A Critical Review of pages 37-42

Introduction

The argument driving the article under review is laid down in its introduction: the changing role of women in the world should lead to a “re-examination” of Scripture to permit the ordination of women. Whether this is a re-examination, always bearing in mind that Christians are not to be conformed to this world (Rom. 12.2) or be governed by the wisdom of the world (1 Cor.1), or whether it is a revision of Scripture, is debatable. Our investigation leads us to the second opinion, since we find the evidence presented tendentious in interpretation, distorted by notable omissions and heavily influenced by poststructuralist theory.

But first some matters need correction. That a majority of the world’s “Lutherans” (how do you define “Lutheran”?) ordain women should also be qualified by the fact that many of these same “Lutherans” have gone further and also ordained homosexuals, or are debating the issue. Furthermore, majority opinion should be irrelevant to the LCA, which owes its existence to the defiance of the founding fathers to majority opinion by rejecting the Prussian Union. Secondly, to suggest that the CTICR approved the ordination of women in 1999 is misleading. This was by no means a unanimous decision.

Thirdly, what is the meaning of: “Scripture and theology permit” in the CTICR statement? What does ‘and theology’ mean? The LCA recognizes the authority of Scripture alone and teaches quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum. Reference will be made to this later.

“Women in the Bible”

This subtitle, opening the section under review, is inaccurate. It certainly does not give a full and balanced picture of women in the Bible, which is an enormous subject. Moreover, to be fair to the title of the article, it should also discuss ‘Men in the Bible’! It thereby removes the topic of the debate from its proper focus, which is the pastoral ministry and whether God has or has not forbidden this office to women. The proper procedure that should be followed is called “the analogy of faith”, that is: “Each doctrine of Holy Writ has its proper source solely in those clear passages (sedes doctrinae) which treat of that particular doctrine” (F. Hassold, Australian Theological Review V.2 (April, 1934), p.52). If you subtract or add to those passages, you have a false analogy of faith (e.g. Luther and Zwingli on John 6.63). This is the most serious error of the article, because by “considering the witness of Scripture as a whole” (das Schriftganze) it imposes a super-norm, “women in the Bible”, or, more exactly, “stories” that show “women in roles one would expect to have been played by men.” The article does not establish what those male roles are, or whether those roles have a divine or a human origin, nor does it show us from Scripture that this is the procedure God wants us to follow. At the same time, by introducing a great number of irrelevant passages, it claims that it has a greater respect for Scripture than those who base their case on two. More will be said about “Scripture as a whole” later.

Exodus 15.19-21

Exodus 15.19-21 purportedly shows that Miriam “leads her people in a song of praise… leading them in worshipping God…she also proclaims to her people the great things that God has done….that thousands of generations might use it for worship.” This is so misleading that it is tantamount to falsehood. Exodus 15.1 tells us that Moses led the people in a song of praise (eighteen verses), and Miriam led the women in dancing, playing musical instruments and singing the first verse of Moses’ song as a refrain (one verse). Miriam’s leading the women in dance and song was a commonplace custom on festive occasions in Israel and the surrounding nations, and is still so in Israel today (Judges 10.34; 21.19ff; 1 Sam. 18.6, 7). The women acted as a sort of choir. As to her using a refrain from Moses’ song, it is even less remarkable than the fact that we sing the hymns of many women hymn-writers (23 women are mentioned in The Lutheran Hymnal, 1941). If anything, the passage proves that Miriam’s leadership was especially exercised amongst the women.

However, something more should be said about Miriam’s leadership. The article omits the story of Miriam’s disgrace in Numbers 12. Miriam was indeed a prophet, but when she (and Aaron) presumed to reach beyond the leadership assigned to her by God by attacking the God-given authority and superiority of Moses, God punished her by smiting her with leprosy.

Judges 4 and 5.

The case for Deborah as a prophet and judge of Israel is more correctly presented. Amongst the Jews, Deborah is listed as fourth judge with Barak. In Judges 5.7 she is rightly praised “as a mother in Israel” (hardly a male role!). Barak begged her to accompany him on his military campaign, although interestingly, for whatever reason, Hebrews 11.32 does not mention Deborah as the victorious commander, but Barak alone. The song of Deborah (also known as the song of Deborah and Barak) is a great hymn, and it shows that God uses the gifts of women for worship and praise, but as mentioned above, there is no accompanying command of God that connects such gifts with the ordination of women.

2 Kings 22.1-20.

The story of Huldah is the third example in the OT of a woman prophet. She is held in the highest respect by the king and his counsellors, but this has nothing to do with her gender; it is recognition that the revelation she speaks comes from the Spirit of God. The proper understanding of this prophecy may be found on p. 62, footnote 25, namely, prophecy as “special prophecy”, direct revelation, rather than “general prophecy”, that which the pastor preaches and teaches to the congregation by means of Scripture.

The question now arises: What do these three stories prove? Certainly they show that God gave direct revelations through these three women, and that they are rightly called prophets. The Theses of Agreement (TA) states this too: “Though women prophets were used by the Spirit of God in the Old and in the New Testament….” There is no passage in the Bible that says God will not give a direct revelation to a woman. Nor does the Bible say that they should not be judges or give counsel to kings. However, the very paucity of female prophets and judges shows, for whatever reason, that they were rare, and it is also of some significance that although a number of OT women are mentioned in the NT, none of these three is included, and certainly the NT makes no connection between OT female prophets and ordination.

But now comes a glaring omission. The article fails to mention the far more important fact that the regular leaders and teachers of worship in Israel were the priests, and later, the rabbis. As is well known, only males were allowed by God to hold this office, so much so that, as Roland de Vaux points out, Hebrew possesses no word for female priest, although there is such a word in related Semitic languages, and “no women ever held a place among the Israelite clergy” (Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, p.384). Female prophets could not alter this fact. This is well illustrated by a passage that remarkably is not referred to by the article, Luke 2.36. Here Anna, who alone in the NT is given the title “prophetess” (though cf. Rev.2.20), received the Christ-child, and as a prophet spoke what God had revealed to her to all she met. However, the text also makes clear that she was a devoted worshipper in the Temple; though she was a prophet, she did not presume to be anything but a worshipper; her prophetic office did not give her the right to assume the role of the priests by leading worship in the Temple.

Luke 1.39-56

Here the article follows the same procedure: Mary and Elizabeth “preach” to the congregation in worship when we sing their songs of praise, thus vindicating the right of women to be ordained. Again it is ignored that Mary and Elizabeth for all the high honour that God bestowed on them, still were punctilious in obedience to the Levitical laws of God, including their submission to the male priestly order mentioned above (e.g. the Purification). As to what is said about Mary “holding centre stage with Jesus” in the Incarnation, one wonders if the writer is still a Lutheran. God bestowed a supreme honour upon Mary, but, following Luther in his explanation of the Magnificat, this reflects the amazing and mysterious grace and condescension of God, and the humble obedience of Mary; it does not lead us, as in the Catholic church, to heap near-divine honours upon her. The article then proceeds with an “interpretation” that matches the most bizarre allegorization that one could only expect from a Franciscan devotee of Mary: the body of Jesus is taken from Mary as Eve’s body was taken from Adam; and Mary’s offering of Christ’s body and blood in his birth is superior to the offering of the body and blood that the male officiant presents in celebration of the Sacrament. This, no doubt, is supposed to be the “theologizing” mentioned in the CTICR statement that is quoted with approval in the Introduction. It is true that Irenaeus in his teaching of recapitulation attempted to show that Mary was the Second Eve. But this speculation goes even further, and turns her into the Second Adam! Why not aspire higher, as the Catholics do, and claim that Mary’s milk is found in the Eucharist? Or, as some Catholics claim, Mary is the mother of the Church, because just as Jesus came forth from the amniotic water of her womb, so we too receive the new birth through the water of Baptism, which is a symbol of Mary’s water? It is good to be reminded of the very little that Scripture does teach about Mary, in particular the sober words of the Apostle: “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal.4.4). It is worth quoting as a salutary reminder from our TA: “We reject all attempts which have been made even since the Reformation, or may still be made (italics added), to introduce into the Church under whatever name other sources of doctrine besides Holy Scripture” (DSTO, A17).

Mark 14.1-9

Here the writer makes exalted claims for the woman of the text, using post-structural methodology by ‘unpicking’ the text to uncover new and multiple meanings: hers is a Messianic anointing; she is a prophet surpassing ordinary prophets. The writer claims that she, unlike the twelve, is the true exemplar of discipleship because “she demonstrates extravagant self-giving, indicating her willingness to spend her life totally in service of her Lord.” None of this follows the obvious meaning of the text. It should be remembered that the Jews had many different kinds of anointing. The woman, following the customary way of bestowing honour, shows Jesus singular devotion by her action. Jesus himself prophetically interprets it as an anticipatory anointing of his corpse. The writer tries to back his case with a footnote, but the connection between Mark 14.4 and 8.35 is so subtle that, unless one is a post-structuralist, a person could not be blamed if he/she could not find it there at all. As for the parallel use of “life” in 8.35 and 12.44, the writer is wrong: in 8.35 “life” is psyche; in 12.44 “life” is bios, two quite different concepts, as the parenthesis in 12.44 proves.

Luke 13.21; Luke 15:8-10

The writer refers to the feminine imagery in the parables. He says this shows that God is the Divine Baker Woman and God the Divine Housekeeper. The writer concludes that this shows that “Jesus freely employs feminine imagery for God’s activity in the world”. The significance of this statement is unclear; after all, Jesus probably uses even more imagery taken from nature – seeds, plants, trees, vines, birds, sheep, etc. He also talks about thieves and unjust judges. Is God the Divine Thief? Is God the Unjust Judge? The writer falls into error by being unable to distinguish between the image and the tertium quid.

Luke 7.36-50

This is the story of the woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears. The writer concludes from this and other passages that women possess the spiritual gift of service as an attribute of their gender, and that therefore they are not only a model for discipleship and for the public ministry, but their gender especially equips them for such activities. The way the writer stereotypes “service” as the essentially female follows long unfashionable feminist theory. The writer makes the same mistake as explained above about the tertium quid. That women should be shown in service roles so often in the Bible is due to the fact that service, especially domestic service, was the customary activity of women, and, it should be added, it did nothing to lower their high status in Israel (Roland de Vaux, ibid, p.39). It is quite wrong, however, to conclude that spiritual service is thereby a special feminine trait, and therefore makes women especially apt for the ministry. Ironically, feminists today would be incensed if it were suggested that service is a feminine attribute. The model for ministry always remains the One who said that he came not to be served (ministrari), but to serve (ministrare)

John 4.1-42

The fact that the Samaritan woman told her neighbours about Jesus is supposed to prove that she alone in John’s Gospel carried out Jesus’ command to bear witness to him; therefore, women should be ministers to preach the Word. Once again the text makes no such connection between her bearing witness and the office of the ministry. Compare this event with Jesus’ command to Peter in John 21.15ff: “Feed my sheep….Follow me.” Hers is the “ministry” that belongs to all believers as members of the spiritual priesthood.

John 20.1-18

This section deals with Mary Magdalene, who was the first to see the risen Lord and carry the message of the resurrection to the disciples. Once again the writer tries to prove that a woman is singled out for special attention in order to prove that women are the equal if not superior to male disciples in spirituality. In an irrelevant footnote he even suggests that there has been a persistent conspiracy against Mary Magdalene to blacken her character in order to silence her voice and to exclude her from her rightful place amongst the apostles. The simpler and more obvious reason is that she has been identified with the woman in Luke 7.39; and although this is wrong, it is understandable why certain details have led to this connection. It is gratuitous to repeat the blasphemous suggestion of Lloyd Webber (sic) and Scorcese (sic), or, one might add, the Da Vinci Code. The writer also comes to questionable conclusions: “Jesus waits until (Peter and John) have gone, until only Mary is there… Jesus acts counter to expectations by revealing himself to a woman…. Mary accepts this great privilege and responsibility.” To claim such insights into the mind and purposes of the risen Lord in the unique mystery of the glorious resurrection is breath-taking. Who told the writer that Jesus was waiting for the two men to go so that he could talk to Mary alone? How does the writer know what the proper human expectations should be in the presence of the most exalted of divine mysteries? The almost impossible task of making a harmony out of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection shows that the human protagonists were overwhelmed by amazement and confusion. As for Mary’s “accepting this great privilege and responsibility”, the naivety of this remark is embarrassing.

No more needs to be said than the rebuttal that is given in this same issue of LTJ on p.31: “Given Jesus’ regard for women…” etc.

The passages, Joel 2, Acts 2; Acts 21, which deal with women prophets, have been covered earlier when treating of the women prophets of the OT. Romans 16.1-16 has been answered elsewhere in this issue and needs no further elaboration.

The concluding paragraph (p.43)

This paragraph takes the reader back to the opening statement about “Scripture as a whole”. The writer claims that only the whole picture of women in the Bible filling “a leading role in the life of God’s faithful people” gives a norm by which to judge the “two brief texts” of Paul that “appear to forbid the ordination of women.” In the history of doctrine this methodology of the “wholeness of Scripture” has been used repeatedly to press home a false teaching in order to avoid the witness of clear passages. It was used by the theologians of the Confutation against the teaching of Penitence in the Augsburg Confession. Melanchton replied in the Apology: “Look how our opponents prove these fictions of theirs…They quote many Scripture passages to give the inexperienced the impression that this idea has the authority of Scripture…” (Tappert, p. 200). Or again, it would be similar to saying: “Since we have only one dominical command to baptise (Matt.28.19), we must first look at every passage in the Bible that talks about water and washing, and then we will be able to determine whether we should obey Christ or not.” Most recently “the wholeness of Scripture” has also been used by Lutheran churches to argue along these lines: “Scripture as a whole shows that the integrity of individuals must be treated with love and compassion. The passages forbidding homosexuality only number about three or four and must be understood in the context of their times. Therefore, the wholeness of Scripture becomes the norm to interpret these few brief texts, and this makes it possible in love to ordain homosexuals.”

As for the passages that have been chosen by the writer, they simply reveal the obvious: women like men are blessed with many spiritual gifts. However, the article goes beyond this; it promotes the discourse that men have ascribed to women a lesser spiritual capability due to their gender, and have deprived them of their full spiritual potential by refusing to ordain them; it is really male hegemony that is at the root of the ordination debate, and until this is deconstructed, the real meaning of Paul’s “brief texts” cannot be grasped. But sadly this ascribing of misogynist motives to men completely bypasses one of the great, if not the greatest, inscrutable truths of Scripture: God’s grace. The ministry of the Gospel is not bestowed on men on the basis of some sort of superior male spirituality. It is a gift of grace, and like all gifts of grace, it is one with the mystery of God’s dealing with men and women throughout history. We are perplexed, but it is still true that God in his grace created Adam first and then Eve; that he chose Jacob and not Esau, Levi and not Dan, men priests and not women priests, Saul the persecutor to be an apostle and not Mary Magdalene to whom the risen Lord first appeared, men and not women to be ministers of the Gospel. It is time that as brothers and sisters in Christ we should humble ourselves before his gracious wisdom.

Signed:

Peter Koehne

Adam Cooper