1 CORINTHIANS 14: 33b-38 AND 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-14 PERMIT THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN.

I have just completed a quick look at the above CTICR document printed in the Lutheran Theological Journal, as one of 6 for study by Pastors and eventually lay people. I found it to be the most appalling theological drivel masquerading as deep theological insights made all the more appalling in that it had the approval at least of those who favour WO.

On page 37 of that issue of the LTJ is a paper which is titled “A case for the ordination of women and men”. In there, we are given a long list of Women in the Bible who were supposedly “capable” of many tasks and therefore must surely be ‘eligible’ for ordination. Now in this present paper starting at p. 66 in the LTJ is the claim that the problems at Corinth and Ephesus were caused by biblically illiterate women which Paul was counteracting. This is a complete contradiction of what had been said in the previous paper. As a matter of fact, these are grounds enough for NOT ordaining women. But there are also more serious concerns.

The paper has three serious hypotheses which are then fleshed out to make a case for the ordination of women. I shall deal with these in turn. But first it is necessary to make this comment. On pages 66-67, the word “probably” is used three times. Then on page 82 we get “possibly”. Finally in the Summary and conclusion we have use of “maybe”. This not theological insight, but pure speculation which cannot be taken seriously. Even more serious is the fact that the paper is guilty both of blasphemy and heresy. I will be more specific.

Hypothesis 1.

This is stated right at the very beginning of the paper and developed throughout the paper. I quote: “In 1 Corinthians 14 it was the habit some poorly instructed women had developed of interrupting the worship leaders with a stream of questions. And in 1 Timothy 2 the focus falls on a group of women who had fallen prey to false teachers – most of whom were probably libertarian charlatans – and were seeking to take a leading role in worship without first undergoing the thorough instruction in the faith that led to the ability to instruct worshippers in the health-giving teaching of the gospel.” (My underlining.)

If we remember that Paul spent over a year in both places, we can only assume that he was a rotten teacher, who failed to teach women, or worse still, chose not to. That is a slight on him as a called apostle, led by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and repudiates the claims in the paper on hermeneutics that all members of the CTICR adhere to the Theses of Agreement on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

It gets even worse. This same hypothesis is repeated on page 80, No. 1 and I quote: Given women’s poor biblical instruction, whether they were gentiles or brought up within Judaism, it is little wonder that they were the main members of the congregation to fall under the spell of false teachers, the libertarian charlatans who entered their midst.” GIVEN BY WHOM? It is absolutely not a given when this is pure speculation without a hint of proof provided. This is actually a strong argument AGAINST ORDAINING THEM. In a moment the authors of this paper realize they are getting into deep water and try to get around it and by so doing speak heresy and deny “original sin”. (Hypothesis 2)

One wonders what is so puzzling in this same paragraph about what Paul said about the creation of Adam and Eve. He simply states what occurred. Is that puzzling, or is it a strong argument against the ordination of women which the authors are trying to evade?

Now comes the BLASPHEMY. I quote and do not apologize for the length of the quote. Not only is it blasphemy but it is a misquoting, misapplying of what is said in Genesis 2 and 3 and is endeavouring to argue back from the above quotation to prove the unproveable speculation. I quote separately again putting in my own underlining:

“Paul knew perfectly well that Adam was deceived just as much as Eve (see especially Rom. 5 v 17; 1 Cor 15 v 21-22) and that the prior creation of Adam is no way made him Eve’s superior (Gal: 26-28; 1 Cor. 5 v 17). But Paul is drawing the reader’s attention to one specific aspect of the stories in Genesis 2 and 3. Just like the men of Ephesus who had received thorough instruction in the faith, so Adam was the only one who was present in the garden of Eden when God issued the command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. (Gen. 2 bv 17) Eve had not yet been formed. She heard neither the prohibition, ‘you shall not eat’. Nor the threat, ‘for in the day tat you eat of it you shall sure die.’ (Gen. 2 v 17) Likewise, just as the inadequately instructed women of Ephesus formed the group that was most susceptible to the wiles of the false teachers so also the poorly informed Eve was one who succumbed to the serpent’s devious proposal in Eden. It is important that we are clear on this matter. Paul’s idiosyncratic treatment of the Genesis texts can be fully appreciated only in the light of what has been happening in the church at Ephesus. That Eve is created some considerable time after Adam means that she is less well informed than he is and hence more likely to succumb to the serpent’s temptation. Likewise, only one point is being made about the women of Ephesus. Their inadequate education makes them far easier prey than the well-instructed men in the face of false teachers who have insinuated themselves into their midst.” (LTJ p. 80 para. 1 and 2)

I could hardly believe my eyes when I read this. This is BLASPHEMY. What was God doing? So because God failed to tell Eve, is He therefore to blame for her weakness of knowledge and her susceptibility to the devil’s temptation? This is the only conclusion that can be drawn. What was Adam doing with his so-called “superior knowledge”.

Further it is a satanic lie to make that claim. When the devil tempted Eve she replied with the very words that she is NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT. When God came to the guilty pair and challenged both of them, there is NOT ONE HINT on the part of God that he had failed to impart the necessary information. If God failed, then He most certainly acted most unethically in expecting her to withstand the devil’s temptation when He himself had NOT TOLD HER.

This further suggests that Paul in drawing the conclusion he does is misreading and misinterpreting Scripture back from Ephesus to Eden. Such is the apostle who is supposed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Hypothesis 2.

This is related also to the first hypothesis, but is treated separately because it is now dealing with Original Sin. I quote: “What does this mean for our discussion? It means first and foremost, that in speaking of Adam and Eve in the second chapter of Timothy, Paul is speaking about the stories of their creation and fall and not about women in general. If he was speaking of all women, and not merely of Eve, he would be saying something totally false and libellous that is, that by their very nature women are more susceptible to temptation than men. And since Paul is not speaking of all women, but only of Eve and her susceptibility to temptation in the garden of Eden, the text needs to be applied accurately to today in that light. The most accurate application is that those who are poorly instructed or those who have come under the influence of false teachers, have no right to become teachers and preachers in the church. “ (p. 80-81) (Underlining is mine)

What totally convoluted nonsense is this? First they say that Paul is speaking of “Adam and Eve” and specifically about “their creation and fall”. Correct. But then at once the whole thing is changed to “not merely of Eve”. And then comes this “gem” about women being by their very nature being more susceptible to temptation than men. They have already admitted that the women at Ephesus WERE more susceptible and now they call that being false and libellous. They have just talked about the creation and fall of Adam and Eve and then turn to some nonsense about something being false and libellous. What Paul said about both was describing “original sin” and the participation of both in that fact, which most definitely fits not just Eve but both. If the argument is correct, then Adam (by one man sin entered) is addressed on his own and there is no relationship with any other men either, which is false. This is HERESY. What happened in the garden was attributed to both. Just read Genesis 3 and see what God had to say about their responsibility and what Paul says elsewhere about the origin of sin in this world. It also ignores the judgment which came upon both which carries on and applies to all: men and women alike. Get your facts straight.

Hypothesis 3.

If this paper is correct, then Paul is the most contradictory of all the apostles. He just doesn’t seem to know what he is saying or doing. I quote: “Throughout our text Paul uses terminology drawn from contemporary ‘rules for the household’. (Haustafelen, see Eph 5 v 21 – 6: 9; Col 3: 18-4:1; 1 Pet. 3 v 1-7) which likewise spoke of modesty, decency, piety, respect, and an external deportment that reflected moderation in all things. Behaviour that deviated from these ideals undermined the mission of the church. Paul is therefore at pains to advocate a Christian lifestyle that conforms as closely as possible to codes of behaviour current in the society of his day. (Phil. 4 v 8) A church that behaves in ways at odds with best current practices will not be heard.” Paul what? Can’t he make up his mind? Did Paul actually write the First letter of Peter? At one time he says: Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your minds. (Rom 12 v 2) Now we are told that we have to conform, otherwise the world will not listen to us. At one time Paul says: Do not be yoked together with unbelievers etc. (2 Cor. 6 v 14- 18), and now we are told that we won’t be listened to unless we do. First we are told that we are to adhere to these ideals and then we read of what the ideals of the Roman culture was at the time of Paul in Rom. 1 v 28-32. ARE THE AUTHORS OF THIS NONSENSE SERIOUS? Where is the outcry from the lecturers at the Seminary who are members of the CTICR?

Much more could be said but this is enough to show that the authors have no understanding whatsoever of the offence of the cross, the enmity against God, the total depravity of sin, the total lack of ability in that state to please God. This is heresy, because it attacks Jesus who said most plainly: You will be hated by all men for my sake. The authors say: That is not so. Who will we believe then?

Let the outcry come from all concerned confessional Lutherans against this nonsense. I call it Blasphemy and Heresy. I make no apologies for doing so, for that is what it is. It is a denial of the person and work of Jesus Christ. The heresy of feminism is clearly stated in the summary and conclusion, in that claims are made that women then were poorly instructed and therefore not fit to occupy the office of the ministry. Now they are, and therefore should not be denied the right because they are capable of being instructed and thus avoiding false teaching. By making this claim they are demonstrating most clearly that THEY ARE NOT.

Geoff Noller Ararat July 2005