| | | zt:Role of Women in the Church | | | | 送交者: mean 2012年12月06日20:32:36 於 [彩虹之約] 發送悄悄話 | | | Some Reflections on the Role of Women in the Church: Pragmatic Issues Study By: Daniel B. Wallace A thoughtful individual wrote to me recently about the role of women in the church. He was torn as to what view to accept (i.e., either women are in some sense restricted in their ministries today or they are not). He mentioned some pragmatic arguments for egalitarianism: women missionaries, books on theology written by women, women in church choirs or doing solos as a form of teaching. I thought his questions were insightful, and are among the most difficult questions that complementarians have to deal with. Below is what I wrote him. These are not easy things for complementarians to think about. And I must confess: attitudinally, I am an egalitarian. I find what scripture says on these matters very difficult to swallow at times. However, I am positionally a complementarian because I can’t go against my conscience. For me at least, to read these passages in an egalitarian way is to do some exegetical gymnastics in which one twists and turns the text to conform it to their views. I may not be comfortable with my complementarian position, but I am unwilling to twist scripture into something that it does not say. (I’m not saying that those who take an egalitarian position on this passage arewilling to twist the scriptures! But I am saying that I think they are, in effect, probably doing this just the same.) By the way, I think that Doug Moo’s articles on 1 Tim 2:11-15 (posted at bible.org), should be a great summary of the exegetical reasons for a complementarian view of that passage. He has done perhaps the best exegesis of this passage in print. As for your questions, I too would think that it’s inconsistent for women to be missionaries if they are not allowed to preach at home. For this reason, I urge men to go to the mission field. Not that I don’t want women there! But the men should lead the way, as historically they usually have. It is to our shame that women in the church are often taking the most dangerous and risky jobs while the men sit back home in a more comfortable setting. Another approach that some complementarians hold about women missionaries in the lead is that these women are permitted by scripture to do this, but their act of bravery and self-sacrifice should cause men to realize that they are not doing their job. (The model is Deborah in Judges 4-5.) In other words, women leading on the mission field should shame men, and God will use plan B if the men aren’t doing what they’re supposed to. If such an interpretation is correct, then it would certainly not be wrong for women to go to the mission field and to start churches and preach in them. But it would be wrong for men to sit idly by and think that the Great Commission should be fulfilled just by women! As for singing in a choir or doing a solo, no, I don’t regard this as teaching. The words are already set, and the focus is to cause us to worship God, not think about the implications of a biblical passage for life. Regarding women teaching children, I find that to be no problem whatsoever. In fact, I would say that women teaching biblical truths in college is no problem. The reason is that what is prohibited is women teaching adult males (what the word ‘men’ in 1 Tim 2:12 essentially means). By adult male, I take it that the idea has to do with those who are economically, physically, and emotionally separated from their parents. College students, by and large, don’t qualify on all three fronts. To be sure, there are always exceptions in college, but the principle taught in 1 Tim 2:12 is focusing on the norm. It is not meant to be worked out by focusing on the exceptions, which should be rare. As for women writing books that expound the scriptures, my view is that this is also not teaching in the way that preaching in church would be. The dynamic of speaking before a community of believers, in which everyone listening is seeing one’s authoritative demeanor and hearing one’s authoritative voice, is a different dynamic than a book. Books can be picked up and put down, read, interacted with, discussed, debated, written and written against. Sermons don’t fit into that same kind of genre entirely. But I admit this is a difficult call, and some good scholars would say that there is no difference between the two. At bottom, there are three reasons why I hold to a complementarian viewpoint in 1 Tim 2. First is exegetical. I won’t go into the details of this, since it’s been covered quite adequately elsewhere. (And, as I mentioned, I largely agree with Doug Moo’s exegesis of the passage.) Second, the strongest arguments against complementarianism are pragmatic, not exegetical. You have raised some of the strongest arguments that are traditionally used. But it raises a significant question: if 1 Tim 2:12 can be overturned by the pragmatic outworking of ministry by women, then does it mean nothing? Those who start with the pragmatic view tend not to address the exegetical issue. (The most inconsistent position, in fact, is one that affirms that 1 Tim 2 is a normative prohibition and yet finds so many pragmatic exceptions that the text becomes meaningless.) And even for those who do address it, their starting point is almost always the pragmatic side of things. To me, this is no better an argument than saying that speaking in tongues is a legitimate manifestation of the Spirit today because most Christians are charismatic, or that since most people never hear the name of Christ, God will save them on the basis of their works. It’s the “50 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong” argument. Third, I have found an interesting sociological phenomenon regarding 1 Tim 2:12. If I may use a term inappropriately here since it is painting with too broad of a brush, let’s say that those who reject the authenticity of the Pastorals are ‘liberal’ and those who believe Paul wrote these letters are conservative. (The broad brush, by the way, concerns calling one ‘liberal’; what makes a theological liberal a liberal is, I believe, a denial of bodily resurrection of the Son of God, not a denial of Paul’s authorship of 1-2 Timothy and Titus.) Now what’s interesting to note is this: both conservatives and ‘liberals’ have historically tended to view this passage as prohibiting women from teaching men. They have viewed it as a normative command, meant for application beyond the confines of Ephesus or the first century. The difference is that conservatives have agreed to abide by this interpretation while ‘liberals’ have simply said, ‘Well, that’s not Paul.’ In more recent years, ‘liberal’ scholarship has even moved in the direction of saying that the real Paul also would agree with this restriction on women. Either that or they now excise parts of Paul’s letters that seem to conform to 1 Tim 2:12 (I’m thinking specifically of 1 Cor 14:34-35), even though there is not a single manuscript that omits these verses. All this makes evangelical egalitarians the odd man out: it is this group, and historically almost exclusively this group, that has affirmed Pauline authorship of the Pastorals yet interprets 1 Tim 2:12 in an egalitarian way. I am always leery of a particular group that has an explicit agenda being virtually the only group to promote a certain viewpoint that is somehow connected with that agenda. It is this group, by the way, that championed the excision of 1 Cor 14:34-35. And the obvious connection between regarding the Pastorals as authentic but affirming an egalitarian viewpoint and regarding 1 Cor 14:34-35as inauthentic because it gets in the way of this egalitarian viewpoint is striking. In the end, however, my desire is to be both charitable and biblical. That’s why I like Bruce Barron’s article, “Putting Women in their Place.” As an egalitarian, he distinguished between position and attitude. In attitude, I am egalitarian. And I have pushed on the boundaries of complementarianism for a long time. I have had women interns at Dallas Seminary. Three of them have earned the New Testament award for doing the best work in the NT among graduating seniors. The work was based on their master’s theses. And yes, they taught in those theses and taught well. Specifically, they have taught me some things! I have endorsed women for all sorts of ministries, including ministries that I would be uncomfortable with them doing. But since they are ministering in churches that are egalitarian, I would rather have these women ministering there than some others who may not be as well trained, as godly, as devoted to the scriptures and to Christ. Again, as I mentioned early on, I have problems with the complementarian position. I am sometimes embarrassed to be a complementarian. It would be a whole lot easier if I weren’t! But I can’t go against my conscience. And my conscience tells me that after all the exegetical dust has settled, to deny some sort of normative principle to 1 Tim 2:12 is probably a misunderstanding of this text. Sincerely in Christ, Dan Wallace | | zt:exerpt from Moo's exegesis | | | | 送交者: mean 2012月12月06日21:00:37 於 [彩虹之約] 發送悄悄話 | | | | 回 答:zt:Role of Women in the Church 由 mean 於2012-12-06 20:32:36 | | | What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Study By: Douglas Moo From the Series: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Prohibitions on the Ministry of Women—Verse 12 The phrase full submission is the hinge between the command in verse 11—“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission”—and the prohibitions in verse 12—“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. The word that connects these verses is a particle (de) that usually has a mild adversative (“but”) force. But, as so often with this word, its mild adversative force arises from the transition from one point to another rather than from a contrast in content.10 In this case, the transition is from one activity that women are to carry out in submission (learning) to two others that are prohibited in order to maintain their submission (teaching and having authority). We may, therefore, paraphrase the transition in this way: “Let the women learn … with full submission; but [de] ‘full submission’ means also that I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man.” Verse 12 is the focus of discussion in this passage, for it is here that Paul prohibits the women at Ephesus from engaging in certain ministries with reference to men. There are six distinguishable issues that must be decided at the exegetical level: (1) the significance of the verb permit (epitrepo), which is in the present tense; (2) the meaning of teach (didaskein); (3) whether the word man (andros) is the object of the verb teach; (4) the meaning of the verb translated in the NIV “to have authority” (authentein); (5) the syntactical and logical relationship between the two words teach and have authority (they are connected by oude, “neither”); and (6) whether the Greek wordsgyne and aner mean, respectively, “woman” and “man” or “wife” and “husband.” Paul’s use of the word permit—instead of, for instance, an imperative—and his putting it in the present tense are often taken as indications that Paul views the injunction that follows as limited and temporary.11 The fact is, however, that nothing definite can be concluded from this word. No doubt Paul viewed his own teaching as authoritative for the churches to whom he wrote. Paul’s “advice” to Timothy is the word of an apostle, accredited by God, and included in the inspired Scriptures. As far as the present tense of the verb goes, this allows us to conclude only that Paul was at the time of writing insisting on these prohibitions. Whether he means these prohibitions to be in force only at the time of writing, because of a specific situation, or—as in Romans 12:1: “I urge [present tense] you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices …”—to be applied to any church at any time cannot be known from the verb permit, but must be decided by the context in which it occurs.12 It certainly is not correct to say that the present tense in and of itself shows that the command is temporary; it does not. In prohibiting women from teaching, what exactly is Paul prohibiting? And is he restricting them from all teaching or only from teaching men? The word teach and its cognate nouns teaching (didaskalia) and teacher(didaskalos) are used in the New Testament mainly to denote the careful transmission of the tradition concerning Jesus Christ and the authoritative proclamation of God’s will to believers in light of that tradition (see especially 1 Timothy 4:11: “Command and teach these things;” 2 Timothy 2:2; Acts 2:42; Romans 12:7). While the word can be used more broadly to describe the general ministry of edification that takes place in various ways (e.g., through teaching, singing, praying, reading Scripture [Colossians 3:16]), the activity usually designated by teach is plainly restricted to certain individuals who have the gift of teaching (see 1 Corinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11). This makes it clear that not all Christians engaged in teaching.13 In the pastoral epistles, teaching always has this restricted sense of authoritative doctrinal instruction. As Paul’s own life draws to a close, and in response to the false teaching, Paul is deeply concerned to insure that sound, healthful teaching be maintained in the churches. One of Timothy’s main tasks is to teach (1 Timothy 4:11-16; 2 Timothy 4:2) and to prepare others to carry on this vital ministry (2 Timothy 2:2). While perhaps not restricted to the elder-overseer, “teaching” in this sense was an important activity of these people (see 1 Timothy 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9). At this point the question of application cannot be evaded. What functions in the modern church would be considered teaching in this sense? Some have suggested that we have no modern parallel to it since, as the argument goes, the New Testament canon replaces the first-century teacher as the locus of authority.14 However, it does seem right to claim that we have teaching that is substantially the same as what Paul had in mind here as he advised the first-century church. The addition of an authoritative, written norm is unlikely to have significantly altered the nature of Christian teaching. Certainly the Jewish activity of teaching that probably serves as a model for the early Christian teaching was all along much dependent on the transmission and application of a body of truth, the Old Testament Scriptures, and the developing Jewish tradition.15 Before the New Testament Scriptures, early Christian teachers also had authoritative Christian traditions on which to base their ministries, and the implication of passages such as 2 Timothy 2:2 is that teaching, in the sense depicted in the New Testament, would continue to be very important for the church. Moreover, the Scriptures should be regarded as replacing the apostles, who wrote Scripture, not the teachers who exposited and applied it. Certainly, any authority that the teacher has is derived, inherent in the Christian truth being proclaimed rather than in the person of the teacher. But the activity of teaching, precisely because it does come to God’s people with the authority of God and His Word, is authoritative. In light of these considerations, we argue that the teaching prohibited to women here includes what we would call preaching (note 2 Timothy 4:2: “Preach the word … with careful instruction” [teaching, didache]), and the teaching of Bible and doctrine in the church, in colleges, and in seminaries. Other activities—leading Bible studies, for instance—may be included, depending on how they are done. Still others—evangelistic witnessing, counseling, teaching subjects other than Bible or doctrine—are not, in our opinion, teaching in the sense Paul intends here. C. Is Every Kind of Teaching Prohibited, Or Only Teaching of Men? Is Paul prohibiting women from all teaching? We do not think so. The word man (andros), which is plainly the object of the verb have authority (authentein), should be construed as the object of the verb teach also. This construction is grammatically unobjectionable,16 and it alone suits the context, in which Paul bases the prohibitions of verse 12 on the created differences between men and women (verse 13). Indeed, as we have argued, this male/female differentiation pervades this passage and comes to direct expression in the word that immediately precedes verse 12, submission. Paul’s position in the pastoral epistles is, then, consistent: he allows women to teach other women (Titus 2:3-4),17 but prohibits them to teach men. D. The Meaning of Have Authority The verb translated in the NIV “have authority” (authentein) has generated a great deal of discussion. We will confine ourselves to three points that we think are most important. First, the frequent appeal to etymology—the roots that make up the word—in explaining this word is understandable, given the limited number of relevant occurrences, but must always remain a precarious basis for conclusions. Not only is the etymology of the word debated, but also the usage of words often departs, in unpredictable ways, from their etymological meaning (e.g., the word butterfly). Second, the occurrences of this word—the verb—that are closest in time and nature to 1 Timothy mean “have authority over” or “dominate” (in the neutral sense of “have dominion over,” not in the negative sense “lord it over”).18 Third, the objection that, had Paul wanted to say “exercise authority,” he would have used the word exousiazo19 does not bear up under scrutiny. Paul’s three other uses of that verb hardly put it in the category of his standard vocabulary, and the vocabulary of the pastoral epistles is well known to be distinct from Paul’s vocabulary elsewhere. For these reasons, we think the translation “have authority over” is the best English rendering of this word. Again, we must ask the question of application. What kind of modern church practice would Paul be prohibiting to women in saying they are not to have authority over a man? First, we must, of course, recognize that it is not a question of a woman (in the New Testament or in our day) exercising ultimate authority over a man; God and the Scriptures stand over any Christian in a way no minister or human authority ever could. But, within these spheres of authority, we may nevertheless speak legitimately of a governing or ruling function exercised under God by some Christians over others (see 1 Thessalonians 5:12; Hebrews 13:17). In the pastoral epistles, this governing activity is ascribed to the elders (see 1 Timothy 3:5; 5:17). Clearly, then, Paul’s prohibition of women’s having authority over a man would exclude a woman from becoming an elder in the way this office is described in the pastoral epistles. By extension, then, women would be debarred from occupying whatever position in a given local church would be equivalent to the pastoral epistles’ governing elder (many churches, for instance, call these people deacons). This would be the case even if a woman’s husband were to give her permission to occupy such a position, for Paul’s concern is not with a woman’s acting independently of her husband or usurping his authority but with the woman’s exercising authority in the church over any man. On the other hand, we do not think Paul’s prohibition should restrict women from voting, with other men and women, in a congregational meeting, for, while the congregation as a whole can be said to be the final authority, this is not the same thing as the exercise of authority ascribed, e.g., to the elders. Nor do we think Paul would intend to prohibit women from most church administrative activities. But what about women teaching or having authority over men in other activities in society generally (for example, in government, business, or education)? While this broader issue is addressed in another essay in this volume (see pages 50-52, 88-89, and 388-393), it is appropriate to note here that Paul’s concern in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is specifically the role of men and women in activities within the Christian community, and we question whether the prohibitions in this text can rightly be applied outside that framework. E. Are Teaching and Having Authority Two Activities or One? Thus far we have spoken of Paul’s prohibiting women from two specific activities: “teaching” men and “having authority over” men. It has been argued, however, that the two verbs should be taken together, in a grammatical relationship called hendiadys, such that only one activity is prohibited: teaching in an authoritative (authentein) way.20 If the meaning of authentein is “exercise authority,” this interpretation would not materially change the first prohibition identified above—for the teaching Paul has in mind here has, as we have argued, some authority in itself—but it would eliminate entirely the second prohibition (against having authority over a man). We do not, however, think this interpretation is likely. While the word in question, oude (“and not,” “neither,” “nor”), certainly usually joins “two closely related items,”21 it does not usually join together words that restate the same thing or that are mutually interpreting, and sometimes it joins opposites (e.g., Gentile and Jew, slave and free;Galatians 3:28).22 Although teaching in Paul’s sense here is authoritative in and of itself, not all exercising of authority in the church is through teaching, and Paul treats the two tasks as distinct elsewhere in 1 Timothy when discussing the work of elders in the church (3:2, 4-5; 5:17). That teaching and having authority are “closely related” is, of course, true, as it is true that both ministries often are carried out by the same individuals, but here and elsewhere they are nonetheless distinct, and in 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul prohibits women from conducting either activity, whether jointly or in isolation, in relation to men. F. Are Only Husbands and Wives in View? The final item on our list of exegetically significant issues in verse 12 is the relationship intended by the words gyne and aner. The difficulty arises from the fact that these words are used to describe both the marital relationship (wife/husband) and the larger gender relationship (woman/man). If, as many think,23 Paul is here using the words in the former sense, then what he is prohibiting is not the teaching or exercising of authority of women in general over men in general, but only of wives over their own husbands. However, the wording and the context both favor the broader reference. If Paul had wanted to confine his prohibition in verse 12 to wives in relationship to their husbands, we would have expected him to use a definite article or possessive pronoun with man: “I am not permitting a woman to teach or to exercise authority over her man.” (Paul readily made a similar distinction elsewhere in writing of male/female relationships. Women, he said, are to submit to “their own [idiois] husbands” [Ephesians 5:22, NASB; cf. Colossians 3:18.) And the context (verses 8-9) clearly addresses men and women generally as members of the church, not (as in Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19) as husbands and wives, as members of family units; it is not only husbands who are to lift holy hands in prayer, but all the men, and not only wives who are to dress modestly, but all the women (verses 9-10). Therefore, the prohibitions of verse 12 are applicable to all women in the church in their relationships with all men in the church. |
| zt:Interpret 1 Tim 2:12 | | | | 送交者: mean 2012月12月06日20:41:51 於 [彩虹之約] 發送悄悄話 | | | | 回 答:zt:Role of Women in the Church 由 mean 於2012-12-06 20:32:36 | | | Interpretive Issues in 1 Timothy 2:12 Study By: Daniel B. Wallace October 2009 The force of almost every word in 1 Timothy 2:12 has been debated. This brief paper will lay out the major interpretive issues involved, without commenting on which view is superior. It will also glance at the context for support of each view. In the Greek text, 1 Tim 2:12 says, διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ᾿ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. 1. δέ: (1) contrastive (‘but’) or (2) continuative (‘and’). If it is contrastive, it is most likely contrasting the positive statement in v. 11 that women are to learn. Thus, the emphasis in v. 11 would be on this positive aspect. If continuative, then it most likely would be continuing the restrictions stated in the two prepositional phrases of v. 11—ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ. 2. διδάσκειν: There are lexical and grammatical issues related to this infinitive. (1) Lexically, (a) it might refer to teaching of any sort or (b) specifically spiritual instruction. What may be key here is whether the Pastoral Epistles should inform the meaning more than the whole corpus Paulinum or even more generally the use of theδιδάσκω word group in Hellenistic Greek. In the Pastorals, the word group is used 23 times (12 in 1 Timothy alone), all of which seem to be restricted to spiritual instruction (both good and bad instruction).
(2) Grammatically, (a) διδάσκειν might be taken absolutely—that is, a woman would be prohibited from teaching anyone anything, or (b) it might be restricted to teaching men. At issue in the grammatical decision is whether two verbs can take the same direct object even if one of those verbs does not use the accusative for the direct object.1In this instance, αὐθεντεῖν is the other infinitive joined to διδάσκειν. Diagrammed, the options are as follows:   3. γυναικί: (1) a woman, that is, an adult female; (2) a wife. Although ‘woman’ is the default meaning of γυνή, some argue that in this context a wife is in view. Further, even though γυναικί is generic, the question is raised whether this text is prohibiting women from teaching men (group teaching) or prohibiting a woman from teaching a man (individual instruction). 4. οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω: (1) is the verb a progressive present with the force of ‘I am not now permitting’ or (2) a gnomic present with the force of ‘I do not as a principle permit’? Those who take the progressive view suggest that it implies that Paul would allow this at a later time. (3) Another issue is whether the expression ‘I do not permit a woman to teach…’ is the equivalent of an imperative or whether it has a softer force. 1. οὐδέ: (1) epexegetical conjunction in the sense of taking the two infinitives together as ‘authoritatively teach’; (2) a simple negative connective conjunction, indicating that each infinitive is prohibited. 5. αὐθεντεῖν: This is probably the most debated element in 1 Tim 2:12. The two broadest views are (1) usurp authority—that is, use authority over a man that is illegitimate, and (2) exercise authority (in a neutral sense). There is a third view, ‘to kill,’ so that, with some syntactical gymnastics, the verse says, “I do not permit a woman to teach that she can kill a man,” but this view has few adherents and is quite unlikely on both the lexical and syntactical front. 6. ἀνδρός: The issue here is when is a man a man? Some consider a male adult to be anyone over the age of 13, while others consider a male adult to be someone who is no longer attached to his parents economically, physically (in the sense of living under their roof), or spiritually (in the sense of being obedient to his parents). 7. ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ: (1) absolute: ‘in silence’; (2) relative: ‘quietly.’ The lexicon supports both uses. This also impacts v. 11 since the same phrase is used there. 8. γάρ in v. 13: This also is a crucial issue. Paul seems to ground his argument in Gen 2, but how is the γάρto be taken? Is it a marker of cause or reason, the normal use of this conjunction (see BDAG, s.v. γάρ 1.)? Or is it a marker of clarification or illustration? If the former, the ἐπιτρέπω would most likely be gnomic; if the latter, it could be progressive. 1. Verse 15: There are some who argue that the passage is anything but clear, and they point to v. 15 in support of their contention. Others say that just because one verse in a pericope is not clear does not mean the whole pericope is unclear. 1. Chapter 3: Is this chapter relevant to 2:12? If so, then the fact that only bishops are required to teach, and both bishops and deacons must be husbands of one wife, suggests that women could not have the office of bishop or deacon. But if ‘husband of one wife’ (3:2) simply means ‘married only once’ (as the NRSV has it), then women could be bishops and deacons. Further, does 1 Tim 3:11 refer to wives of deacons or to female deacons? Some who take it to be the latter would allow women to have the office of deacon, but prohibit them from the office of bishop. These are the basic issues in this passage. There are several subordinate issues as well, but the major ones are presented in this paper.
1 The absolute position is taken by egalitarians who argue that this therefore must be a temporary restriction on women since Titus 2:3-4 explicitly tells older women to teach, and especially to train younger women to love their husbands and children. |
| ardmore: 改革宗不許女人講道對嗎？（陳鴿） | | | | 送交者: ardmore 2012年11月30日08:39:47 於 [彩虹之約] 發送悄悄話 | | | | 一位弟兄問：“請問改革宗不許女人講道的說法對嗎？希望詳細說明。”
陳鴿答覆：論到女人在教會中的服事，我想，我們當避免兩個極端：一是“男女不分”，二是“壓抑姊妹”。
前者打着“男女平等”的旗號，提倡女權至上，因此放任姊妹在教會中冒頭與篡權，更妨礙了弟兄的興起（哥林多與以弗所教會就犯了這個毛病，林前 14:34-36；提前 2:11-15）；後者則歧視姊妹，壓制女性，不讓她們發揮恩賜，甚至不許她們公開禱告，如此便剝奪了姊妹在教會中的服事（今天中國一些改革宗教會似乎有這傾向）。這兩者，一個太松，一個太緊；一個偏左，一個偏右，都離開了主平衡的正道。聖經教導我們：神造男女，先後有序，功用不同，願我們同心合意，各盡其職，來榮耀我們的元首：主耶穌基督（弗 4:15-16）。
林前 11:3 “我願意你們知道，基督是各人的頭；男人是女人的頭；神是基督的頭。”
提前 2:11-13 “女人要沉靜學道，一味的順服。我不許女人講道，也不許他轄管男人，只要沉靜。因為先造的是亞當，後造的是夏娃。”
林前 14:34-37 “婦女在會中要閉口不言，像在聖徒的眾教會一樣，因為不准他們說話。他們總要順服，正如律法所說的。他們若要學什麽，可以在家裡問自己的丈夫，因為婦女在會中說話原是可恥的。神的道理豈是從你們出來嗎？豈是單臨到你們嗎？若有人以為自己是先知，或是屬靈的，就該知道，我所寫給你們的是主的命令。”
從以上的經文來看，請問？是《改革宗》不許女人講道呢？或是《聖經》不許女人講道呢？
要回復這個問題，我們需要根據聖經的總原則，全面地看問題。我相信：聖經中，姊妹在教會中服事，至少有四個大原則： 1：神的安排中，領導與教導的職分，不是給姊妹，乃是給弟兄的。
使徒保羅，本着主耶穌的權柄，說：“我不許女人講道，也不許她轄管男人。”（提前2:12）。“講道”原文作“教導”，最好翻譯成“作教師”，因為“教導”是長老、牧師、監督的職責（提前 3:2；5:17；多 1:9）。新約中，沒有女牧師、女監督、女長老。舊約中，也沒有女祭司與女君王。唯一的例外就是那篡位並剿滅王室的女王亞他利雅（王下 11:1-3）。中國帝王史上唯一的兩個例外（武則天與慈禧太后）也都禍國殃民、臭名昭著。可見，不論在教會裡或世界中，神的定規都是男人領頭，男人教導。然而，這並不否定姊妹在適當場合，面對適合對象時（例如：婦女、青年、孩童），運用教導的恩賜（多 2:3-5）。 2：一般情況下，姊妹可以運用恩賜，但不要運用弟兄的權柄。
保羅寫信給哥林多教會，說：“凡男人禱告或是講道（或作：說預言），若蒙著頭，就羞辱自己的頭。凡女人禱告或是講道，若不蒙著頭，就羞辱自己的頭……。” （林前 11:4-5）可見，只要女人蒙頭，就可以禱告或講道。蒙頭，是“服權柄的記號”（林前 11:10）。換言之，只要服在教會的權柄之下（未必外表蒙頭或戴帽），姊妹就可以運用她的恩賜，這也包括先知講道與公開禱告。初期教會，男人與女人一同禱告（徒 1:13-14）。百基拉、亞居拉，夫妻二人一同教導亞波羅（徒 18:26）。（隨便一提，這對夫妻的名字，在新約聖經中一共出現六次。其中三次，就是一半的情況下，姊妹的名字都放在弟兄前面。這是違反猶太傳統的，可見，這姊妹一定很能幹，然而，她依然敬重丈夫，服在權柄之下，運用她的恩賜。） 3：一般情況下，弟兄是主角，姊妹是配角。
換言之，弟兄該站領導地位，姊妹則當順服（提前2:11-14），因為女人順服，是神的命令，神的定規，神的次序（林前 11:3；提前 2:11-13；林前 14:34）；這並不意味男女不平等（加3:28）（注一），更不是歧視女性。主耶穌首次啟示他彌賽亞的身份，是向那撒瑪利亞的婦人（約 4:25-26）；他復活後，也最先向婦女顯現（可16:9；約 20:11-18）。（在當時那重男輕女的時代，這是不可思議的。）並且，主耶穌教導婦女（路 10:38-42），醫治婦女（可 5:25-34；路 13:11-13；太 15:21-28），並接受婦女的服事（路 8:2-3）。彼得也提醒，“你們作丈夫的，也要按情理和妻子同住；因她比你軟弱，（原文：軟弱的器皿）與你一同承受生命之恩的，所以要敬重她……。”（彼前3:7）聖經中所有的應許、命令、祝福都一視同仁，平等地賜予男人與女人。儘管如此，在神的設計中，男女有別，主次有序。不可本末倒置。不論在社會中、教會中、家庭中，姊妹都當順服弟兄。不要顛倒了角色，混亂了次序（林前 14:34-40）。 4：特殊情況下，當缺乏弟兄時，神也許暫時興起姊妹來。
請注意，以上所言都是一般情況下：姊妹服事的原則，但在特殊情況下，就是當沒有弟兄起來，或弟兄不成熟、或不爭氣的時候，神也可能興起姊妹來帶領他的百姓。所以，士師記中才會有個底波拉（士 4:4），唯一的女士師。
士師的興起與君王不同，君王是世襲的，並且必須是男性的；而士師則是聖靈隨己意運行，神主權的揀選，正如先知一樣。雖祭司與君王，都必須遵循律法的制度（唯有亞倫的後裔可以做祭司、大衛的後裔可以當君王），但先知則是聖靈隨己意所恩膏、所興起的。“風隨著意思吹，你聽見風的響聲，卻不曉得從那裡來，往那裡去……”（約 3:8）聖靈的作為也是如此，可能完全在人的意料之外。神說：“我要行事，誰能阻止呢？”（賽 43:13）在摩西時代，神曾經興起米利暗（出 15:20）；列王時代，他興起了戶勒大（王下 22:14）與以賽亞的妻子（賽 8:3）；舊約末期，他興起了女先知亞拿，她“不離開聖殿，禁食祈求，晝夜事奉神。”（路 2:36-37）；在新約時代，他更興起腓力的四個女兒（徒 21:9）。這些都是神主權的作為，我們唯有感恩，不能禁止。
然而，底波拉（女先知）領導以色列人時，也顯明了那時代的墮落與荒涼。底波拉打發人去召巴拉來，去與迦南人爭戰，並應許他必然得勝（士 4:7）。（既然神選召巴拉，我相信他定是當時最傑出的男人，但他不過是矮子中的將軍罷了。）巴拉對底波拉說：「你若同我去，我就去；你若不同我去，我就不去。」（士 4:8）哎！最勇敢的男人不過如此！所以，底波拉說：「我必與你同去，只是你在所行的路上得不著榮耀，因為耶和華要將西西拉交在一個婦人手裡。」（士4:9）可見，神重用姊妹、不用弟兄時，正表明了弟兄的窩囊與無能，不是因姊妹要搶先和冒頭，乃是因弟兄的懦弱與退縮，所以，神興起了女先知底波拉率領以色列人奮勇的爭戰，又興起了希百之妻雅億智擒西西拉（士 4:17-22）。
感謝主，在宣教的最前線，主往往使用姊妹，衝鋒陷陣。當弟兄們追逐名利，裹足不前時，姊妹們卻棄家舍業，挺身而出。“主發命令，傳好信息的婦女成了大群。”（詩 68:11）也感謝主，在中國興起了許多勇敢的姊妹們。當弟兄貪愛世界、不肯委身時，神就興起姊妹，挑起重擔，扛起大梁。我們當為中國教會的婦女們感恩！然而，神所興起的姊妹，也知道該何時隱退。當神漸漸興起合適的弟兄時（提前 3；多 1），她們就自願退下，隱藏自己，甘心順服，默默地在幕後幫助弟兄，建立教會。這些忠心的婦女，她們的賞賜必不亞於在台上拋頭露面的弟兄們（彼前3:7；太 5:19）。 |
|
