Equal Yet So Very Different, by Mary Farrar

This is a great essay in the most recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Q & A on Paul and Jesus, Women and the Law

From comments I have received I present these brief responses in question and answer format. For a fuller presentation of my position, see my essay, “What Women Can Do in Ministry: Full Participation within Biblical Boundaries.” For answers to other questions, see Schreiner and Köstenberger’s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Women in the Church and Grudem’s Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.

1. You say that you don’t think women should teach or exercise authority over men because of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, but which part of that passage is normative? Do we forbid the wearing of expensive clothing?

If a woman were to obey 1 Timothy 2:9 and wear inexpensive clothing, but fail to obey 1 Timothy 2:10 and not adorn herself with good works, would she be doing what Paul wants? Here’s my point: when Paul says that women should be adorned with good works not expensive clothing, he is not saying “no expensive clothing for any women under any circumstances.” Rather, he is saying, “women should be marked by their deeds not their apparel. Women should be known for what they do not what they wear.” A woman who scrupulously avoids any expensive apparel but is not adorned with good deeds would only be obeying this command in a Pharisaic sense.

Is it possible for some things that are relatively expensive to actually help women adorn themselves with good works? I am not justifying worldliness, but to some degree we have to be contextualized. Missionaries to Japan are funded such that they can live in a society where the cost of living is higher than other places.

The point is not “never wear anything expensive under any circumstances” but “be known for what you do not what you wear.” When we compare 1 Timothy 2:9–10 with 1 Peter 3:3–4, we see that Peter makes the same point. In 1 Peter 3:3 Peter says “do not let your adornment be external . . . the putting on of clothing.” Obviously Peter is not advocating nudism. He is saying the same thing Paul is saying: be known for what you do not what you wear.

This is an important word for our culture, and it is indeed normative. If the women in our churches are known more for what they wear than for their good deeds, we have a problem that must be addressed through the formative and, if necessary, corrective discipline of the church.

2. Jesus overrides Sabbath regulations. The Sabbath was a “created ordinance,” and his answer to those who question what his disciples did on the Sabbath (appealing to David eating the showbread), indicates a hermeneutic that trumps arguments from the created order. Don’t you think Jesus would allow women to teach men and exercise authority over them?

Jesus argues that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and he says that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. So it seems that Jesus’s point is that the Law is for life rather than life being for law. The authors of the Gospels do not appear to be laying out a hermeneutic that trumps arguments from the created order.

Paul leaves Sabbath-keeping up to the conscience of the individual Christian (Rom 14:5) and says that Christians are not to allow people to pass judgment on them with respect to the Sabbath, which is a shadow whose substance is Christ (Col 2:16–17). So it looks to me like Jesus and Paul are in agreement about the Sabbath.

I don’t see an analogy between the creation of gender and the Sabbath. Jesus teaches women, but he nowhere indicates that women should teach men or exercise authority over them. So I don’t think what we see in the New Testament should lead us to set Jesus against Paul on this issue. Paul does not enjoin Sabbath keeping on Christians.

Some people base their view that women can teach men or exercise authority over them on the basis of what they think Jesus “would have done.” But the Holy Spirit continues the ministry of Jesus, and the Spirit inspired the authors of the NT to say exactly what Jesus wanted them to say. So because I believe in inspiration, I do not believe that Jesus would disagree with what Paul wrote.

3. Is Paul the only NT author who says this kind of thing about women not teaching men or exercising authority over them?

The relevant Pauline texts include: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16; 1 Corinthians 14:34–35; Colossians 3:18–19; Ephesians 5:21–33; 1 Timothy 2:9–15; 1 Timothy 3:1–13; and Titus 2:1–6.

Other texts include Genesis 1–3 and 1 Peter 3:1–7.

With these, I would argue that the whole Bible is written from the perspective that God made gender, that he assigned roles that match gender, and that these are good gifts God has given to us.

4. What about Galatians 3:28?

Galatians 3:28 is not saying that gender and race are now obliterated; it is saying that people from both genders and all races can be united to Jesus Christ by faith. Paul wrote 1 Timothy well after he wrote Galatians, and there is no indication that his mind changed on the subject of the roles given to males and females.

5. Isn’t 1 Timothy 2:12 culturally constrained?

Paul appeals to the pre-fall, edenic state of affairs to buttress his prohibition of women teaching or exercising authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:13–15. This appeal to the created order makes his statement in 1 Timothy 2:12 trans-cultural.

6. But come on, nobody believes women are saved through child-bearing.

On the contrary, many of us do believe this—noting, of course, that Paul adds “if they continue in faith” just after the statement about child-bearing in 1 Timothy 2:15. So Paul is not making child-bearing a meritorious, salvific work. I agree with many others on the point that Paul has picked out the most feminine thing a woman can do—something men simply cannot do—and he puts this forward as an example of what women who embrace their femininity do. So I would take Paul to mean that women are saved by faith, and one form of evidence that women are truly believers is that they are glad God made them women and embrace the roles God gave to women. A woman can do this and be single and never bear a child, and she will be saved.

7. So does this only apply in the church?

Complementarians (people who believe that the roles given to men and women are complementary) differ on this issue. Some think that since Paul appeals to the created order on the point that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men, it should apply everywhere. Others think that since Paul is writing to Timothy about what Christians do when they gather for worship, that’s the context these statements should be applied to. All complementarians agree that what is said in these texts applies in the home and in the church. In my view this is something that women have to wrestle with before God. A women may be able to embrace her gender and be the president of her company or teach English Lit. to college students in explicitly feminine ways. One other point, Jesus did not commission us to moralize unbelievers but to make disciples of them. If unbelievers believe the Gospel, these things will take care of themselves.

8. So what about seminaries and Bible colleges?

Complementarians agree that the teaching of 1 Timothy 2:12 means that women can’t be pastors, in part because the two things 1 Timothy 2:12 says women are not to do are the two things pastors/elders are described as doing in 1 Timothy 5:17.

Seminaries and Bible colleges exist to train pastors. If a place is training pastors, and if only men can be pastors/elders, I agree with many others in thinking that it’s not best to have women teach men how to be male pastors/elders.

9. What about reading books and articles written by women?

The most recent issue of JBMW is subtitled “by women for women,” and Pete Schemm addresses this issue admirably in his editorial. He suggests that since writing is non-personal and non-directive—in contrast to pastoral teaching and authority which is personal and directive—it is acceptable for men to read the writings of women.

I would add two things: first, the context of 1 Timothy 2 indicates that Paul is addressing what happens when Christians gather for worship. This means the teaching and authority under discussion is teaching and authority that happens when Christians meet for and function as a church. Thus, I see no problem with men reading things written by women. Second, if a man feels that these suggestions that would allow men to read the writings of women are inconsistent, and if no other suggestion is found to be satisfactory, I would think that man would choose not to read the writings of women rather than reject this part of the Bible’s teaching.

10. What is at stake in this whole debate about whether women can teach men?

On the theological level, what is at stake is the authority of Scripture to determine what Christians believe and do.

On the practical level, what is at stake includes the way we refer to God (are we going to continue to call God “Father” and Jesus “the Son of God” or move with the egalitarians away from gendered names for God); whether we will say that homosexual behavior is sinful (many of the same arguments used for the view that women can teach men are used by those who want to legitimate “alternative lifestyles”); and whether the glory of God will be displayed in the way that men and women embrace the roles given to them as gendered people. The Word of God shows us the way to life and freedom. Choosing the broad, easy path leads to bondage and misery.

Psalm 119:103 “How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!”

A Well Bound Bible

As a person who marks up the Bible as I study it, I don’t want to switch to a new copy anytime soon. Once I have worked slowly through a text, my notations are invaluable for future readings and for answering questions in class. They’re also very helpful when teaching survey courses on the Bible, since it’s not always possible to re-read, for instance, 1 Kings the night before I lecture for three hours on the whole book .

For these reasons  I have been very frustrated with some copies of the Bible that I have marked up in the recent past. Why am I frustrated? For the simple reason that these Bibles have fallen apart. Genesis is ready to fall out of the copy of the Bible I have been using.

This has led me to wonder whether the people who publish these Bibles actually expect them to be read! A poor binding is no trouble if the thing isn’t going to be used. More likely, the assumption is probably made that people will just switch to a new copy every so often.

But I’ve recently acquired a new copy of the Bible, and I’m very pleased with this binding. It has the added benefit of being a Hebrew English diglot–Hebrew in one column, English in the next (NKJV). This is great for the OT, but unfortunately, the NT is also in Hebrew instead of Greek. Oh well. Nothing’s perfect.

What would make this one perfect? Well, there are no cross-references in the text. In my experience, the best set of cross-references comes with the ESV Classic Reference Bible.

So if I could blink three times, this Bible would have this fine binding, Greek as the NT Diglot text, and the ESV’s cross references.

NKJV 2 Thessalonians 3:1 “Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run swiftly and be glorified, just as it is with you . . .”

N. T. Wright and John Stott on Different Sides of the Issue

According to this report, N. T. Wright is not pleased with some evangelicals in the Church of England who have announced that they will no longer fund the COE’s apostasy:

The Bishop of Durham, The Rt. Rev. Dr. N. T. Wright has come out blasting a Covenant drawn up by a coalition of Church of England Evangelicals who have said they will break with bishops who do not proclaim a clear unequivocal gospel and they will train a new generation of ministers and clerics committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ. They also said they will also no longer give financially to the Church of England to support structures antithetical to the gospel and support only self sustaining centers. They also believe that the Church of England has now become two churches – one which is focused around the gospel, the other that gives priority to human reason over Scripture, and because of it they can no longer support the present structures in the Church of England.

The signers include such illustrious figures as evangelical patriarch the Rev. Dr. John R. W. Stott, Bishop Wallace Benn, President of the Church of England Evangelical Council, The Rev. Dick Lucas, The Rev. David Phillips, (Director of Church Society and the leadership of Church Society), The Rev. Simon Vibert (St Luke’s Wimbledon Park, Diocese of Southwark and Chair of the Fellowship of Word and Spirit) and The Rev. David Petersen, (Principal of Oak Hill College) to name but a few. They are the crème de la crème of British evangelicalism.

Read the whole thing.

Here’s the Proposed Covenant.

Here’s the list of signatories–below the names are responses to “Questions that may be asked.”

And Wright’s response is here.

May God bring Gospel renewal to Anglicans who love his glory and tremble at his word.

HT: Mike Bird

Volume 2 of NACSBT: Believer’s Baptism

Volume 2 of the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology series is now available.

This book was edited by my mentor, Tom Schreiner, along with my good friend Shawn Wright. This is sure to be the most up-to-date, comprehensive, and useful discussion of all the swirling questions about who should be baptized, when, why, how, and by whom.

Justin Taylor has served us all by conducting a fascinating interview with Dr. Schreiner.

This is an important book, especially for those puzzled by churches who want to reconsider believer’s baptism, for those engaged in conversation with paedo-baptists (those who believe in infant baptism), or for anyone who doesn’t know why the word “Baptist” shows up in the name of some churches.

Q & A on N. T. Wright

 

Why all this fuss among evangelicals about N. T. Wright?

He is a great communicator, which makes him fun to listen to and fun to read. And he helps people think in fresh ways about Jesus and Paul—ways that often seem like the key that fits the lock of both the Old Testament and the Second Temple Jewish background of the New Testament. The Bible is a big book, and Wright is good at describing the big story and helping people understand where we fit in the true story the Bible tells.

That sounds great! Tell me more.

He has plausibly debunked all the Jesus Seminar nonsense. With logic and wit he cuts the legs from under their program.

We have a lot to learn from Wright, particularly from the way he thinks through the Bible’s historical context, the way he fairly represents and dissects the thinking of those with whom he disagrees, and the way he applies the faith to contemporary life.

I like that. So why do some people seem to think he’s so dangerous?

He says provocative things. For instance, he thinks that when Jesus said that people would see the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven, no first century Jew would actually expect to see a human figure descending on the clouds. He says that this is just apocalyptic language being used to communicate the theological import of what is happening. Thus, he refers to “the so called ‘second-coming.’” He says that the statements in Acts 1:9–11 about Jesus coming just as they saw him go look like a “post-Easter innovation.” He seems to think the return of Jesus took place in A.D. 70 when the temple was destroyed.

In some ways that sounds like typical preterism. But does this comment about Acts 1:9–11 mean he doesn’t believe everything the Bible says?

I’m not sure. When he says that Acts 1:11 looks like a post-Easter innovation he is arguing that it wasn’t part of Jesus’s teaching that he would return in glory. This seems to divide what Jesus taught before the resurrection from what Luke wrote after it.

As for Wright’s approach to the Bible, he wrote a book on the topic in which he doesn’t use the language of inerrancy. He doesn’t say he’s for or against it, but when someone isn’t willing to sign onto it, you wonder where they are. Nevertheless, he does say that the Bible’s words are God’s words and that it speaks with his authority.

Okay, but there are other evangelicals, particularly British evangelicals, who don’t like the word inerrancy. Surely that isn’t the reason for the controversy.

True. The big controversy swirls around Wright’s views on justification.

What’s the problem with his understanding of justification?

In part it has to do with his basic agreement with E. P. Sanders on the point that Paul wasn’t confronting legalistic, works based righteousness.

Is this the “New Perspective on Paul”?

Right. E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and N. T. Wright are key figures in the New Perspective, which isn’t a formal movement. And, the three of them disagree on many things, but they agree on the basic point that Paul wasn’t opposing Jewish legalism.

When I read Paul’s letters, it sure sounds like he’s dealing with legalism.

Correct. Wright likes to set statements that Paul makes in the wider context of the whole story of the Bible. This wider story often controls Wright’s interpretation of Paul’s words—to the exclusion of the words themselves.

Okay, so if Paul isn’t confronting works based righteousness, what is he confronting?

In Wright’s system, justification isn’t about “getting in” or “becoming a Christian.” Instead, justification is about being identified with the community God is going to vindicate when the final verdict is handed down. So the important point is not an individual conversion experience but participation in the community God is going to justify. So in Wright’s view, the “works” that Paul is opposing are not things people do to earn God’s favor, they are things people do to be part of the community. For Wright, circumcision in Galatians is a badge of membership in the community. In this scheme, faith, rather than “works of law,” is the badge one wears to signify one’s membership in the community.

Is this really what Paul means?

Well, if you read Galatians from Wright’s paradigm, you might be able to make the words Paul uses mean what Wright says they mean. The question is whether Paul means for the words to be understood this way, and to determine that we have to compare what Paul says in Galatians with what he says elsewhere. The question is whether Paul says things in other places that cannot fit Wright’s scheme. If so, the concepts in Galatians probably don’t mean what Wright says they do.

Well, does what Paul says elsewhere fit Wright’s scheme?

That’s something that we all have to engage in Pauline theology to determine. Read Romans 9:30–32 for yourself:

^ESV Romans 9:30 “What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹ but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. ³² Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.”

This language about having a “righteousness that is by faith” as opposed to pursuing a righteousness “based on works” sure makes it look like we get declared righteous, justified, by God when we believe. How does Wright understand this?

The traditional protestant understanding has been that Jesus took our sin and we get his righteousness. In other words, our trespasses are imputed to him, and he suffers for them in our place. Likewise, his righteousness is imputed to us, and we stand before God clothed in his righteousness. Several texts in the New Testament, taken together, lead to this position (Rom 4:1–8; 5:12–21; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 Cor 1:30; Phil 3:9; Rom 9:30–10:4, see Brian Vickers’ book, Jesus’ Blood and Righteousness).

Wright’s system only works if Paul is not talking about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Without imputation, Wright’s view that justification means being identified with the community that will be vindicated makes sense. Wright doesn’t believe that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers.

Ouch. That’s some cause for concern, but lots of scholars push the envelope. Why are people so exercised about Wright?

He’s not only a capable scholar at the highest technical levels, he’s taking his message to the people. Here’s a guy who is writing a 6 volume Theology of the New Testament (Christian Origins and the Question of God) that will make him the most influential NT scholar since Bultmann, and he’s also putting his views in dozens of little popular books for mass consumption. On top of that, he’s a charming speaker with a British accent, and this accent, of course, makes everything he says sound right.

But that’s not all. Evangelicals love him not only for the way he dressed down the Jesus Seminar but for his masterful defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Further, his first book was actually a defense of the Doctrines of Grace published by Banner of Truth. So he seems to come from the evangelical fold, and this can make his ideas even more attractive.

So he comes from conservative ranks, but am I right in thinking that he’s not exactly conservative anymore?

That seems to be the case. He says he wouldn’t write that Banner of Truth book if he had it to do over again. And he’s often dismissive of Luther and Calvin. He regularly charges Luther with reading the abuses of Medieval Roman Catholicism into the New Testament. Of course, the real issue is the Bible, not Luther, but if you think that Luther got more right than wrong, Wright may strike you as being a little hard on brother Martin.

He has also departed from the Bible’s teaching and the historic faith on the issue of women, whom he thinks can and should serve as pastors/elders (or as “priests” in his Anglican church).

Earlier you mentioned Wright applying the faith to contemporary life. Is this safe?

Some of it’s brilliant. Other parts are questionable. Lately Wright has been emphasizing what he calls the “fresh perspective” on Paul. This draws attention to the fact that Paul’s proclamation of Christianity would have been a direct challenge to the Roman Imperial Cult. This is all very interesting, and it is a healthy reminder that our citizenship is in heaven.

What becomes troublesome is the way that Wright seems to use this as a club with which to beat up on American foreign policy. This politicization of his message identifies him with the shrill voices of the liberal fringe.

How should we respond to Wright?

We can learn much from reading him, but we must obey Paul by testing everything and holding onto the good (1 Thess 5:21). As long as people continue to read their Bibles and compare what Wright is saying to the Bible, he can’t do too much damage. If we read him instead of the Bible, or if we allow his interpretations to dictate our reading of the Bible, we’ll get into trouble. But Wright himself doesn’t want us to read him that way.

We should also pray for N. T. Wright. He holds a high post in the very troubled Anglican Church, and insofar as he wants to uphold the authority of the Scriptures, the bodily resurrection, the reality of the coming judgment, and the need for people to come under the lordship of Jesus, we can heartily support him. Holding to these aspects of historic Christianity in the Anglican Church makes him one of their radical conservatives. May God bless every good thing he does for Jesus.

Is the Bible Sufficient for Those Who Are Depressed?

What do you read when you want to help someone who is depressed? What do you suggest they read to help themselves out of their melancholy?

John Piper has thought as carefully about these things as anyone in our day, and he gives us his conclusions in When the Darkness Will Not Life: Doing What We Can While We Wait for God-and Joy.

You can read the whole thing for free online here.

This is a short book–less than 70 pages of large, wide spaced text–that can be read quickly. It is as potent as it is brief, and I pray it will receive wide circulation. This is not pop-psychology, it is pastoral soul care.

Piper has the audacity to think that the great truths of the Christian faith apply to all of life–even when people are down. If you want to live like a worldling, don’t try to live on the faith when you’re depressed, and don’t bother with this book. Conclude with many that the Bible has nothing to say to you in such times (and don’t bother with books of the Bible like Lamentations or Job).

But if you want to live like a Christian and aren’t sure how Christians should respond to emotional darkness, read When the Darkness Will Not Lift. Then give it away to someone else, and keep another few copies on hand for your next encounters with depressed Christians.

Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis

The New Testament profs at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) have put together a volume in honor of the long-time chair of the department, Dr. Harold Hoehner. This volume will probably serve as a textbook for the third and fourth semester Greek classes at DTS. The first half of the book contains chapters on method, and each is done by a DTS prof. The second half provides examples of exegesis done by scholars who do not teach at DTS. 

The treatments of method in the first half of this volume are thorough, but it seems to me that the book only delivers on half of the subtitle, because this book has the feel of being all science and no art. Part of what gives this impression is even reflected in the title, Interpreting the New Testament Text, rather than Interpreting the TEXT of the New Testament. Here we have a book strong on exegetical formula to be applied text by text, but the emphasis does not fall on developing a strategy for seeing the New Testament as a unified whole. 

That said, a book like this that gives a full explanation of the formula for doing exegesis has its value. The whole process of exegesis is covered here: from what is entailed by the word “exegesis” to text criticism to grammar to diagramming to word studies to validating interpretations to studying backgrounds to genre considerations for reading the Gospels, the Epistles, and Apocalyptic literature. Broader interpretive issues also receive treatment, with a chapter on the use of the OT in the New and a chapter on biblical theology, and the first half of the volume is capped off with a chapter on Application, Ethics, and Preaching. 

I hope that Jay Smith’s chapter on “Sentence Diagramming, Clausal Layouts, and Exegetical Outlining” will find especially wide circulation. As Smith points out, diagramming a text forces us to wrestle with every conceivable exegetical possibility. Diagramming the Greek text of the New Testament is incumbent upon everyone who believes in verbal, plenary inspiration. We must account for every inspired word. O that we might be as rigorous about diagramming as we are vigorous about our insistence on the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. 

Recipes for exegesis such as this volume provides are useful, especially when we run into problems that are difficult to sort through. No one should think for a moment, however, that the recipe must always be followed point by point when reading the Bible or preparing to preach or teach it. Nor should it be thought that following the recipe will automatically lead to the “right answer” as to what the text means. So while the recipe has its place, do not be intimidated by it, and do not wait to do exegesis until you can follow the whole recipe point by point. Trying to follow the recipe point by point might keep you from seeing the obvious meaning of the text in its canonical context.  

So if you’re looking for step by step instruction in technical exegesis of one text, this is the book for you. But I want to say this again: don’t let this way of studying the Bible suck the air out of your reading of Scripture, and don’t let these instructions make you stop reading and studying the Bible until you have time to follow all these procedures.

The Bible is a sharp, two-edged sword. As Wayne Grudem said so emphatically in his ETS presidential address, Unleash it!

The Sufficiency of Scripture in 2007

My sermon on 2 Peter 1:1-11 is online here.

Prayer of the Month: Philemon verse 6

NAS Philemon 1:6 and I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ’s sake.