This is question #2 of a 10 question discussion/debate between Mike Seaver and Cheryl Schatz on the issue of women in ministry. The discussion will take the form of five questions posed by Cheryl Schatz with answers by Mike Seaver and then five questions posed by Mike Seaver with answers by Cheryl Schatz. Each question and answer session will be followed up in the next post by one response each from both Mike and Cheryl. Links to the questions and the responses will be at the bottom of this post.
Question #2 by Cheryl Schatz
If God has a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, then why is this the only "law" that does not have a second witness? God established the need for a second or third witness in Deut. 17:6 & Deut 19:15 regarding the importance of establishing a judicial matter and also for accusations of wrongdoing. When Jesus was confronted with the law of the second witness, He subjected himself to this law in John 8:13-18 thus confirming the importance of the law requiring a second witness. Jesus even stated that his testimony was not considered true without a second witness John 5:31-37. Jesus also repeated the law in Matthew 18:16 in order to establish an important matter.
Paul, like Jesus, also obeyed the law by stating that he had met the conditions of two or three witnesses in 2 Cor 13:1. In Philippians 3:1 Paul gave the reason for why important matters need to be repeated. The reason that repetition is necessary is that repetition is a safeguard for us. This important principle is strictly followed in the scripture to prepare the foundation for this universal principle that all of God's universal laws to mankind are never given to us without a confirmation. Can you explain why the only "law" that is not repeated is the "law" that forbids women from teaching men? If you disagree that every universal law has the required two or three witnesses, can you please name even one universal law that does not have a second witness?
Answer by Mike Seaver:
I think that the idea that Scripture needs a second witness is a faulty one. The idea of a second witness was set up for fallible finite humans who are sinful and thus have clarity in reasoning and thinking by having a second witness. Scripture is infallible and inerrant it needs no second witness. When Jesus says in John 5:31, “If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true.” He is not saying that his testimony is NOT true unless he has a witness, but it is not deemed true by humans and in John 8, the Pharisees. It seems like the questions comes down to a view of Scripture. Is Scripture completely true or not? Are Greek and Hebrew original writings completely without errors and completely correct in their teaching or not. If Scripture is true, it needs not second witness to be true.
As far as other theological debates go…if Scripture needs a second witness than all those who hold a Millennial view of Premillennialism or Post Millennialism are out of luck because only Revelation 20 speaks of a Millennium. Only Amillennialist bring this up…usually.
Also, I think the idea that more than one source is not consulted when thinking about whether or not women can be overseers/elders/pastors is a faulty one. Paul, the apostle speaks about it in 1 Timothy 3:2 and in Titus 1:6. He mentions that women should not teach or exercise authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. The order of worship in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (specifically ch. 14) seems to speak about men being the ones leading the corporate meeting. Acts 20 has Paul speaking to the Ephesians elders and it seems like they were all men and this is Luke writing (Acts 20:30 uses “men” as who will rise up from among them). Peter and Paul speak of male headship when it comes to marriages (1 Peter 3:1, Eph. 5:22).
So, while the Bible never says, “godly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men” it certainly seems to imply that there is a biblical headship and leadership that men are responsible to provide.
It is great for women to use their gifts and teach. It is just that the Bible says that women should not do this with men present.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The next post will be Cheryl's response to Mike's answer and then Mike's final rejoinder on question #2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Previous Links:
Question #1: Cheryl's Question and Mike's Answer
Question #1: Responses by Cheryl and Mike to Q & A
9 comments:
Mike you said,"He mentions that women should not teach or exercise authority in 1 Timothy 2:12."
When did "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness." become "women" plural?
"Peter and Paul speak of male headship when it comes to marriages (1 Peter 3:1, Eph. 5:22)."
Here are the verses you site:
"In the same way, you wives,be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives"
"21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body."
Where is "headship"? What is this headship?
The only thing I see the "head" being instructed to do is love their wives as their own bodies:
28"So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body."
”I think that the idea that Scripture needs a second witness is a faulty one.”
I believe Cheryl was talking about a law in Scripture, not Scripture itself needing a second witness.
”It seems like the questions comes down to a view of Scripture. Is Scripture completely true or not?”,
No, it comes down to how we understand Scripture. I do not see how you can suggest Cheryl does not believe all of Scripture to be true. Not once has Cheryl asked us to ignore or discount any part of Scripture, only that we seek to understand what it means.
”If Scripture is true, it needs not second witness to be true.”
So what was Jesus doing wanting a second witness? Does not Christ bear witness to Scripture, and Scripture to Christ?
”So, while the Bible never says, “godly women who teach right doctrine are not allowed to teach men” it certainly seems to imply that there is a biblical headship and leadership that men are responsible to provide.”
The first half of that statement is very clear, the second half “seems” to sound like an unclear word! In fact that is the third time you have used the phrase “seems to/like” in 2 paragraphs! Cheryl’s questions are seeking to establish what we know to be true through clear and unambiguous statements in Scripture. She “seems” to be making a good point! ;)
Cheryl is prooftexting. The validity of the law is not in question in the verses she cites.
Neopatriarch,
Thanks for your comment, however I notice that you have not even interacted with the texts at all. Jesus submitted to the necessity of a second witness over a judicial matter. That cannot be denied. It is His witness. The rule of the second witness for establishing a judicial matter has never yet been broken by God or challenged by any law that made it into the scripture without being established by a second witness. This is the simple truth that God set up for our safety - a judicial matter MUST be validated by a second witness. A judicial matter that has no second witness is invalid. Is the "law" that forbids all godly women from teaching the bible to men a judicial matter or is it not? If it brings a charge of sin, then it is a judicial matter and it needs a second witness.
If you want to prove me wrong, just find one universal law that has no second witness. Or perhaps you would like to explain why the one solitary unique "law" that is against godly women and is not understood as a universal law by at least half the church, has not been established in the proper judicial manner? If that isn't a red flag that we are misinterpreting it as a universal law, then I don't know what else it would be.
Or perhaps you would like to find another universal law that has no second witness? I would love to see you try. I am sure that if anyone could find such a law, it would be you. You are quite an intelligent man with your mathematical education and I think you are the perfect candidate to try to figure this one out. I am very willing to hear you out should you be willing to prove me wrong. All you have to do is find one tiny little universal law that is without a second witness. Then perhaps you can explain to me why God chose to put such an important "law" into a personal letter and not into a letter written specially to the entire church and then He refused to explain it, repeat it or verify it. That doesn't sound like the God of the Bible. The God of the bible wants His godly women to know what sin is and He would never refuse to repeat the warning about sin just because the sin is about women alone. This is one of the reasons why I love the Lord God so much. He cares about us and warns us over and over and over again to stay away from sin. He really does care that much!
I'm sorry. This "two witnesses" line of thinking as a means of exegesis is really starting to wear thin on me. The more it's harped on, especially in light of how particularly the "law" in question must be framed in order to qualify, the more thin and tenuous the principal seems.
However, I must say that mocking your audience is a terribly effective means of persuasion.
Hi Kyle,
I am sorry that you feel that the principle that God has set up in the scriptures is not to be pushed. I don't feel that way because I love God's way of doing things for our good. He is a wonderful good God.
I am surprised that you thought my answer to Neopatriarch was mocking him. If you knew me you would know that I am not a mocker. I have had much interaction with Neopatriarch on my own blog in the past and this Christian brother is a very smart man. He is wrong about women in ministry but there is no doubt in my mind that he is extremely bright. I quite liked him as a person even though he strongly disagreed with me. What I was doing was encouraging him to actually interact with the texts and prove me wrong by showing that what I claim is a "unique law" that is not unique at all. The reason I am asking him to use his smarts to work on this, is because if this is truly the only unique "law" like it, then we all need to ask ourselves why God failed women? Does God really care if his the women in his body sin or not? Those are the questions that I have posed and I think they are worthy of discussion especially if we care about our sisters in Christ. We are instructed to love the brethren and that includes our sisters in Christ. The more we wrestle through this discussion (in a respectful and loving way) the more we can see the foundational issues that have separated ourselves.
Again, I would like to apologize if I came across as mocking Neo. I would like to affirm him as a dear brother in Christ one whom I can truly say that I must love and respect because he belongs to Jesus.
I apologize if my last answer was somewhat incohesive. I have been working long hours in ministry these days with little sleep. Oh my goodness, I think I need another cup of coffee this morning!!
Cheryl -
I appreciate your apology, but I must insist that, whether you intended it or not, your answer to Neopatriarch was mocking. It may have been intended as gentle mocking, a kind of tease to an old friend with whom you disagree, but there are people in your audience who don't know that. When you represent a certain task as impossible and then ask a person to do it anyway, saying "I'm sure you can do it" because that person has a certain quality, the effect is mockery. It's the same rhetorical technique that Elijah used against the prophets of Baal.
I'm afraid I'm busy too, so I don't have time to go into more detail in discussion of your rule. I think the principle behind it is a good principle for exegesis, but hardly a primary one, and certainly not one to be enforced as an iron-clad rule. Moses' original legal precedent was obvious and natural, as was its use in the New Testament, but the way you've established it strikes me as forced and artificial and more useful as a technique for weaseling out of something than for earnestly pursuing Biblical criteria for right living.
Kyle,
Thanks for your comments, but I assure you that my answer was not mocking. While I am completely certain that there is no universal "law" that has no second witness, I am very open to being challenged. I have given this challenge out since 2006 to a lot of complementarians including some very influential pastors. Yet to this date no one has been able to find such a "law" but I have confidence that Chris a.k.a. Neopatriarch is a very smart and determined individual and if there is such a "law", I believe that he will accept the challenge and work hard to prove me wrong. After all he has taken the time to create a blog written specifically against me so he must be a very determined individual. My words then were not meant to be mocking but a serious challenge to a brother in Christ who appears to like a challenge.
Kyle, you said:
"I think the principle behind it is a good principle for exegesis, but hardly a primary one, and certainly not one to be enforced as an iron-clad rule..."
Thanks for your good words. I have used the same kind of argument with Jehovah's Witnesses for their exegetical arguments that are without a second witness. It has worked well with me in the defense of the faith and I really do praise God that He is one who has no problem in repeating Himself for our benefit. The issue about an "iron-clad rule" will of course be why we look for another example of such a unique law that has no second witness.
You also said:
"Moses' original legal precedent was obvious and natural, as was its use in the New Testament, but the way you've established it strikes me as forced and artificial and more useful as a technique for weaseling out of something than for earnestly pursuing Biblical criteria for right living."
I have found just the opposite. The cults are ones who try to "prove" anything by one solitary reference without a second witness.
My way of looking at scripture is to carefully understand the passage in context and the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 is devoid of a context of universal "law" because of the expected outcome of the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:15. No universal law ever ends with a salvation that is different for only gender alone. I believe that we need to work hard at 1 Timothy 2:15 and not ignore it as it is directly linked to the prohibition and without an understanding of verse 15, the prohibition can be greatly misunderstood.
Thanks again for pushing me to explain myself. I would not want anyone to think that I was deliberately mocking a fellow brother in Christ whom Jesus loves and died for.
Post a Comment