COMMENTS ON THE ARTICLE “HERMENEUTICS AND THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN” – WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE RATIONALE AND/OR INTERPRETATION PRESENTED SUPPORTING THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN.

 

In the ‘Conclusion’ of this article it states that “the case for the ordination of women is based principally on three convictions” which are then identified:

a)     the texts that mandate and institute the office of the ministry do not exclude women because the gender of the office holder is an adiaphoron;

b)     It is the word that is constitutive for the ministry, not the person or the gender of he person who holds the office; and

c)      Paul’s command that women be silent in public worship is not a ‘general command’ binding on the Church for all times but a specific local restriction imposed on the churches of his day to avoid unnecessary offence.

 

It appears to the writer that those who present this interpretation are no longer using valid exegesis to understand the text but are divorcing exegesis from interpretation and application – for whatever reason; are placing themselves as an authority above the apostle Paul who identifies what he says is ‘a command from the Lord’ and as an authority in contradiction to the authoritative word of God which Paul identifies and who, in doing so, assume a subjective authority which, if applied to many other teachings in Scripture, would lead to many false and misleading interpretations and applications.

 

In support of these statements attention is drawn to the following:  In I Corinthians 14:34 Paul presents ‘the Law’ (nomos) as his authority for requiring the women to be subject.  The article as presented appears to the writer to identify ‘the Law’ with the Law of Moses and therefore the Law which is to be properly distinguished from the Gospel.  For the writer such identification is too restrictive.  The references to Genesis clearly demonstrate that the ‘Law’ as used by Paul in I Cor. 14 embraces the entire Old Testament Scriptures, pre Fall and post Fall.  Paul would therefore not be limiting ‘Law’ to the Law of Moses, but also embracing creation as God made it and all that followed to the coming of Christ.  This ‘Law’ therefore embraces not only the revelation of God’s perfect holiness, greatness, power and love but clearly presents God’s will and purpose for the creatures he created.  Jesus himself quoted the same ‘Law’ which Paul referred to in I Cor. 14 cf. Matthew 19:4 and validated it as part of His ministry.  What Paul then writes in I Cor. 14 is in perfect harmony with God’s perfect work of creation and Christ’s work of redemption.  In this passage Paul reinforces what God did in creation and prior to the Fall – man was not made out of woman, but formed by God in the image of God and woman was formed by God out of man.  That, for all times, establishes the relationship of man and woman as intended and created by God.  And that relationship was to continue after the Fall, as one commentator stated: ‘man was created for God and woman was created for man’ – certainly not to abuse, dishonour or dominate but to love, serve and cherish. God created both male and female to live in unity as ‘one flesh’.  Jesus  repeatedly referred to marriage as ‘the two being one flesh’.  Unity and oneness are greatly enhanced when male headship and female subjection are acknowledged, accepted and practiced in mutual loving service.  This relationship is more than threatened when women are not subject to men in the public ministry of the Church, as well as denying God’s creative purpose for male and female.

 

For the reasons given above the writer cannot accept the statement on page 20 (3rd paragraph, line 3) that “We agree that in the church and in marriage man and women are equal”.  Nor is the writer implying that they are unequal.  The word ‘equal’ has unfortunate connotations.  For too many today ‘equal’ means ‘the same’, that both men and women are on equal terms in everything.  While there are many ways and situations in which they are or should be equal, the fact remains that there are many differences – physical, biological, theological and others.  Yes, they are equal in terms of their need for salvation and what the Saviour offers.  But what is ‘gender equality’ in terms of redemption and the Church?  And this should not be defined or decided on the basis of current culture.  What is culturally desirable and acceptable many not be so theologically and based on God’s word.  And was it culturally inappropriate and improper for women in Paul’s day to speak in public assemblies?  It may have been so in Jewish worship communities.

 

Those favouring the ordination of women maintain that what Paul says in I Cor. 14 is only a “pastoral directive to meet a local crisis”.  By what means is this conclusion drawn from the text?  The only reason the writer can identify is that this is the only reference Paul makes to this problem.  It is more than doubtful that in I Tim. 2:12 the problem of women speaking in the public worship assemblies existed.  Yet Paul repeats this so-called directive here.  It would be equally or more valid to conclude that Paul deliberately presents this directive to the Corinthians because that was where the problem, as well as other problems, existed.  There was no need to include this directive to all the other localities addressed by Paul because they were observing and implementing it.  Much more likely than not it was universally applied in the Apostolic Church, not as a compulsion Law but in the freedom of the Gospel, to honour and obey the divinely created order in creation.  This response appears to be fully supported in the practice of the immediate post-Apostolic Christian community and in the following centuries.  One could also ask the question:  if there was no Scriptural expectation for women to remain silent in public worship assemblies, why was the involvement of women not practiced, encourage and promoted?  Or is the a unique discovery of the 21st century and the rest of history got it wrong?

 

In terms of the prohibition of women speaking in public worship assemblies the writer holds that it is universally valid for all time:

1.      Because God’s intention and purpose in creating the male/female relationship has not changed and should be honoured;

2.      Nowhere in Scripture is this relationship denied or negated;

3.      Christ Himself in his teaching reinforced God’s created purpose in the male/female relationship;

4.      The New Testament writers, notably Paul, upheld the principle of women remaining silent in the public worship assemblies;

5.      the early Christian Church, despite its multi-cultural context, continued in obedience to Scripture to uphold the headship role of man in the church and in the home;

6.      the Church today must take care:

a.      not to allow ‘subjective applications’ of the Scriptures to determine doctrine and/or practice; or 

b.      Not to let secular culture weaken its teachings especially if and when these teachings seem to be or are in conflict with popular views and attitudes.

 

SOLA SCRIPTURA.     SOLUS CHRISTUS.

 

 

 

 

T T Reuther