The Prophetic Significance of Women Pastors Part 3
|
The Prophetic Significance
of
Women Pastors
Part 3
Galatians 3:28 versus 1Timothy 2:11-15
Is the Spirit Coherent?
2Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Most of the theological debate concerning Galatians 3:28 and 1Timothy 2:11-15 centers around statements attributing the words of these verses to Paul; however we shall do no such thing. This brief article is by no means to be considered a definitive work on the subject; it will however acknowledge two things as absolutes:
1. As 2Peter3:16 states, “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
2. Galatians and 1imothy are written by Inspiration of the Spirit and are not to be considered as personal bias of the Apostle Paul.
That being said, if you are one of those that believe the writers of the Bible interjected their cultural beliefs into what God was saying, then you need not read further. The author believes that according to 2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: and is therefore not to be interpreted by conveniently removing what someone believes is bias to their beliefs, based on some outdated cultural teaching.
Although, we could approach these portions of scripture exegetically, utilizing the hermeneutics of exegetical interpretation, such an article would not be written for the lay reader but the theologian. However, the Spirit has placed such a volume of information about this topic in the scriptures as to make it understandable to all who hold to the Scriptures as being the entire “Word of God” once delivered unto man. Therefore, firstly, a topical presentation will be used, which when taken as a whole, is in actuality more “authoritative” and informative than any comparative exegetical study would be. After which we shall look more specifically at Galatians and 2 Timothy.
We shall approach this study by following the below topics:
1. Weight of the Spirit’s teaching in the Old Testament
2. Weight of the Spirit’s teaching in the New Testament
3. Galatians Versus IITimothy
4. Conclusion
Weight of the Spirit’s teaching in the Old Testament
The Old Testament is ripe with the teaching of how God sees men and women. These are not cultural but divine teachings that will ultimately help us understand the ways of God in creation past and eternity to come. God does not arbitrarily establish an order just for the sake of doing it. Everything He does has meaning and can only be understood through much study and prayer. He says in Isaiah 28:13 “But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” So it is in these last days, perverse people have so deceived themselves and others that whole denominations today seek to sanctify the union of “same sex marriages” all in the name of Jesus.
But, in the light of the “Weight” of scripture on any topic, these immoral teachers run for the cover of cultural interpretation, making the true author of the Bible (God the Holy Spirit) non-omniscient and bigoted. Of course no one would do this ….. or would they? On June 19,2006, USA Today, reporting from Birmingham Ala, reported that: “The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.” In light of that statement, nothing is sacred, not even the teaching that is the foundation of the Christian faith. So what does the weight of the Old Testament teach us? The following order is taken from a sermon preached by John MacArthur.
God sees woman rule as a curse:
Isaiah 3:12:
Isaiah 3:12:
"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."
"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."
Only Males Received The Sign And Seal Of The Covenant:
Genesis 17:10
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised."
Abram Is Called; Not Sarai:
Genesis 12:1
"Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee."
God Appointed Only Men To The Priesthood:
Numbers 3:9-10Exodus 28:1
"And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons."Numbers 3:9-10
"And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death."
"And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death."
Elders Were To Be Men:
Exodus 18:21, 25
"Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens...And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens."
Only The Males Were Commanded To Appear Before The Lord:
Exodus 23:17
"Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the LORD God."Deuteronomy 16:16-18
"Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty: Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee. Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment."Nehemiah 10:36
"Also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto the priests that minister in the house of our God."
The Firstborn Males Were Sanctified To The LORD:
Exodus 13:1-2, 12, 14
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: IT IS MINE...That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD'S...And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? That thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage."Exodus 22:29
"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."Exodus 34:20
"But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty."
Exodus 22:29
"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
Exodus 34:20
"But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty."
The Firstborn Son Got The Inheritance:
Deuteronomy 21:16-17
"Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his."2 Chronicles 21:3
"And their father gave them great gifts of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fenced cities in Judah: but the kingdom gave he to Jehoram; because he was the firstborn."
The Firstborn Male Had The Birthright:
Genesis 25:31-33
"And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he swear unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob."Hebrews 12:16-17
"Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."Genesis 43:33
"And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another."1Chronicles 5:1
"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright."
Hebrews 12:16-17
"Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears."
Genesis 43:33
"And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another."
1Chronicles 5:1
"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright."
Men Were To Rule The Children Of Israel:
Deuteronomy 1:13-15
"Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes."
God Commanded Men To Represent Israel And Carry The Twelve
Stones In The Jordan River:
Joshua 4:1-3
"And it came to pass, when all the people were clean passed over Jordan, that the LORD spake unto Joshua, saying, Take you twelve men out of the people, out of every tribe a man, And command ye them, saying, Take you hence out of the midst of Jordan, out of the place where the priests' feet stood firm, twelve stones, and ye shall carry them over with you, and leave them in the lodging place, where ye shall lodge this night."
What are we to conclude from such a sexually oriented presentation of scripture? God did not allow, accept in a few instances which we shall later explore, women to rule his people Israel or to act as priest before Him or the people. The covenants of God in the Old Testament are evidenced in the circumcision of men. The argument by the Spirit in the book of Romans, utilizes the act of circumcision as that which acknowledged that Abraham had faith not as evidence of faith.
Romans 4: 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also
No such evidence of the covenants was given unto women. God included all in salvation, but only in the Jewish male was evidence of the covenant required by ‘Divine Law.” Yet, Moses came close to death for not circumcising his son on account of the objections of his wife. Also, please take note of the anger of Zipporah at having to save Moses’ life by circumcising her son.
Exodus 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
Zipporah did not relate to God but Moses, she did not want her son’s foreskin cut off and Moses had abided by her wishes. Now however, he was being called as the messenger of God, and the first requirement is that the messenger himself demonstrates obedience. This same mentality was demonstrated by Job’s wife, who in spite of all that God had given her before Job was tested, grieved so much at the loss of her children and possessions that she was willing to curse God.
Job 2: 9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.
Yet we find Job rebuking his wife for her words, even as he was in the midst of his suffering.
10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.
Both Job and Moses’ wife found their relationship with their husbands more important than their relationship with God. Again, the Spirit also testifies to the fact of the woman’s attachment to her husband is before her relationship to the members of the Trinity when He states:
1 Corinthians 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
Weight of the Spirit’s teaching in the New Testament
As was mentioned in the previous articles, the New Testament completely broke with many of the things that related to women. However, some things did not change. The relationship that man has with God and with woman did not change for the most part accept that in the New Testament a man was only allowed “one” wife. This change was really not a new change; it just restored what God had originally set up in the garden, for He only created one woman for Adam. A special point of interest here is the fact that Adam named Eve, this was a sign of authority in the Old Testament (Genesis 2:23 23 “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man”
Woman was created for the man
1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
This verse establishes the foundation for one of the most beautiful analogies in scripture for when Adam said that woman was “now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” he was also teaching a much deeper truth of relationship that would come to be understood as man continued to unlock the mysteries of God’s work.
In my two-semester course on relationship, I teach the relationship of “bone of my bone” in the first semester. The teaching comes from Proverbs 10:4 “A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.” Without taking the time to fully justify this conclusion here, this verse teaches that the woman is the marrow of the bone and the “spirit” of the relationship. The bone is one unit with two functions. As cartilage, all the joints, ligaments and muscles come together to give the body motion.
Man is the cartilage of the relationship, it is he who decides which way to go and is responsible to insure that he is able to carry the weight of the body to that destination. But without the “marrow,” man could not take one step. For the marrow makes the blood of the body and gives the body the ability to utilize the oxygen needed by the muscles to move.
The cartilage can’t be the marrow and the marrow can’t be the cartilage, but together they make it possible for the body to live and grow. If the cartilage is weak, the bones break with the slightest bit of pressure (so does the relationship) and if the body is anemic from low blood production in the marrow, the body dies, (and so does the relationship). It is only when both are healthy and function in the order given by the designer that the body functions properly, (AND SO DOES THE RELATIONSHIP)!!
Adam was created first, then Eve
1Timothy 2:11-13
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Malachi 2:15 teaches us that within man was the “residue of the spirit” or the remnant or remainder of the spirit. But it was not the Holy Spirit being spoken of here. It was what God had created in Genesis chapter one. God did not have to breathe the breath of life into the woman, for he took the “residue” of her life from Adam. That is why he instantly knew she was bone of his bone (the spirit/soul) and flesh of his flesh (the body). But this also established an order within the relationship between man and woman.
Further, verse 13 is the reason for the statements in verses 11 and 12. A woman was to “learn in silence” and not “to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” Why, because “Adam was first formed.” Where is the cultural bias here? It is God the Holy Spirit who is making the accusation against the woman so it is also Him who says “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.”
Adam was not deceived
1Timothy 2:14
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Verse 14 is the final proof text of the Spirit that Eve is not to have authority over man. Of all the scriptures, this verse presents us with the most telling and informative look at the differences between man and woman.
In order to fully appreciate what the Spirit wants us to understand, we must all go back in time to the garden. There we find Adam and Eve in perfect environment and without sin, enjoying a relationship with each other as well as having daily talks with God. Adam was the perfect husband and Eve was created by God to be the perfect ‘help mate.” The only difference between them is that Eve has never experienced being alone as Adam had before God brought Eve to him. (This difference was ultimately to become the down fall of both of them).
Finally the time came for the purpose of their creation to be manifested. Satan, the accuser of God and soon to be the Accuser of man, was allowed to test (cross examine) them. There was only one thing that they could do wrong, and that was the only thing Satan could use in his testing of them. Could he get them to eat of the forbidden tree?
He first considered man, and determined that as ruler of this world, to try and deceive man by means of an direct attack would prove unsuccessful. Unlike the angles, who no longer had direct access to God and could not ask Him questions of all they had in their heart to ask, Adam walked with God daily and might go to Him with questions about Satan’s “trafficking” against God. Yet, the only way to win in His continued attack against God, Satan knew he must get man to fall.
After very careful observation, Satan noticed that the woman occasionally left the man and would wander over to the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” He further noticed that she would stand there for sometime and realized this would become his means of destroying Gods purpose once again. Having heard the reason for the creation of Eve, Satan knew Adam had experienced loneliness, and that he was very attached to Eve. He therefore surmised that if he could get Eve to eat of the forbidden tree, Adam would willingly eat of it so he would not loose Eve. He counted on Adam’s “love” for Eve to become his undoing.
Still, what of Eve? Why would she choose to disobey God, what reason would become her justification for believing a lie. The answer to that question he knew all too well. Creatures with freewill, especially those who were not satisfied with their God ordained position, would willingly believe anything that would help them to change that position.
He had already been successful in getting 1/3 of an innumerable company of angels to become dissatisfied with their God ordained position. His ultimate lie was “and ye shall be as gods.” That was enough for Eve, her reason for eating was not for the love of man, but eating the fruit would make her the “first” to be higher than man.
Her self justification for disobeying God would be “that the tree was
(1) good for food, and that it was
(2) pleasant to the eyes, and a tree
(3) to be desired to make one wise” If you remember the second Article, then you remember what the Spirit said of Satan’s strategy and woman’s response:
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
In a state of perfection, Eve was deceived by her own lust, in order to achieve her ultimate goal to be over the man. This is the Spirit’s real indictment against woman ruling in the Church, she will justify her lust and deceive herself when it is convenient for her to do so. Additionally, woman became Satan’s partner, his secret weapon against man.
John MacArthur adds another scriptural insight to this debate:
"Our society's current thinking on the woman's role is contrary to the priorities revealed in the Bible. Genesis 3 explains why that conflict exists. After the fall, God told the woman, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16). Genesis 4:7 helps us to understand what that verse means. There God told Cain, "Sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." Exactly the same phrase is used in both passages. So in the same way sin tries to dominate us all, fallen women desire to overpower their husbands, and fallen men tend to oppress them in the same way sin oppresses the sinner. The intended balance, of course, is achieved when men and women lead and submit in a godly manner (Ephesians 5:22-33)."
God told Eve that Adam shall rule over her and that Adam was the head.
Genesis 3:16
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Ephesians 5:23 &24
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
I beg the feminist pastors to show me the cultural teaching of the Spirit in what He has announced as the reason a woman could not hold an office of leadership in the people of God (Jewish Believers) or the children of God (Body of Christ). The Bible clearly forbids women to have authority over men in a church setting. There were no women priests in the Old Testament. Jesus chose all male apostles. Only men were allowed to be elders in the Old Testament. No known author of scripture was a woman. No woman had an ongoing prophetic ministry in the Old Testament. With the weight of evidence we have seen so far in the Old and New Testaments how is it possible for anyone to disregard all of it based on one verse of scripture?
Women are to be in subjection to their husbands
1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;
4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Feminist Christians find the above verses offensive and relegate their inclusion in the Bible to the cultural bias of Paul. But we have already shown that it was not Paul’s cultural bias but the determined “revelation” of the Spirit of God who included them in the Bible. If we could not find cultural bias in 1Timothy 2:14, then every New Testament verse of scripture relating to woman’s relationship to man is based on the following:
1Timothy2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
A Bishop had to be the husband of one wife, not the wife of one husband
1 Timothy 3:1-2
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."
Elders were to be the husband of one wife
Titus 1:5-6
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly."
We have seen the overwhelming weight of the New Testament. A woman could not be in authority over a man, she was commanded to “submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” Her submission as well as the teaching of the Spirit that she was “deceived” by Satan has removed all women from a position they lust for, rulers of man. Also again please not, woman was created for man not to rule or be equal partners in their relationship, but to be his helpmate, a vice president to the corporate relationship called marriage. The words “as unto the Lord” literally mean “as thought your husband were the Lord.” A woman can’t serve the Lord if she chooses to be head of her husband, as a pastor, she would be his head and would not able to serve Christ but serves her own “desire.” There are other scriptures in the New Testament we could use, but a semi-conclusion is now required.
The Spirit of God is not schizophrenic, He has not said to totally different things about the same issue. It is a gross violation of hermeneutical principles and a direct assault against God to try and force a meaning on scripture for the sake of one LUST PATTERN. Korah tried it once, and God showed how He felt about it then, does He really need to do that again. If He were to open up the earth at some convention of women pastors, would the Church get the message or would they respond as the people in Korah’s day responded. The choice is yours, for now we will continue our study, for now the Bible must fight itself.
Galatians versus 2 Timothy
In 1999, Richard W. Hove wrote “Equality in Christ? Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute. Below is a book review by Dallas Theological Seminary: Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 158. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2001; 2002, S. 158:246. I shall let this report speak for me in the first part of this section
In the last few decades Christians have increasingly debated what the Bible teaches about the roles of men and women. Galatians 3:28 is a critical text in this discussion, and it is the central text in this work by Hove, director of Campus Crusade for Christ at Duke University.In chapter 1 Hove examines the broad context of Galatians 3:28 by examining the flow of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3–4. Paul argued that with the advent of Christ (3:23, 25) and the coming of the Holy Spirit (3:14; 4:6) believing Gentiles are included as the people of God. Thus the context supports the notion in 3:28 that before God there is neither Jew nor Greek but all are one in Christ Jesus.
Chapter 2, the longest chapter, deals with the more immediate context, namely, Galatians 3:26–29. Hove demonstrates that the structure of these verses shows that verse 28 is not an isolated verse but is an integral part of the passage that is framed by the two clauses in verses 26a and 29. He then examines each verse in this passage in more detail, investigating the contextual, lexical, and syntactical issues with a thoroughness that is often missing in commentaries. In his lexical study of the term “one” he concludes that the diverse parts share something in common, that is, “they are united in some respect, in contrast to their diversity.” Hence the expression “you are all one” denotes unity as opposed to plurality. Thus those who accept the claims of Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles, have no distinction in race, nation, class, or gender in their status with God. Notably this absence of distinction results in unity, not equality.
Chapter 3 examines two basic interpretations of Galatians 3:28. Hove demonstrates how egalitarians emphasize the sociological implications of the verse whereby everyone who is “one in Christ” enjoys equal opportunity regardless of race, class, or gender. In contrast he observes that complementarians emphasize the theological implications of the verse, that is, the inclusion of all people, men and women alike, united in Christ. Hove next defends this latter view by showing that the expression “you are all one” implies some sense of equality, that is, oneness before God. Oneness involves a theological equality which differs from an unqualified sociological equality. Men and women while one before God; nevertheless represent differing roles in the church and in the earthly family.
In chapter 4 the author responds to egalitarian Rebecca Groothius, who recently wrote Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). In his concluding chapter Hove states that although Galatians 3:28 portrays some sense of equality, “it does not follow that spiritual roles of men and women in the home and church are interchangeable.” The book ends with an appendix, bibliography, general index, and Scripture index.
Anyone interested in the issue of gender within the Christian context should read this book. Hove argues his case well, but he is also fair and charitable toward those with whom he disagrees, namely, those who hold the egalitarian position.
In chapter 1 Hove examines the broad context of Galatians 3:28 by examining the flow of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3–4. Paul argued that with the advent of Christ (3:23, 25) and the coming of the Holy Spirit (3:14; 4:6) believing Gentiles are included as the people of God. Thus the context supports the notion in 3:28 that before God there is neither Jew nor Greek but all are one in Christ Jesus.
Chapter 2, the longest chapter, deals with the more immediate context, namely, Galatians 3:26–29. Hove demonstrates that the structure of these verses shows that verse 28 is not an isolated verse but is an integral part of the passage that is framed by the two clauses in verses 26a and 29. He then examines each verse in this passage in more detail, investigating the contextual, lexical, and syntactical issues with a thoroughness that is often missing in commentaries. In his lexical study of the term “one” he concludes that the diverse parts share something in common, that is, “they are united in some respect, in contrast to their diversity.” Hence the expression “you are all one” denotes unity as opposed to plurality. Thus those who accept the claims of Christ, whether Jews or Gentiles, have no distinction in race, nation, class, or gender in their status with God. Notably this absence of distinction results in unity, not equality.
Chapter 3 examines two basic interpretations of Galatians 3:28. Hove demonstrates how egalitarians emphasize the sociological implications of the verse whereby everyone who is “one in Christ” enjoys equal opportunity regardless of race, class, or gender. In contrast he observes that complementarians emphasize the theological implications of the verse, that is, the inclusion of all people, men and women alike, united in Christ. Hove next defends this latter view by showing that the expression “you are all one” implies some sense of equality, that is, oneness before God. Oneness involves a theological equality which differs from an unqualified sociological equality. Men and women while one before God; nevertheless represent differing roles in the church and in the earthly family.
In chapter 4 the author responds to egalitarian Rebecca Groothius, who recently wrote Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). In his concluding chapter Hove states that although Galatians 3:28 portrays some sense of equality, “it does not follow that spiritual roles of men and women in the home and church are interchangeable.” The book ends with an appendix, bibliography, general index, and Scripture index.
Anyone interested in the issue of gender within the Christian context should read this book. Hove argues his case well, but he is also fair and charitable toward those with whom he disagrees, namely, those who hold the egalitarian position.
As Hove stated, the expression “you are all one” implies some sense of equality, that is, oneness before God. However, that oneness involves a theological equality which differs from an unqualified sociological equality. Men and women while one before God nevertheless represents differing roles in the church and in the earthly family. The overwhelming weight of scriptures in both the N.T. and the O.T supports Hove’s position that “theological equality” of men and women does not imply a “sociological equality” which removes the divine mandate of the order of relationship between the sexes. Scripture teaches that all believers are “one with Christ” but Christ is still the Head of the Church. So also is there oneness of man and woman in Christ, but man is still the “head” with all the responsibilities that term implies.
We therefore find 1Timothy 2:11-15 is not the paradox that the egalitarians have tried to make it. In fact, there are a few features of 1Timothy 2:12 that are not normally addressed. The first can be seen through the words of Kenneth S. Wuest. On verse 12 he writes the following.
The correct understanding of Paul’s words, “I suffer not a woman to teach,” are dependent upon the tense of the Greek infinitive and the grammatical rule pertaining to it. In the case of the infinitive, the Greek has a choice between the present and aorist tenses, and he can use either at will, since the time element in the tense of the infinitive is not considered. When the Greek desires to refer only to the fact of the action denoted by the infinitive, without referring to details, he uses the aorist. Should he use any other tense, he is going out of his way to add details, and the student must pay particular attention to his choice of the tense.Dana and Mantey in their Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (p. 199) have this to say on the subject: “The aorist infinitive denotes that which is eventual or particular, while the present infinitive indicates a condition or process. Thus pisteusai (πιστευσαι) (aorist) is to exercise faith on a given occasion, while pisteuein (πιστευειν) (present) is to be a believer; douleusai (δουλευσαι) (aorist) is to render a service, while douleuein (δουλευειν) (present) is to be a slave; hamartein (ἁμαρτειν) (aorist) is to commit a sin, while hamartanein (ἁμαρτανειν) (present) is to be a sinner.” Thus, didaxai (διδαξαι) (aorist), is to teach, while didaskein (διδασκειν) (present 2:12), is to be a teacher. Paul, therefore, says, “I do not permit a woman to be a teacher.” The context here has to do with church order, and the position of the man and woman in the church worship and work. The kind of teacher Paul has in mind is spoken of in Acts 13:1, I Corinthians 12:28, 29, and Ephesians 4:11, God-called, and God-equipped teachers, recognized by the Church as those having authority in the Church in matters of doctrine and interpretation. This prohibition of a woman to be a teacher, does not include the teaching of classes of women, girls, or children in a Sunday School, for instance, but does prohibit the woman from being a pastor, or a doctrine teacher in a school. It would not be seemly, either, for a woman to teach a mixed class of adults. Wuest, Kenneth S.: Wuest's Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader. Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1997, c1984, S. 1 Ti 2:11
Wuest therefore concluded that the Spirit used a grammatical structure with the word (didaskein) which specifically means a woman cannot “be a teacher” over a man. I must apologize for the above, and what is about to follow, but it is necessary for us to look at one more word in the original languages and the grammar that was used with it. The word is “usurp,” which is only used in this one place in the Bible. When ever a word is only used once in the scripture, it is called a hapaxlegomena, which means that this is the only place in Scripture that this particular word is used. I often find it curious when the Spirit does that, of all the common words He could have used, He uses a word that is never used anywhere else in scripture. I always tell my students, when u come across a hapaxlegomena to slow everything down and pay special attention. I have found no better definition of this hapaxlegomena (usurp), than that presented by Dr. George W. Knight: The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England : W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992, S. 141
αὐθεντεῖν** (a biblical hapax; see Knight, “ΑΥΘΕΝΤΕΩ” and the response by Wilshire, “TLG Computer”), once thought to be unique to Christian literature (e.g., Thayer, Lexicon), occurs in the papyrus BGU 1208:38 (27 b.c.) and in Philodemus, Rhetoric 2 (first century b.c.; see BAGD for further documentation and later occurrences) and is referred to as Hellenistic (Ἑλληνικῶς) over against Attic αὐτοδικεῖν by the second-century a.d. Attic lexicographer Moeris (ed. J. Pierson [1759], 58; [43 in 1831 edition]; cf. also the account of the word and its meaning and that of related words, especially αὐθέντης, in MM; Deissmann, Light, 88f.; Robertson, IV, 570; MHT II, 278). Contrary to the suggestion of KJV’s “to usurp authority” and BAGD’s alternative, “domineer” (so also NEB), the use of the word shows no inherent negative sense of grasping or usurping authority or of exercising it in a harsh or authoritative way, but simply means “to have or exercise authority” (BAGD; LSJM: “to have full power or authority over”; cf. Preisigke, Wörterbuch I, 235f., giving three nuances for four different papyri, all in the sphere of the above definition; cf. finally Lampe, Lexicon, whose four main meanings are in the same orbit; so NASB, RSV, TEV, NIV: “to have authority”).Paul refers, then, with αὐθεντεῖν to exercise of a leadership role or function in the church (the contextual setting), and thus by specific application the office of ἐπίσκοπος/πρεσβύτερος, since the names of these offices (especially ἐπίσκοπος) and the activities associated with them (cf., e.g., 3:4, 5; 5:17; Tit. 1:9ff.; Acts 20:17, 28ff.) indicate the exercise of authority. It is noteworthy, however, that Paul does not use “office” terminology here (bishop/presbyter) but functional terminology (teach/exercise authority). It is thus the activity that he prohibits, NOT JUST THE OFFICE (cf. again 1 Cor. 14:34, 35).
The very words used by the Spirit not only prohibited a woman from any office that would have allowed them to teach men, but He also prohibited them from any activity that involved the teaching of men.
1 Cor. 14:34-35
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, remember that these are not edicts based on some cultural teaching that is only applicable in the days of its writing. These are commands by the Omniscience of God the Holy Spirit, who knew that the day would come when Satan would once again be successful through his first human partner (woman) in getting the Church to follow a lie. Knowing this, He warned us to be watchful in the latter days so that we would not fall into the trap of the “gainsaying of Korah.”
It must now be asked to what extent the instructions the Spirit given to Timothy can be made normative for the conduct of Christian worship in other eras. This question, the hermeneutical one, cannot be ignored in view of the fact that every passage of Scripture is written against a particular and to some extent unique cultural and historical background. On the other hand, however, it is not legitimate to limit the scope of 1 Tim 2:11–15 simply by mentioning cultural or historical factors which could have been operative; especially since it has been shown that no cultural background was included in the Spirit of Gods reasoning of why a woman could not “usurp authority over the man.”
While the passage we are considering seems at first sight to surmount cultural barriers with appeals to creation and the fall, other factors which might serve to limit the scope of the Spirit’s instructions must be considered. Perhaps the most significant of such factures would be teachings in the NT that seem to contradict the evident meaning of 1 Tim 2:11–15. Scripture must always be read in the light of Scripture, and if such contradictory evidence were to be found, we would have to question the accuracy of our exegesis or assume that the Spirit’s advice to Timothy was limited to a particular time and place. However, the weight of scripture is always the final authority as to interpretation. If 97% of the verses about salvation teach we are saved by grace, and one verse says “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” the weight of the 97% teaches us that our interpretation of the one verse is flawed and requires further prayer and study.
There are two crucial texts that are often used in an attempt to try and discredit 1 Tim 2:11-15. The first is found in the First Letter to the Corinthians: 11:2–16 and the second in 14:33–34 of the same book. The former passage makes mention of women who “pray and prophesy” (v 5) while the latter forbids women to speak in the assembly. If 1 Cor 14:33–36 is not omitted as a later interpolation, for which there is insufficient evidence, one must seek to reconcile the prohibitions in chap. 14 with the approval in chap. 11. Indeed, it has been argued that there is no approval given to women speaking in the assembly in chap. 11, but current practice s are merely cited. But it is hard to believe that the Spirit would have given such extensive instructions for a practice of which He did not approve. Others suggest that chap. 11 involves a private gathering and chap. 14 a public meeting, but it is best to view the different instructions as directed to different activities. In 1 Cor 14:29–33a, worshippers are encouraged to evaluate the messages of the prophets, and in vv 33bff. it is probably this questioning of the validity of the prophetic word that is forbidden women. Such an activity would, it seems, have constituted a transgression of the commandment that the woman should be submissive (v 34b-ἀλλά ὑποτασσέσθωσαν) which commandment finds support in “the law.” While Gen 3:15 is usually thought to be the passage which is being referenced, Feuillet, noting the parallel in 1 Corinthians 11, makes a very strong case for Genesis 2.80
It has become popular to view Gal 3:28 as an expression of the most basic and authentic Pauline attitude toward women and to interpret it as establishing an equality between man and woman that annuls any gender-based distinctions within the church. Four objections to this view may be offered.
First, Paul in this text is making an assertion about the equality of all people before God, probably with a view to the Jewish prayer in which the man expressed his thanks to God that he had not been created a woman, a slave or a Gentile. Although it is frequently pointed out, it must be reiterated again: equality in status before God does not require the abolition of all hierarchichal relationships.
Secondly, then, it is false to view Gal 3:28 as the central Pauline text on women, since that is not the basic topic.
Thirdly, it is methodologically objectionable to exalt one text to programmatic status and dismiss or interpret in a forced manner the “weight” of all others.
Fourthly, and by far the most important, it is the Spirit of God, not Paul who is the true author of Galatians. Therefore, all complaints of sexism must be directed toward God,
Although we have barely touched all that we could say on this topic, as earlier mentioned, this article is not written to be a definitive work on this highly controversial subject. However, enough has been said to conclude this section with the following statement:
THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN GALATIANS AND 1TIMOTHY.
The true problem is not in the Bible, but in the heart of those women who have decided that God made a mistake when He made them as He did. The drive by feminist Christians to re-interpret what is already known, to apply new understandings where none is needed and seek to accuse the male writers of the God authored Bible of sexism as the reason they cannot be leaders in the Church, which is the true problem.
Conclusion
Enough has been said to prove that there is no Pauline cultural bias in 1Timothy 2:11-15. We have also proven, that The Holy Spirit did not limit woman because of some transitory cultural prejudice that man had against woman. Instead, two reason are given that become the divine foundation for all that the Spirit teaches about women in the New Testament.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve
God created the world with a particular design and structure. He imposed a certain order and form on His creation. He created the cosmos with particular operative principles and laws; and in His wisdom and plan, the man was created first. This peculiarity of God's cosmos had significant and determinative consequences. Man, being first in the creation order of rational, earthly existence (i.e., made in the image of God), stood as the natural head. He, in virtue of the creational precedence and status, assumed a leadership role and function. The man immediately exercised this headship or rule in the naming of the other creatures. God brought to the man all His creatures "to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name." (Gen. 2:19) The woman was created after the man to fulfill the role of "a helper suitable for him" (Gen. 2:18, 20). The woman was created under (not unequal or inferior to) the man. Priority in creation, according to the divine design, naturally entailed leadership (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3, 7ff.). The man's creation involved the endowment of leadership; the woman's creation involved the endowment of support to that leadership, though both the man and the woman, as the image-bearers of God, have "rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Gen. 1:26). Even the source of the woman's creation symbolizes this leadership-follower creational principle. Woman was created from a rib taken from man's side, which suggests a dependent relationship.
Consequently, the original creation, prior to the intrusion of sin, provides the cosmological basis for the regenerative creation (at least that which precedes the consummation). The laws, principles, and structures of creation, which God deemed "very good," have been neither altered nor modified. In fact, they are to be consciously reaffirmed and reinstituted by those who comprise the church of Jesus Christ. Grace permits and enables one to conform and submit to God's wise designs for His creation by beginning to reverse the effects of sin in actual experience. So, when Paul instructs Timothy on proper administration in the church, acknowledging the preeminence and the necessity of conformity to God's original design (which still bears a universal character), he reasons, "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." In the church, the echoes of the original (sinless) creation must resound as the recreation is in progress, though in the consummation of all things, the original creation will be supremely surpassed.
The woman being deceived was in the transgression.
The rule of the man and the submission of the woman has a juridical basis. "It was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." The woman listened to the serpent (i.e., the devil) and disobeyed the commandment of God to refrain from eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16,17; 3:2,3). The whole creation, through Eve's lead, became corrupt, though the structures and inherent principles of the creation remained intact. Yet, the man, as the natural head, was held ultimately responsible. It was when he ate of the forbidden fruit that "the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked" (Gen. 3:7). Hence, Paul posits that "through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin" (Rm. 5:12).
Part of the divine pronouncement of judgement for Eve (and thus for all women) was: "Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16). As long as the curse of sin is upon the creation, the judgement against Eve remains in force. The judgement applies to this earthly existence until the establishment of the new creation order. Even those who comprise the church of Jesus Christ remain subject to this judgement because they continue to live and function in this fallen and accursed world, and thus remain subject to its natural laws and conditions. The Spirit's regenerative and renewing work in the believer is not perfected while he or she remains part of this fallen creation. If the curse remains upon the earth, then the divine judgement remains in force. The curse and the judgement are self-evidently inseparable. Though, the believer has been ultimately delivered from the curse (of decay and death), he or she nevertheless remains affected by it while he or she remains in this world (in the flesh). The woman, therefore, through divine juridical pronouncement, must submit to the rule of the man and not usurp authority, particularly in the Christian home and church, where God's Word, whether pronounced at creation or on the isle of Patmos, should be willingly obeyed. The woman is not to be an elder or pastor in the church because Adam was not deceived, "but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." Notwithstanding, though Christians are still affected by the curse and divine judgement while remaining in this world, God has made special provision in this period of grace for Christians in order to curtail the effects of that judgement. For instance, the divine juridical pronouncement to the woman included personal pain and suffering. God declared, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children" (Gen. 3:16). Dr. Brian Allison
1Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, AS ALSO SAITH THE LAW.
Very little is every said about 1 Cor. 14:34, but in this verse the Spirit also defeated the argument of the latter day Korahites (women pastors). The key is found in the last statement of the verse. The words “but they are commanded to be under obedience” are normally interpreted as the cultural norm of that day, but immediately after this statement are the words “as also saith the law.” in this last statement the Spirit inks the basis for the prohibition to the laws given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. Once established, acceptance of this prohibition against women is eternally tied to the divine mandate of God. So in Timothy and here in First Corinthians the Spirit has made an edict against women in any capacity of leadership and based it on the NON-CULTURAL judicial pronouncements or edicts of God.
Some have been offended by the words that have been said in these three articles. The most offensive of which is the fact that I have stated the woman’s movement into the pulpit was prophesied as one of the evils of the latter day. Yet, much of what the Spirits reveals about the Church in the latter day indicates that the church will be the progenitor of its own evil. Indeed, it will be as Jude announced, and they “perished in the gainsaying of Core.” Having said all that need be said, I leave you with the words of a modern day prophecy written by Robert Latham for Westminster Theological Seminary: Westminster Theological Journal Volume 52. Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990; 2002, S. 52:75-78 His warning was fulfilled
(1) The nature of the feminist movement. Pressures from the feminist movement in and upon the church have focused on egalitarian marriage (in which the husband is not head of the wife but both are equal on all counts without exception), on the ordination of women to ruling and teaching authority in the church, on the eradication of sexist language from Bible and liturgy, and ultimately on the redefinition of God in nonsexist or even in feminine language. It is incontestable that the rise of evangelical feminism could not and would not have taken place without the impact of the wider feminist movement. This wider movement is marked by wholesale repudiation and redefinition of the historic Christian doctrines of God and man. For instance, the intent of religious feminism is to think of a female God or Goddess. Elizabeth Achtemeier has written of the fact that every feminist theology published in the United States since the sixties has called for female terms to be used for God, based on the claim that the use of masculine images has perpetuated the domination of women. For example, Rosemary Radford Reuther, a Christian feminist, argues that the root image of the divine in human consciousness is the great Womb from which all things are generated. She questions whether a male savior can save women and unfolds an androgynous Christology. Christ is not necessarily male. In fact, we encounter Christ in the form of our sister. God is She in whom we live and move and have our being. Virginia Mollenkott writes of God as the God who has breasts, who breast feeds the universe. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza calls for a complete overhaul of the Bible. Feminist theology has to question whether a male Christ can be a role model for today’s woman. Only nonsexist and nonandrocentric traditions of the Bible can have theological authority. The alternative is that the Bible will continue to be a tool for the oppression of women. At the cutting edge is religious feminism, and its revival of ancient goddess religion, associated with witchcraft in the writings of the self-professed witch, Starhawk, and those of Janet and Stewart Farrar. Reuther, working from a Christian perspective, suggests that this goddess movement may be the first stirrings of what may become a new stage of human religious consciousness. Such a concern for a female God is the direct antithesis of the Christian faith, not because God is male (which he is not, since he is not a sexual being) but because the headship of the male exemplifies the authority structures God has given to man grounded on his own nature. Nothing short of the authority of God is at stake. As C. S. Lewis put it, if it is suggested that we might as well pray to “Our Mother” as to “Our Father,” that the incarnation could equally have taken a female form, then we would have embarked on a new religion quite different in character from Christianity.
Certainly, one cannot think of any evangelical feminist who would wish to be associated with extremes such as these. One is not attempting to imply some kind of guilt by association. Yet the question should be faced as to how far the feminist doctrine of man, involving an elimination of the relation of authority in the equality of man and woman, does not entail a comparable redefinition of God. If man and woman are coequal with no functional or ontological order or headship, and both are the image of God, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that at some stage the doctrine of God will be reshaped or, alternatively, that if not it will be despite the new view of man and not because of it. I am not disputing that the Bible, on occasions, uses feminine imagery to refer to God. Luther, in his comments on Gen 17:1, speaks of the phrase “God Almighty” as deriving from a Hebrew stem denoting a breast. He indicates that God is saying that he has breasts to support and sustain Israel and US. However, it is one thing to say that God is like a father, a mother, or (as in Hosea) dry rot and a lion. It is quite another to say the he is dry rot. Moreover, Jesus Christ testifies that God is Father. It is not that human fatherhood is the form through which to understand the Fatherhood of God but that the Fatherhood of God is the ground for all human fatherhood. The difference is that between an anthropomorphism set within a limited frame of reference and ontological realities verified by Christ and the apostles.
(2) Conclusion. Let me sum up. All feminism has diverged from the historic Christian doctrine of man in its rejection of male headship and authority. As a result, its view of man has been disrupted due to a stress on the equality of man and woman without that equality finding expression in its created order. Entailed in this reshaping of the doctrine of man is a departure from the historic Christian doctrine of God. Religious feminism and Christian feminism have either taken this step or are in the process of doing so. Their egalitarian leanings inevitably impinge on God. Moreover, since both God and man are to be understood from a perspective forged from feminist concerns, the place where God and man are personally united in the incarnation of the Son will most probably be next on the agenda for change. In fact, this development has already surfaced. This should come as no surprise. Theology is a whole. Changes in one place affect others. If the doctrine of God is not central, discrepancies are likely to emerge in a range of areas. Feminism of all shades has adopted an anthropocentric (a gynecentric) theology. Reorientation can be expected across the board. As Oddie puts it, “The incarnation of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity; sin and the fall of man; the doctrine of grace; the very notion of revelation and the authority of the Bible as the inspired word of God: the feminist theologians…are bent on the undermining of all these great supporting arches of the Church’s tradition.”
Can there be a danger that evangelical feminism may eventually follow such a realignment? If its evangelicalism is secure it should not do so. However, it is incontestable that the agenda has been set by the wider feminist movement, inside and outside the church. The nature of that agenda is increasingly plain. The direction of that wider movement, its own internal logic, is taking it away from any semblance of biblical Christianity. Moreover, let us see what doctrine of God is likely to emerge as evangelical feminism develops its themes. This is the problem it must face. First of all, it could deny that man is a created finite analogue of God, the self-existent creator. In doing so, it would jeopardize the doctrine of the incarnation, which asserts precisely that, with the divine Logos personalizing the assumed human nature. Second, if it accepts this as so, it could proceed to deny that the relation of authority in the Trinity finds a created counterpart in man, the headship of the man being seen instead as culturally qualified and time-conditioned. There are several difficulties that arise from such a position. If man is truly the image of God yet at precisely those points where the focus of the image becomes specific in terms of relationality he is not held to mirror or to represent God, we may be justified in asking exactly what positive value such a concession may have. Moreover, if authority structures in man are held to be relative to culture and the headship of the man is consequently regarded as purely ephemeral, then such structures do not reflect the character of God and are then seen as projections by male theologians limited and colored by their own societal conditioning or personal prejudice. However, if we wish to preserve the eternal coequality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without such internal relations, then (a) God’s self-revelation in the economy of revelation and redemption is not a true self-revelation and we are back to modalism, or (b) we are driven toward tritheism, with three coequal but subsistentially undifferentiated personae. That a connection exists between a revised doctrine of man and a correspondingly revised doctrine of God is evident not only from what is happening in practice but from the internal logic of theology itself.
Evangelical feminism, as we have defined it, is on a dangerous path. One is not suggesting that individual conservative theologians who embrace feminist concerns are themselves about to abandon an orthodox view of God. However, one fails to see how evangelical feminism as such can consistently or for long preserve the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
These words were written in 1990, and on June 19, 2006, USA Today posted the following headlines with the following story
Presbyterians allow experimenting with alternatives to
'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
[Editor's Note: AO had previously posted a news story on this development just the other day when the story broke into mainstream news. We have recognized it as a subtle attempt to bring in goddess worship, and the doctrines of the MOTHER OF THE HARLOTS - the Babylonian chief goddess, Ishtar. Here's a link to our coverage on this story.