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 |