching in their lives.

  15. Jim Hamilton Says:

    Debbie,

    I think what Paul says applies to women teaching men (that’s what he prohibits), not women teaching boys.

    Clearly, the Bible expects mothers to teach their sons (cf. Prov 1:8 “forsake not your mother’s teaching”).

    Hope this helps!

    JMH

  16. Bryan L Says:

    Jim,
    Just out of curiosity, what was the age of adulthood in the NT times and how does that affect this discussion? We commonly think of 18 but is that what they thought of when they thought of adults? What if they thought adulthood was younger or older? How then does that affect when Complementarians cut off the teaching of males for women?
    Jim have you ever read or learned anything from a woman Biblical scholar? There are plenty of really good ones out there. Does your position keep you from reading what they’ve written in Biblical Studies?
    Also it seems like the age leading up to adult hood would be some of the most important times for teaching and laying the foundation in a Christian’s life, and if women were able to teach then why not after? Do men have to then forget what they we’re taught as a child or teenager from a woman? Does that woman who has taught them for so many years all of the sudden cease to be of worth in their learning?
    Just some questions. If you only answer one please answer the first. Thanks.
    Blessing,
    Bryan L

  17. veltis Says:

    I am speechless at this entire discussion and article. It’s the most incredible example I have ever seen of a bizarre perversion of everything I have been taught about Christianity. You do realize that the nearest advocates of this point of view are the Taliban? Certainly you are aware of the suicide rate of intelligent, educated women under that system? Do none of you have daughters? Can you seriously mean you would rather they not drive, or work, or teach? What if they simply never meet anyone suitable to marry? Should they simply sit on welfare? What is your concrete vision of a viable future under this arrangement? I sincerely hope you’re just kidding?

  18. lightcontrast Says:

    I am not surprised about what happened to the woman or about the entire discussion. The Bible teaches the old, conventional way of thinking that women should not teach men because back then, men ruled over the wives and provided for them. Notice that when they count people, they count men by “strength” or by number and women as “women and children” without specifying any number at all.

    But today, we’re in the modern age. She shouldn’t have lost her job. Why did she lose it now? Why not earlier on? I think it’s cruel and callous. “Yeah, you’re a woman and you shouldn’t be teaching men, never mind that you’ve dedicated so many years of your life to this church teaching Sunday school.” If we lived according to the Bible, we would not allow women to compete with men in the work force, no women would be CEOs or mayors or governors or other occupations that only men held in the past. My guess is that the young pastor, felt intimidated by her because maybe she had more respect than him or some internal politics, so he used that passage as an excuse to get rid of her. Notice, he was not sad to see her go. He was probably smiling and laughing about it later.

    And Arabs are not that far off from Jewish actually, according to the Bible. Abraham had a concubine, Hagar who gave birth to Ishmael. After Sarah gave birth to Isaac, Hagar and her son were expelled to the desert to die, but they survived to become the Arab race.

  19. Aaron Says:

    This whole position assumes that the senior pastor is the “governing authority” in the church. The authority in the church always has been and always will be the “elders”. The Pastor has become the “Wizard of Oz”but this was never intended to be so. The way in which people interpret this passage always makes me laugh. SO if I understand this correctly, Eve was deceived so woman can never teach, Adam wasn’t deceived, He just outright chose to transgress, so this makes “Men” better qualified to “lead”.

    Also, If there is neither Jew nor Gentile, Male nor Female, etc, If we are no longer under “law” but under “grace”, if the “old testament” is now “obsolete”, can someone please tell me where “the church” comes up with all of these “laws” that they use to weigh people down and set themselves up as the authority and leaders?!

    As a Jewish Beleiver, I find the present thinking to be utterly ridiculous, and it shows the type of hypocrisy that is rampant in the church today.

    Let me give you an example….If I were to say that we should honor the Sabbath (sun down friday to sun down saturday) there would be a host of people telling me why that’s not true and that is “the law” and the “law is dead”.

    But these very same people will then begin to tell of all “the laws” they love to follow because it enables them to be “lord’s over women”.

    I think every christian should just take Hebrew and Greek courses and stop listening to lunatics that try to make the Will of God into a battle of the sexes.

  20. Linda Says:

    Here is my two cent for what it’s worth… I study scripture with other scripture because it all has to come together as a whole and in the right context etc…

    In John 3:29
    He who has the bride is the bridegroom; and
    Rev 19:7b
    for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.”
    Ephesians 5:23-24
    For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
    That’s pretty clear to me.

    We know that Christ is the bridegroom and the church is His bride. We “the church” must answer to Christ because He is the head of the church. The wife in the same way must answer to her husband.
    In God’s word there is an order to things and it is not necessarly one better than the other. In Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus and
    Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. As far as I can tell angels are male or sexless but it implys that they are all the same whatever they are. It is here on earth that this order of husband and wife takes place. The husband answers to God for the unit and the wife answers to the husband the kids answer to their parents. The husband must treat the wife with respect and the wife must treat the husband with respect. Both are accountable for their actions. If there is a disagreement in the marriage and it is in the guidelines of what scripture says the wife is to submit to her husband and he answers to God. If the issue is against God’s truth and would cause the wife to sin then she has permission to say NO! to her husband. In Genesis 12:13 Abram says to Sarai “Please say that you are my sister so that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may live on account of you.” Sarai should have told him NO you will cause me to sin just trust God. See the order?

    I believe a woman is over stepping that line of authority and out of order in putting herself out front in the senior position it blurres the line. I’ve heard missionaries (woman) speak at reachouts and woman Sunday school teachers teach which doesn’t seem to bother anyone, its not a senior position and everyone knows it. Usually all can speak up in a Sunday school class its of a lighter nature and open for discussion.

    Anyway that is my feeble attempt at this controversial subject.

  21. Shelah Says:

    I do see what you’re saying, thank you, Linda. I appreciate it. I wish I could embrace this teaching in such a way that every question didn’t cause me such confusion - but I fear for now my own struggles with pride/self-sufficiency prevent it. Maybe someday I’ll get it! =)

  22. veltis Says:

    lightcontrast–nothing against arabs in general, just Taliban policies in particular.

    The God I believe in would not expect me to hide and pretend not to have the talents He has seen fit to give me. Why would I have them otherwise? If I get promoted at work because I do my job well, am I supposed to refuse just because I might have male subordinates? How does it serve Him better if my family has less to live on?

  23. breatheinspirit Says:

    With all the harm that has been done to women throughout history due to the ridiculious notion that women should be submissive to men, it makes me sick to my stomach to know that there are still people arguing over nonsense such as this.

    Good day to you.

  24. Jimmy Stanfield Says:

    It’s amazing how shocked people are when the Word of God comes into conflict with contemporary worldly prejudices and illustrates how serious the need is for this discussion to be happening, and not just on here either. A lot of people want to follow Jesus, but only if Jesus goes along with what they believe is right or wrong. The Bible’s teaching is pretty clear and unambiguous and it’s funny that no one thought to question or deny it until after the feminist movement of the 1960’s.

  25. Natalie Rae Says:

    I am a bit buzzed for time, so I shall have to be quick. Firstly, I am very confused as to why you base your entire arguement on 1 Tim and do not refer to any other Pauline texts. Perhaps you are using your text as pre-text? Now, I can see how not utilising other texts would make understanding on such an issue easier - because Paul’s position on women is actually a far more complex issue than you have outlined. In relation to ministry, what of Phoebe and Thecla? Paul greets these women as equals. What of Paul’s rhetoric of freedom and love? And what of Paul’s attack on the law? For we are all one in Jesus Christ - Christ and God do not recognise such boundaries.

    You mention that Paul gave women a better condition in Greco-Roman society, which he most certainly did. What of carrying on in the spirit of Paul?

    Secondly, I am also incredibly confused with your reference to Paul as the author of 1 and 2 Tim. 1 Tim. is widely recognised to be a pseudo-Pauline text. It was written late 1st century, early 2nd in a reaction to cultural climate. I am wondering why you base your arguement on a text that is essentially a fake. Although, of course it is still a part of the canon - but it’s not Paul’s.

    I’m actually going to upload my interpretation of Gal 3: 28 later today. It will approach many of the problems that I see here. (and your welcome to point out problems that you see in my own writing)

  26. Natalie Rae Says:

    I forgot - I also think that your interpretation of Eve is problematic. I’ve written on this as well: Eve A Reinterpretation of Genesis 2-3

  27. David Wells -the lesser Says:

    Jim,
    Thank you for the respect in which you have handled this post. I see my response follows Natalie’s comments above in which I sense what seems to be a near ad hominem argument and a blasphemous rejection of the authority of scripture. I fear God’s judgment with her concerning her careless handling of scripture.
    In regards to your blog entry and teaching on the subject. I have yet to hear a thorough rebuttal from the opposing side. I have heard your stance referred to as an opinion. In doing so, those in disagreement are able to dismiss the argument based on the premise that it is okay to hold differing views. This sorrows me and I long for adequate wrestling with the text to assertain the truth. I uphold a quote attributed to St. Augustine then reaffirmed by Richard Baxter: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.”
    Your brother in Christ,
    David Wells, not the scholar

  28. jimhamilton Says:

    Bryan,

    I don’t think first century folk shared our modern notion of adolescence, so the answer to your question is probably that the age of 13 or so was seen as one’s entrance into adulthood. I have not researched this question, however, so I might be wrong on that point.

    I think that each woman who teaches males who are not men should wrestle with the text and seek the Lord on what the cutoff age for them should be. Some women will feel comfortable teaching college students, some high schoolers, some only middle schoolers.

    I do read female biblical scholars, and I don’t think Paul’s comments in 1 Tim 2:12 prohibit women pursuing writing ministries.

    I think an important question for us to ask as we consider the issues you raise is this: as a boy becomes a man, which in our culture seems to happen some time between ninth grade and the age of 30, would it be most helpful for him to be taught the Bible by a man or by a woman? It seems to me that as a boy becomes a man he needs to see that it’s okay for a man to love Jesus. He needs to see that the rednecks don’t have a monopoly on manliness. He needs to see men eager to walk with the Lord and stand on the truths of Scripture. He needs to see that Christianity is not a wimp’s religion.

    Becoming a man does not at all involve a repudiation of what we have learned from women. Becoming a man means that we begin to shepherd and protect women, that we care for them and love them and become their champions, desiring what is best for them.

    Hope this helps!

    Jim

    ————-
    Shelah,

    Thanks for your note.

    It seems to me that Paul grounds the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 in an appeal to the pre-fall created order. Some complementarians limit the statements that women should not teach or exercise authority over men to the home and the church. Other complementarians say that since the appeal is to creation, Christians should seek to embody the ideas here in all areas of life.

    The policy at the school where I teach (www.swbts.edu) is that women will not teach men in the school of theology (which means they won’t teach Bible and theology to men). Women can and do, however, teach men in non-Bible, non-theology classes.

    I think you should seek the Lord on how broadly the prohibition in 1 Tim 2:12 should be applied in your own life.

    I don’t think this prohibits women pursuing writing ministries, and I think a woman should take every opportunity to share the Gospel with a man. I don’t think this prohibits music. Paul allows women to pray and prophesy in church in 1 Cor 11–as long as they do so in a feminine way (this is what I understand to be the point of the head covering).

    I don’t think it would be appropriate for a woman to become the regular Bible teacher of a group that included men.

    I think women can share testimonies to groups that include men, and I think maybe a woman with expertise in world missions (or a similar subject) could speak on the topic to a group that included men.

    But I think a line is crossed when a woman becomes an established, regular teacher of mixed groups.

    I don’t think you were wrong to comment in the class you mention.

    I hope this helps, and I pray God’s best for you in Christ Jesus,

    Jim

    ———
    Natalie,

    I would encourage you to consider the arguments for Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy in William D. Mounce’s commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the Word Biblical Commentary Series.

    I think it highly unlikely that some Christian would falsely attribute a document he had written to Paul (this is called “lying,” and the Bible roundly condemns it). Even more unlikely is the possibility that such a “pseudonymous” writing would fool the whole church for 1800 years, only to be “discovered” by some scholars in Germany . . . .

    I would also encourage you to consider the treatments at http://www.cbmw.org. And, for a wholistic presentation of Paul’s theology that shows that what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12 fits with everything else he says, please see Thomas R. Schreiner’s book, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ.

    Blessings!

    JMH

  29. breatheinspirit Says:

    The Bible’s teaching were never called into question until after the feminist movement?

    You must be joking. Tell me you are joking.

    Blessings.

  30. Jimmy Stanfield Says:

    On this particular issue. There was no serious movement towards egalitarianism by those in the church until the world went egalitarian in the 60’s.

  31. lightcontrast Says:

    Aaron, that’s probably true in most cases that the elders are the ones in control. But from a news report, it implied or said that the pastor laid her off over a biblical passage. There was no mention of the elders, if they assented or dissented with his decision to tell her that she can’t teach there anymore. Fortunately, she was offered another position at another church.

    The old testament is not entirely “obsolete.” I think about it as law. In law, there have been many laws written in the past, but we don’t still abide by those laws. There have been some unusual and funny state and local laws. Times change and so have society’s morals and values and expectations about what the law should be like. On that line of reasoning, in church, leaders should change or make adjustments to what is expected of Christians. Like, it’s not a practice for stoning of harlots. Back then, that’s what they did to trashy women and women who committed adultery. The Puritans had public humiliation for that. Do you think churches should revert back to that old practice of stoning? I don’t think so.

    Veltis - I understand. I just felt like mentioning a fact that’s usually golossed over by Christians who believe the Bible.

  32. Steve Walker Says:

    Jim,
    Thank you for the dialogue and the challenge. For me, the honest dialogue through various blogs has been a great blessing, and I can always count on you for civility, charity, conviction, sound reasoning, solid exegesis…essentially everything that is needed for iron sharpening iron in a Christlike manner. I concur with Denny that we need to be talking about this. A long time ago I settled the issue of what authority would be the foundation of my life. It is honest, substantive discussions prompted by your original post that can help us wrestle with real world issues.

    Grace & peace to you

  33. veltis Says:

    @jimmy stanfield: “no one thought to question or deny it until after the feminist movement of the 1960’s.”

    This has been questioned all through history by quite a few people, or in fact not even interpreted the way you interpret it. Finnish women have been members of Parliament as early as 1911, long before the 60’s. The pagans had been driven out by the monks decades prior, I promise you–these were very faithful, churchgoing people who read the Bible daily and considered every action in the light of God’s word. Why did they not see a conflict here?

    I’d still like a clear example of how you, in an ideal world, see this interpretation working in a practical daily context on a grand scale in a way that does not injure half the population and turn them into second-class citizens. I think the Taliban example is fitting in that it shows exactly what would happen if your interpretation was implemented to its full extent. Is that what you’re ultimately going for?

  34. veltis Says:

    I think what is most modern here is this odd new American version of Christianity.

  35. csimom86 Says:

    You’re wrong. All the verses you listed aren’t referring to just at home. Women may teach at home, but they have no place in the pulpit. Why do you think there are no female apostles if Jesus thought it was alright for women to teach? Would you honestly say Jesus wassexist? Because that’s the only other way you can explain that. You can’t interpret the bible. Period. You either understand it or you don’t. God left no room for interpretation. It’s so easy to understand, why would you need to think about it? Unless you were looking for a way to get what you want. You know that a teacher that leads the flock away will burn in a hotter place in Hell? If I were you I’d watch what I posted.

  36. Natalie Rae Says:

    Hi David! I actually didn’t know what ‘ad hominen’ meant so I had to look it up. Here is the wikipedia definition:

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument against the person”) involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

    A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

    A makes claim X.
    There is something objectionable about A.
    Therefore claim X is false.
    A classic example derives from the Deutsche Physik movement, which argued as follows:

    Einstein claims relativity is correct.
    Einstein is Jewish.
    Hence relativity is false.

    I don’t think pointing to other Pauline writings is fallacious. I was questioning why Jim hasn’t included these in his arguement that women can’t teach. In actuality, these texts are widely considered crucial to the current arguement, from both sides!

    Perhaps you were referring to my questions on the matter of 1Tim being pseudo-Pauline. I reiterate - I am confused as to why one would refer to such a text as Pauline. This does not mean that Jim’s arguement is pointless, but it does mean that it is futile if one is making such an arguement on the basis that it is Pauline. One cannot argue that A= 2xB if A is in actual fact B.

    My is with the construction of an entire arguement on the basis that it is Pauline, when it does not in fact deal with Pauline thought on the matter: this would apply even if one was arguing for the ability of women to teach and only rely on Rom 16. An arguement is not made on one text within Bible or Pauline studies.

    Hamilton states that one cannot qualify such a statement without drawing “foreign data into the study” thus distorting what Paul meant. But the thing is, 1 Tim was not written by Paul - it was written in reaction to a) contemporaneous problems in the post-Pauline church and b) in reaction to Paul’s own teachings that stated otherwise. 1 Tim is in actual fact drawing ‘foreign’ data into the Pauline discussion to clarify what the author wanted.

  37. jimhamilton Says:

    Veltis,

    I’m not sure what you believe, but the aims of Christians are not like the aims of Muslim groups such as the Taliban.

    Muslim groups like the Taliban send terrorists to kill unsuspecting people. The Quran does say that if infidels will not convert, they should be killed.

    There is nothing parallel to this in the Bible. The Bible says that God will judge. We seek to persuade people to believe, and we warn them that God will judge them if they reject Jesus, but the Bible does not call Christians to kill people. (In the Old Testament, Israel went to war as a nation, but Christianity is not a nation. The instructions for warfare in the OT were for the nation of Israel to follow. No Christian should think that those instructions are for the church. Christianity is international. We conquer through preaching the truth about Jesus, loving people, and, if necessary, martyrdom.

    Christians send missionaries to tell Muslims about the love of God and the forgiveness he offers through the death and resurrection of Jesus. These missionaries don’t intend to kill anyone, and they’re ready to be killed for having the audacity to tell people that God loves and will forgive them if they will trust Jesus.

    Christianity does not put women, or anyone else, down. It is not an oppressive religion. Christianity does proclaim that God is God, and humans who want to be god might be offended by this and think that they are being “oppressed.” The reality, however, is simply that Christianity puts all people and things in their proper place. God is God, we are not.

    Christianity denounces all abuse of women.

    Christianity also contends that God created men and women, so he has the right to tell men and women what they can and cannot do. If God says women should not do something because they are women, it is our responsibility as Christians to obey God. By not allowing women to do what God has said that women should not do, we are not oppressing women, we are simply treating them as women. We are obeying God.

    If a woman is not a Christian, I am not going to talk to her about what the Bible says about women. I am going to tell her that Jesus died for her sins and that if she will believe that Jesus is Lord and that God raised her from the dead, God will forgive her and she can be saved from the wrath of God. If she becomes a Christian, she’ll gladly submit to the Bible for herself (if she’s truly a believer).

    For the kind of example that you ask for, I would encourage you to look at this review of a recent book called Soft Patriarchy. Or, you might go to a conservative church in your city that believes the Bible and look around. I hope you’ll find there at least a few couples that live this out. If the Bible has been taught, you’ll find them. If the Bible has not been taught, you might not. . .

    Hope this helps!

    JMH

  38. Jimmy Stanfield Says:

    Veltis. I clearly meant and said that there was no movement within the church towards worldy egalitarianism until the 60’s. Women in the Finnish parlaiment? Hahaha1 Come on girl, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I’ll tell you what-if I’m not correct then name me ten female pastors in the history of Christianity. Come on, just ten in the last two millenia! You can’t obviously and that proves my point. Apparently God didn’t call any women to go into go into the ministry until the women’s liberation movement and now all of a sudden, following the world’s lead-he’s changed his mind.

  39. Marv Says:

    I think veltis missed the point of the bit of humor regarding driving. Comments about the Taliban are absurd, I am afraid. At any rate, as Jesus’ disciples we can either believe His word in the Scriptures or decide that we know better. Certainly there may be complementarians who have preexisting attitudes about women. However, there is no need to impose one’s views on the Bible to see that it teaches the complementarian perspective. On the other hand I do not think one can come to an egalitarian point of view WITHOUT having an overriding pre-commitment that colors the interpretation of Biblical passages. It is true there are many passages that enter into the mix. Paul wrote of “neither male nor female” with a specific application in mind, and in the context it had nothing to do with functional roles. However, might we not infer these from Paul’s words? Well, where do we look for Paul’s own (and the Holy Spirit’s own understanding of the implication of these words? Elsewhere in the Scriptures, of course. And it is clear from every other relavant passage that the egalitarian take on “neither male nor female” is foreign to Paul and to the Bible. Please, don’t confuse what the Bible DOES say with oppressive regimes like the Taliban (please eschew the absurd histrionics!). It is not domination by males, it is not ancient versus modern, it is not past versus present educational levels. I’m sorry but this is all drivel. The text is really extaordinarily clear. I suggest taking it or leaving it without the Chubby Checker exegesis (doing the twist).

  40. Cy Says:

    Unless you guys speak fluent Greek of 2,000 years ago and have the original text, you are just reading teacups. If you DO qualify as aforementioned, you are STILL missing all the points.

    Rather than pretend that some dead dude knew the whole deal, SCIENCE questions EVERYTHING and does it each generation, continually (except in the case of a few certain, fully-established principles such as the movement and nature of moons, planets, stars and galaxies).

    Make up your OWN minds from what you observe NOW about the best role of men and ladies working together in human society. You dare not! Having bought into the idea of punishment if you get the deal wrong, you bow and scrape and grovel and suck-up to the imaginary guy in the sky via his self-styled and/or reputed intermediaries and only dead dude deals are worthy of consideration to you BECAUSE THEY ARE UNAVAILABLE FOR COMMENT.

    If by a zillion to one chance, afterlife is a natural phenomenon and the dudes of dogma are floating around on the cosmic energy filed, you may be sure that they are thoroughly ashamed of themselves for having taught such tripe, and detest heartily the newly-dead dudes who grovel up asking for guidance. “Thin out you creeps. Go and ask your Mum or your Granny.” is the jist of their likely response.

    cyquick.wordpress.com

  41. Cy Says:

    PS. Moderator: please replace ‘filed’ with ‘field’. Of course, you may have already decided to delete my comment. Sure thing. Cy

  42. Cy Says:

    PS. Blogger: please replace ‘filed’ with ‘field’ and then delete this PS. Of course, you may have already decided to delete my entire comment. Sure thing. Cy

  43. jimhamilton Says:

    Cy,

    I pray that God will give you eyes to see the beauty of Jesus, and that you will understand that God is going to judge you.

    I pray that you would flee to Jesus for mercy. You can be forgiven of your sins if you will trust him.

    May the Lord bless you with faith in Jesus,

    Jim

  44. Stephen Says:

    Nicely handled, Mr. Hamilton

  45. alleey Says:

    well by faith i am a muslim but have a stong interest in christianity…………i have some christian friends i put the same question in front of them.there reply was like a boy not like a religious person many of them said yes there should be but then i asked some women they said they don’t want this.i asked them the reasons but they were reluctant to give any arguments for this. i don’t know the reasons but this was my survey……..well i think there should be because sometimes you felll it esay with a female then a male…………

  46. May women teach men at church? « ElKid Says:

    [...] http://jimhamilton.wordpress.com/2006/09/02/may-women-teach-men-at-church/ [...]

  47. Women « Much a’do Says:

    [...] I just read this dude’s blog about women’s roles in the church. I am not quite sure what to think of it. The comments are also interesting. Some people completely agree with him, while some sort of agree with him, and then others claim that his beliefs are in line with the Taliban’s. He is basing his blog on 1 Timothy 2. I will admit that some of what he said bothered me, and I don’t know if that is because he is right and it convicted me, or he is wrong and it just bothered me. To be honest, what bothered me the most was what he said about “women being saved through childbearing.”(Here is the link to the article, it is the 6th paragraph.) It seems to me that he is saying that only through childbearing can a women show genuine faith and be saved. This brings to mind about where many people in the bible said that it is better not to marry, that young men should not marry, and virgins should remain virgins. How can a woman have genuine faith if it is better not to marry but that she can only have genuine faith through childbearing? I think that I am going to post this question to the author (later, after I am able to have my bible right in front of me, and I can word this better). I don’t know, his whole article kind of has me up in arms, which I know I shouldn’t be. Someone else made a point in one of the comments about where “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female” and this person asked a few good questions, which the author either overlooked (there are a lot of comments on this article, this is possible) or he chose not to answer. I have heard so many different opinions on this, and I know that I should just read the bible and pray and I should get the answers, but I can’t help but think that that is what all of these people (including the author) did, and they all have differing opinions that they think are right. More thoughts to come later… Posted in Spiritual | [...]

  48. Bryan L Says:

    Marv,
    You wrote, “Paul wrote of “neither male nor female” with a specific application in mind, and in the context it had nothing to do with functional roles.”
    I see this view brought up often when egalitarians bring up this passage. Usually it’s dismissed as invalid because it’s speaking about soteriological matter (eschatological salvation I guess). But knowing that Paul’s theology was always theology that worked itself out in the real world and in the present life of the believers then what does this passage look like worked out in real life? How could this passage be dealing strictly with just salvation if women, Greeks and slaves were able to receive God’s salvation before Christ? What did it mean in the churches life for there to be neither slave nor free, male or female, Jew or Greek? Do you think they were still advocating the current distinctions in the church? Do you think Greeks or Slaves weren’t allowed to do certain things because they were still Greeks and Slaves?
    This passage isn’t at all irrelevant to this discussion but carries much weight, especially since it seems to be one of the earliest witnesses of Christianity and definitely earlier than 1 Tim. It seems like Complementarians too quickly dismiss this passage as not important to the discussion when it fact it may be even more important than the Timothy passage (especially considering how much of a situation specific letter 1 Tim is; which may explain best why Paul doesn’t want a woman teaching a man).
    Just some thoughts.
    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  49. lightcontrast Says:

    I feel that men AND women should be able to worship and serve God equally. Serving God, to me, means not only going to church and praying and praising his Name, it also means teaching others-telling others of how great God is. A woman should be able to serve God that way too. God doesn’t forbid people from serving Him in any way that glorifies him. By not allowing that women to teach, that is like telling her she can’t serve him in that way. Since when is there only a certain, acceptable way for women to serve God? Are we to revert to the Puritanical or Pilgrim way? Or should we live like the Amish, all secluded from the rest of society and the rest of the world, for the most part.

  50. jimhamilton Says:

    Many confessions of faith say that the Bible is “the only rule of faith and practice.” That’s all I’m arguing for,

    JMH

  51. David Wells - the lesser Says:

    Natalie,
    Jim suggested:
    I would encourage you to consider the arguments for Pauline authorship of 1 Timothy in William D. Mounce’s commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the Word Biblical Commentary Series.

    I think it highly unlikely that some Christian would falsely attribute a document he had written to Paul (this is called “lying,” and the Bible roundly condemns it). Even more unlikely is the possibility that such a “pseudonymous” writing would fool the whole church for 1800 years, only to be “discovered” by some scholars in Germany . . . .

    I would also encourage you to consider the treatments at http://www.cbmw.org. And, for a wholistic presentation of Paul’s theology that shows that what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12 fits with everything else he says, please see Thomas R. Schreiner’s book, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ.
    ——
    I readily admit your initial comments are not a direct ad hominem argument, but in your recent research on the topic of logical fallicies, you must have seen some similarities that cause me to consider it so. I found some research that may have been along the lines of what you are viewing at http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Ad_hominem.

    In chapter one of John’s Gospel, we see that Jesus is the Word who came to dwell among us. It is Jesus who writes via Paul in I Timothy. You raise a larger question to be debated that must be answered before engaging in the current topic of Dr. Hamilton’s blog entry. This larger debate being the canonicity of scripture, whether we believe God as the author of the Bible. Christians accept God’s Word as being divinely inspired. Ironically, we often refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 as one text supporting this. At the risk of offering a circular argument here is my case, Paul in I Timothy is speaking the Word of God, the Logos, which the Bible in John 1:1 says is Jesus. If I argue against His Word because I don’t believe in His diety, then perhaps I am engaging in an ad hominem argument - arguing against the source of the message instead of what the message really means. This is why Christianity requires faith.
    David Wells

  52. Natalie Rae Says:

    Although I don’t agree with it, I’ll have a look at this book if we have it at the library. Aside from the authenticity and authority of 1 Tim: my initial post asked why only reference to Tim. Any convincing arguement on the basis of Paul’s authority would have to deal with MORE THAN ONE Pauline writing, which I have repeatedly pointed out and asked WHY NOT?

    Also, Mr Hamilton’s article doesn’t seem to consider the context of Paul’s arguements. I don’t agree with turning Paul into a contemporary feminist at all, as I have clearly outlined . However, if we are to justice to Paul, and understand where he is coming from, surely an understanding of the social circumstances he was referring to is needed. The thing is, Paul is not just presenting theological arguements in his writings, - he is often responding to problems in his churches as well. If 1 Tim. is such a response it would ridiculous to apply such notions to our situation: we are not in New Testament times, and are not under Roman rule. Just as we should not bring Paul into out social understanding and transform him into a feminist, it doesn’t seem right to bring him into out times and transform ourselves into a scarred, huddled group trying to maintain some formality and adhere to Roman laws. (Remembering that there were Roman laws contemporaneously that prohibited women speaking in public)

    Also, what about re-interpretation of ‘the law’, which is something another commentor to this blog has brought up. Paul himself radically reinterpreted the law - he insisted that one must follow the law internally - not externally. To throw out (using the same example) such practices as stoning, and yet retain other socially grounded practices, such as the subordination of women, seems a little bit of a contradictory method.

    Yet - I have outlined these previously, and it has seemingly been ignored. Am I to consider that these other texts are not important? Are they not the word of g-d? Although I obviously disagree with the interpretive outcome, I would actually be very interested to see how one would come to this outcome whilst dealing with other Pauline texts.

  53. veltis Says:

    @Marv: It simply seems to me that you are doing exactly that: imposing your own personal views on the Bible, and acting as God’s sole representatives on Earth, which strikes me as a tad arrogant and somewhat blasphemous to boot. My brother is a priest, and also finds your interpretations convoluted. He’s pretty average as far as priests go around here. If there are such extreme disagreements concerning the interpretation of specific lines in Scripture among educated Christians, it strikes me that casually referring to Scripture as an obvious set of exact rules is foolish at best and incredibly damaging at worst. My comparisons to the Taliban concern only their tendency to take a Holy Book shared by others of their faith and decree themselves sole interpretors and executors of it, to disastrous effect. Their belief that God created woman as a kind of class II human also has echoes here.

  54. lightcontrast Says:

    Two interesting concepts to consider are laws and seclusion. Back in maybe the ’50s I think, all shops were closed on Sunday. Today, most shops and stores are still open on Sunday. And you’ll find many places open 24 hours. Back then, closing time was in the evening, around dinnertime. What do you make of that?

    Some laws are guidelines while other laws endure. The one that comes to mind is, “thou shalt not kill.” That will always be a law to leave the same. That law did originate from the Bible. It’s a taboo, because it’s morally and basically wrong. But even with that, there is some flexibility. There are different degrees of guilt, first degree, second, etc and there’s mens rea-guity state of mind, what were the circumstances behind the killing, etc. In the judicial branch, judges when they preside over a case, judge on the merits of the case and also on the verdicts of past cases-precedents, and they can choose to interpret the case by what they think the verdicts signify or by how they interpret laws or amendments to mean. Laws are written in an ambiguous manner, as is the Bible. I don’t believe there is a single interpretation of the Bible, or a single meaning for a specific passage in the Bible either. It all depends on the person’s background, their upbringing, what they were taught to believe and what they think it means. What I’m saying is, the Bible is open to interpretation and should not always be applied to be one thing. Divorce wasn’t accepted for centuries. I think it was maybe in the 1920s when divorce became more accepted by the public.

    Seclusion in the world has failed in the case of Brook Farm. If you keep letting people move in and out of that utopia, ideas are bound to come in. And ideas have changed our world. When you change the world, beliefs about everything changes. If you want to live strictly by the Bible, then everyone who owns a big house, many cars, a pool or some other luxury, should give it up. If we lived in the old mindset, there wouldn’t be inventions like computers, cellphones, or stereos. Doesn’t the Bible teach us to be content with what we have- a place to live, family, and things to eat? Think about it.

  55. lightcontrast Says:

    Jim, who is the author of Soft Patriarchy?

  56. Linking Up (9/6)-- Stepping in Faith Says:

    [...] Women’s Roles. “Jim Hamilton takes up the issue of whether women can teach men as long as the senior pastor has authorized it and her husband has approved it.” (HT: Between Two Worlds) [...]

  57. Cy Says:

    REPLY FROM CY

    Thanks for your well-meant, kind thoughts. But I went through it all as child, until I put away childish things. Yehoshua was a fine guru with the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables. I group him with Gautama and Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi. But he was hi-jacked by Meschiach-ist wildmen, equally as foolish as zealots in their way.

    If this cosmos is insane, as you theists effectively state, and the Judgement Day arrives, I will be the guy amongst the goats slagging off the guy in the nightie for his pathetic performance with the thorns, thistles and roast lamb …but it aint gonna happen Jim bud. A dude who can make the atom does not piss about with sacrifice and timetables.

    I am profoundly sorry for you in your ludicrous delusion. But I am even more sorry for the people who have the ability to think staright and ask questions and who get tortured by fundamentalist, extremist loonies (like you seem to be) as soon as they get power.

    If afterlife there would be (and there aint gonna be) it would be natural, just like everything else in the cosmos. So if deity there would be (and there aint gonna be) it would institute such a protocol rather than fiddle around with minutea, and there would be no reason for theists to object to it.

    You could tidy up your comments by fixing my typo above and deleting the second and third comments of mine as requested. Too busy, I guess; but not too busy to have at least responded. For that, due credit.

    cyquick.wordpress.com

  58. jimhamilton Says:

    Natalie,

    Thanks for your note. I attempt to deal with other texts in Paul and interpret them all in context in my essay, “What Women Can Do in Ministry: Full Participation within Biblical Boundaries.” (http://www.swbts.edu/faculty/jhamilton/documents/4-12-05.pdf)

    I have linked to this essay elsewhere on my blog, but it’s hard to get all that info into a post–I doubt people would read it all!

    I hope you will read my attempt to do exactly what you have called for.

    Every blessing in Christ Jesus,

    JMH

  59. jimhamilton Says:

    Natalie,

    Under the tab “articles and essays” on my blog, you will find an article posted called “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15.” In the introduction of that essay I briefly lay out my understanding of how the NT authors interpret the OT.

    This is a massive issue that many books have been devoted to exploring. It’s awfully hard to compress these big things into blogs and responses to comments, so I’ll refer you to that essay.

    Hope this helps!

    JMH

  60. jimhamilton Says:

    Natalie,

    Maybe you’ve already seen it, but in my latest post I link to a document that explores how Paul, I think, understood Genesis 1-3.

    Blessings!

    JMH

  61. jimhamilton Says:

    The authors of Soft Patriarchy are W. Bradford Wilcox and Brad Wilcox, and here’s the amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Soft-Patriarchs-New-Men-Christianity/dp/0226897095/sr=8-1/qid=1157643618/ref=sr_1_1/102-1735015-1171368?ie=UTF8&s=books,

    JMH

  62. jimhamilton Says:

    Bryan L,

    Please observe that in Gal 3:16 Paul says that the promise was to Abraham and his seed, and then Paul emphasizes that the seed is singular. Then in Gal 3:26-28, Paul says that through faith all Christians are one in Messiah Jesus, and since they are united to Christ by faith, they are heirs of the promise to the singular seed of Abraham. This has to inform our understanding of “neither male nor female” etc. Paul is not abolishing ethnic identity (he will later write in Romans that the “natural branches”–Jews–will be saved when the Redeemer comes from Zion (Rom 11:25-27). Nor is Paul abolishing gender roles, as seen in his later utterances on this topic in 1 Cor 11, 14, Eph 5, Col 3, and 1 Tim 2.

    Hope this helps!

    JMH

  63. Bryan L Says:

    Jim,
    But what does it mean then for there to be no more of those distinctions in the church?
    Is this just limited to slavation or does it extend to other areas of life too?Why would he mention male and female? Why would he mention slave or free? The topic was about Jews and Gentiles why the need for the extra pair. Why even pair the things he did in the first place?
    Do you think this would have meant much to the Galaitians if nothing changed because of Christ except that they could all be saved (although I’m not sure that wasn’t possible in Judaism before Christ) Do you think slaves would have cared much about this? Do you think women would have cared much about this?
    Why does he say male and female not man and woman (which could have meant husband and wife).
    In an empire that tmade distinctions between these things so that women and slaves had less (or no) rights than free men what did this mean for these people when they became one in Christ and worshipped together in the church?
    What does it mean to be heirs to the promise of this singular seed and why should they care?
    Blessings,
    Bryan

  64. jimhamilton Says:

    Bryan,

    I suggest you pose all these questions of Paul himself, and then look for his answer as you read and re-read the whole epistle of Galatians over and over again with these questions in mind.

    I think that Paul is affirming human equality in the image of God, but I don’t think he’s suggesting that this nullifies the roles that humans find themselves given.

    So, for instance, elsewhere he tells slaves that they should obey their masters. But here he says there is neither slave nor free. I think this means that before God slaves are just as human and just as justified through union with Christ by faith as the free people are. But I don’t think Paul would say to these slaves in Galatia that they shouldn’t continue in the state in which they were called. He says in 1 Cor 7:21 that they should take their freedom if they can get it, but if they can’t get their freedom they’re to obey their masters.

    I think the same goes for one’s race, except that race is not something we can shed if we have the opportunity. Jews and Gentiles are justified and stand on equal footing through union with Christ, but this doesn’t mean that their race is irrelevant. God is going to be glorified by racial diversity when all nations gather around the throne.

    Similarly, women and men stand on equal footing through union with Christ by faith, but this doesn’t mean that they are now free to cast off the God-given gender they have been given. Nor does it mean that they can cast off the roles that God has assigned to the genders. God means to be glorified by gender diversity, and by humans who gladly accept the gender roles he assigned to them.

    Hope this helps!

    JMH

  65. Bryan L Says:

    So you’re saying that Paul was just comforting these people and basically saying that even though society places these distinction on you (including the church) God still loves you and thinks you’re swell?
    You said, “But I don’t think Paul would say to these slaves in Galatia that they shouldn’t continue in the state in which they were called.” I don’t think they had the choice unless they were looking to be killed and Paul was trying to get Christianity to be branded the wrong kind of rebel movement. Even if he didn’t expect the roles to change in society do you think he expected the slave master relationship to be different in the church and if so how? The same question with the other things. Do you think Paul expected the Jews and us to continue having the same relationship and distance that we had before Christ, because after all we can’t throw off our ethnicity?
    As far as I can tell, in your view, when Paul said there is no longer these distinctions, it didn’t really make a difference in the church to these people but was just comfort to them to let them know one day things would be different.
    I agree with Fee when he emphasizes the need for the people of God to start living and modeling the resurrection life now in the assembly of believers as much as we can so that we can show the world a different and better way.
    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  66. jimhamilton Says:

    I’m glad that you find Fee convincing.

    May you have peace and rest in your soul,

    JMH

  67. Bryan L Says:

    um… ok. I guees I’m glad you find Schreiner convincing.
    Thanks for the conversation.
    Blessing,
    Bryan

  68. jimhamilton Says:

    Bryan,

    As I think on your comments, you seem to be suggesting that Paul is saying something more “relevant”, something that would make more of a difference in people’s lives, than the mere declaration that before God they are counted righteous through union with Christ by faith. You seem to suggest that perhaps if they were no longer encumbered by the roles assigned to humans in this world, that would be more significant than the fact that by faith in Christ they are heirs of the promise to Abraham and thereby inheritors of the age to come.

    May I commend to you the four volume series by David Wells: No Place for Truth, God in the Wasteland, Losing our Virtue, and Above All Earthly Pow’rs?

    One of the big points Wells makes in these books is that God rests lightly on the American evangelical church. In this situation, the big truths of the faith, like justification, have no cash value. They are deemed irrelevant, when nothing could be more relevant.

    Yes, Paul was comforting those Galatians. Just as John was comforting the 7 churches, and thereby the whole church, in the Apocalypse, Revelation.

    May the holiness and majesty of God be so real to us that we find nothing more relevant, nothing that matters more, nothing that makes more of a difference than the declaration that by faith in Christ we are united to him, possessing his righteousness because he took our sin, justified before God such that though we possess nothing we have all things, though we are beaten down we are not destroyed, though we suffer affliction we are always rejoicing.

    What shall we say in response to these things. . .

    JMH

  69. Bryan L Says:

    Jim,
    I’m sorry if I gave the impression that the Galatians being “counted righteous through union with Christ by faith” wasn’t that important and they needed something more relevant. I believe it is. My point was more that being “counted righteous through union with Christ by faith” held implications and relevance for their present life, especially in the assembly of believers, beyond (but definitely including) comfort for the future.
    My main point over and over is what did something like this mean for the believers when they came together. If the church was to hopefully model resurrection life (as much as possible), then how did they do that and how does this passage guide us?
    If you have a chance please answer some of the questions that I asked in my last lengthy post. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on some of them.
    BTW what is it about Well’s books that would be relevant to this conversation so that I should read them? Before I go out and buy 4 books (unless you want to send them to me) I’d like to know a little about the content and why I should read them.
    Also I keep mentioning Fee (as you’ve noticed). Have you ever read anything from him besides his articles in DBE? If not I suggest you check out his book Paul the Spirit and the People of God, or his larger book on the same topic God’s Empowering Presence.
    Thanks again Jim.
    Blessing,
    Bryan L

  70. Denise Says:

    Cy,
    My heart breaks for you…

    I often respond in this manner to those who don’t believe…

    Jesus Christ has given me peace on earth unlike any other. I fully expect to one day spend the rest of eternity with Him in heaven. If I’m wrong about heaven, and we truly are just cosmic beings in the universe, as you suggest…oh well! I guess I’ve been duped If you’re wrong, and the Word of God is true, not only will you have missed out on the peace of Jesus here, you will burn forever, eternal torture, in hell.

    It only takes the faith of a mustard seed!

    May God bless you!

  71. pat Says:

    Here’s my 2 cents:
    This looks alot like the Pharisees debating over the laws and what scripture says and they miss the whole point. I think Jesus would be (and will be) outraged at the way some believers THINK that somehow women lack spiritual maturity, wisdom and intelligence to serve the Lord in roles of teaching and leadership. Can you imagine a woman being accused and thrown at the feet of Jesus for teaching others about God’s love and salvation through Jesus. I can not see Jesus condemning her for this “sin.” I can however, see judgement on those who prevented women from serving as they were called to do. God is all powerful and capable of any miracle….but never making a woman fit to be a pastor, teacher of adult men or elder. Hmmmm. Kind of limits God’s power.

  72. Keith Quan Says:

    Bryan,
    Dr. Hamilton’s PhD dissertation was on the Holy Spirit and much of his published work is on the Spirit as well including several articles and a book. He is probably quite familiar with Fee’s work on the Spirit.

    Dr. Hamilton,
    I greatly appreciate your patience and the graciousness with which you answer questions. Some of the comments of people to your post have been very harsh and you have dealt with them well. All too often I come across examples where intellect and graciousness are inversely related. Thanks for being a good example.

    I have also greatly appreciated your articles on the Holy Spirit and your recent article in Southern’s journal. I look forward to reading your book sometime.

  73. jimhamilton Says:

    Keith,

    Hearty thanks for your kind words!

    Jim

  74. Bryan L Says:

    Keith,
    As it is I don’t have a copy of his dissertation (but I’d like one if you don’t mind sending it to me) so I don’t know what he’s read, that’s why I was asking him the question, which he never responded to (and I’m still wondering. If you have read them, did you like them?).
    We have to be careful that we don’t hear every comment that people make that disagrees with Hamilton as hostile and angry and every comment that Hamilton responds with as peaceful and sweet (and vice versa depending on what side of this issue you fall on). We don’t know the attitudes and tones of people when they write on these things and things can easily be misunderstood.
    I agree that Jim has handled these issues with patience and graciousness and has been very kind even to those who weren’t that kind to him and I enjoyed the conversation while it lasted.
    Blessing,
    Bryan L

  75. Jeff Wright’s Blog » Blog Archive » Wondering About Women Teaching Men Says:

    [...] Dr. Jim Hamilton has written on the issue recently (HT: Justin Taylor) quite forcefully and, considering the degree to which I seem to discuss this, I thought I had better read. Dr. Hamilton is an exegete and thus I respect his attempt to address this Biblically and culturally relevant question. I’m not sure I find it convincing but it’s a good place to start the dialog. I do have a few questions that I’m hoping someone from a similar position might take the time to answer. [...]

  76. Christianj Says:

    Women are only interested in futhering their importance under the feminist male-hating guise that women are realy the surpreme sex and anyone else is really just third rate as far as they are concerned.

    Most churches have already sold their soul to the devil by allowi