From: 
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Deborah: God thinks she's OK as leader, but many males today wouldn't agree...
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 05:29:41 GMT

G'day Darren, Gordon, and others...

"Darren R Middleton" <> wrote:
>Gordon Coleman wrote in message <36F5D11F.40>...
>>I agree that it would be easy to misapply OT passages - but is 1 Tim
>>really that clear?
>
>IMHO it is absolutely clear.
>Moreover, if that is not clear, I wonder if there is any such thing as the
>perpiscuity of Scripture.

I disagree. It's hard to find a less clear verse in the New Testament
than 1 Tim 2:15. (at least outside of the Book of Revelation).

And is Paul's reasoning (According to the traditional interpretation)
in v.13-14 really that clear either. e.g. Why does Adam's prior
creation put man above woman, when human beings are the *last* and
greatest of creation, or John the Baptist is the *last* and greatest
of the prophets up to Jesus' time? It's not clear to me at all.

Anyway, those two points are just a taste of what I raised in my
post on 1 Tim 2. Suffice to say, 1 Tim 2:8-15 is not totally
clear to many people.

[snip]
>G'day Peter,
>
>I agree, that narrative needs good exegesis, but as I have said, surely
>the didactic portions provide a framework of interpretation, no? So
>whatever deductions you draw from Deborah that would need to compliment
>and agree with the didactic portions, if not, then we are setting
>Scripture against Scripture. It seems to me we are in danger of forcing
>the descriptive into prescriptive in this case.
>
>
>>> 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'm not so sure it is a good example of what we are dealing with.
>The Acts text is didactic in that in annunciates apostolic teaching, where
>as Phoebe, Deborah etc only narrate what happened (ie descriptive: meaning
>you have to make certain deductions that are not evident, whereas Acts 5
>is prescriptive: for it needs no deductions as the teaching is evident ).

It's not so simple. Acts 5 is primarily descriptive. It described what
happened. In fact, not all of the apostles' behaviour, even after
Pentecost, was exemplary. For instance, their reluctance to
evangelise non-Jews despite the clear prior command in
Matthew 28:18-20 (and implied in Acts 1:8).

You can't just go dividing Scripture into "prescriptive" and
"descriptive", and slavishly set the former above the latter.
By all means use the *clear* to interpret the *unclear*.
But that also means let clear teaching in the
descriptive passages modify our understanding of unclear
teaching in the (so-called) prescriptive passages.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
But IMHO, you are committing a major methodological error,
and missing much of what the Bible has to teach.
Because you believe, in essence, that the narrative passages
have nothing to teach and must always be interpreted through
so-called "didactic" passages. This despite the fact that most,
if not all, narrative passages carry theological comment from
the inspired author.

>Moreover, I would suggest that Miriam, Huldah & Deborah (all judges or
>prophetess') held civil office not cultic office, so good exegesis would
>have to deduce that there is no evidence nor support for females teaching
>or having spiritual authority over men in these historical narratives
>(show me the female priests or elders!).

As Gordon said, and I said to Troy, the OT doesn't distinguish
between civil and religious matters. Kings, prophets and priests
all had both "religious" and "civil" ministries. Besides...

Judges 4:6 "She [Deborah] sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh
in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands
you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and
lead the way to Mount Tabor'"

Sounds like spiritual authority to me!

Another point: 1 Tim 2 forbids women from (1) teaching
(2) having (spiritual?) authority over men.
These were the things which the OT prophets and judges
(and kings) did. It is not primarily what the priests did!
So I don't think it is valid to say that OT priests
(a male-only ministry) is the OT ministry which we should
use to set the precedents for the NT ministries of
teacher, preacher or elder.

Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA

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

From: 
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Deborah: God thinks she's OK as leader, but many males today wouldn't agree...
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 05:33:22 GMT

G'day Troy,

Troy Harris <> wrote:
>In article <>,
>   wrote:
>> >> Anyway, this is all a diversion from my original point
>> >> for entering this thread: I gave an exegesis of why
>> >> Deborah is a valid example of a female leader who was
>> >> approved by God, and therefore God does not always
>> >> disapprove of women giving leadership to men.
>> >> Does anyone want to go back and show me why my
>> >> argument was flawed?
>> >
>> >You didn't address the point that a judge was primarily a secular position-
>> >and that a judge was not a priest.
>>
>> I think you are making an artificial distinction between the
>> religious and the secular. In the OT, Judge and King were religious
>> roles as well as secular, and the priests and prophets performed
>> secular duties as well as religious. The religious/secular divide
>> is a modern one.

I notice that, below, you do not answer my actual objection:
that the religious/secular divide did not exist in ancient
Israel (at least before the exile).

>Can't agree.  In the OT, all were called as royal preisthood, as in the NT,
>but the office of preisthood was contained only to the Levites. When someone
>tried to usurp the Divine order of things (Korah), God was brought to wrath
>against them.  The same principles apply here in the NT.  God has created
>things a certain way, and regardless of our reasoning, and our will, we are
>bound to follow it.  In our logic, we can see no reason why women should not
>be allowed to do everything a man does, and vice versa.  We think all should
>be the same.  However, the scriptures outline certain principles, and
>differing roles between the sexes, and we have no authority to decide
>otherwise.

(sigh) You seem to have missed my whole point! I am NOT relying solely
on human wisdom and I am NOT trying to argue against the authority
of God or of the Bible! Quite the opposite! It was God, not me,
who called Deborah a judge! It was God who gave women such as Huldah
prophetic ministries! It was Paul, under God's inspiration, who
called Junia an apostle and Phoebe a deacon. It was Luke, under
God's inspiration, who wrote with approval that Priscilla taught
Apollos.

We must take these passages seriously! I am arguing for women
in ministry and leadership, not so I can rebel against God,
but as part of being faithful to Him!

So please stop bringing up the case of Korah, unless you can
also show God striking down the non-Levite Samuel for assuming
the priesthood!

>> Let me try to paraphrase you:
>>
>> "In the OT, some positions (such as prophet, judge) could be
>> filled by a man or a woman, but others (notably priest)
>> could only be filled by a man.
>> Similarly, in the NT, there are some offices which may be
>> filled by a man or a woman (such as prophet, deacon, maybe
>> even apostle if used in the broader term of the word),
>> but the office of elder/presbyter/bishop is a special
>> office which may only be filled by a man."
>>
>> Is that a fair paraphrase of your position?
>
>More or less, yes.
>
>>
>> So, even if I could convince you that 1 Cor 14:35-35 and
>> 1 Tim 2:8-15 applied to specific situations (as I have
>> argued elsewhere, even if I didn't convince anyone :-)),
>> you would still point me to 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6
>> which stipulate that the elder/overseer must be a man.
>>
>> Again, is that a fair summary of your position?
>
>Yes, but based on a lot more than those texts.
Consider the fall,

That is only relevant if you follow the traditional exegesis of
1 Tim 2. So again, it all hangs on 1 Tim 2.

>Deut 22:5

Well that is a good argument against ordaining men, given the
robes some of the priests wear :-)

Seriously though, invoking a text like that comes from the
assumption that women want to be men. They don't (well not
most of them). They want to minister as women. I want to
see them use the gifts and characteristics God has given
them as women.

>and the underlying principles of the sixth commandment as well.

That one's got me completely baffled.

[snip]
>The problem is not only exegetical (your method is different from mine), but
>also there is the argument from history-

I'm still astounded that a Protestant would use this one.

>no one ever in history allowed the
>ordaination of women to the office of bishop/presbyter (and this is not
>merely to be brushed off as a "cultural" issue as well- there is a
>theological reason behind it), until this century- after the so-called
>"sexual revolution".

What about e.g. the Salvos? OK they may not call them bishops
or presbyters, but they've had female leaders from day 1.
Wesley had female teachers (and leaders? I'm not sure) in
the Methodists in the 18th century.

Protestant Christianity was in fact a major early force
for women's rights.

>It is obvious to see, that the Church has been heavily
>influenced by the outside (unsanctiifed secular world) on this matter.

Or: the second century church got influenced by the patriachal
world it was in, and pushed women out of ministry and leadership.

Who's right? We can only answer it by going to the Bible.
I really think the argument from history is irrelevant,
or at least a very secondary argument.

Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA

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