Pauline Theology: Ministry and Society by E. Earle Ellis

[rlvaughn]

Could we leave the versions debate in that forum and let this thread be a discussion of Ellis' book? Thanks.

 

[Bible-boy]

Dear brothers Jailminister and ScottEmerson,

The topic of this thread is the book written by E. Earle Ellis. Specifically, the topic under discussion here is the material contained in the third chapter of that book. The purpose of this thread is not to wage the KJV only debate (or the which English version is inspired debate). We have an entire forum set aside for such debates. If you wish to continue your discussion of such issues please feel free to start a new thread in the Bible Versions/Translations Forum.

As the originator of this thread and a moderator of this forum I will delete any further off-topic KJV Only/Translation debate posts from this thread.

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally Posted by Baptistbeliever:

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?

I agree with your points 1-4. However, I am very leery of dismissing parts of the Word of God as being “cultural” and therefore not applicable to our world today. I do agree that biblical principles are timeless and always remain applicable to every time period/culture. Likewise, I agree that Paul does not contradict himself when expressing principles of faith, ministry and theology. The last part of your point number 5 reflects a great influence from Karl Barth’s theology whereby he taught that we must understand the cultural context in which the Bible was written in order to understand its meaning and gather the kernel of truth that it contains. I say that we, as followers of Christ, must simply read the Bible and accept what it says at face value regardless of culture (past, present, or future). Here I must be honest—I have not worked through all of the possible implications that such a presupposition carries to all the theological problems that one may encounter. I am still learning. So I don’t want us to get sidetracked with chasing down all the possible rabbit trails of, “Well then, how would you interpret verse so and so…” Let’s stick to the text of Ellis’ book and address the passages of Scripture that he uses in chapter three dealing with women and ministry.

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!

I believe that Ellis is on to something there. Paul’s teaching regarding the church is specifically for the church. However, as the church impacts society with the gospel of Christ the teachings of the church will have an effect on said society (no problem there). The main concern that we face today is not to allow the fickle rules of our “politically correct” society to influence the way in which we, Christians, respond to the teachings of Scripture regarding the ministry and the church itself (as in the recent actions taken by the U.S. Episcopal Church).

 

[Jailminister]

I have no problem staying on topic. But if asked a question I will respond and that is what I did. Any further debate on the versions I will go to another thread.

The reason it was brought up in the first place is due to the fact that modern versions tend to change the meaning of the Bible to fit societal changes. Women, while very important in their roles are out of place doing the role of a man.

 

[Karen]

Well, I'm glad for this thread. Baptist Believer inspired me to read the book. I don't feel competent to discuss fine points in detail, but I do agree with BB that the author attempted an exhaustive and minute examination of what troublesome Pauline passages really mean grammatically and historically.

Karen

 

[Bible-boy]

Based upon what some of the scholars who reviewed Ellis’ book had to say, which I quoted in the opening post, here are the problems that I see with theology that Ellis attempts to support regarding the role of women in ministry. According to Larry McGraw’s review, “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).”

The first problem with Ellis’ teaching here is that he has misinterpreted the Genesis texts that address the relationship and gender-specific roles of Adam and Eve. According to the Bible, “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’” (Gen. 1:26-28, NKJV). This passage in no way implies that there was a “relationship of dominance” between Adam and Eve. The Scripture could not be clearer than when it plainly says that God created both male and female equally in His own image (Gen. 1:27).

Perhaps Ellis is attempting to make this “relationship of dominance” argument based upon the text of Genesis 2:18-25 and 3:16. If this is the case he demonstrates a misunderstanding or a rejection of the nature of the gender roles set forth in Scripture. As noted above God created man and woman equally in His image (Gen 1:27). However, God did establish specific gender roles or functions that are not based upon the fact that males and females both equally bear the image of God as part of their very essence. Therefore, it is biblical to say that men and women are equal in their essence, their very being, before God by virtue of the fact that they both bear God’s image (Gen. 1:27). Yet, at the same time the gender role of the female is subordinate to that of the male (Gen. 2:18-25; 3:16).

A solid understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity helps us to understand how this equality/subordinate nature is possible. For example, in the Holy Trinity we understand that God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit are absolutely equal in their very essence—thus we worship one God and not three gods. However, we acknowledge that Christ submits (subordinates) Himself to the Will of the Father (Luke 22:42) and that the Holy Spirit has been sent to us by the Son (Luke 24:49). Hence, we see that there is an absolute equality of essence between the three persons of the Triune Godhead; yet, there is a subordination of roles, functions, and even of wills. The same holds true for our understanding of men and women, because they both equally bear the image of God there is an absolute equality of essence. However, at the same time there is a God ordained subordination or submission with respect to their gender roles. For a complete understanding of the conservative Evangelical position on this matter I highly recommend Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991 and Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood ed. Wayne Grudem, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2002.

Larry McGraw’s review goes on to point out, “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).” Here I really do not find much to disagree with either in McGraw’s review or Ellis’ teaching. It is true that there is freedom in Christ’s teachings. He brought freedom from the fetters of false teaching of the Pharisees with respect to the extra-biblical laws that they imposed upon the people (and numerous other freedoms). Likewise, Paul brought the gospel of Christ, a message of and freedom, to the gentiles whom the religious elite of Israel had kept sequestered in the Court of the Gentiles at the Temple in Jerusalem. Additionally, the Bible confirms that the Apostle Paul did indeed affirm the “ministry” of women. A clear and solid understanding of the conservative Evangelical view of the role of women in ministry does not seek to deny this fact. However, the point of contention is over the specific ministry roles that Paul did affirm for women and those that he did not affirm for women. Ellis attempts to make much of the fact that Paul commended the ministry of Phoebe in Romans 16:1. He sees it as being significant that Phoebe is called a deaconess, servant, of the church in Cenchrea. Yet, a sound understanding of the term deacon/deaconess reveals that there is no problem here for the conservative Evangelical view.

First, the Greek word diakonos is properly understood to mean servant or minister—meaning one who lends aid or assistance. Thus, the KJV rightly translates diakonos used in Romans 16:1 as servant. Now if we turn our focus to the requirements for deacons listed in 1 Tim. 3:8-13 we see that nowhere in the list of qualifications are deacons required to be able to teach (as are Elders in 1 Tim. 3:2). Additionally, the selection of the very first deacons in Acts 6 reveals that their sole purpose was to serve food to the widows of the church in Jerusalem; thus, freeing the Apostles to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:1-4). When one properly understands the biblical role of a deacon it is clear that it does not carry with it any responsibility to teach the Word of God or to assume any authority in leading or directing the affairs of the local church. A deacon is a servant nothing more.

The problem that we face in a vast majority of Baptist churches in America today is that we have a huge misunderstanding of the role of the deacon. In many churches they are viewed as leaders who possess authority to rule (and sometimes dictate) the direction of the church and “keep the Pastor in line.” In such cases what we have is “ruling deacons” who actually are performing the role of Elders as established in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. This is an unbiblical model of church government. According to the Bible, Elders are to rule—meaning guide and direct the affairs of the church and deacons are to serve the needs of the congregation as directed under the authority of the Elders. If we hold this biblical model of church government there is no problem with a woman serving as a deaconess because the position carries no authority and has no requirement or responsibility to teach. In fact, right in the middle of the list of requirements for deacons in 1 Tim. 3:8-13 Paul makes a reference to women (1 Tim. 3:11). The KJV translates the Greek word gunē as “their wives.” Such a translation gives the passage the appearance that there are not only requirements for men to serve as deacons, but that the wives of the men being considered as deacons must also meet certain requirements. The problem with such a translation is that the Bible does not provide a similar list of qualifications for the wives of Elders who also must be “the husband of one wife.” Does it make sense that the wives of deacons, who exercise no authority in the church, have to meet certain qualifications but the wives of Elders, who exercise authority, do not have to meet any qualifications at all? It seems that it is better to translate gunē in 1 Tim. 3:11 as “the women” referring to women who, like Phoebe, would serve as deaconesses in the church. Such a translation poses no theological problem when one understands that deacons/deaconesses do not teach and bear no authority within the church.

Additionally, Ellis cites references which he believes support the idea of women serving as “ministers” in positions of authority that included teaching and preaching (p.65). He states, “With regard to the role of women in the church the Apostle considers several to be his fellow ministers, specifically, Phoebe, Prisca or Priscilla, Junia, and probably Euodia and Syntyche. He calls Phoebe a διάχονος, a word he regularly uses elsewhere of Christian workers engaged in, among other things, ministries of teaching and preaching.” In his footnote associated with this quoted material Ellis lists Rom. 15:8; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:7, 23; 1 Thess. 3:2A; and 1 Tim. 4:6 as support for his assertion that these women acted as teachers and/or preachers. It is significant to note that in each of these references Paul is either referring to himself or another male (Jesus, Apollos, Epaphras, or Timothy) as a “minister” who engaged in faithful teaching and preaching.

Likewise, the Greek word diakonos is used numerous times throughout the NT to simply indicate any Christian who faithfully serves the Lord by ministering, giving aid and assistance, to His people. Douglas J. Moo points out in his commentary on Romans, in the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, that it is important to note 1 Pet. 4:10, where a cognate verb is used: “As each one has received a gift, minister [diakoneō] it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Pet. 4:10, NKJV). It appears that Ellis sought to gloss over such a general understanding of the use of diakonos, and emphasize Paul’s particular use of the term when referring specifically to himself and other men who were teachers and preachers and then apply such a specific meaning back upon Phoebe and the other women referenced above.

There are other problems with respect to Ellis’ interpretation and use of 1 Cor. 14:34 and following, 1 Tim. 2:9-3:1, and Gal. 3:28. However, I expect that what I have written above will give us plenty to discuss for the time being.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by BibleboyII:
Originally Posted by Baptistbeliever: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

[preceding points snipped]

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?

… I am very leery of dismissing parts of the Word of God as being “cultural” and therefore not applicable to our world today. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I certainly understand. Those interpretive decisions are not to be made hastily or without prayer and careful study.

I do agree that biblical principles are timeless and always remain applicable to every time period/culture. Likewise, I agree that Paul does not contradict himself when expressing principles of faith, ministry and theology.

Yes. Amen.

The last part of your point number 5 reflects a great influence from Karl Barth’s theology whereby he taught that we must understand the cultural context in which the Bible was written in order to understand its meaning and gather the kernel of truth that it contains. I say that we, as followers of Christ, must simply read the Bible and accept what it says at face value regardless of culture (past, present, or future).

While this idea is very appealing, it does not solve the interpretive problem. We merely substitute our culture and preconceptions for a more careful look at the context of the original writings.

Here I must be honest—I have not worked through all of the possible implications that such a presupposition carries to all the theological problems that one may encounter. I am still learning.

Just like everyone else here…

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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?

I believe that Ellis is on to something there. Paul’s teaching regarding the church is specifically for the church. However, as the church impacts society with the gospel of Christ the teachings of the church will have an effect on said society (no problem there). [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Certainly. If the church is penetrating the culture, the influence will work itself out in the broader pagan culture.

But I want us both to remember this point because it is going to become very important a little later in our discussion.

The main concern that we face today is not to allow the fickle rules of our “politically correct” society to influence the way in which we, Christians, respond to the teachings of Scripture regarding the ministry and the church itself (as in the recent actions taken by the U.S. Episcopal Church).

Very true. Let’s not make the same mistake here.

----

Toward the bottom of page 55, Ellis presents four theological principles from Paul’s theology that are relevant to this discussion:

1.) Corporeity and individuality
2.) Equality and subordination
3.) Mutuality of obligation
4.) Unity and diversity

I believe that an understanding of this broader Pauline theological framework is important to understand before we tackle the verses at issue. I’ll do a quick breakdown on each according to the way I understand the concept and hope that you will make your comments and/or rebuttal to my opinions.

I only have time to do the first one tonight, but I think all four of these points are extremely important and deserve to be examined carefully. (The one on equality and subordination is going to take me a couple of hours to write and refine because I have been thinking through this issue very carefully over the past few months. In fact, I need to respond to some discussion in one of the “Jesus/scripture is the criterion….” threads regarding this issue of submission, so I’ll in effect be taking care of two threads at once.)

Corporeity and individuality

In other words, Ellis is referring to both the corporate nature of humanity and the individual nature of humanity.

Within the corporate nature, we are Adam’s descendants and suffer under the curses and fallen world caused by Adam and Eve’s sins in this “present age”. On the other hand, when we are born again in Christ, we are born into a Kingdom that is being redeemed day by day, person by person, and is moving us into the “age to come”. As Christians living in the world between the ascension of Christ and the second coming of Christ, we are citizens of two kingdoms (one earthly and one heavenly) and are subject to the callings of both on our lives. When those two kingdoms are in conflict, we must choose to serve our Heavenly Lord and Master and the calling of His Kingdom.

In addition to our corporate nature, we are also individuals who are also responsible to God for our actions as individuals. We cannot simply go along with the crowd as believers, but instead should seek to faithfully obey Christ personally in our own sphere of influence.

----

Sorry about the slow pace of this discussion. My work schedule has been horrific (lots of late nights) and we’ve had thunderstorms with lightning rolling through the past few evenings – I don’t want my computer to get zapped while I’m responding.

I’m looking forward to your response!

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:

Toward the bottom of page 55, Ellis presents four theological principles from Paul’s theology that are relevant to this discussion:

1.) Corporeity and individuality
2.) Equality and subordination
3.) Mutuality of obligation
4.) Unity and diversity

I believe that an understanding of this broader Pauline theological framework is important to understand before we tackle the verses at issue. I’ll do a quick breakdown on each according to the way I understand the concept and hope that you will make your comments and/or rebuttal to my opinions.

I only have time to do the first one tonight, but I think all four of these points are extremely important and deserve to be examined carefully. (The one on equality and subordination is going to take me a couple of hours to write and refine because I have been thinking through this issue very carefully over the past few months. In fact, I need to respond to some discussion in one of the “Jesus/scripture is the criterion….” threads regarding this issue of submission, so I’ll in effect be taking care of two threads at once.)

Corporeity and individuality

In other words, Ellis is referring to both the corporate nature of humanity and the individual nature of humanity.

Within the corporate nature, we are Adam’s descendants and suffer under the curses and fallen world caused by Adam and Eve’s sins in this “present age”. On the other hand, when we are born again in Christ, we are born into a Kingdom that is being redeemed day by day, person by person, and is moving us into the “age to come”. As Christians living in the world between the ascension of Christ and the second coming of Christ, we are citizens of two kingdoms (one earthly and one heavenly) and are subject to the callings of both on our lives. When those two kingdoms are in conflict, we must choose to serve our Heavenly Lord and Master and the calling of His Kingdom.

Hey...

Have you ever read City of God by Augustine?

Anyway, I agree with what you said above with a slight exception. You said:

As Christians living in the world between the ascension of Christ and the second coming of Christ, we are citizens of two kingdoms (one earthly and one heavenly) and are subject to the callings of both on our lives.

I would say that we are residents or resident aliens in the earthly kingdom, and citizens of the heavenly kingdom (see John 15:19, 17:14-18; and Rom. 8:12-17).

In addition to our corporate nature, we are also individuals who are also responsible to God for our actions as individuals. We cannot simply go along with the crowd as believers, but instead should seek to faithfully obey Christ personally in our own sphere of influence.

Agreed. Amen!

----

Sorry about the slow pace of this discussion. My work schedule has been horrific (lots of late nights) and we’ve had thunderstorms with lightning rolling through the past few evenings – I don’t want my computer to get zapped while I’m responding.

I’m looking forward to your response!

I completely understand being busy (and nightly T-storms ). When the new Fall semester begins next week I'll really have to slow down my BB pace as well.

[ August 19, 2003, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]