Scriptural fences
One of the helpful things in interpreting scripture is to identify what I call “scriptural fences”. These special verses force us to interpret the passage within the limits set up by the “fence” line. When we can identify a “fence” in scripture, we are well on our way to understanding the apparent contradictions within scripture. In this post I am going to give three examples of scripture “fences”.
The first fence line is found in Revelation chapter 21.
Rev. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Now to some, this may not seem like a “fence” but when we read in Acts 1 that the apostles picked Matthias to replace Judas, we have a contradiction that needs to be dealt with:
Act 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’
Act 1:21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–
Act 1:22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Act 1:23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.
Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
Act 1:25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
Act 1:26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
How could Matthias be an apostle who replaces Judas when Paul claimed to be an apostle picked by the risen Christ? Some may claim that there are actually 13 foundational apostles, but that is impossible. Why? It is because of the scriptural “fence”. The book of Revelation states that they are 12 apostles who form the foundation stones, not 13. If we interpret scripture with the understanding that Revelation 21:14 forms a boundary or a “fence” that places a boundary for our understanding, then we need to make a decision; was Paul the 12th apostle or was Matthias? Did you ever wonder why Paul had to try so hard to prove his apostleship? It is because Psalms 109:8 says that another is to take his (Judas) place and the 11 disciples had already picked the 12th before Paul even came on the scene.
Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few; Let another take his office.
The word for “office” is supervision. It is a place of supervising or overseeing the foundation of the church. For some reason the 11 disciples thought that it was their job to appoint a replacement for Judas, but neither scripture nor revelation from God told them to do this. Because they took authority over something that they were not give authority over, the dice (or lot see verse 26) was cast and this was what determined that Matthias was ordained into ministry with the eleven. However it wasn’t their responsibility. Just as Jesus’ chose the eleven disciples, so he alone was the one who had the authority and responsibility to choose the twelfth apostle to replace Judas. Jesus chose Paul (Romans 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1). Paul was constantly having to affirm that he was chosen by Christ as an apostle because Matthias already had Paul’s place. Paul specifically says that he was not ordained by man in Galatians 1:1, yet Matthias WAS the one ordained by man.
Galatians 1:1 PAUL, AN apostle–[special messenger appointed and commissioned and sent out] not from [any body of] men nor by or through any man, but by and through Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and God the Father, Who raised Him from among the dead–
So our understanding that Matthias was not a true foundational apostle is made clear by the scriptural “fence” verse found in Revelation 21:14 and Paul’s claim to be ordained not by man but by Jesus himself.
Another scriptural “fence” is found in 1 Corinthians 14:36. The interpretation of verses 34 & 35 are hemmed in by the “fence” of verse 36. Some don’t know what to do with the “silencing” of women in verses 34 & 35 so they have taken a position of either disregarding these two verses or claiming that these verses are not in the original manuscripts. Yet there is no manuscript where these two verses are not in the text. This means that there is no evidence whatsoever there these verses are not in the original inspired text. While I appreciate Gordon Fee and his scholarly work on other verses, he is one that has taken the position that verses 34 & 35 are an interpolation into the text by some unknown people. The problem that Mr. Fee has in taking this position is that the “fence” of verse 36 will not allow theses verse to be removed or we are left with a “refutation” of nothing. There is also a problem in that if we do this to other texts we don’t like, then any verse we don’t like could likewise be removed from the scriptures with no textual evidence for its removal. We cannot do this and be faithful to God’s inspired word. But if we understand the “fence” that hedges verse 34 & 35 in, we will not have any problem with these verses. Verse 36 starts with the Greek word “n” or English word “what!”
The Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament says “n” is used frequently to introduce rhetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected. 1 Cor. 14:36 is then included as an example of something that we are expected to answer “NO!” to. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon also agrees. It lists the “n” as a disjunctive conjunction before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted the other must stand, and Thayer’s also lists 1 Cor. 14:36 as an example of a grammatical structure that stands as denial of verses 34 and 35 where the alternative position of verse 36 must stand.
So Paul is saying “What! The word of God has come only to you (men and not women)?” (No women learning in the church and no women speaking in the church?) and we are to answer this rhetorical question with a “NO!” Verses 34 & 35 are then a quote from the Corinthian letter to Paul and Paul promptly refutes this demand about silencing women by using a disjunctive conjunction that produces a rhetorical question that must be answered in the negative. If verses 34 & 35 are removed as Gordon Fee would like, what would Paul be refuting by the precise grammar of verse 36? There would be nothing to refute! Some say that Paul is refuting what he thinks the Corinthians might say to his own commands in verses 34 & 35 but the precise grammar (the “fence”) of verse 36 refutes this view. The grammar demands that the preceding sentences are refuted by verse 36. Verse 36 is a scriptural “fence” that logically proves that Paul was quoting from the Corinthian’s letter to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote…) and Paul’s grammar has set the refutation solidly within a scriptural “fence”.
The last fence that I would like to look at is the scriptural “fence” in 1 Timothy 2:15. We have talked a lot about this very precise verse in previous posts, but I would like you to see it today as a solid “fence” that sets up the boundaries of the prohibition passage. What this “fence” does is set up the farthest that we can go in interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12. We cannot know who Paul is prohibiting in verse 12 from teaching without limiting the application to knowing who the “she” and who the “they” are in verse 15.
There are those who have tried hard to ignore the “fence” of verse 15. Some have even gone so far as to claim that Paul’s grammar was in error. They claim that while he said “she” AND “they”, what he really meant was “they” or “all women”. This is not correct. The grammar of the verse is precise and we cannot ignore the inspired grammar without doing violence to the text. The problem with the typical hierarchical interpretation of verse 12 is that it does not fall within the boundaries of verse 15. The typical interpretation of verse 12 ignores verse 15 treating it as if part of the inspired grammar is to be ignored and also it is treated as if Paul is introducing a topic that is foreign to the context of the prohibition in verse 12. This too is wrong. For more information on what verse 15 means in context, see my post on the rest of the story.
82 thoughts on “Scriptural fences”
Cheryl,
It is very helpful and revealing to look at scripture in the interlinear…it clearly states whether the ‘she’ and ‘woman’ are singular or plural and also gives other language for ‘silence’ (to be in quietness) and ‘usurp authority’ (to be domineering…). Frankly, it is fascinating to read many verses or passages in the interlinear. It clearly shows where bias may have entered into the translating process. Not being a biblical grammar expert yet, I can’t say for sure what else may come into play when one is analyzing scripture passages for translation, but at the very least, the original writing is there to examine and begin providing clarity and clues. Thanks for introducing me to the interlinear!
Pastors can get away with so much when they have an ignorant, passively receptive audience! We should ALL be double-checking their teaching!!!! Shame on me for waiting so long to jump into the Berean fray!
Speaking of interlinears, I just blogged about this Here. It includes a paraphrase I just finished on the letter to the Ephesians.
One reason Fee questioned the authenticity of 1 Cor 14:34-35 is that these verses showed up at the end of the chapter in some manuscripts, indicating to him that some copyists did not know what to do with these verses. I agree that 1 Cor 14:36 repudiates the 2 verses before, another term for eta is expletive of repudiation. The closest in English is “Pffft!” but some do not know that word, so “Bunk”, “Garbage” or similar is also possible. This eta shows up a lot in 1 Cor. it is like Paul is speaking in person to the congregation.
In my understanding, the 11 were acting in faith in choosing Matthias. There are other apostles besides Paul mentioned in the NT that are not the 12 + Matthias. They were all apostles, but not the 12. The 12 needed to be 12 to map to the 12 tribes, 11 will not do. Judas was a traitor and so kicked himself out. But to be 12, they needed to add another, which they did in faith based on the verses they quoted and their process. They did not replace James when he died. The lot may have been random (as the lot is in the hands of the Lord) or it may have been a vote of the 11. Paul was not one of the 12. This is a tangent to women in ministry however.
Paula, I just read your link and that is astonishing-it is rendered in the translations as the total opposite of what the interlinear reveals it really says!!! It does make you wonder how much more we have been taught that is erroneous. It makes me eager to chow down on more interlinear reading. Which two interlinears do you use? I like the one with parsing, also. I need to brush up on some of the grammatical terms but that can be done.
Hi Truthseeker,
The first one is likely out of print. It’s by a Dr. George Ricker Berry that was printed in 1961. The other is the one at Scripture 4 All.
I once asked a pastor why the literal readings in the interlinear were different from the KJV text along the side margins, and he had no idea. Didn’t seem to care either.
Wow, Paula. I just went and read it. You have given me much to think and study about being ‘dead’. Thanks!
A while back I printed out Eph with no verse numbers and read it over and over like a real letter. it was very eye opening just doing thata!
” It does make you wonder how much more we have been taught that is erroneous. It makes me eager to chow down on more interlinear reading.”
And, it makes me feel so blessed that we live in a time where we have all these tools at our disposal for free! I always marvel at this and can see that this is part of God’s plan to draw nearer to those of us who want to really study the word deeply.
I have been Reading Katherine Bushnell and am struck by how long her research had to take. No phones, letters only to communicate with scholars, expensive lexicons, learning the Greek and Hebrew language, etc. It is amazing what she accomplised in that day and time. (I am impressed with her work even though I do not agree with every single thing she wrote)
Paula, thanks for the heads up on the interlinear! Makes you wonder about the pastor who didn’t even care!
Lin, I, too, have been reading K. Bushnell and had never heard of the idea that ‘Adam’, the human (not the male) was androgenous, out of which Adam-male and Eve-female, were formed. Any thoughts or insights out there on this one?
Paula – great observation on Eph 2 and thanks for the online link to an interlinear!
Lin,
Yes, we’re very blessed to live in the internet age, if for no other reason than the access it gives us to information that most of us would never have seen otherwise. I truly believe we will be held accountable for how much use we make of what’s available to us. And just as it enables people to go past the mainstream media to get to the truth about daily news, it also enables Christians to go past the lock on the Biblical texts that the various publishing houses and denominational “clubs” have had. And since you’ve read Eph. as a letter, I’d be most interested in your opinion of the paraphrase, since I made it with that view in mind. And I agree with you ant Truthseeker about Katharine Bushnell, amazing woman that she was. I feel like such a wimp in her shadow.
Truthseeker, I can’t think of any reason to reject Bushnell’s argument on the possible androgyny of Adam before Eve was extracted from him. It makes a lot of sense, not to mention bolstering the fact that Eve could therefore not be inferior.
Ryan, tanx! Of course I was compelled to write, and any insight must come from the Spirit.
>PS: Would it be possible to make the paragraph tags have some spacing below them? I know, nitpicky, but just a thought.
Paula,
Indeed, great thoughts about our being “dead” as being cut off from fellowship. When I started witnessing to JW’s in the late 1980’s was the first time that I started reading through the New Testament from an interlinear. It has really popped my eyes open!
Yes, Ryan, I don’t know what happened to the spacing. I can correct the spacing if I go into everyone’s posts and add blank lines, but in creating comments, the spaces between paragraphs disappear. Only when you have the time of course! 😉
Truthseeker and Paula,
While I am very impressed with Katherine Bushnell, I do not accept the explanation that God created an androgynous creature. If he did, then why didn’t God say that he took the woman out of the man? Instead God says that he took a rib (literally a beam, plank, side chamber) out of the man and made that into a woman.
Gen 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
So God “fashioned” it into a woman, not that he took the woman out and “fashioned” her with the rest of her body. This of course doesn’t mean that the woman is any less than the man because she was made from his body part.
Also if we say that the man and woman were together in one body, the picture is broken of a complete one flesh union. What we would have is man and woman together in one body but not united. When God made the woman he took what belonged to the man (the rib) and made it into a woman. She then remains a part of him (she has his DNA and she is his rib 🙂 ) and is therefore one flesh with him. If man and woman were together in one body and God took the woman out (which is never said in scripture) then the woman is not part of the man, but rather she is separated from the man. I personally think that we do and injustice to the biblical account by making the first man not a male but an androgynous creature. That is my opinion and while I am not infallible, I don’t think that idea meshes with scripture. I could be proven wrong, but I would have to see it from scripture, so there is the challenge.
#4 Don,
In your comment about Gordon Fee, yes I do understand that he came to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 were an interpolation because some manuscripts have these verses at the end of the chapter instead of in their place before verse 36. I believe that some took these out of their place, because they appeared to contradict the words that Paul had already given the church about both men and women being allowed to speak in the assembly. Yet they did not take the verses completely away because this would be removing the words of scripture and we are told not to add or remove from God’s word.
So while Fee is right in that these verses were transported to the end of chapter 14 and made out of line with their original placement before verse 36, the fact is that they are not missing in any manuscript and this proves that they are part of the inspired text and not an interpolation as Fee tries to argue.
Cheryl,
Bushnell was not saying that Eve was a separate being inside of Adam, but that God fashioned her from the “part” (not “rib”) he took out (see This Article). There is no reason this couldn’t have been the “female” part.
Cheryl, good points per androgyny. It raises several questions in my mind, one of which would be ‘Why would Adam need a helper if his helper were already within him?’, and it would be puzzling as to why God would make two from one and then describe/command them to cleave and become one ‘flesh’ if they already came from a position of being literally one flesh…unless He had to separate them for procreation purposes then command them to cleave for their thought processes to join forces for having dominion over the earth. It begins to sound kind of clumsy and convoluted. Still welcome the thoughts out there, though. I have no idea what science has to say about all this though what God says is the definitive statement.
Paula, per androgynous process…sort of a distant cousin to Siamese twinship in a sense?
Also regarding Don’s comments in #4. I appreciate differing points of view and views different than mine are welcomed on this blog. I know that there are many coming over here from CARM who wonder how we handle differences (I do not edit people’s disagreements with me as I have been accused of) and I would ask that people watch and see how differing points of views can be handled with Christian love. We can passionately argue our point of view, but treat each other with love and respect as befitting brethren in Christ.
Now to my argument that Paul was the twelfth apostle and not Matthias, I take my argument from scripture especially from Paul’s own argument. While I do agree that the eleven apostles rightly saw from scripture that there was to be one who would take Judas’ place, I do not belief that it was faith in the application of this scripture that led them to replace Judas. I believe it was a presumption that they were responsible for fulfilling the scriptures.
All the apostles were hand picked by Jesus and thus they were the apostles of Jesus Christ. Peter, like Paul, calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ because he, like Paul, was picked by Jesus to be his apostle.
1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ…
Paul’s ordination as an apostle was by the resurrected Christ, as Jesus appeared to him:
1 Cor 15:8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
1 Cor 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
Paul speaks about this revelation of Christ to him “as to one untimely born”. He was numbered with the apostles but as one who came late, born out of time with all the rest.
When the apostles gathered together to chose a successor to Judas, Paul had not yet become a Christian and Jesus had not yet appeared to him. It was in Christ’s timing for Paul’s apostleship that allowed Paul to carry on as an unbeliever persecuting the church until the time that Christ stopped him on the road to Damascus. Jesus, in a spiritual sense, picked Paul up and placed him alongside the eleven apostles, while out of the appointed time of the rest, yet Paul was fully an apostle and one ordained by the glorified man Jesus Christ as his representative, one of the foundational apostles of Christ.
Yes, there are other apostles too in the New Testament, but there are only twelve foundational apostles. Paul’s apostleship was marked with great revelation from Jesus Christ in such a way that he was given a thorn in the flesh to keep him from becoming proud. His miracles were evident of his ordination as apostle and his writings were accepted as scripture.
Now what about Matthias? Can it be said that Jesus Christ personally ordained Matthias as an apostle? There is not one word in scripture that shows that Matthias was ordained as an apostle by Christ. There are no scriptures that say “Matthias an apostle of Jesus Christ”. In fact Matthias is never heard from again in scripture. Isn’t this odd for a foundational apostle? It certainly would be odd if Jesus counted him in amongst the other eleven. But the truth is that Paul claimed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. His claims stand up to the test. It is also very understandable why Paul had to constantly defend his apostleship. When the twelve are complete in number because they ordained by their own authority a twelfth member, it comes across as Paul is an interloper. Yet it isn’t Paul who is the interloper. Matthias is put into the twelve by the will of man. Paul is put into the twelve by the will of Christ. Paul claimed that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ NOT by the will of man, but by the will of Jesus Christ and the Father (Galatians 1:1).
So now we come down to my original discussion of fences. We have to make a decision regarding the foundational apostles of Jesus Christ. Was Matthias really one of the foundational apostles ordained by Christ or did he get his ordination from man? Paul claimed that he became an apostle because of the will of Jesus Christ and I believe him.
All of this is very much related to women in ministry. I have encouraged women who have been gifted by God as pastors (Ephesians 4:11), to walk within that calling and that gift. Do you need to have an ordination by man to walk in that calling? No you don’t and the examples of Matthias and Paul should help us to see this. An ordination of man cannot create a foundational apostle. Matthias was ordained by man but he was not chosen by Jesus Christ so his ordination was not valid. Paul was not ordained by man but his ordination by Jesus Christ was valid even without man’s ordination. If you are called and gifted as a pastor, then live out your calling. Do not say that you have not been ordained so you cannot serve and shepherd. The one whom God calls and gifts does not have to be reliant on man’s ordination. You may not get recognition from man, but you can still shepherd. Shepherd the bible study that you are in and lead. Shepherd the hurting in your church. Do the work of your calling and do not regard man’s ordination as necessary.
Cheryl,
There is an open letter to egalitarians out here written by Wayne Grudem (CBMW). In it, there are 6 points he takes to task concerning egalitarian interpretation of scripture:
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-3-No-1/An-Open-Letter-to-Egalitarians
In point 3, he belabors the Greek “or” construction as a means by which Paul affirms 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as valid and binding. Basically, Dr. Grudem is saying that verse 36 is a “fence” of sorts that affirms the silence of women in corporate assembly.
The letter is a nice way of saying to all of us who hold egalitarian views of scripture to either “put-up” or “shut-up”. You Cheryl, Paula, Suzanne McCarthy and others have done an admirable job of “putting-up” so to speak.
But just in case there’s a Godly woman reading this blog right now and who is struggling with gender issues, please reiterate that God has no such “law” silencing women. She may be paralyzed with fear right now that it’s the serpent whispering in her ear…..”hath God said?”….
Truthseeker said, “Paula, per androgynous process…sort of a distant cousin to Siamese twinship in a sense? ”
Possibly, or even identical twins. But I do think this is going too far off topic so feel free to email me, or maybe comment at the link on Bushnell’s book I gave earlier (post #16).
Well, said Greg. I missed seeing that in Grudem’s stuff. It is excellent that he noted the “fence”. Grudem’s problem is that he has demonstrated himself to be rather poor in dealing with the Greek. But what Cheryl has put forth regarding the Greek “N” is easily verified from interlinears and other scholarly writings. “Or” is a very weak and misleading translation. But there is so much of that kind of weak translation going on throughout many Bible versions, that I shouldn’t be surprised. 🙂
#16 Paula,
You said: “Bushnell was not saying that Eve was a separate being inside of Adam, but that God fashioned her from the “part” (not “rib”) he took out (see This Article). There is no reason this couldn’t have been the “female” part.”
This is where I come to a disagreement with Bushnell. There are a couple of reasons why. First of all from her article she does say that it is “Eve” who is in Adam. This is what makes the androgynous “man” with both female and male parts. It is an “Eve” within Adam otherwise you cannot take “Eve” out but would have to take out females parts out of “Adam”. So in this view “Adam” and “Eve” are created together and only separated later. Yet Paul says that Adam was created first and then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13). How can Adam be created first and then Eve if Adam and Eve are created together in one body? It appears from her article that Bushnell is taking her view from biology instead of scripture. I am not knocking Bushnell here. I appreciate her knowledge of scripture and the amazing things that she found even without the internet and the resources that we have today. But I very much disagree with her about Eve being in Adam in creation. God specifically said that he took something out and from this something he created a female. There is no hint in the text that what he took out was female. Where is the evidence that is was female parts that he took out. I would think that this should have some foundation in scripture instead of speculation.
Bushnell says: “Nothing could be more unscientific than the representation that Eve was made from a single bone taken from Adam’s body.”
Again, I am not knocking Bushnell. She was a wonderful lady who really loved God, but her reliance on science here instead of just the word of God in this one instance at least, is troubling to me. Who cares what science says? God says that he took out a “plank, a board, an inner chamber” and out of that he made Eve. The term “rib” is well within the Hebrew word that refers to a hard building material such as a board. This is what God chose to do and we are to test all things and hold fast to what is true. Everyone can make a mistake (even me!) and I believe that this is one area that Bushnell made a mistake by relying on science. Now I could be proven wrong, but to prove me wrong, a person would have to go to the bible to get the job done and not to science.
Now you see why so many have called me a confounded skeptic. I have to have everything proven by scripture and I really don’t care what famous person or biblical scholar says even if it is an egalitarian that I admire. When I see error when I compare the proposed idea to scripture, I reject it. When scripture corrects me, I will bow to scripture every time.
😉
Greg,
I have seen Grudem’s writing before on the “or” of Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 14:36 and I am amazed that he could openly contradict the lexicons and they say that 1 Cor. 14:36 is an example of a rhetorical statement that has a negative answer and is contradicting what has preceded it. We answer “NO!” to Paul’s questions and verse 36 and these rhetorical questions that must have a negative answer completely contradict verses 34 & 35 plus contradict the “commands” (plural) of Paul’s from the start of chapter 14. Mr. Grudem is not telling us the truth, yet he tell us to prove something that he misunderstands. The fact is that verse 36 is both a rhetorical question AND it stands in direct opposition to the claims in verses 34 & 35 so that if one be denied (verse 36 denies the validity of verses 34 & 35) then the other must stand. Therefore verse 36 is such a straight, sharp and foundation fence that even Mr. Grudem should be able to see that from the lexicons. The fact that he contradicts the lexicons tells me an awful lot about his motivation. His motivation has nothing to do with what the lexicons say about this scripture. It has everything to do with proving his own biased point of view.
And there…..I just put up….now who was it who told me to shut up again? 🙂
Thanks, Greg for pointing us once again to the best example of bias that I have ever seen camouflaged as scholarship.
Act 14:14
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,
Rom 16:7 on Andronicus and Junia
Gal 1:19
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
infers that James, brother of Jesus, was an apostle.
1Th 1:1
Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.
1Th 2:6
Nor did we seek glory from people, whether from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of Christ.
taken together infers that either Silvanus or Timothy was an apostle and perhaps both.
Rev 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The point is there are the 12 and then there are other apostles. Apostle is a minitry gift from the Spirit.
Apostle means “sent out one” so it depends who is doing the sending.
Act 1:20
“For it has been written in a scroll of [the] Psalms: ‘Let his residence become desolate, and let no [one] be dwelling in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’ [Psalm 69:25; 109:8]
Act 1:21
“Therefore, it is necessary of the men having accompanied us in every time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us-
Act 1:22
having begun from the baptism [or, immersion, and throughout book] of John until the day which He was taken up from us-[for] one of these to become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Act 1:23
And they put forward two: Joseph, the one being called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Act 1:24
And having prayed, they said, “You Lord, knower of the hearts of all [people], disclose which one of these two You chose
Act 1:25
Act 1:26
And they gave [fig., cast] their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
The use of the word “numbered” strongly indicates that he became the 12th apostle.
No one else makes a claim to be the 12th apostle. Acts 1 also shows they searched the Scriptures and prayed and acted based on these, with NO indication of God’s disapproval.
Mathias is not mentioned by name, but there are later verses that discuss all the apostles doing so and so, so it is implied that he is one of these now 12.
to receive the share of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
I noticed there are some formatting problems with my previous post, I have no idea why.
Don,
I fixed the excessive lines between posts 🙂 now nobody will accuse me of “editing” their posts because of my formating it properly will they?
RE: Grumdens explanation of 1 Corinthians 11: 34-36. I have a question. Why would Paul introduce and affirm teaching from the oral law into the Body of Christ?
“Don, I fixed the excessive lines between posts now nobody will accuse me of “editing” their posts because of my formating it properly will they?”
Only one person that I can think of would call that “editing”. 🙂 What is amazing is that she really thinks that others cannot see through her obtuse verboseness which is only aimed at elevating herself. And I will stop there. Nuff said!
Don,
You points about other apostles is agreed upon by me. There were other apostles and some of them are named in scripture. This isn’t what I am talking about. I am talking about the apostles of Jesus Christ who were given the responsibility to oversee the foundation of the church. They are listed with Jesus as the foundation of the church with Jesus being the corner stone.
Now regarding Acts 1:26, this is a very interesting verse. Let’s see if we can unpack it.
Act 1:26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
Now the “drew lots” can mean either that they shook the dice or perhaps drew straws and the short straw “won”. Either way, this method of decision making was never repeated in scripture nor is it given as an example of a godly decision making option for the Christian church. Why did they do this when they always relied on prayer and God’s answer through prayer after this time?
The term “he was added” to the eleven apostles absolutely does mean that they considered him the twelfth apostle. This was the problem. They considered him the twelfth apostle and because of this Paul’s claim of an apostle ordained by Christ for the overseer place in the foundation level of the church was rejected by many. This is why Paul can say that he was not “from man or from the agency of man” Galatians 1:1. Matthias cannot say that he was “not from man or from the agency of man” because the disciples took up themselves the authority to pick two men whom they would ask God to choose between. This is man’s ordination and I believe very strongly that it was not God’s ordination.
Don, you said that there is no indication in scripture that God did not approve. I believe there is in the claims of Paul. He claimed to be one who held a special apostleship directly from Jesus and he had the signs to prove it. Where were any of the other apostles required to have “signs”? They weren’t. It is only the twelve who were the foundational apostles responsible for overseeing the foundation of the church and whom all died as martyrs for that faith and foundation except for the apostle John.
The fact is that Matthias is never mentioned again in scripture and yes I am sure that he stayed with the twelve as one of them. However my contention is not that he wasn’t consider by the others as the twelfth apostle. My contention is also not that he was with the others in their journey’s etc. My contention is that he was not personally picked by the resurrected Christ. All of the others were picked by the man Jesus Christ. Paul said that he too was picked by the man Jesus Christ and he personally saw the man Jesus as the resurrected Lord in heaven. Matthias on the other hand had none of these things except for an ordination from man.
So do I consider there to be other apostles? Yes, certainly and one of them was a woman (Junia)! Do I consider the scriptures to show that Matthias was ordained by Jesus Christ the man as an apostle of his? No, there is no scripture to show this and Paul’s claims to have been ordained by the man Jesus Christ ring true to scripture. There is where I stand and I offer my position as one that should be verified by scripture.
I have to agree with Cheryl concerning Bushnell’s teaching about Adam and Eve. I almost did not continue reading after that and would have missed some very good points if I had stopped at that point. Just some thoughts on her teaching:
1. I agree that science is meaningless on this point
2. I think, perhaps, she was trying to wed the two accounts of creation. The macro and micro accounts with her theory.
3. God had Adam name all the animals after telling him He was going to find an ‘ezer’ suitable for him. Adam was incomplete.
4. What Eve is made from has nothing to do with the ‘Image of God’ as Ware tries to make us think. It is not the material she is made of that gives her the Image of God. As it is not the dirt that gives Adam his Image of God.
I am only half way through her book but the Creation account almost made me stop… yet… she has some very good teaching on other passages that can be verified or have already been from deep study.
“RE: Grumdens explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:34-36.”
oops. Should have read 1 Corinthians 14. But then, you all knew that. 😉
OK, please feel free to delete this post if you feel I’ve gone too far, but I’m reading on CARM the moderators posts about Matt’s and Cheryl’s possible debate…. and this came up…..
“Cheryl refuses a professional debate with Matt, she wants to blog, attack, gossip,insult, whine victim and claim she is misrepresented….Sorry, but historically, when I have had to deal with such types, this is the ONLY thing they understand…I know what I am doing…She wants to threaten ministries, this ministry will fight back…..This is what Paul taught us, to reach them on their level, THIS is her level….she is being handled……”
Those things I underlined are the very things the CARM owners have done, not this blog. Furthermore, because she refused to allow links to verify claims, her readers are not permitted to see the reality of it, but are forced to take her words as accurate. This makes it become a double dishonor to herself when readers do find this blog and realize that it is she who has misrepresented the whole thing.
Link to post and discussion:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=2914974#post2914974
p.s. what is the code for hiding a link inside one word?
tiro3,
What you do is highlight a word when you are in the regular comment mode (not html) and once the word is highlighted the little chain above will become visible. Click on that and you can add a link that is attached to your word 🙂
It is interesting what Diane is doing. She edited her post to read:
What an interesting way to look at it. I offered to debate Matt in a professional way without all the verbal attacks that I received from him on the radio. That is fair and it is professional. There is not just one way to debate and Matt knows this because he has also done a written debate before. I gave my reasons why I don’t want to hear abuse. As far as me “attacking first” I would recommend anyone listen to the 2 dialog tapes between Matt and I and see if it is rational thinking to charge me with “attacking” Matt when the first thing I did was commend him for his ministry. An honest observer will then be able to ask why respectful dialog is called an attack?
It is also very interesting that Diane understands that as a Christian she needs to love me. I am wondering how she plans to show her love?
Also the question of not using my words out of context was regarding a copyrighted piece that I posted on CARM months ago. I also put it on my blog stipulating that people are free to use it as long as it was kept in its original form in full and a link placed back to my blog and my name kept on it as author. This is how copyrighting is done and I did not give CARM permission to pull out pieces of the article because I wanted it kept in context. Reasonable? I think so!
Since I have rarely posted on CARM in the last few months and Diane has admitted this, how could I possibly control CARM? I think I have it figured out and maybe some of you could let me know if I am way off base. I think that Matt wants to bow out of this debate without looking like he is afraid to debate the gender issue in writing with someone whom he does not appear to have Christian love for? Is he afraid that a written debate would make it easier for his arguments to be refuted since he cannot use his usual “style” of verbal mocking? Perhaps. I have many questions I want to give to him in the debate but it appears that this will never happen. A reasonable person can see that Matt would like to back away from this debate while still holding on to his ego.
That is fine. Matt can walk away from a written debate just as he walked away from allowing me to come back on his radio station even after I agreed to his tight control of my speech. He is free to do whatever he wants to and I have no control over him. It is also good for him that I am not a person who practices mocking others and their fears. He can walk away from the debate with his ego intact.
Now on to other things. I would like to go through Wayne Grudem’s/CBMW’s books on what women are forbidden to do. Of course as I am editing the Trinity DVD my time will be limited, but it should be interesting.
Paul is my hero, but he does say he is the least among the apostles, which includes all the others named in Scripture at the time he wrote it.
But I have a big concern with your understanding. It is that ALL apostles made a blunder. I can see single ones making a mistake, like Peter and maybe Barnabas, but ALL? How would we ever have confidence in what they later did?
Furthermore, my understanding of
Mat 18:18
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
is that Jesus is using Jewish rabbinic terms to say the disciples can permit or forbid (that is, decide Halachah) and God will back them up in their decision (as well as guide them).
In other words, they ALL decided on something, so God has promised that they can do this.
Matt is trying to save face (his). Given that he does not even acknowledge his abuse and disrespect on his talk show, I think Mat 18 applies. This does not mean not to interact with him, but be wise about it.
Don,
When Paul said that he is least among the apostles he did not say least among the apostles of Jesus Christ so I think it would be reasonable that he is talking about the bigger picture than the twelve. I could be wrong but the verses above this one list the foundational apostles as “the twelve” even though there were only eleven at the time. This group of apostles was the overseers appointed by Jesus as the foundational stones for the church.
You ask whether all the apostles made a blunder. How I would describe it is that they made an assumption that was faulty. I don’t have a problem with that. After all they also made an assumption that deacons should be males (Acts 6:3). This was a faulty assumption at the time, but it appears the apostles had baggage that they brought with them from their Jewish upbringing. Jesus said that he had many things to teach them but they were not able to bear them at the time. There is a time of maturity that was needed and when the apostles made mistakes (such as when Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles) these did not affect the text of scripture which is God-breathed. The apostles still were human.
I love these kinds of dialogs. They stretch me and make me have to think through these issues. Now I would like to stretch you. What makes you believe that Paul was not a foundational apostle – on of the twelve who are ordained by Jesus himself? What makes you think that God picked Matthias and not Paul for this place of service? Is it just because the apostles thought they were responsible and prayed about it? Or do you see Paul’s fight to be considered an apostle of Jesus Christ as something different than I do?
Guys, there are lots to think about here. The fact is that there is a boundary or fence that holds the foundational apostles to a number of twelve. How do we deal with that? How can we see things differently outside the box than how we have always seen the twelve? No matter what our answer, we have to understand there were not thirteen foundational apostles…there were twelve.
“Matt is trying to save face (his). Given that he does not even acknowledge his abuse and disrespect on his talk show, I think Mat 18 applies. This does not mean not to interact with him, but be wise about it.”
Absolutely, wise words. This certainly does follow under Matthew 18. My Pastor also agrees and he is a wonderful pastor.
Paul never claims to be one of the 12.
Someone today might have a vision or Paul-like experience and see Jesus and become an apostle but that does not mean they are one of the 12.
I do not see it as wrong for the first 7 deacons to be all male. What they are is all Greek speaking Jews, in contrast to Aramaic/Hebrew speaking Jews, so this was an expansion of the leadership ministry, esp. as some went on to greater ministry. And they were involved in physical labor, not that women cannot do that, but there might have been practical considerations. Another way to see it is that progressive revelation was continuing and did so until the NT books were all written.
P.S. The lots to select Matthias may have been votes. It may also have been random. I do not see enough info to decide.
tiro, I am going to make a very strong statement. And, I only make it because Cheryl is being falsely accused and maligned by a professing Christian brother.
Matt Slick makes his living from his views. His very income is dependent on what he has taught others. He has advertisers and followers to placate. And, Controversy sells. This ‘war cry’ whips up the troops and probably donations, too. I have been around this and have even witnessed well known men not willing to speak out when they have been wrong because they presented that view in books, conferences, sermon tapes, etc. Their response is: I can’t go back and change the record of what I taught. So, they say nothing at all.
But, people miss something more. Even his ‘invitation’ to debate was rife with sarcasm and arrogance. How do people miss this? How can they condone it or support it? What has happened to “Christians” that they cannot even be civil with disagreement on a secondary issue with their brothers and sisters in Christ? They are not debating the Virgin birth or the Resurrection for crying out loud.
My take on this whole issue is that this cannot be debated in this sort of venue because it really includes the whole scope of scripture. Including the creation account. People need time to absorb the information and study deeply what is said. 1 Timothy 2 cannot be understood in a vacuum that ignores all of the NT or even the creation account.
My take on this is that Matt and his followers have made this whole situation one of ego and ‘winning’ a debate. That takes the focus off of the truth of scripture wthin its whole scope and on ONE verse that has been proof texted.
Considering the contentious history in dealing with Matt and Diane, I would stay away from interaction with them except for a written debate. They have not been nice at all. They have censored others who have studied the Greek in the translations and called Cheryl a heretic. Does anyone really think that Matt would allow a fair and civilized debate after all the history we have seen of his behavior?
I say, let Matt have the last sarcastic word. That is what he is good at.
Lin,
This is also what he needs. Those who are strong in what they believe are not so easily threatened and do not always have to have the last word. In my experience I have noticed that often the ones who have the shakiest foundation are also the ones who know they don’t have all the answers. They cover up with jabs at the other person because an attack is considered by them to be worth as much as a good defense. I have noticed this especially with JW’s. Yet it seems to me that Jesus would say “It should not be so among you.”
Oh and I forgot to say, Lin, good words of advice! I will be ready for a written debate and it may be on another blog or web site, but other than that anything I do will be here on this blog since the respect here afforded to Christians by those who visit is so refreshing!
I see an important issue with the choosing of Matthias as what Peter said in vs. 21-22, that it had to be someone who was with them from John’s baptism to Jesus’ ascension. Paul could not possibly qualify for that. And this was all Peter’s doing, not the group’s. Then they first prayed for God to direct the choice between two proposed candidates, and only then cast the lot. Lot casting of course was a legitimate method of finding the will of God in OT times, and at this early stage there was no other method, as the Holy Spirit had not yet come.
Paul, per his own words, was the apostle to the Gentiles, whereas the 12 were to the Jews. And he was uniquely commissioned to reveal the mystery, that is, the unity of Jew and Gentile into one Body. So his mission was entirely different from that of the 12.
Recall that there were 70 sent out at one point and being sent out by Jesus meant that this group met one criterion for being “sent-out ones” or apostles.
Good thinking Lin…. 🙂
Here are my answers to your wonderful thoughts and questions –
True, but they were not the foundational apostles endued with authority for the foundation of the church. The 70 were sent ahead of Jesus to prepare the way for him while the 12 apostles were to be witnesses of Jesus’ miracles, his death, resurrection and ascension. They were given the authority to establish doctrine. Was Paul just one of the one’s sent to prepare the way for Jesus, or was he one of the ones who had authority for the foundation of the church and to establish doctrine?
While Paul did not say the words that he was one of the 12, he did claim to be one of the same group as the twelve. The 12 were set apart by Jesus for the gospel of Jesus Christ and for testifying of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Paul also claimed that he was set aside by Jesus Christ for a witness to the resurrected Lord Jesus.
He claimed to be equal with the 12, 2 Cor. 12:11.
The claims of Paul that he was equal to the highest of the apostles, chosen by Jesus himself to be a witness to the resurrection and he was responsible for establishing doctrine. No other apostle other than the 12 were given these responsibilities or made these claims.
He claimed to be among the apostles of Jesus who were given special miracles as a sign of the gospel of the resurrection of Christ that they proclaimed.
Lastly Paul called himself by the name given to the 12 – the apostle of Jesus Christ. It is the same name used of James and Peter
No other apostle is said in scripture to call themselves an apostle or bond-servant of Jesus Christ except for the 12 who had the authority to speak for Jesus.
An apostle today doesn’t have to see Jesus. The original 12 needed to be witnesses to the resurrected Christ. Paul said that he went to the third heaven and he saw the resurrected man Jesus. He was indeed a witness to the resurrection as was needed to be one of the 12.
This was Peter’s qualification, yet the scriptures clearly show that the purpose of the 12 was to be witnesses to the resurrection. Paul was taught by the resurrected Jesus and saw him in his resurrected body so he qualifies as a witness to the resurrection.
While the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out, they had received the Holy Spirit through Jesus:
Joh 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
I disagree that casting lots was their only way to hear from God since they had the Holy Spirit already given to them.
All of the apostle’s mission was to be a witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus so Paul’s mission was not different than the others. While Paul specialized in the Gentiles and Peter specialized in the Jews, Paul always went to the Jews first and Peter was sent to the Gentiles by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:22) Who were the other apostles sent to? They were all sent to the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul said it was to the Jew first and then the Gentiles. We cannot separate Paul from the other apostles in the ones that they went to because they all went to both Jew and Gentile and they all had the same mission.
The questions we need to ponder and then answer are concerning Paul’s apostleship:
Did Jesus personally ordain Paul as his apostle?
Did Paul receive teaching from the resurrected Lord Jesus?
Did Paul claim to have authority given to him by Jesus Christ?
Did Paul shows signs of his apostleship?
The other apostles did not need to show signs of their apostleship and they did not have authority to establish doctrine.
If we reject Paul as one of the foundational 12 apostles, we would need to agree that:
Paul did not have the authority that was granted the 12 apostles. His authority was not equal to theirs but we see something different in the scriptures as Paul actually had a greater authority in establishing doctrine than they did and he received more revelations then they did.
If Paul was just an ordinary apostle but not one of the special 12 set aside as witnesses to the resurrection, then Paul was not different than all the other secondary apostles and shouldn’t have needed to prove his apostleship just as they were never said to prove their apostleship.
I believe that Paul has proven that he was one of the apostles of the Lord Jesus ordained to be a witness to the resurrection. He had the authority of Jesus Christ to establish doctrine and he did this more than any of the other apostles.
That’s about all that I need say on this subject especially since I must get back to video editing and keep my nose in it for a time.
I appreciate all of your opinions and your well thought-out reasoning. Each one of us can now go to scripture and search for ourselves which one of the two was the true 12th apostle of Jesus Christ appointed as a witness to the resurrection as was the mandate of all the twelve apostles.
It has been a stimulating discussion and if anyone has anything more to say, I will let you have the last word. My last word is here from Paul himself:
In 20, Greg Anderson mentions Grudem’s open letter to egalitarians in which he invites a response. Greg then encourages those of you who are articulate and knowledgeable to respond peradventure a woman reading that blog may be struggling with this issue and feeling oppressed by the matter, if I understand correctly. I agree and would simply say that a few months ago, I was in the same position: deeply distressed by the comp teaching but not knowledgeable enough with the full scope of the bible’s information on the subject plus other contextual and linguistic information to be able to articulate-thus justify-an egalitarian view. I am indebted to this blog first, because I found it by searching the topic, and then to the other blogs, resources, and sites mentioned on this site as I continued to read and study as much as I could find to bring peace to my mind about the matter. I do hope and pray that one of you responds to Grudem’s invitation. It may be the only life preserver some woman (or women) gets in her critical and perhaps even desperate search for truth. And many, many thanks to all those of you who have contributed here and done the same for me.
Truthseeker,
What a wonderful word you have for us today!
What I think would be great is if CBMW would allow their blog to receive comments. Although they ask for feedback they are not posting the feedback for those searching on line to see. I think this is unfortunate. What it does say to me is that they are so settled in their opinion that they are not interest in having the other side promoted in any way on their blog. I highly doubt that they will even consider what people like us would write. My opinion comes from experience. I have tried to dialog with CBMW and they would not dialog regarding my DVD that they asked for and received and they stopped an email conversation with me basically just telling me to read their material which I had already read. But I do agree with you that those who are searching do need to hear the “other side” but they are unlikely to get that from strong hierarchal sites. If they are brave enough to read at places like this one, they will find wonderful people who may have differences but who are united together in Christ and passionate for women to be released into God’s service.
Oops. I missed the anti-spam word and copied the code from the other page.
Grudem’s Open Letter to Egalitarians has been well answered many times. In fact, that webpage used to contain the responses of Linda Belleville, to whom I am indebted for much of my research.
.
Since I have started to quote from that page and from Belleville and have proven that every one of the points was based on evidence that does not exist, CBMW has vastly edited that page and other pages to remove all their supposed evidence from their articles.
.
I wish I had saved the earlier pages from the CBMW website. There are very simple ways to refute each of those arguments.
.
1. Grudem: Specifically, we cannot find any text where person A is called the ”head’’ of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons.
McCarthy: ”the whole family of the Ptolemies was exceedingly eminent and conspicuous above all other royal families, and among the Ptolemies, Philadelphus was the most illustrious; for all the rest put together scarcely did as many glorious and praiseworthy actions as this one king did by himself, being, as it were, the leader of the herd, and in a manner the kephale (head) of all the kings.” Philo, Moses 2:30
.
Clearly, Philadelphus was not the authority over the other kings in his family. His father was also a Ptolemy, and Philadelphus could hardly be the authority over his own father.
.
2. Grudem: Will you please show us one example in all of ancient Greek where this word for ”be subject to’’ (hypotasso, passive) is used to refer to one person in relation to another and does not include the idea of one-directional submission to the other person’s authority?
.
McCarthy: 2 Macc 13.23,
”[King Antiochus Eupator] got word that Philip, who had been left in charge of the government, had revolted in Antioch; he was dismayed, called in the Jews, yielded (hupotage) and swore to observe all their rights, settled with them and offered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place.”
.
The king ”submitted” to the Jews, who had no authority over him. He yielded to them for political reasons.
3. I have not researched this.
.
4. Grudem: Our problem is this: we have never seen any clear example in ancient Greek literature where authenteo must mean ”domineer’’ or ”misuse authority.’’ Whenever we have seen this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, ”have authority’’ or ”exercise authority,’’ with no negative connotation attaching to the word itself.
.
McCarthy: BGU 1208 (first century B.C.): ”I had my way with him [authenteo] and he agreed to provide Catalytis the boatman with the full payment within the hour.”
.
This is the ONLY occurrence of authenteo is ancient literature. This citation is listed in the original study by Baldwin under the meaning of ”to compel, to influence someone.” and Grudem agrees with the translation ”compel.” (Ev. Fem & Biblical Truth. page 677 – 680.) According to Grudem other translators suggest ”prevail” and mention that this is a hostile relationship involving insolence.
.
The only example is listed as ”to compel.”
5. Grudem: oude 1 Tim. 2:12. … when we look at other examples of this Greek construction, in the form ”neither + [verb 1] + nor + [verb 2],’’ only two patterns occur: (a) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed positively, such as ”neither sow nor reap,’’ or ”neither eat nor drink,’’ or (b) verb 1 and verb 2 are activities or concepts that are both viewed negatively, such as ”neither break in nor steal’’ or ”neither leave nor forsake.
McCarthy: Since authenteo can only have a negative meaning, both verbs must have a negative force in this verse.
6. I have not looked at this either.
For # 1, 2 and 4 there is a clear response to Grudem. However, I have not researched the others to find examples of specific grammatical patterns. The Lexicon is clear that the meanings are ambiguous, but I just haven’t taken the time to find a collection of examples.
I have been able to disprove many of Grudem’s statements against the TNIV as well. I have sent many emails to CBMW asking them to take down evidence taken out of context, or claims that are not supported by fact. They started doing this but ultimately gave up and stopped responding to my emails. They at first got me to review some stuff and got the authors to respond to me. However, they could not take down the entire kephale study, which is for the most part inaccurate, so they did just start ignoring me.
Suzanne,
Thanks for telling me that you missed the anti spam word and copied from the other page. I couldn’t figure out how all the extra code got onto the page. I cleaned it up and then removed it. I was thinking gremlins were living here 🙂
Thanks also for providing this research. It is good information for us that ready needs someone of your caliber can provide!
PS I notice that Grudem has said “hupotasso, passive” I don’t remember the word Passive being there before, since I responded to the page before it had been edited, but here is an example with the middle/passive.
1 Clement 38.1: “So in our case let the whole body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each man be subject (hupotassestho) to his neighbor, to the degree determined by his spiritual gift,”
In this example, there is no authority either. Perhaps this is a better example. The CBMW pages are a moving target, but I think this helps.
PPS When I wrote,
“This is the ONLY occurrence of authenteo is ancient literature.
I meant near the time of the epistle to Timothy. There were more later, but they were also negative.
# 48 Truthseeker,
And there ya have it from one whose expertise, and intellectual discipline is ancient Greek. (Suzanne McCarthy).
I’m gonna say this once and up front as a caveat and a disclaimer. Aside from the essentials of the faith as contained in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, there is no hard and fast formula that can be used to determine an exact meaning of scripture. What we can do however, is identify trends by using the whole of scripture as a body of data and seeing what direction it’s going in. So far, the egalitarian position is better supported by this body of data than the complementarian one is.
Even in the hard sciences, what was once thought to be absolute clockwork (Newton’s universe) was shown to be nothing more than a darn good approximation by a German Jew who was a patent clerk at one time.
Since it’s another side issue, I’ll end my comments on the 12 with this. Being an apostle does not make one a part of the 12, as everyone would agree. But neither does anything else; the only criteria were those stated by Peter, and scripture never says he was wrong. Everything else is inference, a poor foundation for any argument. All we have that is stated clearly is Peter’s statement. We can second guess him and claim he acted without God’s approval, but there is nothing in all the NT to stand on. Paul never told Peter he was wrong to appoint someone else; in fact, it was never mentioned again. Paul’s defending his mission and authority was not an appeal to be considered one of the 12, but simply to defend his rights as “an” apostle, and one to whom Jesus spoke directly. Again, this does not make him one of the 12, and again, it does not belittle his status. Paul was one of a kind.
Nothing hinges on whether one believes Paul was one of the 12, so to expend so much energy on such a topic is unproductive. We’ll all find out the answer when we see the New Jerusalem. To further debate such a thing would be like arguing over which three sons of Israel are named on the north wall’s gates.
Greg, your point is well taken and good to remember in this whole topic.
Suzanne, Cheryl, Paula, and others who have responded here and to Grudem et al.: I had no idea that CBMW was so unfair in their handling of your earlier responses to them, or that you had responses. It is appalling for Christians in their position to do so but not surprising considering human nature, I guess.
ALT 2Co 12:11
I have become a fool by boasting; _you*_ compelled me! For _I_ ought to be commended by you*. For in nothing did I fall short of those “super-apostles”-even if I am nothing.
At least this translation suggests that Paul is contrasting himself with some who think they are super-apostles and other translations do this same.
The thing I am concerned with is the idea that ALL EXISTING apostles could make a mistake in concert, esp. as the Bible does not say that and furthermore according to my understanding of binding and loosing says that this is not possible.
Sorry, hit the send button too soon. Anyway, thanks to all those of you who have evidently invested so much time and effort in responding to CBMW/Grudem/CARM etc.! Would it be possible, as a matter of public record, and as a very useful deposit of information, to post those (your egalitarian) responses on a link here, so that the responses are available to the public? This way it is ‘documented’ even if the above mentioned parties choose to not post all or part of your replies to them on their sites. Perhaps this has already been done somewhere, and if so, I would love to know where. Cheryl, I know some of your CARM dialogue is on the site (per Matt, etc.) I am aware that much of the content of your responses to these challenges are contained in various sites; I think it would be great if there was a record of your point by point response(s) to the specific challenges (Grudem, etc.) on record. It would allow those of us newer to the debate excellent info to study, and would be a ‘public’ record, if you will, also, that the opposing challengers could not remove or hide. Just a thought.
Truthseeker,
I should go back and label all of the responses under a tag for challenges so that they can be brought up on one page. I will put that on my list to do.
Doesn’t GWTW have anything like that? I know they have tons of material, but I’m not sure they have a centralized Q and A sort of thing. I think that would be very useful for those who don’t want to wade through reams of scholarly detail. I’d be willing to assemble one if it doesn’t already exist. I already have a “wiki” summary of egal at http://wiki.fether.net (and I’m watching to see how long it lasts at http://www.conservapedia.com/Egalitarian)>). It would be nice if those with run-ins with CBMW, Grudem, and CARM could collect links with short summaries, and then I’d put it all into a handy chart or something.
Don,
While I gave my last word about why I believe as I do, there might be some words left in me to try to stretch people to think outside the box.
The issue of binding and loosening has nothing to do with a choice for a replacement for Judas. Also Paul is not contrasting himself with the key (super) apostles but saying that he is equal to them (he says he did not fall short of them). Paul’s claims certainly have to be dealt with by any who see him as one who has less authority than the ones called to be witnesses of the resurrection and to be foundations of the church. Is Paul indeed unique or is he also chosen by Jesus personally as all the others are for the same mission? If we get held back by thoughts that the disciples couldn’t have gone beyond their delegated authority we may miss out on an opportunity to see a lesson in all of this. I would just like to encourage people to think. What are the entire facts of the case and don’t stop with a thought that may be uncomfortable regarding apostolic authority. Jesus told them to wait until they were filled with the Spirit for power. After that date they didn’t seem to make any mistakes in unison.
Also no issue that has application for our lives today (this issue has applications for women’s ordination) is unworthy of spending time reasoning through. When all the evidence is on the table and none of the evidence is ignored, everyone can make a decision for themselves. Paul’s claims that no one else ever made need to be thought through.
Thanks for all your gracious words of wisdom.
“binding and loosing” are rabbinic terms for forbidding and permitting, that is, deciding things, so I see this giving of authority by Jesus to the disciples as directly relevant. Jesus had 3+ years of ministry, not everything was discussed that needed to be discussed and decisions were made later and God is backing them up with this.
Jews were familiar with the Great Sanhedrin and local sanhedrins deciding things.
The NT was written under the supervision of the apostles, so I do not want to abandon my claim that as a group they did not make mistakes. Individuals yes, as a group, no.
I can agree that Paul is everything he wrote he was, but I do not see that he was the 12th apostle as he never wrote that he was. the 12th apostle.
I also do not see any hint that what the 11 decided was considered wrong. What they did is what we do today, they referenced Scripture and prayed about it and decided to act. And there is no indication of error on their part, displeasure of God, etc. This is exactly what we do today when we act in faith.
Did Paul have this authority?
Everyone who wrote any books in the NT was inspired by God when they did it. This does not mean they could never make a mistake, only Jesus has that attribute. Since anyone might at anytime make a mistake (except when authoring Scripture), the solution is to give this authority of making decisions to the whole leadership.
Paul verified his teaching with the apostles. And it was also veriried with signs and wonders to his listeners. Peter said his collected writings were Scripture. Paul is my hero, so I do not want to diminish him in any way, but I do not see him as one of the 12.
P.S. The author of James is thought to be the brother of Jesus, not the brother of John and he was not one of the 11 but is an apostle.
Good comments, Don. I completely agree that there were other apostles other than the ones whose mission it was to be witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.
Did Paul exercise the same authority as Peter and the other apostles?
Did Paul get his authority from Jesus as the 11 disciples did who were picked personally by Jesus?
Were the 12 apostles chosen personally by Jesus?
Did Paul ever state that he was chosen personally by Jesus and his mission was to be a witness to gospel of the resurrection?
Cheryl (60) and Paula (61)-both of you have made great suggestions. Paula, your ‘wikki’ version, egal-in-a-nutshell, or in my case-egal for dummies :)-…is great! I like your Q and A idea, too, and the brief summaries. Cheryl, your link with actual responses would be great, too. I would love to read the response given to Grudem’s 6 point challenge. ( I actually don’t know which/how many of you did respond to Grudem.) I appreciate the time that those of you who have written lengthy responses have taken to do so. I know time is precious to all of us. Actually, I appreciate the short responses, too, because I (and others) am learning from all of what is said on these sites. Soaking it up and pondering it all. Nuff of my feedback and cheerleading; just wanted you all to know how valuable your efforts are.
Interesting discussions.
Regarding Paul… I also am not convinced that he was the twelfth apostle. But I do think he carried the same HS given authority as I believe every HS gifted apostle did also. It does seem that there was a difference between those who were apostles chosen by God as was every named apostle, and those messengers sent by the church, which would still be called apostolos in Greek. And it would also seem that there was a special giftedness imparted by having known Christ in the flesh.
I think the twelve were specifically chosen FIRST as representative of the twelve tribes. Secondarily, they were part of those God chose to lay the foundations for the new body of believers. While it is interesting that Paul played such a large part according to the written records we have, we do not know fully the extent of the involvement of everyone.
Just pondering here. 🙂
Correction: earlier I said GWTW when I was thinking of CBE. They do have a sort of primer on egal at This Link though.
Found something else in Ephesians.
In 5:5 we see the phrase commonly translated “you are saved by grace”. But this, like “dead to sin”, is in the dative case. I went to This Grammar Link and looked at the various options for the dative case here, and by process of elimination I concluded that it should read “You are the ones who have been saved because of grace!”. To use “by” here is wrong because grace is the cause, not the instrument. Grace is why we are saved, not how. The instrument of our salvation is the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Again in verse 8: “Because of grace you were saved”.
This may not seem like a big deal, but it points out sloppy translation that seems driven more by tradition and sometimes bias than a desire to accurately convey the words of scripture.
Oops, that should be 2:5, not 5:5.
Okay here are some questions to ponder:
1. There are two classes of apostles, the foundational apostles and all others who are sent but not specifically sent to represent Christ and his resurrection. If Paul is in the second class, not a foundational apostle why did he have so much authority to determine doctrine when no other apostle (other than the twelve) had such authority?
2. Why did Paul say that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ appointed to be a witness to the resurrection when no one else made that claim (except the twelve)?
3. Are there actually three classes of apostles? The foundational apostles who did extraordinary miracles, and were overseers of the church and created church doctrine as representatives of Christ; then secondary apostles who represented the church and were sent out to evangelize and start churches; and… Paul?
4. What class of apostle is Matthias? Is he an apostle of the church or an apostle of Jesus Christ? Who appointed him? The church is allowed to appoint apostles as representative of the church, but which scripture says that the church or the twelve may appoint one of Jesus’ representatives when all the others were appointed only by Jesus? Shouldn’t there be a scripture that gave them the authority to appoint Jesus’ representative? If there was, where is it?
5. Is it possible that God allowed the disciples to pick a replacement for Judas and this made Matthias an apostle but God fit him into the second category (an apostle of the church) not the first category (an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ)? Is it impossible for Jesus to have placed Paul as his choice of witness to the resurrection when he was given so many revelations?
6. What difference would this all make? If Paul is a secondary apostle of the church, would he have authority to set doctrine? If we say that secondary apostles can set doctrine, then why wouldn’t we think that doctrine can still be set by secondary apostles?
7. Did Paul think that he was special and equal in authority and in his commission by Jesus as were all of the other apostles of Jesus Christ?
Here is the terminology I use and how I see it.
1. There are the 12, apostles, and Scripture authors.
2. The 12 are apostles, but an apostle is not necessarily one of the 12. Indeed they can be apostles today, but not the 12, as they are all dead.
3. The 12 were given authority to make decisions, including what is in the NT, indeed some of the 12 were Scripture authors. John was the last survivor of the 12.
4. The 12 lost 1 of their group when Judas betrayed Jesus, in order to have 12, they needed to add 1, as these 12 map to the 12 tribes of Israel. However, none of these final 12 were replaced when they died, such as James did but was not replaced.
4. James the brother of Jesus is called an apostle but he was not one of the 12, similarly Shaul/Paul is called an apostle but he was not one of the 12. James became the leader of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15, even tho Peter was still around, and Paul became apostle to the gentiles even tho the first gentile to become a believer was due to Peter.
Good point about James, Don. And excellent questions Cheryl.
I think James puts another kink in the whole thing because he is believed to be the author of the epistle of James. He addresses the leaders when they came together in Acts 15 admonishing them from the OT, siding with Paul on not troubling the new Gentile Christians with Jewish “rules”. I believe he was also an apostle, a fellow laborer in laying the foundations of doctrine and a pillar of the early church to whom many looked to for direction including Paul. (Acts 21:18).
So, it seems that the twelve were not the only ones who laid the foundational beliefs of the early church. So then the question is, what exactly did the 12 do that was different than the other first leaders of the church?
I still maintain that all of the apostles were chosen directly by God even those who were not verbally named by Christ when he walked the earth. So the twelve seemed to be a transitional group of some sort, with their mapping to the 12 tribes. Yet, God still called others to lay foundations, set doctrines, etc. And that group when the foundations were laid, were not repeated in the next group of called apostles. Once the foundations were laid, they were laid.
#73 Don,
I agree with all of your 1-4 points except your last #4 point which I assume should have been #5. I believe that Paul claims to be one of the 12 apostles.
In Romans 1:1-5 Paul declares that he is an apostle of Jesus Christ. Paul then goes on to declare the gospel that the foundational apostles were specifically chosen to be witnesses of: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then Paul states that it is through Jesus and his resurrection that “we” have received grace and apostleship. In verse 5 Paul aligns himself with the other apostles that Jesus specifically hand picked to be witnesses of the resurrection.
While there were others in the church who were apostles and there were others who were leaders (James for example), there were only 12 who were picked by Jesus to be eyes witnesses to the resurrection and these were all to be apostles of Jesus Christ. No other apostle claimed to be picked by Jesus nor did they claim to be an apostle of the resurrection. Paul claimed these things.
Paul also claimed that he was equal to the other apostles picked by Jesus:
Paul also claimed that he had the signs of a true apostle:
No other apostle in the NT claimed to be picked by Jesus. No other apostle claimed to be an apostle of the resurrection. No other apostle claimed to be equal to the other apostles of Jesus Christ. No other apostle claimed to have the miracles to prove that he was a true apostle. No other apostle even had to have miracles to prove that he was a sent one from the church. But an apostle of Jesus Christ had to be picked by Jesus, had to be a witness to the resurrection and had to have the “signs” of that apostleship.
While this is not a hill to die on nor is it a necessary thing to believe, I myself accept Paul’s claim to be an apostle of Jesus Christ one called to be a witness of the resurrection and with the evidence of his apostleship supplied by his signs, wonders and miracles and his great revelations from Jesus Christ. Because of this, I believe that Paul was personally picked by Jesus as the 12th apostle of the resurrection and Matthias, although he was an apostle of the church, was not one of the twelve picked by Jesus.
ESV 2Co 11:4
For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
2Co 11:5
Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.
If you look at the context, apparently some were claiming to be “super-apostles” but were not proclaiming the true faith. This carries on to 1 Cor 12, again the apparently self-proclaimed super-apostles are false teachers.
There are some missionaries today that claim to have participated in signs and wonders. I believe all spiritual gifts are active today.
FWIIW, I agree with all the claims that Paul makes and you quote, just that I do not see him claiming to be one of the 12.
The concern I have is that all 11 acted in concert in picking Matthias, I do not see it as possible for all 11 acting in concert to make such a mistake. If that was possible, then how do we know ANYTHING is true?
Don,
Your question is an excellent one and one that should be considered. I believe that the eleven were given authority by Jesus and within that authority we can trust everything that they do regarding the gospel of Christ and the teachings and foundation of the church. The question that I have posed elsewhere and continue to pose, is did the foundational apostles also have the authority to pick the twelfth apostle? I say that their authority for the foundation of the church was to be exercised after they were given power from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and Jesus asked them to wait for this. While I do believe that they had the authority to appoint apostles to represent them and to carry on the work with them, they were not given the authority to pick the candidates that were then presented to God to choose from to pick one for the twelfth apostle. I believe that scripture is clear that Jesus himself has the authority to pick each and every foundational apostles and each and every foundational apostle was uniquely given a mandate to be an eye witness to the resurrection.
I believe that when the filling of the Holy Spirit happened at Pentecost and the authority was confirmed and supported by the infilling of the Holy Spirit that not one decision they made as a whole was a decision in error or a decision that Jesus had not given them authority to make. I think this is where the difference is and why I believe Paul’s claim to being a special witness to the resurrection overrides the decision of the eleven that came before Pentecost.
I also think that the question has great ramifications on the women’s issue. While I believe that the church has the mandate to make sure that those who protect them are qualified as overseers, I believe that the church does not have authority to ordain pastors who have not been gifted by God as a pastor and neither does the church have the authority to stop a person from operating in their gifting as a pastor if God has so gifted that person. I believe that Ephesians 4:10, 11 teaches us that it is under Jesus’ own authority that the gifts exist and that he himself has given apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to the body of Christ. We have been given authority to operate in these gifts (1 Peter 4:11) but I do not believe that the church has authority to deny our gifts or to stop us from fulfilling our calling in Christ. It is because if Jesus alone is the one who gifts the body with pastors, then the church does not have the authority to reject a woman who has been gifted by Jesus to be a pastor. The things that are in Jesus’ hands alone must be left in his hands. We can confirm the gifts we see in others but our confirmation cannot make someone a pastor nor can it deny someone’s gifting. The foundation for that belief is 1 Peter 4:10, 11 where the one gifted is given authority to use their gift (those gifted in speaking are authorized to speak as one who speaks the very utterances or oracles of God). I also believe in the fact that Jesus himself chose Paul as an apostle chosen to be a witness to the resurrection. I conclude that there are still areas of authority that do not belong to the church and have never belonged to the church and choosing pastors is one of those areas that the church has no authority over according to Ephesians 4:11.
The command was to stay in the city until (what we call) Pentecost, this they did.
Peter and the rest of the 11 were acting in faith based on their understand of Scripture to replace Judas.
So the 11 staying in Jerusalem until Pentecost as commanded, but this does not mean they just sat on their hands. In the gospels (before Pentecost) they had been given the authority to bind and loose, which are rabbinic terms to permit and forbid, that is make decisions.
—
On the 5 fold ministry, yes, each is a gift, but a congregation also needs to acknowledge this by the laying on of hands. That is, just because someone is called to be a pastor does not mean they are to be the pastor of THIS particular congregation, the congregation needs to agree. So while a congregation or denomination does not have the authority to say someone is NOT a pastor, etc. they DO have the right to say they are NOT a pastor, etc. in this specific church or denomination.
This is similar to accepting a prophet as a prophet, if you do not do it (which is your choice) you do not get any benefits you might have gotten.
I agree Paul say the risen Christ, but this does not mean he saw the resurrection, this was the time between 3 days after his death and his ascension.
I see somehow my post got slightly scrambled. The last sentence is part of a quote from the BIble.
Don,
No problem, I fixed it for you 🙂 I will get back to you later. This week has been one of those very busy weeks. Up to my ears in video editing and working on selling our house.
It is probably better to do this offline or on another thread.
Don,
I have been thinking about it, and I think it would be good to carry on this conversation with a new post on the issue of women pastor’s. I will try to get it up this weekend. It has been so crazy around here with me working until about 11 pm every night. That is a solid 15 hour day 5 days a week working on the video editing of the Trinity DVD. I decided that I deserve to take the weekends off so that I can get a few other things done along with cleaning. The dust bunnies are building up 🙂