Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society by E. Earle Ellis

[Bible-boy]

Recently the discussion of a book entitled Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society, by E. Earle Ellis came up in a thread in the Baptist Colleges/Seminaries Forum. I agreed to read a specific chapter in the book referenced above and to engage in a discussion regarding the subject matter. Therefore, I am starting this new thread.

It occurred to me that others who read the BB may not have read this book or have access to a library in which it is housed. With this in mind I was going to attempt to summarize the book’s third chapter entitled Paul and the Eschatological Woman. However, I found several good book reviews containing accurate summaries and I decided not to attempt to reinvent the wheel. Below you will find one such book review quoted in its entirety (giving proper credit to the author and the source) followed by excerpts from several other book reviews by other biblical scholars.

Charles H. Talbert of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, NC (not to be confused with SEBTS, which is located in Wake Forest, NC) writes:

This Volume by research professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is a revision and expansion of lectures delivered in this country and abroad. It treats five aspects of ministry in the Pauline church: (1) the concept of ministry; (2) its source in the gifts of the risen Christ; (3) its bearing on the role of women; (4) charismatic versus official ministry; and (5) its place in the social order of the Greco-Roman world. For Paul, the gifts of the Spirit are the essence of Christian ministry. Ministry, rooted in the gifts of the Spirit, and the responsibility for society, rooted in the love command, cannot be identified. Paul does not exclude a place for women in ministry today. Ordered ministries operated alongside the charisms [sic] in Paul’s churches. Ministry works within the world, is assigned a social place by the world, and gives benefits to the world. Yet, when it is true to itself, it does not belong to this age, cannot really fit its structures, and remains a stranger in the society of the world. Today’s danger of conforming to the world is the secularization of the Christian hope and of the command to love the neighbor.

Chapters 1 and 5, which contrast the Pauline understanding of ministry with modern Marxist-liberationist views, are the real contribution of the volume. Chapters 2 and 4 are summaries of common knowledge. Chapter 3, on Paul and the Eschatological Woman, is eccentric. The audience addressed in this book is one that, with the author, accepts the authenticity of all thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament and does not employ inclusive language for humans. For such an audience, this volume offers constructive conclusions.

Charles H. Talbert,
Wake Forest University

Talbert, Charles H. Interpretation 45 April 1991, 200+.

Focusing specifically now on the review of the book’s third chapter, Paul and the Eschatological Woman, one finds that various biblical scholars come down on differing sides of the issues raised by Ellis. For example, Larry McGraw and Aliou Niang of Logsdon School of Theology, Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, TX write:

Ellis broached the idea that in Adam the relationship between male and female was one of dominance, but in Christ there was freedom and equality. Paul saw equality and subordination in the communities as healthy complementary roles linked to various dynamic contextual relationships. ‘The principle of mutuality of obligation is the cement that gives the Pauline ethic its unity and viability’ (p.62).
Unity and diversity should be reflected in all dimensions of human life: ethnicity, socio-economics, ministerial, and sexual. Amplifying the gender issues, the discussion of women in church leadership roles received detailed treatment in the book’s third chapter, ‘Paul and the Eschatological Woman.’ Ellis argues that ‘it appears to be clear that in principle and practice Paul affirms their ministry’ (p.78).

Larry McGraw and Aliou Niang
Logsdon School of Theology, Hardin-Simmons University

McGraw, Larry and Aliou Niang. Review & Expositor 95 Summer 1998, 452.

David B. Capes of Eastwood Baptist Church in Memphis, TN writes:

In the first essay, ‘Ministry for the Coming Age,’ Ellis anchors Paul’s theology of ministry in eschatology. According to Ellis, Paul has a two-stage eschatology based on the two comings of Christ. Christian ministry is part of the first stage, ‘a present manifestation of the coming Kingdom of God’ (p.7). Ministry therefore focuses upon the Church by seeking to build up the Church and draw others into the body of Christ. Secular society belongs to the old order and therefore is not the subject of ministry, except in that ministry calls people from the sphere of Adam to the sphere of Christ. For this reason Paul’s theology of ministry stands in opposition to those who equate social reform and political revolution with the ministerial task.…

...Ellis dedicates his third essay, ‘Paul and the Eschatological Woman,’ to an analysis of Paul’s understanding of women and ministry. He notes what, on the surface, seems to be an inconsistency in Paul’s thought. On one hand Paul declares that there is no distinction between the sexes (Gal 3:28) and recognizes several women as fellow ministers and Christian prophetesses. On the other hand he appears to limit women’s participation in worship. To answer this apparent discrepancy Ellis examines 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:9-3:1a and concludes that Paul’s strictures forbid Christian wives, not women in general, from questioning, teaching, or taking authority over their husbands in worship. Paul apparently has no objection to the ministry of single women in the church, according to Ellis, but he does limit the ministry of married ones. For Paul, martial roles determine and, in some cases, limit ministry opportunities within the body of Christ.

David B. Capes
Eastwood Baptist Church, Memphis, TN

Capes, David B. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35D 1992, 541-543.

Wilhelm C. Linss of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago disagrees sharply with Ellis. Linss critiques Ellis’ third chapter as follows:

A chapter is devoted to Paul and the Eschatological Woman. Because of ascribing all thirteen epistles to Paul, Ellis attempts—in my opinion unsuccessfully—to harmonize all the statements concerning the place of women in the church. Thus he says while “in one sense Paul may be the father of some aspects of women’s liberation… at the same time he says, ‘Wives, subject yourselves to your husbands’ and ‘Let women be silent in church’” (55). According to Ellis, Paul does not advocate a modern egalitarianism but holds together harmoniously an equality of value and diversity in rank (in social aspects as well as in the relationship between men and women). ‘In Eph 5 particularly he [Paul] implies that the Christian wife, in fulfilling a role of subordination, does not negate but rather manifests her equality with her husband’ (61). The sentence speaks for itself. There are some other questionable statements, such as ‘the single and the married states are prophetic signs of the new age, the single celibate person signifying, according to Christ, the sexual role that all will have in the resurrection life and the married couple signifying, according to Christ’s Apostle, the union that exists between Christ and his Church’ (63f.). Ellis believes that the commands for women to be silent refer only to married women whose husbands exercise the gifts of leadership or speaking so that there is ‘no theological objection whatever to the ministry of an independent single woman’ (75). “Paul” just did not say this, and it is a vain attempt by Ellis to reconcile the various statements in the Pauline corpus.

Wilhelm C. Linss
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago

Linss, Wilhelm C. Currents in Theology and Mission 20 June 1993, 216-17.

Now that we have several scholarly reviews and summaries of the content of Ellis’ chapter three “Paul and the Eschatological Woman” we can move on to our own discussion of the material. The poster “Baptist Believer” and I agreed to discuss this material in another thread. Of course you are all welcome to contribute to the discussion. However, I will limit my replies to Baptist Believer and hopefully Baptist Believer will likewise reply only to my posts so that our discussion remains focused. Likewise, Baptist Believer and I have agreed not to make this discussion into a personal name calling match or to accuse one another of being “Bible deniers” etc. With all that said… Lets talk!

[ July 29, 2003, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[Jailminister]

Some people just want to add to what God said. Some of these bubble brain, so call scholars, would not know Jesus if they met Him in the street. The miltant femist movement has made great head ways in so call christian education.

Oh well, let the bubble brains just keep on adding to the bible and I will accept what God said. A woman can not preach, pastor or usurp authority over any man. That is Bible!!!

 

[Bible-boy]

Dr. Bob,

Thanks for adding my edits to the original post for me.

Yours in Christ,

BibleboyII

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
A woman can not preach, pastor or usurp authority over any man. That is Bible!!!

That's the point - it may NOT be Bible. That's what scholars are trying to do. They are trying to undrestand what Paul is actually saying. Many of them, when fully exegeting the Scriptures, are seeing that women actually can have authority over men in certain contexts.

 

[timothy 1769]

bah, i was offended just by the title of the book! all this time i thought it was really god's theology, the bible being inspired and all.

 

[Speedpass]

I checked this book out from the library of the Baptist university I have been attending, upon the recommendation of a good friend and fellow BB poster. I have not read all of it, but this is what I have gleaned so far:

1)Ministry does not have to be limited to having an official title (Sunday school teacher, committee member, etc) in your local church. Ministry is anything that is done in Jesus' name and for His glory.

2)The instruction in 1 Timothy 2 regarding women remaining silent, not teaching over men, seems to have its original concept in a husband-wife relationship--not necessarily a proof-text prohibiting women from pastoring churches.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
The poster “Baptist Believer” and I agreed to discuss this material in another thread. Of course you are all welcome to contribute to the discussion. However, I will limit my replies to Baptist Believer and hopefully Baptist Believer will likewise reply only to my posts so that our discussion remains focused. Likewise, Baptist Believer and I have agreed not to make this discussion into a personal name calling match or to accuse one another of being “Bible deniers” etc. With all that said… Lets talk!

Amen!

It is my intention to only discuss this book and it’s argument in this thread with those who are reading the book or have it available to them.

Before we begin, I want to state the presuppositions I bring to this discussion:

1.) I believe that the Bible is a trustworthy guide to faith and practice for the Christian.

2.) I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. He is the exact representation of God’s nature and character and is the one in whom I have placed my faith, life and will.

3.) I believe that the Apostle Paul was inspired of God when he wrote the letters collected in the New Testament and that his teaching in fully in line with the teaching of Jesus. Jesus and Paul are not in conflict.

4.) I believe that the biblical texts we have now are reliable, but our English translations (including the KJV) do not fully express all the nuances of the original languages. Therefore, I defer to the Hebrew and Greek when there are difficulties in interpretation.

5.) The letters of Paul that are collected in the New Testament were written in the context of a living church in the first century in a culture and circumstance very different from our own. In most situations, Paul was teaching in order to respond to specific issues taking place in the churches. Since our culture is very different, some specific suggestions and solutions provided by Paul in his letters are inappropriate for our culture, yet the principles expressed are valid for today. Furthermore, most of the readers of Paul’s letters in the first century knew or knew about Paul because of his missionary work. There was a certain understanding of his message that was assumed when they read his letters. Since we do not have the same advantage of knowing Paul personally and living within the first century culture, interpreting Paul’s writings is often challenging. In my opinion, the best way to understand a specific teaching of Paul’s is to understand it in the context of all of the extant writings available. In other words, I believe it is very important for the interpreter to understand the broad and pervasive themes of Paul's theology before attempting to interpret his very specific instructions to individuals, churches and the Christian community. It is my conviction that Paul does not contradict himself when expressing principles of faith, ministry and theology.

Do you have any questions about my presuppositions or would you like to challenge any item?

POINT ONE:

On page 54 in the second paragraph, Ellis states:

“…the Apostle [Paul] is not concerned to lay down rules for society – ‘those of this world,’ as he would put it. He gives his teachings to those who recognize Jesus as the Messiah and himself as the faithful transmitter of the mind of Jesus… While he calls all people to faith in Christ, he directs his apostolic teaching only to the Christian community.”

Do you agree with this statement? If no, why not?

Looking forward to your response!

 

[Jailminister]

Scott(and whoever else it may concern). God does not need man to explain what He said. He says it very clearly. Women have NO authority in the church or in the home except what their husbands give them in the home. PERIOD. This is easy and some bleeding heart feminist does not need to add to it.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Scott(and whoever else it may concern). God does not need man to explain what He said. He says it very clearly. Women have NO authority in the church or in the home except what their husbands give them in the home. PERIOD. This is easy and some bleeding heart feminist does not need to add to it.

And, again, you are reading a human perspective on the Word of God. Several times I have shown how your position is flawed according to the plain teachings of the Scriptures. If you choose to merely take what the KJV tells you without examining the Greek, then more than likely you will believe that women are much lower than men. However, if you research the plain teachings of the Greek (the original language), it is much easier to discover what Paul really meant.

 

[Jailminister]

Scott:
Την επόμενη φορά μιλάτε σε με να το κάνετε στα ελληνικά. Δεδομένου ότι αυτή είναι η μόνη γλώσσα που ο Θεός ξέρει, κατόπιν πρέπει να απαιτηθούμε για να μάθουμε και να μιλήσουμε τα ελληνικά μόνο.

Η ανάλυσή σας είναι serously ραγισμένη

 

[Speedpass]

Something else I learned:

Since tongues are considered a spiritual gift , they are not given to all Christians. So all Christians have the Holy Spirit whether or not they speak in tongues.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by ExxonMobil:
Something else I learned:

Since tongues are considered a spiritual gift , they are not given to all Christians. So all Christians have the Holy Spirit whether or not they speak in tongues.

Now that I can agree with! I'm still working up a response to Baptist Believer's earlier post.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Scott:
Την επόμενη φορά μιλάτε σε με να το κάνετε στα ελληνικά. Δεδομένου ότι αυτή είναι η μόνη γλώσσα που ο Θεός ξέρει, κατόπιν πρέπει να απαιτηθούμε για να μάθουμε και να μιλήσουμε τα ελληνικά μόνο.

Η ανάλυσή σας είναι serously ραγισμένη

I had a hard time figuring this out. This isn't koine Greek, but modern Greek. I could tell because of the "ellenika" which is the modern name for the Greek language. Also the capital letters, accents, and punctuation are items that aren't found in koine.

Here's what I can come up with:

"The next time you speak with God, do it in the Greek. Since this is the only language that God knows, then we are required to learn and speak only Greek.

Your analysis is serously flawed."

How'd I do?

First, your premise is incorrect. Greek was the original language in which the NT is written. To get the best idea of what was intended, we should do our best to understand the actual language that Paul was writing in. My translation undoubtedly differed from yours by a bit, because through the translation, it lost something. THAT is why we must constantly study the original text to see what was originally intended.

In your desire to make a point, you actually provided me with a great illustration of why it is important to examine the original language. Thanks.

theos eulogeis <-- koine, not modern Greek

 

[Jailminister]

Scott said: First, your premise is incorrect. Greek was the original language in which the NT is written. To get the best idea of what was intended, we should do our best to understand the actual language that Paul was writing in. My translation undoubtedly differed from yours by a bit, because through the translation, it lost something. THAT is why we must constantly study the original text to see what was originally intended

There is your flaw, Scott. Greek is not the original language. God's language is universal. God gave the greeks what they needed and gave the English what they needed and the spanish what they needed. We don't need to go back to someone elses language to understand what God gave us. Your thinking is just flawed in this area. The English word is just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as was the Greek word.

You missed the point of the illustration totally, also. I noticed that when you responded to me you wrote in English, instead of Greek. Why is that? It is because that is the language we speak. Greek is just "greek to me". He is not important. It is not God's preferred or original language. We don't need it. That is the point.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
There is your flaw, Scott. Greek is not the original language. God's language is universal. God gave the greeks what they needed and gave the English what they needed and the spanish what they needed. We don't need to go back to someone elses language to understand what God gave us. Your thinking is just flawed in this area. The English word is just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as was the Greek word.

The English is NOT inspired! The English we read is a translation of what originally appeared in the Greek! How in the world can you come to that conclusion? Please illuminate me on how the English word is inspired.

You missed the point of the illustration totally, also. I noticed that when you responded to me you wrote in English, instead of Greek. Why is that? It is because that is the language we speak. Greek is just "greek to me". He is not important. It is not God's preferred or original language. We don't need it. That is the point.

First, I knew that if I wrote in koine Greek, you wouldn't be able to translate it, because you used an online translator to make it Greek. That was obvious because of the sentence structrure and syntax. Second, God's language in the Bible was Hebrew, Greek, and a little Aramaic. Thirdly, I am still having trouble believing that you feel that any English translation is inspired by GOd. Does that mean that if I translate Matthew, then I am inspired? What about a first-year Greek student?

 

[Jailminister]

The English is NOT inspired! The English we read is a translation of what originally appeared in the Greek! How in the world can you come to that conclusion? Please illuminate me on how the English word is inspired.

Says who? If God inspired the Greek or the Hebrew, He can verily inspire the English. THINK THINK THINK Don't limit God to just Greek

First, I knew that if I wrote in koine Greek, you wouldn't be able to translate it, because you used an online translator to make it Greek. That was obvious because of the sentence structrure and syntax. Second, God's language in the Bible was Hebrew, Greek, and a little Aramaic. Thirdly, I am still having trouble believing that you feel that any English translation is inspired by GOd. Does that mean that if I translate Matthew, then I am inspired? What about a first-year Greek student?

That is my point. I used an online translator, because Greek is not my language. God gave me His inspired word in English.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Says who? If God inspired the Greek or the Hebrew, He can verily inspire the English. THINK THINK THINK Don't limit God to just Greek.

So which is the inspired English word of God. KJV? NIV? NASB? The Living Bible? The Message? Which one?

That is my point. I used an online translator, because Greek is not my language. God gave me His inspired word in English.

How do you figure? PLease give me the step-by-step's in how God infallibly inspired the English?

 

[Jailminister]

Easy on # 1 KJV

on # 2 I have no idea how you could believe that the Greek being inspired, how the SAME GOD could not inspire the English. Are you saying that God ran out of inspiration with the Greeks?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Jailminister:
Easy on # 1 KJV

on # 2 I have no idea how you could believe that the Greek being inspired, how the SAME GOD could not inspire the English. Are you saying that God ran out of inspiration with the Greeks?

Ah, I see. So are you willing to say that the KJV is completely infallible? What is your reasoning behind such things?

Is the Bible infallible EVEN with references to a mythological animal in Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Job 39:9, Job 39:10, Psalms 29:6, and Psalms 92:10. Please note that the Hebrew word "na'em" refers more than likely to a wild bull, and many of the verses in which the animal is found refers to brute strength and multiple horns, which this animal would not have.

And then the next question is this: You have said that a spanish translation is also inspired (and I would assume, also infallible). Which one is that? What is the infallible version of Portugese? What about Arabic? How about Japanese?

Please fill us in on the answers to these questions, please.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

We don't need to go back to someone elses language to understand what God gave us...

The early Church adopoted certain documents as accurately reflecting their understanding of authentic Christian teaching. If we are to understand those documents, we have to understand the language and context in which they were written. Is that even a point for debate among Christian clergy?

Joshua