From: 
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Deborah: God thinks she's OK as leader, but many males today wouldn't agree...
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:48:58 GMT

Darren R Middleton wrote:

>Gordon Coleman wrote in message <36F0>...
>>Darren,
>>
>>I agree and disagree with you here.
>>
>>Darren R Middleton wrote:
>>>
>>> Rowland Croucher wrote in message <36EE1EA0.BA1820>...
>>> >
>>> >Somewhere between Adelaide and home I lost the post (by Troy?) which
>>> >suggested that because Deborah wasn't a priest, she's not a good
>>> >argument for women pastors/leaders (or something along those lines...)
>>> >
>>> >OK: are you happy for a woman to have the power Deborah had in your
>>> >church? Prophetic, legal, administrative, charismatic etc. etc.?
>>>
>>> G'day Rowland,
>>>
>>> I know that you don't hold to the inerrancy of Scripture but you have
>>> claimed to submit to it's authority. Might I suggest instead of trying
>to
>>> build your apologetic on historical narrative (O.T no less) that you
>>> actually go to the didactic portions of Scripture that address this
>issue.
>>
>>I think it's quite valid to go to narrative portions of Scripture to
>>address these sorts of issues - and to set different didactic portions
>>side by side to reconcile them.
>
>G'day Gordon,
>
>May I ask why you think it is valid.
>If I wanted to know if I can have indulge in sexual affairs outside of
>marriage would you suggest I read the didactic portions of the Pauline
>epistles or turn to the historical narrative of the O.T, perhaps take my
>lead from King David or Solomon?
>
>Using historical narrative to support an agenda is dangerous business. I
>believe those in favour of homosexuality often turn to the historical
>narrative regarding Jonathon & David and find support for their own
>agenda, regardless of  what the clear teaching of the N.T is.
>
>Those who seek to build an apologetic on historical narrative indulge IMHO
>in pragmatism, it's a case of itching ears I suspect. The question remains
>WHY would you look to the O.T to find out God's will on the issue of
>qualifications/eligibility to the office of teaching elder when the
>Apostle Paul address the issue with absolute clarity in 1 Tim.
>
>
>
>>If you don't, you may run the risk of
>>building the wrong framework within which to interpret certain
>>"didactic" sections.  Case in point:  Paul does not allow a woman to
>>teach a man or to have authority over a man (see 1 Tim 2).  And in Acts
>>yet Priscilla and Aquila take Appollos under their wing to instruct him
>>more adequately in the Scriptures.  An appropriate interpretive
>>framework needs to take these passages and hold them in tension.  One
>>doesn't cancel the other out - so we can't say "P and A did the wrong
>>thing" (IMHO), or that "Paul was out of step with New Testament
>>practise" - but they need to be understood and interpreted together.  So
>>maybe there *are* contexts in which a woman may help to instruct a man -
>>without contravening Paul's injunctions in 1 Tim 2.
>
>Able answered this well.
>However, I would stress that the didactic sections are the framework in
>which we interpret the historical narrative. For example, is it O.K for
>the King of Israel to have thousands of wives? Reading the narrative you
>may think it is, but turning to Deut  17:17 it is clearly wrong.
>
>
>Regards
>Darren Middleton
>
>>Just a thought - happy to hear what you think, whether it's pro or con.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Gordon

Hi Darren,

Generally I find your methods pretty sound (even when I disagree
with your final results), but here I think you're committing a
methodological error. Some narrative portions of Scripture DO contain
teaching. However the reader must use good exegesis to work out what
is or isn't being taught. You've given two examples of bad exegesis
of narrative. But this doesn't preclude the use of good exegesis
of narratives!

If you always use didactic sections to interpret narrative, and never
vice versa, then you get some strange results. Let me choose what I
hope is not a controversial example: obedience to authorities. Should
a Christian always, no matter what the circumstances, obey the
governing authorities? A straightforward exegesis of Romans 13:1-7
would say "yes". If I then slavishly used this to interpret narrative
(and never vice versa) I would say that Shadrach, Mishach and Abednego
were wrong to disobey Nebachdnezzar (Daniel 3); Daniel was wrong to
disobey Darius (Daniel 6); and the apostles were wrong to say to the
Jewish authorities "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29,
I think).

I hope you agree that such a conclusion is ridiculous. The three
passages above supplement our understanding of Romans 13, and show us
that we can - in fact should - disobey the government when its law
goes against God's law. [Even if the Acts passage was not in our Bible,
I believe we could validly argue it from the Old Testament passages.
The Daniel passages clearly teach that the people of God have their
first allegiance to God, and that is a principle which does not change
between Old and New Testament.]

So we go back to Romans 13 and take a closer look. It seems that Paul
is assuming a case in which the government is reasonably just, because
that was the case for his original readers (Rome in the late 50s,
Nero was emperor but had not yet turned nasty at the Christians).
In particular, he wants them to be responsible citizens and pay their
taxes.

So while it may appear that Paul is giving a universal command for all
time, the Acts and Daniel narrative passages actually modify our
interpretation of the didactic passage in Romans. Surely you agree
with this?

So what do we do with the case of Deborah? The answer is: we try to
exegete the passage properly, and see what is actually being taught:

The main part of the book of Judges describes a cycle, and this cycle
is dscribed in Judges 2:6-3:6:
1. The people stop worshipping God
2. God sends invaders as punishment
3. The people cry out to God
4. God sends a deliverer (a "judge")
5. God's spirit is with the judge, and the judge drives out the
invaders.
6. There is a time of peace
7. The people forget about worshipping God again... back to step 1.

The stories in Judges 3-16 then illustrate this cycle. Much of the
behaviour of the judges is far from exemplary. But what is made clear
is that the judges are chosen and empowered by God.

Deborah was a judge, and God was with her. The clear implication (even
though it is not explicitly stated in Judges 4-5) is that God chose
Deborah to be a judge.

So how do we relate this to women and ministry in the New Testament?
Well the traditional exegesis of 1 Tim 2:11-15 runs something like
this:
1. Women are more gullible then men (the example of Eve)
2. Therefore God does not approve of women being teachers or leaders
in the church.

The problem is that Judges, properly exegeted, gives a clear
counter-example. Deborah WAS a leader and God DID approve of her being
a leader. Therefore we should allow the possibility that this passage
may affect our interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

And when you look at the
other problems in 1 Tim 2 (see my post on that thread), it increases
the possibility that the traditional interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is
wrong, and that my exegesis of Judges is correct. IMHO.

Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/
[personal opinions only]


[and this==-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-===]           

LIST: email:  (Subject-line: Subscribe)
From: Gordon Coleman <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Deborah: God thinks she's OK as leader, but many males today 
 wouldn't agree...
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:11:59 +1100
Organization: University of New South Wales
Message-ID: <36F5D11F.40>
References: <>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.94.30.73
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Path: newsreader.mira.net.au!dingo.mira.net!news.mira.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!newsfeed-in.aone.net.au!news.camtech.net.au!yorrell.saard.net!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.usyd.edu.au!unsw.edu.au!not-for-mail
Xref: newsreader.mira.net.au aus.religion.christian:49400

Hi all,

Something annoying is happening with my newsfeed:  I picked up Peter's
response to Darren's response to my response to Darren, but didn't pick
up Darren's response to my response (try reading that a few times....
;-P).  

Oh well.....

Darren, I can hear what you're saying about the dangers of using OT
narrative to justify a position.  Two points in response:  first, the
passage I was referring to was an NT narrative.  My understanding of
Acts is that it was given, not only as a simple historical account of
the early church, but as an example to churches throughout history. 
Therefore I think there *is* validity in drawing application from Acts.
Second point - I was not attempting to justify a position from the Acts
passage alone.  Rather, I believe it harmonises well with some of the
non-didactic passages in Paul.  Paul refers to "Priscilla and Aquila" as
his co-workers.  Any significance in the name of Priscilla coming first?
Maybe, maybe not.  He also refers (in Romans 16:1 I believe) to Phoebe
as a *deaconess*, suggesting some leadership/servanthood role (even
though in 1 Tim a deacon - masculine gender, same Greek word - must be
the husband of but one woman).

<snip>
Darren wrote:
> >Those who seek to build an apologetic on historical narrative indulge IMHO
> >in pragmatism, it's a case of itching ears I suspect. The question remains
> >WHY would you look to the O.T to find out God's will on the issue of
> >qualifications/eligibility to the office of teaching elder when the
> >Apostle Paul address the issue with absolute clarity in 1 Tim.

I agree that it would be easy to misapply OT passages - but is 1 Tim
really that clear?  I'm not convinced by a lot of the arguments put
forward to justify treating the 1 Tim passage as a response to a
particular cultural situation (e.g. the Aphrodite cult in Ephesus), but
neither am I convinced by the argument that 1 Tim should be taken
absolutely literally as a blueprint for all time.  I might cop a bit of
flak for saying so, but so be it.  I simply don't believe it gels with
other Scripture passages to take it as an absolute interdiction for
women taking a teaching role (except with other women and with
children).

My previous posting:
> >>If you don't, you may run the risk of
> >>building the wrong framework within which to interpret certain
> >>"didactic" sections.  Case in point:  Paul does not allow a woman to
> >>teach a man or to have authority over a man (see 1 Tim 2).  And in Acts
> >>yet Priscilla and Aquila take Appollos under their wing to instruct him
> >>more adequately in the Scriptures.  An appropriate interpretive
> >>framework needs to take these passages and hold them in tension.  One
> >>doesn't cancel the other out - so we can't say "P and A did the wrong
> >>thing" (IMHO), or that "Paul was out of step with New Testament
> >>practise" - but they need to be understood and interpreted together.  So
> >>maybe there *are* contexts in which a woman may help to instruct a man -
> >>without contravening Paul's injunctions in 1 Tim 2.

Back to Darren:
> >Able answered this well.
> >However, I would stress that the didactic sections are the framework in
> >which we interpret the historical narrative. For example, is it O.K for
> >the King of Israel to have thousands of wives? Reading the narrative you
> >may think it is, but turning to Deut  17:17 it is clearly wrong.

No problem with that:  the point being a passage of Scripture must be
interpreted in the light of the *whole* of Scripture - not simply taken
in isolation.

<snip> 
Peter Ballard wrote:
> Generally I find your methods pretty sound (even when I disagree
> with your final results), but here I think you're committing a
> methodological error. Some narrative portions of Scripture DO contain
> teaching. However the reader must use good exegesis to work out what
> is or isn't being taught. You've given two examples of bad exegesis
> of narrative. But this doesn't preclude the use of good exegesis
> of narratives!

Hear, hear!

> If you always use didactic sections to interpret narrative, and never
> vice versa, then you get some strange results. Let me choose what I
> hope is not a controversial example: obedience to authorities. Should
> a Christian always, no matter what the circumstances, obey the
> governing authorities? A straightforward exegesis of Romans 13:1-7
> would say "yes". If I then slavishly used this to interpret narrative
> (and never vice versa) I would say that Shadrach, Mishach and Abednego
> were wrong to disobey Nebachdnezzar (Daniel 3); Daniel was wrong to
> disobey Darius (Daniel 6); and the apostles were wrong to say to the
> Jewish authorities "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29,
> I think).

I'd call that a good example of responsible exegesis.

> I hope you agree that such a conclusion is ridiculous. The three
> passages above supplement our understanding of Romans 13, and show us
> that we can - in fact should - disobey the government when its law
> goes against God's law. [Even if the Acts passage was not in our Bible,
> I believe we could validly argue it from the Old Testament passages.
> The Daniel passages clearly teach that the people of God have their
> first allegiance to God, and that is a principle which does not change
> between Old and New Testament.]
> 
> So we go back to Romans 13 and take a closer look. It seems that Paul
> is assuming a case in which the government is reasonably just, because
> that was the case for his original readers (Rome in the late 50s,
> Nero was emperor but had not yet turned nasty at the Christians).
> In particular, he wants them to be responsible citizens and pay their
> taxes.
> 
> So while it may appear that Paul is giving a universal command for all
> time, the Acts and Daniel narrative passages actually modify our
> interpretation of the didactic passage in Romans. Surely you agree
> with this?
> 
> So what do we do with the case of Deborah? The answer is: we try to
> exegete the passage properly, and see what is actually being taught:
> 
> The main part of the book of Judges describes a cycle, and this cycle
> is dscribed in Judges 2:6-3:6:
> 1. The people stop worshipping God
> 2. God sends invaders as punishment
> 3. The people cry out to God
> 4. God sends a deliverer (a "judge")
> 5. God's spirit is with the judge, and the judge drives out the
> invaders.
> 6. There is a time of peace
> 7. The people forget about worshipping God again... back to step 1.
> 
> The stories in Judges 3-16 then illustrate this cycle. Much of the
> behaviour of the judges is far from exemplary. But what is made clear
> is that the judges are chosen and empowered by God.
> 
> Deborah was a judge, and God was with her. The clear implication (even
> though it is not explicitly stated in Judges 4-5) is that God chose
> Deborah to be a judge.
> 
> So how do we relate this to women and ministry in the New Testament?
> Well the traditional exegesis of 1 Tim 2:11-15 runs something like
> this:
> 1. Women are more gullible then men (the example of Eve)
> 2. Therefore God does not approve of women being teachers or leaders
> in the church.
> 
> The problem is that Judges, properly exegeted, gives a clear
> counter-example. Deborah WAS a leader and God DID approve of her being
> a leader. Therefore we should allow the possibility that this passage
> may affect our interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

One little sticky problem:  Deborah tells Barak that God wants a *man*
to lead Israel into battle against the enemy.  Because Barak refuses to
go *without* Deborah, a woman kills the enemy.  Not the best example of
a text that affirms leadership roles for women, is it?  There's a
definite sense that God does this to shame Barak (and the men of Israel)
for failing to take a leadership role in battle.  That said, it *does*
appear that God approves of Deborah and the role she plays as judge of
Israel - although, unlike some of the male judges, she is not the
*direct* saviour of the people of Israel.

> And when you look at the
> other problems in 1 Tim 2 (see my post on that thread), it increases
> the possibility that the traditional interpretation of 1 Tim 2 is
> wrong, and that my exegesis of Judges is correct. IMHO.

Funnily enough, I don't entirely agree with your exegesis of Deborah
(see above) or of 1 Tim 2.  Your exegesis of 1 Tim 2 is (IMHO) too
dependent upon arguments from silence, or from unknown cultural
situations of the time.  There is a clear NT teaching, not only in 1 Tim
but in numerous Pauline epistles, that point to the importance of *male*
leadership.  Like it or not, I don't think we can simply throw 1 Tim 2
onto the cultural dust-heap and discard it as having no application
today.  There's a clear principle involved (women having authority over
men), that must be grappled with and come to terms with.

I suspect we'll never agree on this - but hopefully we can at least
respect one another as desiring to come to terms with the Scriptures and
be obedient to God's word.  One day we'll find out who's right - in the
meantime, forebearance and speaking truth in love will, I hope, prevail
- even as we try to straighten one another out.....

Cheers,

Gordon