Now and Zens [4]

Seriously now – where were we? We started here with the broad strokes of this paper, and in parts 2 and 3, we started in with the specific detail.

What is evident so far, it seems to me, is that the objective of the laundry list of Scripture Pastor Zens has provided to us in the first 2 or 3 pages of this paper were intended to underscore how women were empowered in the apostolic church to be leaders, therefore setting up the historical context of what Paul was telling Timothy, but sadly, so far, these examples do nothing of the sort. Instead what we find is a sort of out-of-focus picture of the events Pastor Zens points to which only causes us to ask why he would read these passages the way he does.

We'll clean up his list today briefly as they are type of previous statements he has already made.

**Among all the people Paul greeted in Romans 16, ten were sisters among whom were “Tryphena and Tryphosa [who may have been twins], women who work hard for the Lord” (Rom.16:12).

Who denies women "work hard for the Lord"? Who denies they ought to? It seems to me again that this statement is called upon to exemplify more than it either can or should, as does the following:

**In line with Acts 2:17-18, Paul encouraged brothers and sisters to prophesy in the gatherings (1 Cor.11:4-5; 14:23-24).

**The open meeting Paul described in 1 Cor.14 envisioned all the men and women – “the whole assembly” – “each one of you” – “you may all prophesy one by one” – functioning together in an encouraging manner.

Without any doubt, the gift of prophecy was exemplified in the NT church. The question is whether anyone who prophesied is identified by the NY as necessarily a leader or pastor of the church. They are not.

**Gal.3:28 indicated that “in Christ” human distinctions, like male and female, are no longer norms of judgment in the congregation. In the first century, prejudices abounded in folks’ minds when certain people like “Gentile,” “Jew,” “slave,” and “woman” were mentioned. Paul stated that in the body of Christ this should not be the case.

Give Paul's other exhortations about the roles of men and women – for example, in marriage (Eph 5) – perhaps Pastor Zens mistakes what is at stake in Gal 3. The question is not about whether there are sexual differences, yes? But the question is also not about whether there are practical or ecclesiastical differences between men and women. The question Paul is answering here in Gal 3 is whether or not only a Jew with circumcision can be saved. The passage reads thus:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

He is saying that the inheritance of faith comes not just to sons, and not just to sons of Abraham, but to all people without respect to whether they are a man, woman, Greek, slave or whatever.

Paul's point is not that the differences between men and women are somehow effaced: it is that salvation in Christ is not just for one class of people.

**Women were prominent in the assembly at Philippi, beginning with Lydia’s home. In Phil.4:3 Paul asked for two sisters – who must have had no small spiritual influence in the body – to be at peace with one another. He called Euodia and Syntyche “co-workers” and “co-strugglers” in the gospel.

How is this assumption of their "spiritual influence" derived? What's the evidence? It seems to me that the only plausible thing to say here is that they were having some kind of influence, and that was a result of their conflicts. The assumption that their labor was leadership is simply that: an assumption, not a necessary implication of the text.

**2 John is addressed to “the elect lady and her children.” This probably referred to a respected sister in whose home the saints gathered. She had apparently exerted significant spiritual influence upon a number of people. Women’s homes were mentioned as meeting places for the brethren in Rom.16:5, 1 Cor.1:11, 16:9 and Col.4:15.

No question: people met in homes in the first-generation church. No question: some of those homes belonged to or were stewarded by women. Does this make women leaders in the church? Again Zens draws the inference that it does, but this conclusion is simply not warranted. There's nothing to support it.

**In Rev.2:20-24 Christ rebuked the Thyatiran congregation for allowing a false prophetess, nicknamed “Jezebel,” to “teach” some of the Lord’s servants to sin grievously. If it was such a crime for a woman to teach the brethren, why didn’t the Lord just condemn the assembly for even allowing a woman to instruct others? This incident in Thyatira implies that the assembly permitted other male and female prophets to teach the truth. Christ’s bone to pick with them wasn’t that a woman taught, but that what she taught was false teaching. We will come back to this passage in the course of our investigation of 1 Tim.2:12.

What is said in Rev 2 is this:

But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

The underlined word there "tolerate" is "eao", and it means "to permit" or "to fail to restrain". Think about that a second – surely Christ condemns the false teaching of the false prophetess, but what he holds against the church there is that they do not restrain her but instead follow her. Surely, the greater implication is that they are following her falsehoods, but at least as likely – especially in the realm where so many other unsubstantiated claims can be presented – is the matter of following her at all. They tolerate her, but she should not be tolerated. And given that Pastor Zens balances more of his argument later in this paper on this passage, this implication has to be considered before any application of this passage can be made.

And in that, we have to view Pastor Zens' appraisal of his list of examples here with some skepticism:

This survey of New Testament highlights concerning women is important because it reveals the freedom of the sisters to function in the kingdom. In the general flow of the New Testament there are no jitters about “restrictions” upon Christ’s daughters. Such a survey should also serve as a corrective to those who squelch and intimidate the sisters by using their interpretation of two passages – 1 Cor.14:34-35 and 1 Tim.2:12 – to cancel out the ministry of sisters unfolded in other Scriptures.

Seriously now: the question is not whether women have the opportunity or even the obligation to serve in the local church: the question is whether they are called or even allowed to lead the local church, and in that, are they allowed to call men into submission to themselves in the way teachers and elders must call people into submission?

If Pastor Zens is making only the case that women ought to serve in the church, I say, "Amen." But this is hardly the scope of his argument – and as we will see, extending the "call to serve" to the scope of "called to rule or lead" is, at best, missing some vital support.

I'd say, "more soon" at this point, but I don't want Al Sends to lose sleep over how soon is soon. More eventually.

Now and Zens [3]

Last time I covered the first 6 examples of what Jon Zens calls "the overwhelmingly positive picture of Abraham’s daughters painted in the New Testament". We're going to cover some more of them today, but I want to make sure that we understand what Pastor Zens is driving at with these examples. These are his words from the essay:

This survey of New Testament highlights concerning women is important because it reveals the freedom of the sisters to function in the kingdom. In the general flow of the New Testament there are no jitters about “restrictions” upon Christ’s daughters.

Plainly, these examples are provided by him to underscore the scope of freedom of women in the New Testament. And let's continue to be clear about something: there's no argument that the New Testament calls men and women both to obedient faith in Christ. I can't think of anyone who would deny that women ought to repent and believe and be an active part of the local church – the question is rather if the New Testament describes the leadership of the local church in a particular way, and whether Jon Zens agrees or disagrees with that description.

The next 2 examples Pastor Zens provides for us are from Acts 1 and 2:

**After Christ’s ascension, 120 men and women prayed together and chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:14-15).

**The Spirit came upon the 120 disciples and they spoke the wonderful works of God in many foreign languages (Acts 2:1-4).

I list them together because they are directly related – the count of 120 people (men and women all together) is in Acts 1, and it is right to carry that over into Acts 2 which refers to that number and says, "When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place." (Acts 2:1) And to these examples, as with most of the others from last time, I say, "yes: I agree." I agree that there were both male and female believers in the earliest believers; I agree that there were women at that crucial Pentecost who were filled with the Holy Spirit and manifested the supernatural expression of speaking in a way that all men could hear in their own native tongue. Amen.

What this does not demonstrate is that women were leading the church. But Pastor Zens attempts to leverage this event to say exactly that in his next example:

**Some thought that what was occurring on the Day of Pentecost was evidence of too much wine, but Peter insisted that it was a fulfillment of what Joel prophesied would come to pass – “your sons and daughters will prophesy….I will pour out my Spirit on my male and female slaves and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18). There is no suggestion that males may prophesy freely, but that females are restricted in some ways.

To understand where Pastor Zens goes wrong here, let me point at two other passages in the NT, first in Acts 16:

As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling. She followed Paul and us, crying out, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation." And this she kept doing for many days. Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it came out that very hour.

Now, undoubtedly, the spirit in the slave girl was not the Holy Spirit, yes? So whatever she was doing in saying this true thing, it was not motivated by some right-spirited goal. But she was able to speak truth in spite of her condition. That is: she was able to say something spiritually and theologically true by supernatural means without being a leader or teacher in the church.

And let's be fair: what the slave girl does here is not what Acts 2 says happened at that Pentecost after the resurrection. She "had the python spirit" in her, in the literal Greek – a reference to the pagan Apollonian spirit of divination. What happened at Pentecost was "propheteuo". Does that mean, then, that these men and women were all doing, for example, what Isaiah did, or what Micah did – handing down judgment and future-telling? Does participating in "propheteuo" mean one has engaged in church leadership?

This is my purpose in examining Mt 7:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Clearly, the answer has to be "no: 'propheteuo' does not mean that one had lead or governed the church in some way." If even those whom Christ has never known can rightly be said to "propheteuo" (and note: Christ doesn’t rebuff them by saying "you never spoke for me", but instead rebuffs them by saying "I never knew you"), then to is too broad an assumption to think that, in this case in Acts 2, women were giving prophetic commands – especially when the specific contents of these prophetic utterances are not recorded. This is again an argument from silence, banking on what is entirely unsaid to draw a conclusion.

This same mistake is offered in Pastor Zens' next example:

**Philip the evangelist had four virgin daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). We would not be wrong in assuming that there were many other sisters who had this gift, not just Philip’s offspring.

No question: Acts 21 confirms that Phillip's daughters prophecied – but what they said in prophecy is completely unknown, and the purpose or extent of such a thing is not referenced in the text.

**Paul entrusted his letter to the Romans to Phoebe, and she delivered it. She was a deacon in the assembly at Cenchrea and Paul had the highest regard for her (Rom.16:1-2). Paul recognized her as a prostatis, which carried with it the idea of leadership (cf. 1 Thess.5:12).

While other statements by Pastor Zens seem to try to speak more broadly than is warranted by the passages he has selected, this synthesis is particularly troubling. In the first place, in spite of Southern Baptist practice, the office of deacon is not particularly an office of leadership – it is an office of service. To demonstrate an economy of space here, let me refer the reader to 9 Marks Ministries' pamphlets A Display of God's Glory and By Whose Authority for an informative and clarifying discussion of what the offices of the local church are, and by what means they serve. But in that, let it be sufficient to say that I personally have no problem with letting women serve as deacons if the definition of deacon is rightly understood.

In saying that Paul calls Phoebe a "deacon" ("Φοίβην τὴν ἀδελφὴν ἡμῶν, οὖσαν [καὶ] διάκονον τῆς ἐκκλησίας"), and may be referring to her office, or may only be referring to her service and work among the people of God. Even if we grant that Paul is speaking of an office in particular which Phoebe held, there is simply no place to point to which says that deacons lead the church. Deacons were appointed to "serve tables" as it says in Acts 6, and again I point to the 9 Marks resources for an expanded view of this subject.

Moreover, there is a significant problem in the application Pastor Zens draws out of Rom 16:2b – "καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴ προστάτις πολλῶν ἐγενήθη καὶ ἐμοῦ αὐτοῦ." He makes the requirement of "προστάτις " that it be an office of authority or leadership (as is demonstrated in his reference to the verb "prostemi" in 1 Thes 5:12) – but problematically, while it is true Phoebe is said to be a "prostatiV" of many, she is this same thing of Paul also -- both "many" and "myself" are in the genitive case, and must be acting in the same way in this sentence relative to Phoebe's role as "prostatiV". I find it hard to believe that Pastor Zens would imply that the leadership he intends to read here being exemplified by Phoebe would be something she would have over "many people" and "Paul the Apostle", or that she would have authority over Paul. It seems to make sense, instead, to read this passage as speaking to her role as a supporter or helper, or as is suggested by its use in non-New Testament sources, as a patron or even a supplicant before God (as in some classical usage).

By substitution, pastor Zens is suggesting this reading of Rom 16:1-2 --

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a [deacon-officer] of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a [church leader] of many and of myself as well.

I am suggesting this reading:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a [worker and laborer] of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a [supporter (financial, material) or prayer-partner] of many and of myself as well.

I would let the reader decide which makes better sense where Paul is introducing or commending a messenger sent with a letter.

As he continues to up the ante on how women are portrayed in the NT by Paul, Pastor Zens offers this:

**Paul designated Priscilla and Aquila as his “co-workers” (Rom.16:3). The same word is used with reference to people like Timothy and Titus.

And this is true: Paul calls Timothy and Titus "sunergos" – but he also calls Epaphroditus the same thing (Phl 2:25), and it is clear that Epaphroditus was a messenger and a courier. It is hardly necessary to read "leadership" into this word.

This same sort of enthusiasm is evident in his next example:

**Junia and Andronicus (wife/husband or sister/brother) were greeted by Paul as “outstanding among the apostles” (Rom.16:7). They were his relatives and had been in prison with him. There were people called “apostles” who were not among the Twelve, like Barnabas. Junia was also among such apostolic workers. There is no reason to think that she was the only such female apostle.

The ESV renders this passage "They are well known to the apostles"; NKJ/KJV and YLT render it "who are of note among the apostles". It seems somewhat controversial to hang the kind of certainty about what this passage means when there is some debate over what this passage actually says about Junia and Andronicus vis a vis their office as apostles.

Seven more examples remain, and we will cover them the next time we come back to this essay. Thanks for your interest.

UPDATED: Wow. Unicode Greek. I hope it works on your computer; it did on mine. Thanks to reader Suzanne for her help with that one.

Now and Zens [2]

Since the brouhaha has already kicked off in the meta, getting back on-track here might seem a little anti-climactic. However, the original Jon Zens essay posted at Wade Burleson's blog still deserves some thorough going-over, and I intend to get after it beginning here.

The first thing I have to say about the essay is this: I think it asks a good question. If Pastor Zens is concerned about, for example, whether or not women can be teachers of Hebrew or Greek rather than whether women can be teachers of Theology or doctrine, I think he may be on to something. And in that, let's make sure we can see the whole map of my concerns together for a moment.

In the last post on this subject, I said

However, over the handful of years we have been open, I have taken a small amount of grief for promoting books by Kay Arthur and Beth Moore -- because they are women who are plainly teachers. The admonition goes along the standard lines regarding why women ought not to be pastors or elders in the church.

Fair enough: I'm in. I agree with the "pastors and elders" argument, so I accept the admonition that women writing books on spiritual formation veers into the theological red-light district.

How does this standard apply to women bloggers? Does it apply? We're going to finish up on that Wade Burleson-linked article, and then approach this related topic with fear and trembling.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of heat for the term "theological red-light district", but I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is that some will think that I am saying all women should never say or do anything in the church – and that idea is utterly ludicrous. Women are believers; women are called to Christ-likeness and participation in the local church; women are clearly part of the plan for the church in the NT.

I omit the blogospheric-requisite proof text references for one simple reason: I don't think anyone is denying these things. These would be common ground issues. What's at stake here is whether or not there is a difference between, for example, teaching Greek to men who will be pastors (which is an academic task; I don't think anyone would call foul if a woman was teaching math or science to men, would they?) and teaching men the exegetical meaning of the book of Acts. The latter is a pastoral activity; the former is not.

Some may disagree with me – because it is hard (and perhaps some will argue "impossible") to separate the translation of the Greek language and the application of such a skill to exegesis. I will be glad to field those questions from those who have them.

Whew. That said, let's get to Pastor Zens' essay with gusto.

As we read his paper, let's remember that his own thesis is founded on what he say we ought to think of 1Tim 2:11-15. I think it's a fine idea to invest all kinds of time on a few limited verses, and it's also a fine idea to see how those verses exist in the whole body of Scripture – that is, how do these statement s measure up to or nuance a broader idea overall in Scripture?

My first concern, however, is that Pastor Zens has not produced "the overwhelmingly positive picture of Abraham's daughters painted in the New Testament". He lists 20 specific examples of this picture, but unfortunately he doesn’t devote a lot of exexgtical energy to spell out his interpretations for us. It would probably be useful to examine all 20 examples, and that will take more than one blog entry. I'll tackle the first 6 here, and continue with the rest as this series plays out.

His first example is this:

** Neither the Gospel narratives nor the recorded words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of women.

What it interesting here is that this is an unsubstantiated generalization – it speaks to something which the Gospels never mention, and uses that as evidence of something affirmative. Using this logic, we can say that the Gospel narratives nor the words of Jesus ever put restrictions on the ministry of children – so if someone has a bright child who seems good at public speaking, perhaps this child ought to be in pastoral ministry.

What is at stake here is not whether women are like children: what is at stake here is if we can use Scripture's silence on a matter to make an affirmative statement about that matter. This is a mistake in reasoning, and obscures Pastor Zens' point.

His next affirmation is this:

**Jesus fully accepted women as his disciples and they accompanied him in his travels with the male disciples (Luke 8:1-3). These women also supported the mission of Jesus with their own resources. These facts may be much more significant that it initially appears. In the first century it was unheard of for a Jewish rabbi to have female followers. Luke reports this rather matter-of-factly, yet this band of women, men and Jesus was hardly kosher to the curious onlookers as they went from city to village.

What is odd here is whether or not anyone credible is denying that women can be disciples of Christ: I don't know anyone who is a responsible preacher or teacher who is saying that women cannot be disciples; I don't know of anyone who says women shouldn't give of their resources to the church or the work of the ministry.

But there is a rather large gap between saying "women can be disciples" and "women can express teaching authority over the broader body of Christ". If we confuse what is at stake by equating examples of one thing with examples of another, we will come to false conclusions about our actual thesis. That is the type of reasoning we are encountering here.

What is again troubling, however, is the affirmation that Jesus allowing women to be under the teaching of a rabbi makes a positive statement about whether women can actually be a "rabbi" is also an argument from silence. Luke does report the presence of women among the disciples "matter-of-factly": Luke does not report, however, that these women were employed by Christ as teachers or leaders of the church.

**After Simeon took the baby Jesus in his arms and saw God’s salvation, Anna the prophetess “gave thanks to God and spoke of him [Jesus] to all the ones expecting redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:25-38). Anna did not just proclaim Christ to women, but to “all.”

The question is actually whether or not Anna was teaching doctrine in the pastoral sense or exhorting people with a divine testimony. I am sure one rebuttal to my objection is, "cent, you're slicing the baloney pretty thin here: you're saying that not all prophecies are doctrinal statements? Or that speaking of the truth of the arrival of the Messiah is not 'doctrinal'? Then what exactly qualifies as doctrinal teaching?"

It's a good, fair question. To answer it, we have to consider what kind of burden Pastor Zens is trying to place on this brief passage. What he is trying to substantiate is "the overwhelmingly positive picture of Abraham's daughters painted in the New Testament" as it relates to 1Tim 2:11-15 – and ultimately that the restrictions Paul makes there against a woman "to teach or to exercise authority over a man". If Anna is an example which undercuts the idea that a woman ought not "to teach or to exercise authority over a man", then Pastor Zens is here saying that Anna was making authoritative demands on those to whom she spoke. What's interesting is that there's nothing here in Luke to buttress that idea.

Luke wrote this:

And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

The word for "to speak" here is not a word which means "to educate" but to demonstrate or testify – you can compare it to the use of the same word in Heb 12:24 where the blood of Christ "speaks" better things than the blood of Abel does.

I admit it: foundationally, the testimony of women to Christ is necessary and important. What it does not do is establish women in positions of leadership in the church in the sense which Pastor Zens is seeking to establish in this article.

If you will forgive me for jumping around, this is underscored by his #6 example:

**A woman’s testimony was disallowed as evidence in first century courts. Yet the Lord chose females to be the first witnesses and proclaimers of his resurrection (John 20:1-2, 11-18; Luke 24:1-11, 22-24; Mark 16:1-8; Matt.28:1-11).

This is completely unquestionable – the testimony of the women is what caused the apostles to stop sitting around dumbfounded by the death of their Messiah. But again: even if God accepts women as witnesses and believers, does this establish that women are also established as spiritual leaders and pastors for the church? At best, the answer is "not by any direct statement".

Most problematic of this first set of evidences for me is Pastor Zens' nest affirmation:

**Jesus applauded the evangelistic efforts of the Samaritan woman (John 4:35-38). After experiencing a revelation of Jesus, she left her jar at the well and went to her city telling men, women and children about the Messiah (John 4:28-29). Everyone in Sychar knew about her history of broken relationships, yet she boldly proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah – a Redeemer even for those outside of Judaism!

The underlined text is what I find problematic – that in the events at the well, Jesus is said to have "applauded" (meaning: endorsed and affirmed as an example) the Samaritan woman.

Here's the text he cites, ESV:

Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest. Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, 'One sows and another reaps.' I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor."

Now, who is "you" here? It turns out that "you" are His disciples – the ones who left Him at the well to go into town for supplies. So Jesus is telling the disciples about how rich the harvest is that He is calling them to bring in. In that, he calls all the Samaritans "the fields … white for harvest". He does not mention the testimony of the Samaritan woman at all in making this statement.

Someone might object and say, "cent: the 'others' who have labored must include the woman! She testified about Christ to the Samaritans, and they came to see the Messiah! Isn’t that what Jesus is talking about?"

In the best case for that view, Jesus has made the woman among the many who have prepared the field for the harvest. This positioning might be construed as listing her among the Prophets – just like Anna, above. But the problem is that this role of testifying to people about the fact of the Gospel – which I concede is a role for any and for all believers – is not the same role as pastoring a flock or (as another related example) initiating church discipline. One is a role which is under the broad call of obedience all believers are expected to do, and the other is a narrower role which is actually, affirmatively defined by the New Testament.

To exaggerate Jesus' description in John 4 to "applauding" the Samaritan woman does a disservice to this particular text and makes the overall tenor of this essay less objective than it intends to be.

Last one for today:

**In the context of Jesus’ crucifixion the male disciples fled, yet the women were present and they helped in his burial (Matt.27:55-56,61; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:55-56; John 19:25-27).

I don't think there's any question that female disciples carried out this ministry to the crucified body of Christ. I'm not sure who would say otherwise. What is at stake, however, is if this particular event defines the role of women normatively as one of leadership and authority or if it expresses one ministry which women expressly did in one case which does not have any bearing on teaching, preaching, or local church leadership.

There are still 14 more examples from Pastor Zens to consider, but so far his examples do not point to anything approaching the exhortation in 1Tim 2 regarding whether or not to "permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man".

We'll see if further examination provides any richer substance in the rest of this paper.

Now and Zens [1]

My good friend and brother in Christ johnMark has linked me to a somewhat, um, interesting post at Wade Burleson’s blog – and before someone starts speculating due to my silence, I also consider Pastor Burleson a brother in Christ – perhaps more so because he is a messenger to the wayward SBC, and he’s an Okie, which is its own spiritual gift. That link is here.

The essay Pastor Burleson provides is from Jon Zens, about whom I admittedly know nothing. This paper would be my first occasion to read anything by Pastor Zens, and I’m sure we’ll both be sorry for that.

If you want to get the full force of the paper, go read it. I have excerpted it here to make a few comments. I may come back to it because it has a lot to consider.

The purpose of 1 Timothy is stated by Paul in 1:3-4 – “As I urged you upon my departure to Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain persons to neither teach differently, nor to pay attention to myths and unending genealogies, which stir up questions rather than furthering the stewardship of God in faith.” “The key to understanding the letter,” Gordon Fee notes, “lies in taking seriously that Paul’s stated reason in 1:3 for leaving Timothy in Ephesus is the real one; namely, that he has been left there to combat some false teachers, whose asceticism and speculative nonsense based on the law are engendering strife, causing many to capitulate to the false teaching” (Gospel & Spirit, p.54).

1 Timothy is not a church manual for a pastor. It is a mandate for an apostolic assistant to deal with serious issues involving false teaching in Ephesus. Unfortunately, some women had become involved in this problem.

Well, who can deny what is said in the first paragraph – that Paul’s own words in 1Tim 1 set the context and scope of the letter for the reader? I would think that only a rather, um, inexperienced reader would try to raise a hand against this statement in order to say, “that’s simply false”.

The problem is this second paragraph, particularly the first sentence. What Pastor Zens is suggesting here is that the 1st letter to Timothy is written only to Timothy and only for the occasion in which Paul wrote to Timothy. Somehow, the idea that Scripture, being God-breathed, and being useful for many things (cf. Ps 119; Deu 6) in a broader context than the occasion in which it was written has been overlooked – and I choose that word carefully because Pastor Zens is, after all, a pastor.

This sentence – indeed, the weight of the paper – is balanced on a view of the letters to Timothy Pastor Zens summaries in this way:

Before coming to our passage in 1 Timothy, it is vital to note that the tradition of designating 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus as “Pastoral Epistles” is very misleading. One writer calls Timothy a “young pastor” (Kuske). Timothy and Titus were not resident pastors/elders. They were itinerant apostolic assistants. Paul at one point tells Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim.4:5). In these three letters Paul gave his co-workers instructions regarding issues and problems faced by the assemblies they moved among and assisted.

The underscored distinction, above (my emphasis), is a hair-fine distinction at best. To use that distinction as the justification to dismiss the completely conventional and non-controversial view that Paul wrote to Timothy in order to instruct him on “godly leadership in the face of internal opposition” (Wallace) is over-reaching; it attempts too much. In that, the distinction between “pastor” and “itinerant apostolic assistants” is what, really? In the case of the former, I guess it means he stayed there forever, while the latter meant he stayed for a while and then, when the church had a decent set of elders, he moved on to another assignment. The problem is that if the latter is the case, aren’t the “itinerant apostolic assistants” acting in the place of pastors and elders until such people (not to poison the well) can be established?

There’s no question that the letters to Timothy and Titus are not complete "pastoral handbooks". They clearly lack a lot of the theological girth Romans, Hebrews, and even the 4 Gospels provide to the pastor or elder. But of course: that’s why all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. In the same way it would be odd to say that Romans is written only to address a specific need for the church in Rome as perceived by Paul (and therefore cannot be applied to the whole church), it is equally odd to say that 1 Tim ought to be so narrowly construed that our ability to use it to gain an understanding of pastoral ministry and ecclesiology is significantly impaired.

What is more troubling is the speculation – the direction of the speculation – Pastor Zens uses to set up the context of Paul’s exhortations to Timothy. When he says, “Unfortunately, some women had become involved in this problem,” Pastor Zens has presented us with a conclusion which we have to question. Is the correct implication of the controversy which Timothy is in Ephesus to confront/oppose that “some women have become involved” or that this teaching has somehow obfuscated the roles of men and women in the church, and that Timothy must set that right as well?

See: if Pastor Zens is right, then Paul’s warnings to Timothy about how women should or should not act are about some particular women who are false teachers and not about women in general. In fact, Pastor Zens banks on this narrow-band idea. But if the problem is farther-reaching, and the errors are causing order in the church to be undermined, which is a rather important issue for Paul (cf. 1 Cor 14), this essay falls far short of the mark at which it was aimed.

At this point, Pastor Zens devotes a great deal of time to 1 Tim 2:11-15, and sets up 1 Tim 2:1-10 for “immediate context”. The objection I would point out here is that the context of 1 Tim 2 is the groundwork Paul has laid in 1 Tim 1 – which Pastor Zens has hardly addressed at all.

In 1 Tim 1, Paul establishes his preeminent concern to Timothy clearly:

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Now, before we get to Hymenaeus and Alexander, what is Paul talking about when he says, “this charge”? He means this, which immediately precedes that phrase:

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Paul’s charge to Timothy – and you must read this carefully so you can use it the way Paul intended to use it – is that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully; that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient. That is, the function of the law is to expose and deal with those who are disobedient.

Paul’s charge to Timothy – as it was to the Corinthians, btw, in case we think this is some kind of innovative point by Paul – is to rebuke the disobedient by means of the law of God, and to this end raise up godly leaders to further that task. Thus if Paul is making a specific application to Timothy, he is making it as a specific application of a general principle which is applicable to the church today, and for the pastor today.

With that, this post has gone long on me, and I want to address some of the specific reasoning Pastor Zens has provided to us. Stay tuned for future developments.