![\"Judge](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/07\/judge.jpg?resize=404%2C310\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Last post Mike Seaver<\/a><\/strong> and Cheryl Schatz started a discussion\/debate on women in ministry. \u00a0Here is a link to Cheryl\u2019s Question #1<\/a> <\/strong>given to Mike. \u00a0This post will be Cheryl\u2019s response to Mike\u2019s answers and Mike\u2019s response to Cheryl\u2019s response. \u00a0Mike\u2019s corresponding post on his Role Calling blog is here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n Cheryl responds to Mike\u2019s answers:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n God\u2019s law is always clear and distinct. \u00a0Paul explained in 1 Cor. 14 that a word that is not clear is as useless as speaking into the air with no one to hear or understand. \u00a0Similarly a law that is not clear or distinct has no power to prepare a person to identify sin, keep away from sin and judge sin. \u00a0The clearness of God\u2019s law prevents us from misunderstanding what God requires. \u00a0God has blessed us with a clear message and the clearness of the message guides our conduct.<\/p>\n On the contrary an unclear word produces confusion, disagreement amongst Christians and an inability to prepare for spiritual warfare.<\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:7 \u00a0Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?<\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:8 \u00a0For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?<\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:9 \u00a0So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I have noticed how useful Paul\u2019s words are for judging false interpretations about the law. \u00a0Whenever I have asked complementarians to point to the \u201claw\u201d that forbids women from speaking in the congregation, I have noticed the indistinct sounds that come forth without a consensus among complementarians about where this \u201claw\u201d is to be found or even what the \u201claw\u201d forbids. \u00a0Instead we hear indistinct words like \u201cprobably\u201d \u201cpossibly\u201d \u201cseems to be\u201d \u201cnot absolute\u201d \u201clikely\u201d \u201cgeneral pattern\u201d. \u00a0Not only is there no \u201cdistinct\u201d and \u201cclear\u201d law that can be pointed to in the Old Testament, but no matter what is \u201cguessed\u201d for the original location of such a \u201claw\u201d, complementarians are unable to explain how the wording of the OT quote qualifies as a law. \u00a0How does the account of the creation of the woman provide the basis for such a \u201claw\u201d (no other law is ever stated in such an unclear fashion) or what the law even mean?<\/p>\n Some \u201cguess\u201d that the \u201claw\u201d from 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 means absolute silence of women in the assembly but they have no proof of such a \u201claw\u201d from the Old Testament nor do they have proof of any silence commanded to Eve. \u00a0Others \u201cguess\u201d that it must mean that women cannot judge between truth and error spoken in a message given to the church. \u00a0Others \u201cguess\u201d that women can indeed judge between truth and error, however they must not<\/em><\/strong> do it publicly. \u00a0But where are all these \u201crules\u201d for women listed and why is the \u201claw\u201d so indistinct that the church cannot come to a consensus what is and what is not forbidden for women and if there is a prohibition, how far does the prohibition extend?<\/p>\n Mike, you yourself admit that your interpretation of these passages may not be the same as other complementarians. \u00a0This proves my point. \u00a0I say that the \u201claw\u201d that complementarians want to claim is in these passages is so unclear that there can never be an agreement without a Christian Talmud set up outside of the bible to hash out the details of what women can and cannot do in private or in public. \u00a0Would it not be better to allow the bible alone to guide our steps as we realize that there is no \u201claw\u201d that forbids women from speaking in the assembly?<\/p>\n Regarding the judgment that \u201cothers\u201d are to do:<\/p>\n 1 Cor 14:29 \u00a0Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. (ESV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Greek term for \u201cweigh\u201d (what is said) is diakrino and it means to discern.<\/p>\n The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament shows this as evaluating the difference between things: discern, distinguish, differentiate.<\/p>\n The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes that in classical and Hellenistic Greek this term is mostly used for \u201cconverse\u201d or \u201cdiscussion\u201d and that there is an art of persuasion<\/em><\/strong> and demonstration<\/em><\/strong> that comes in the form of question and answer<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0The idea for a time of question and answer after a speaker has given his message is popular even today in seminars and it was also common in the Christian congregation. \u00a0This practice allows the audience to participate in clarifying any things that are taught which are unclear. \u00a0It also allows for the discernment and evaluation that is commanded to all in 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21.<\/p>\n 1 Thess 5:19 \u00a0Do not quench the Spirit;<\/p>\n 1 Thess 5:20 \u00a0do not despise prophetic utterances.<\/p>\n 1 Thess 5:21 \u00a0But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n These verses in 1 Thessalonians 5, which were written by the Apostle Paul, show that examining the prophetic utterances with the end result of separating the good from the bad and holding onto that which is good, is a command to everyone. \u00a0It is to be a part of our maturing in Christ. \u00a0Who then can doubt that 1 John 4:1 is a command to the whole church:<\/p>\n 1 John 4:1 \u00a0Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The fact that the church has been warned that false prophets and false teachers would seek to deceive the church identifies the importance of everyone being on their guard and testing all things.<\/p>\n We need to take note that testing all things is an important part of Christian maturity. \u00a0By using this test, we can see that there is no identifiable \u201claw\u201d in the Old Testament that either silences women in the congregation or stops them from evaluating a spiritual message. \u00a0This is highly important. \u00a0Paul could not have emphasized the importance of having a clear and distinct \u201csound\u201d saying that without this clarity \u201chow will it be known what is spoken?\u201d and then turn around and himself give an \u201cindistinct sound\u201d. \u00a0It would be an \u201cindistinct sound\u201d that would link a \u201claw\u201d that is unidentifiable<\/em><\/strong> within God\u2019s own law and an \u201cindistinct command\u201d for women to learn at home when this contradicts Paul\u2019s own words that all may learn in the assembly (1 Cor 14:26, 31). \u00a0Indeed God is not a God of confusion but a God of the \u201cdistinct sound\u201d and \u201cdistinct message\u201d.<\/p>\n Instead of seeing 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 as Paul\u2019s command to silence the women\u2019s voices in the assembly and commanding them to learn at home, it is much more natural to see these words as a quote from the Corinthian\u2019s who had written a letter to Paul (1 Cor. 7:1) that Paul answers throughout this letter. \u00a0Paul\u2019s words saying \u201cnow concerning\u201d (1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1 12:1) deal with many subjects that the Corinthians were concerned about and several that apparently were in dispute. \u00a0The issue of women speaking out in prophesy would have concerned those who wanted to follow the Jewish oral law that forbid a woman\u2019s voice from being heard in the assembly. \u00a0The fact that Paul uses words of contradiction in 1 Cor. 14:36 fit with Paul\u2019s judging of the Corinthian quote as mere human commands in opposition to the commands that God has revealed through Paul throughout chapter 14. \u00a0These God-given commands revealed through Paul had released women to publicly prophesy, allowed them to publicly learn, and gave them the equal obligation to evaluate and discern the truth in order to hold to what is good (1 Thess 5:21) and to judge between true and false prophets and true and false prophecies. \u00a0It is when all of us practice this discernment that is for the mature (not the mature male alone), that we will be kept safe from error.<\/p>\n Heb 5:14 \u00a0But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mike, you said that there is a \u201cgeneral pattern\u201d of male leadership in the Old Testament. \u00a0However the term \u201cgeneral\u201d does not make this a law since God chose Deborah as a Judge over Israel. \u00a0When we make a \u201claw\u201d out of \u201cpatterns\u201d we are outside of the clear \u201cpattern\u201d of God who always gave a distinct sound regarding His law. \u00a0It is a man-made \u201claw\u201d that forbids a woman to participate in public questions and the discerning of truth from error. \u00a0God has made no such law that forbids a woman to participate in public and any attempt at trying to \u201csort of\u201d\u00a0or \u201ckind of\u201d find such a law to impose on godly Christian women falls to the ground under close examination.<\/p>\n Mike you also said that Priscilla was not disciplined for correcting Apollos because she did the correction privately. \u00a0However there was no such law that would have forbidden her from correcting him publicly. \u00a0We also note that the public speaking that Apollos did that was in need of correcting was not done in the Christian assembly<\/em><\/strong> where both men and women had the freedom to speak out, but it was done in the synagogue<\/em><\/strong> where women were restricted from speaking. \u00a0Since Apollos was witnessing in the synagogue about Jesus, and since he was speaking accurate things about Jesus (Acts 18:25), there was no need for a public correction. \u00a0Priscilla with her husband Aquilla took Apollos aside to explain the way of God more accurately. \u00a0This doesn\u2019t imply that he was in error but that he needed to be taught what he was missing \u2013 a more accurate understanding. \u00a0The Greek word for \u201caccurate\u201d is a term that focuses on careful attention to the details. \u00a0According to the BDAG lexicon it means \u201cstrict conformity to a standard or norm, with focus on careful attention, accurately, carefully, well\u201d.<\/p>\n In regards to your comment about 1 Timothy 2:12, the Greek word \u201cauthento\u201d is a unique term that is never repeated in the scriptures. \u00a0Its meaning is not altogether clear although there are no examples of a positive meaning for this word in historical records. \u00a0Thus it is a very unwise thing to set up a \u201claw\u201d on another\u00a0\u201cunclear sound\u201d with no biblical evidence at all that Paul was stopping godly<\/em><\/strong> teaching rather than stopping the teaching of error<\/em><\/strong> which is clear in the context of 1 Tim. 1:3, 7.<\/p>\n Next, \u00a0if the requirements of 1 Tim. 3:2 \u201chusband of one wife\u201d are a \u201claw\u201d that forbids godly Christian women from following 1 Tim. 3:1 where \u201canyone\u201d (see 1 Tim. 3:1 ESV) may aspire to the work of overseer, then it must also be a \u201claw\u201d that the one who does the work of overseer must also be married<\/em><\/strong> and must also have children<\/em><\/strong> (1 Tim. 3:4, 5). \u00a0For anyone to make a \u201claw\u201d from one part of the \u201cmust be above reproach\u201d moral requirement<\/em><\/strong> and fail to hold to the rest of the details in the same way, they would be appealing to an unclear sound as far as \u201claw\u201d goes. \u00a0Those who fail to forbid single men or who fail to forbid married men who are without children from doing the work of an overseer while at the same time forbidding godly Christian women from desiring the work of an overseer, would be guilty of making a moral requirement out to be an unclear and unexplained contradictory and discrimatory<\/em><\/strong> \u201claw\u201d.<\/p>\n Mike, you also said that 1 Tim. 3:2 \u201cable to teach\u201d means that \u201cthe man is to be the teacher\u201d. \u00a0This is another unclear word. \u00a0Paul did not say that only<\/em><\/strong> overseers can teach (although overseers in their work must be able to teach), nor did he say that only<\/em><\/strong> pastors and elders can teach. \u00a0We cannot force 1 Timothy 3:2 as a limitation on who teaches in the congregation since this would be a very unclear word, and an unclear understanding on this passage. \u00a0If Paul meant that only men<\/em><\/strong> could teach, then Paul could have clearly and distinctly said that only men<\/em><\/strong> are allowed to teach.<\/p>\n In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul does not say that a woman is not allowed to teach men<\/em><\/strong> (plural). \u00a0That would imply that the prohibition is regarding a public teaching. \u00a0Instead Paul forbid \u201ca woman\u201d from teaching \u201ca man\u201d so the implication is that whatever is forbidden is applicable at least at the private one-one-one level<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0However the connection to deception in verse 14 and the concern about the salvation (verse 15) of the one who is stopped from teaching leads to a much more natural understanding that Paul is not stopping correct godly teaching, but the teaching of error. \u00a0We simply cannot understand 1 Tim. 2:12 by removing this verse from its complete context of 1 Tim. 2:11-15. \u00a0Verse 15 is the conclusion to verse 12 and without the conclusion, the prohibition becomes an indistinct sound.<\/p>\n If Paul is dealing with a specific<\/em><\/strong> situation in Ephesus regarding a specific<\/em><\/strong> false teacher it becomes clear why Paul put this prohibition in a personal letter to Timothy<\/em><\/strong> rather than in a general letter to the church<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0If taken as a general \u201claw\u201d for all godly women it becomes an indistinct and unclear \u201claw\u201d. \u00a0Without repetition of this law anywhere else in a book to the entire church that would make the indistinct \u201claw\u201d to be clear, it remains as a failure to qualify as a clear, universal \u201claw\u201d that would set limitations on the wise biblical teaching of women. \u00a0It also remains unclear why Paul would tell us in 1 Corinthians 14 that we should all seek spiritual gifts for the edification of all<\/em><\/strong> and then in 1 Timothy 2 force all women to withhold their God-given gifts of teaching from men. \u00a0General application then is an \u201cindistinct and unclear\u201d sound while a specific application to a specific situation would not violate any of the liberating commands that Paul has given to women.<\/p>\n Mike, I really appreciate your willingness to answer questions. \u00a0This openness is commendable and refreshing. \u00a0I also appreciate that you have allowed your answers to be challenged and tested. \u00a0I trust that all can see that the answers provided by Mike are an indistinct sound and an unclear \u201claw\u201d that fails the test of clear, biblical \u201claws\u201d which were all designed by God to provide an accurate identification of sin<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0Without that clear sound, how will one know to turn away from sin?<\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n Mike\u2019s response to Cheryl:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Cheryl, thanks for your response to my answer to your question (did that make sense?!? HA!).\u00a0 Obviously, I disagree on numerous points, but I think our later Q&A will hit a lot of this.\u00a0 My greatest problem with your view is that you siphon away all the passages that could possibly go against your position instead of giving the consideration that when Paul says, \u201cI do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man\u201d(1 Tim 2:12)\u2026he may have really meant \u201cI do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.\u201d\u00a0 The idea that you put forth that allows woman to lead, teach, and exercise authority over men is based on me not having a \u201claw\u201d to back up my position.\u00a0 I\u2019m really not trying to be mean hear, but I\u2019m just reading what it says and trying to apply it.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think it can be explained away that women were falsely teaching or any other explanation the make the passage to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.\u00a0 I agree that v.11 through 15 go together and that v. 15 is a hard verse to understand, but I don\u2019t think we can say because the end of that passage is difficult, let\u2019s just throw out verse 12.<\/p>\n I also don\u2019t think it is wise to throw out the 1 Timothy 3:2 overseer qualification \u201cthe husband of one wife\u201d when Paul has it in there.\u00a0 He could have spoken to women\/wives in this context as he did in the deacon qualification in v. 8-13, but Paul didn\u2019t.\u00a0 I just think there is probably a reason for that.\u00a0 Paul says \u201chusband of one wife\u201d (or \u201cman of one woman\u201d) to make sure that the overseer was not practicing polygamy, so hopefully a single man would not be practicing polygamy either, or he would be unqualified.\u00a0 A single man however would still be a \u201che.\u201d<\/p>\n It seems like our interpretations come down to this:\u00a0 Is what is written true or is what is written so unclear and misconstrued that we cannot find what is true in it so we should dismiss it?<\/p>\n Cheryl, it is a joy to get to correspond with you and I respect you.\u00a0 Though we disagree, I\u2019m thankful for the conversation.<\/p>\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n Cheryl\u2019s second question to Mike and Mike\u2019s answer will be posted on August 3rd.<\/p>\n<\/body>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Last post Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz started a discussion\/debate on women in ministry. \u00a0Here is a link to Cheryl\u2019s Question #1 given to Mike. \u00a0This post will be Cheryl\u2019s response to Mike\u2019s answers and Mike\u2019s response to Cheryl\u2019s response. \u00a0Mike\u2019s corresponding post on his Role Calling blog is here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cheryl responds to Mike\u2019s answers:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[3,5,9,11,14,22,30,31,52,72,73],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-1-corinthians-14","category-1-timothy-issues","category-1-timothy-3","category-answering-complementarian-arguments","category-authority-and-women","category-challenges","category-debates","category-egalitarian-vs-complementarian","category-opposing-viewpoints","category-women-pastors","category-women-serving-in-the-church"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n