Why Did Paul Quote Pagan Philosophers?

            There is a common argument that the Old Testament is reliable because the New Testament affirms the Old Testament. If this is the case, would Paul’s quote of pagan (non-christian/unbelievers) philosophers affirm the reliability of the pagan works? Alternatively, would the inclusion of pagan work in the Bible undermine the reliability of the Bible?

            Did Paul quote pagan philosophers? Yes, here’s an excerpt from CARM:¹

Paul quoted Menander in the book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians.  He quoted Epimenides in the book of Titus.  Let's take a look.

·  Acts 17:28, "for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'"

o "The first part of verse 28 comes from Cretica by Epimenides, and the second part of the verse from Hymn to Zeus, written by the Cilician poet Aratus. To be sure, both of these lines were directed at Zeus in Greek literature, but Paul applied them to the Creator of whom he spoke."1

o Paul quoted "the first half of the fifth line, word for word, of an astronomical poem of Aratus, a Greek countryman of the apostle, and his predecessor by about three centuries. But, as he hints, the same sentiment is to be found in other Greek poets. They meant it doubtless in a pantheistic sense; but the truth which it expresses the apostle turns to his own purpose—to teach a pure, personal, spiritual Theism."2

·  1 Cor. 15:33, "Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.'”

o"a current saying, forming a verse in MENANDER, the comic poet, who probably took it from Euripides [SOCRATES, Ecclesiastical History, 3.16]."3

o "The words “Bad company ruins good morals” are found in a play by Menander (4th-3rd century B. C.) but may well have become a common saying by Paul’s time."4

o "Evil communications corrupt good manners. An iambic line from the ‘Thais’ of Menander, and perhaps taken by Menander from a play of Euripides. More accurately it means “evil associations corrupt excellent morals."5

· Titus 1:12, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."

o "Epimenides of Phaestus, or Gnossus, in Crete, about 600. He was sent for to purify Athens from its pollution occasioned by Cylon. He was regarded as a diviner and prophet. The words here are taken probably from his treatise “concerning oracles.” Paul also quotes from two other heathen writers, ARATUS (Ac 17:28) and MENANDER (1 Co 15:33), but he does not honor them so far as even to mention their names.6

o "A prophet of their own; viz. Epimenides, a native either of Phæstus or of Cnossus in Crete, the original author of this line, which is also quoted by Callimachus. Epimenides is here called a prophet, not simply as a poet, but from his peculiar character as priest, bard, and seer; called by Plato θεῖος ἀνήρ and coupled by Cicero with Bacis the Boeotian prophet, and the sibyl (Bishop Ellicott); described by other ancient writers as a prophet (Alford)."7

            Would these quotations affirm the reliability of the works of pagan philosophers?

            Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, in their work The Big Book of Bible Difficulties respond to this question (p.507-508):²

TITUS 1:12—DOESN’T PAUL PRONOUNCE THIS PAGAN POET INSPIRED BY MAKING HIM PART OF SCRIPTURE?

PROBLEM: Christians believe that only the Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Yet the Apostle Paul quotes pagan poets on at least three occasions. But in so doing he seems to give assent to the sources he quotes as inspired, just as when he quotes OT Scripture as the Word of God (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

SOLUTION: Paul is not quoting this non-Christian source as inspired, but simply as true. All truth is God’s truth, no matter who said it. Caiaphas the Jewish high priest uttered a truth about Christ (John 11:49). The Bible often uses non-inspired sources (cf. Num. 21:14; Josh. 10:13; 1 Kings 15:31). Three times Paul cites non-Christian thinkers (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). Jude alludes to truths found in two non-canonical books (Jude 9, 14). But never does the Bible cite them as divinely authoritative, but simply as containing the truth quoted. The usual phrases, such as, “thus saith the Lord” (cf. Isa. 7:7; Jer. 2:5, kjv) or “it is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) are never found when these non-inspired sources are cited. Nonetheless, truth is truth wherever it is found. And there is no reason, therefore, that a biblical author, by direction of the Holy Spirit, cannot utilize truth from whatever source he may find it.

            Here’s another response from Phillip J. Long, the Chair / Professor of Biblical Studies at the Grace Christian University:³

Paul quotes two Greek writers as support for his case that the creator God does not need temples or temple services from humans. The use of this material has always prompted discussion among readers of Acts, especially with respect to application. Is Paul modelling how Christians ought to present the gospel in a non-Christian, non-Jewish environment?

The first allusion is to Epimenides the Cretan, the poet Paul cited in Titus 1:12. The original poem no longer exists, but fragments appear in other ancient writers. The second citation is from Aratus, a Cilcian poet (Phaenomena 5).  The original line, “in him we move and live and have our being,” was pantheistic, but Paul spins this line into a statement about God as the source of our life.

In other words, he ignores the writer’s original intention so that he can effective make his point. If Aratus had been in the audience in Acts 17, what would he have said in response to Paul? In modern scholarly writing, misrepresenting another scholar’s ideas is not just a mistake, but intellectual dishonesty. Someone who does this sort of thing today would be dismissed as a poor scholar or a crank (or possibly just a biblio-blogger). In some areas of scholarship, authorial intent is not important, so perhaps Paul is not out of line here. Can Paul legitimately pull this line out of context and reapply it to prove the God of the Bible is superior to the other gods?

A second problem is how Paul came to know these lines of poetry. There are not many modern readers who can quote freely from current poets or philosophers. One possibility is Paul had some secular education which could be applied to the preaching of the gospel. We might imagine Paul thinking through his task of being a light to the Gentiles and researching possible points of contact in order to preach to pagan audiences. This is in fact a typical way of doing apologetics today. Christians will study philosophy for the purpose of interacting with the philosophical world in their own terms.

While I do not think this kind of cultural education is a bad idea at all, that may not be Paul’s point in using these sources (or, Luke’s point in presenting Paul as using these sources). These lines may have been well known proverbial wisdom, common knowledge. If so, then the allusion to Greek poets is more like the preacher who uses a common phrase in order to make his point.

Or better, this is an example of a modern pastor quoting lyrics of popular songs to make a point. I occasionally use a line from a popular movie or song in order to make a point (although with my taste in music, it usually does not work very well).  This comes down to knowing your audience.  I have found that I can get a lot further with college age group with a Simpsons reference, while the same line is lost on an adult group.  Perhaps that is what Paul is doing here in Acts 17 – he is riffing on the culture.

In both of the allusions Paul simply intends to demonstrate his thinking is not too far from the culture the audience understood and appreciated.  To cite the Hebrew Bible would have been fruitless since the audience did not know it, nor were they inclined to listen to philosophy drawn Jewish texts.

Does this mean Acts 17 gives permission for Pastors to quote Bob Dylan lyrics or use Simpsons clips in their sermons and Bible studies? Perhaps, but we need to couple cultural reference with a serious point from the text of the Bible.  It is one thing to mimic culture to attract attention to you point, but it is a fairly worthless strategy is if there is no point behind the reference. I think that you can (and should) illustrate serious theological points via cultural artifacts (like poets, books, movies, etc.), but this can be very dangerous if it overwhelms the Scripture.

If the message of the Gospel is obscured by the using Fifty Shades of Grey as a sermon title, or by playing U2 songs during your worship, or hosting a Dancing with the Stars night at church, then you have missed Paul’s point in Acts 17.

            These responses are terse as well as comprehensive. Therefore, quoting unbelievers would neither affirm their reliability as divinely inspired nor undermine the reliability of the Bible. 

         

Endnotes:

¹https://carm.org/did-paul-quote-pagan-philosophers

²The same material is also found here: https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Titus_1.12_(2).php

³https://readingacts.com/2015/03/25/acts-1722-28-quoting-the-philosophers/

Websites last accessed on 29^th October 2019.

Did Space, Time & Matter Have A Beginning?

            The universe is not eternal as it was once believed. The universe had a beginning.

            Since the universe is composed of space, time and matter, it is reasonable to believe that space, time and matter did not exist before the origin of the universe.

            So what caused space, time and matter?

            Secular scientists seem to be ignorant.

            An article in www.forbes.com entitled Did Time Have A Beginning? professes ignorance about the origin of time despite a lengthy thematic pontification:¹ (Emphasis Mine)

Even though we can trace our cosmic history all the way back to the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang, that isn't enough to answer the question of how (or if) time began. Going even earlier, to the end-stages of cosmic inflation, we can learn how the Big Bang was set up and began, but we have no observable information about what occurred prior to that. The final fraction-of-a-second of inflation is where our knowledge ends.

Thousands of years after we laid out the three major possibilities for how time began — as having always existed, as having begun a finite duration ago in the past, or as being a cyclical entity — we are no closer to a definitive answer. Whether time is finite, infinite, or cyclical is not a question that we have enough information within our observable Universe to answer. Unless we figure out a new way to gain information about this deep, existential question, the answer may forever be beyond the limits of what is knowable.

            Why is a portion of the scientific world clueless? This is the problem.

            These scientists do not want to presuppose the existence of an uncaused first cause, namely God. “Many scientists today conduct their research based on their presupposition or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world—that which can be seen around us—and thus they do not accept that any ultimate Cause exists…,” says an article on the website of the Institute For Creation Research.²

            If they presuppose the existence of the uncaused first cause, then sheer logical implications would render God’s existence:³

Applying the principles of cause and effect, it is clear that scientific logic indicates that the Cause for the universe in which we live must trace back to an infinite First Cause of all things. Random motion or primeval particles cannot produce intelligent thought, nor can inert molecules generate spiritual worship.

·  The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite.

·  The First Cause of endless time must be eternal.

· The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.

·  The First Cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent.

· The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.

·  The First Cause of spiritual values must be spiritual.

· The First Cause of human responsibility must be volitional.

·  The First Cause of human integrity must be truthful.

·  The First Cause of human love must be loving.

·  The First Cause of life must be living.

We would conclude from the law of cause-and-effect that the First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being!

            But set aside the futility of the secular scientists.

            Our space-time-material universe had a beginning.

            J. Warner Wallace of Cold Case Christianity elucidates this fact:⁴

Scientists have known this for many years, and most consider it to be an important piece of evidence demonstrating that the universe had a beginning. To illustrate the strength of this evidence, imagine drawing a random assortment of dots on a balloon and slowly inflating it. As the balloon grows and expands in size, the dots will begin to separate from one another. Astronomers observe something similar when studying our universe. Stars and galaxies are moving away from one another, just like the dots on the balloon.

As astronomers and cosmologists imagine rewinding the cosmic clock, the most reasonable inference is that the expansion of the universe (like the expansion of the balloon) had a beginning.

In addition to the expansion of the universe, scientists point to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the abundance of Helium in the universe, and the existence of Cosmic Background Radiation to support their conclusion that the universe had a beginning (I’ve written much more about this scientific evidence in God’s Crime Scene). Based on this evidence, most cosmologists and astrophysicists embrace what has become known as the Standard Cosmological Model for the origin of the universe, commonly referred to as “Big Bang” Cosmology.

According to this model of cosmic origins, everything we observe in the universe – all space, time and matter – the very attributes we ascribe to the natural realm – came into existence when our universe first began.

Think about that for a minute. Before our universe came into existence, nothing existed. Nothing. No time, no matter and no space. Nothing. This singular truth about the universe exposes an even greater mystery.

            To consider an ex nihilo (out of nothing) origin to our universe is absurd. J. Warner Wallace continues:⁵

The long-established (and accepted) Principle of Causality dictates that whatever begins to exist requires a cause. If our universe came into existence from nothing – and that certainly appears to be the case – it had a cause, and not just any cause will do.

The cause of our universe cannot be spatial, temporal or material, given that space, time and matter didn’t exist (according to scientific discoveries) until the universe came into existence. Whatever the first-cause, it cannot be described using the attributes we typically ascribe to the natural realm. It could rightfully be described as “extra-natural.” Or “supra-natural.” Or even “supernatural.”

As the rate of expansion in our universe is now being debated and calculated by cosmologists and astrophysicists, a greater mystery looms. What kind of all-powerful, non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material (extra-natural) cause can account for the universe we live in? What kind of first cause can also account for the fine-tuning we see in the cosmos, the origin of life, the appearance of design in biology, our experience of consciousness and free-agency, the existence of objective moral truth, and the objective standard by which we judge and identify evil?

            Scientists believe in a Big Bang singularity, “Based upon Einstein's work, Belgian cosmologist Rev. Georges Lemaître published a paper in 1927 that proposed the universe started out as a singularity and that the Big Bang led to its expansion [source: Soter and Tyson].”⁶

            It is at this singularity, space and time came into existence, according to the Standard Big Bang Model. In this model, the universe is said to have originated ex nihilo so much so that before the initial singularity, nothing existed.

            No space, no time, nothing!  

            William Lane Craig, in his scholarly article entitled The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe considers the various origin-of-universe models, namely, the Standard Big Bang model, Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models, Chaotic Inflationary model, and the Quantum Gravity models. He then debunks the ex nihilo origin of the universe and asserts the existence of God as the cause of space, time and matter:⁷

Beyond the Big Bang

The discovery that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically necessary being. The only way of avoiding this conclusion would be to deny Leibniz's conviction that anything that exists must have a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external ground. Reflecting upon the current situation, P. C. W. Davies muses,

'What caused the big bang?' . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . . . or . . . an event without a cause. [55]

The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates, "If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." [56]

The Supernaturalist Alternative

If we go the route of postulating some causal agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an ultra-mundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham's Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal. As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. [57] A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/07/does-time-have-a-beginning

²https://www.icr.org/first-cause

³https://www.icr.org/transcendent

⁴https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-latest-discovery-about-the-universe-points-to-an-even-greater-mystery/

⁵Ibid.

⁶https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm

⁷ https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/

Websites last accessed on 21^st October 2019.

Unanswered Prayers: Are They God's Gift & An Excuse To Forsake God?

            They waited several years for a child. Then God blessed them with a lovely child. Seven years later, the child fell ill.

            The parents prayed desperately as if their life hinged on this one particular event – the survival of their most loved one.

            The child died.

            The parents were inconsolable. Their sorrow knew no bounds.

            Their prayers were unanswered.

            Then when we listen to the song Unanswered Prayers by Garth Brooks, we hear that unanswered prayers are a gift from God. The chorus reads:

Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers

Remember when you're talkin' to the man upstairs

And just because he doesn't answer doesn't mean he don't care

Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers

            If you do not marry the girl you desperately prayed for, and if the girl you married is better than the girl you once prayed for, then the unanswered prayer is indeed God’s gift.

            But this is not a universal principle.

            Not all unanswered prayers are God’s gifts.

            The child you adored died. What if God did not bless you with another child? What if you remained childless?

            Could you then consider the unanswered prayer as a gift?

            Or you may have been blessed with a beautiful girl and you pray for her marriage. When she’s at a marriageable age, she is brutally raped and unimaginably injured. Despite prayers, after days of hospitalization, she dies.

            How is this unanswered prayer a gift from God?

            Don’t get me wrong. There are various occasions wherein unanswered prayers are indeed a gift from God.

            But I zealously oppose the notion that all unanswered prayers are a gift from God.

            In a couple of instances mentioned above and in the many other horrendous acts of evil perpetrated upon humanity, one cannot fathom unanswered prayers to be a gift from God. So there are many instances wherein unanswered prayers cannot be considered as God’s gifts.

            In an erstwhile blog, I wrote:¹

Unanswered Prayers Are A Biblical Reality

Job pleaded, “I cry out to you, God, but you do not answer; I stand up, but you merely look at me. You turn on me ruthlessly; with the might of your hand you attack me. You snatch me up and drive me before the wind; you toss me about in the storm.” (Job 30: 20-22, NIV).

Some faithful and well meaning Christians would contend the reality of unanswered prayers. They would argue that although Job suffered immensely, he was blessed mightily. The same holds true for King David as well (cf. Psalm 22: 1-2).

The same Bible that narrates the blessing of Job and King David also narrates the incomparable suffering of God’s people. In other words, the Bible implies God’s silence when HIS people were suffering, “There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.” (Hebrews 11: 35b-38, NIV).

These verses reveal God’s silence to those who were faithful to HIM. Even when the faithful cried out to God, HE remained silent.

Thank God for poets who so wonderfully articulate these moments of despair,1

"It’s enough to drive a man crazy, it’ll break a man’s faith

It’s enough to make him wonder, if he’s ever been sane

When he’s bleating for comfort from Thy staff and Thy rod

And the Heaven’s only answer is the silence of God."

(Andrew Peterson in “The Silence of God.”)

           

          Why are unanswered prayers not an excuse to forsake God?

            In that very blog, I wrote:²

Is Renouncing God A Better Option?

Many have renounced Christianity because God did not answer their prayers. To renounce Christianity is one option when God does not answer prayers…

Consider the option of renouncing God. What would happen to those renouncing God? Do they get a better God? No way! There is only one God, and that’s it.

            Forsaking God could depict us as spiritually immature believers, for we may have forgotten the basics of our belief in the God of the Bible:

            1. We believe in the God of the Bible because HE alone saves us from eternal death to life.

            2. As Christians, we profess a consummate commitment to God over man - even family or our own life (cf. Matthew 10: 34-38).  

            3. As Christians, we primarily seek the spiritual and not the material aspects of this world (cf. Matthew 6: 33, 22: 36 - 38).

            If we have properly understood the basics of our belief in Christ, then we would not forsake God even when we suffer a loss of our loved ones or our possessions or even when our own life is threatened.

            Our response to any of these situations would resonate with that of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered King Nebuchadnezzar, “Your threat means nothing to us. If you throw us in the fire, the God we serve can rescue us from your roaring furnace and anything else you might cook up, O king. But even if he doesn’t, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference, O king. We still wouldn’t serve your gods or worship the gold statue you set up.”” (Daniel 3: 16-18, MSG; Emphasis Mine).

            But there could be complicated scenarios. Consider the fervent prayers for our loved ones to believe in Christ and be saved.

            What if our loved ones die without believing in Christ? Would this situation of unanswered prayer justify forsaking the God of the Bible?

            Our prayer, in this very instance, does not focus on the material, but the spiritual – the eternal life for our loved ones.

            How do we respond to a situation where our loved ones remain as unbelievers until their very last breath?

            It’s God who is sovereign, good, gracious and just. HE would never turn away anyone who seeks HIM (John 6: 37). God’s sovereignty, goodness, and justice entails that HE would do everything that needs to be done to bring anyone to HIM – that includes our loved ones as well.

            But God, despite our fervent prayers, will not force anyone to believe in HIM, ““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it! Look, your house is left to you desolate! For I tell you, you will not see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’”” (Matthew 23: 37 – 39, NET).

            This is the hard truth or the bitter pill that we need to swallow. 

            Whatever be the case, unanswered prayers are not a legitimate reason to forsake God. 

Endnotes:

¹https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2016/08/silence-of-god-despair-of-man.html

²Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 16^th October 2019.

Ordination Of Women Pastors; How Do We Respond?

            Could a woman be ordained as a [senior] pastor of a church? Is it biblically right or wrong?

            The Christian community is divided over this sensitive matter. Some say yes, others say no.

            Why?

Yes

            “Dr. Amy Orr-Ewing is a senior vice president with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries and Joint Director of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics.”¹ She also pastors in a church, “Based in Oxford, England, where she pastors at Latimer Minster with her husband Francis…”²

            Regarding the view that there are ‘silence passages’ in the Bible wherein women are instructed to not be authoritative over men, Amy, while speaking with Eternity News, said:³

Even Paul, who is often seen as a key obstacle to women’s progress in the church, accepted that women could teach and prophesy, she points out.

“What’s interesting in 1 Corinthians where Paul mentions about women being silent in the church, two chapters earlier he’s talked about how women should behave when they prophesy, which means get up and speak in front of everyone.

“So obviously, when he says be silent, he doesn’t mean all women for all time should never say anything. He turns to a specific group of women who are disrupting services and he’s asking them to be silent, but in general he’s saying when women do teach or prophesy in the church they should cover their hair. And the reason he says that is your hair was incredibly seductive; it would be like saying don’t wear an incredibly short skirt when you get up in front of people in church today. He’s not saying ‘don’t get up in front and prophesy.’”

She said this is a classic example of people taking a verse out of context and applying it to everyone for all time.

“It’s absolutely clear if you read the letter in its entirety that it doesn’t mean that,” she says.

No

            Norman Geisler advocates for male church leadership (Emphasis Mine):⁴

…when understood in context, the “silence” passages are not negating the ministry of women, but are limiting the authority of women. Paul asserts that women were not permitted “to have authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:12). Likewise, he follows his exhortation to “keep silent” by reminding them to be “submissive” (1 Cor. 14:34). Of course, men too were under authority and needed to submit to the headship of Christ over them (1 Cor. 11:3). Indeed, the ultimate proof that there is nothing degrading about being submissive is that Christ, who was God in human flesh, is always submissive to the Father, both on earth (Phil. 2:5–8) and even in heaven (1 Cor. 15:28). That male headship and leadership is not simply a cultural matter is evident by the fact that it is based on the very order of creation (1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:13). Thus, elders are to be men, “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2). This, however, in no way demeans or diminishes the role of women, either in the family or in the church. The fact that men cannot have babies is not demeaning to their humanity or their role in the family. It is simply that God has not granted them this function, but a different one.

            Wayne Grudem is also of the opinion that women should not be pastors, “My own conclusion on this issue is that the Bible does not permit women to function in the role of pastor or elder within the church.”⁵

            However, Wayne Grudem endorses the role of women in the various ministries of the church as long as that role precludes ruling and teaching functions. A woman can be a deacon (provided there is a pastor in that church), a treasurer, a counselor etc.⁶

Why Not?

            There should be no doubt whatsoever that Jesus Christ elevated the status of women in the society:⁷

1. Although Jews would have no dealings with the Samaritans, particularly the blatant sinners among them, Jesus engaged the Samaritan woman in conversation because HE cared about her spiritual condition (John 4).

2. Jesus commended the woman with hemorrhage who touched the edge of HIS cloak for her faith (Matthew 9: 20-22).

3. Mary and Martha were among Jesus’ closest friends.

4. A woman anointed Jesus at Bethany (Matthew 26:6-13) would be remembered for her act of devotion whenever and wherever the gospel was preached (vv. 10-13).

5. Mary Magdalene was the first person to whom Jesus appeared following HIS resurrection, and HE instructed her to tell HIS disciples that HE has risen (John 20: 14-18).

            This list is partial.

            Women stand on the same footing as men in the sight of God, as far as salvation is concerned (Galatians 3:28). The context of this verse is the issue of justification by faith, the individual’s status before God in terms of personal righteousness (v. 27).⁸

            Women have played a significant role in the kingdom of God:⁹

1. Miriam assisted Moses and led the Israelite women in singing and dancing after their escape from Egypt (Exodus 15: 20-21).

2. Deborah was the judge of Israel. Esther saved the Jewish people from destruction.

3. Women were seen at the cross (Luke 23: 49), they sought to anoint Jesus’ body (Luke 23: 55-56), they discovered the empty tomb, heard the message of the two angels, and conveyed the news to the apostles (Luke 24: 1-11).

4. Women were given the gift of prophecy (Isaiah 8:3; Acts 21:9; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17; 1 Corinthians 11:5).

5. Paul commends Phoebe’s leadership (Romans 16:2). He speaks of Priscilla and Aquila as his ‘fellow workers’ in Christ Jesus (Romans 16:3-4). He speaks of Mary, Persis, Tryphena and Tryphosa as having worked very hard in the Lord (Romans 16: 6, 12). 

            The fact that both men and women are created in the image of God should not be forgotten (Genesis 1: 26-27, 5: 1-2).

            The virtuous woman in Proverbs 31 is adorned because she promotes the welfare of her family, does not constantly remain within the confines of her home, and she is engaged in trading and business affairs (vv. 18, 24).¹⁰

            The Bible says that the woman was created to be a ‘helper’ to man. This does not relegate the woman to a position of insignificance or subservience. Rather the helper is thought to be as a co-worker or enabler.¹¹

            Having said this, let’s contemplate this matter from another angle.

            Would God be unhappy or angry if the church ordains women pastors?

            Would God not bless the church that has a woman as a senior pastor (cf. Psalm 145: 9; Nahum 1: 3; Matthew 5: 45; Luke 6: 35)?

            It is God who calls a person to be a pastor (Ephesians 4:11). So if a person, even if it is a woman, has that calling, who are we to say no?

            When we argue that a woman cannot be ordained as a pastor, are we claiming that God will not give that gift to women? Can we second-guess the sovereign God?

            Are we going to claim that since God’s word explicitly mentions that the overseer/pastor/elder ought to be a man, God will not contradict HIS words and hence not offer the spiritual gift of the pastoral office to a woman?

            The description of an overseer/elder/pastor is not a command from God; rather it is a guideline/teaching for the church governance.

            So to contest God’s sovereignty even in light of HIS written word may not be a good choice (cf. Romans 9: 15-26 & ‘Cessationism’). (Contesting the ordination of women pastors and thereby peacefully agreeing to disagree is one thing. But to contest the ordination of women pastors and dividing the church of Jesus Christ is entirely another thing altogether.)

            When a church ordains women pastors, it is not sinning against God. A woman who pastors in a church will not lose her salvation.

            If the woman in contention is a sincere disciple of the Lord, Spirit-filled and has the calling into the pastoral office, why should she not be ordained?

            Significantly, the doctrine of a woman pastoring a church is not an essential doctrine of Historic Christianity. If some churches ordain women as pastors, and if these women live up to their calling, then so be it.

            Why quarrel and divide the church over a theme that is non-essential? We have much bigger matters to be concerned about e.g. Science vs. Religion, Effects of Postmodernism and New Atheism, etc.

            So then, should I be a legalist and not espouse the ordination of women into the pastoral office?

            I would rather err on the side of grace than on the side of the law.

Endnotes:

¹https://www.rzim.org/speakers/amy-orr-ewing

²https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-global/is-christianity-bad-news-for-women

³Ibid.

⁴https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/1_Timothy_2.12-14.php

⁵Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine), p. 937.

⁶Ibid, p. 945.

⁷Millard J. Erickson, “Christian Theology,” Second Edition, p. 564-565.

⁸Ibid, p. 565.

⁹Ibid, p. 565-566.

¹⁰Ibid, p. 564.

¹¹Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 9^th October 2019.