----------------------
Unfortunately, Ms. Prata is back in our pages. Her confidence in her doctrine is matched only by her arrogance towards those who disagree.
Unfortunately, Ms. Prata is back in our pages. Her confidence in her doctrine is matched only by her arrogance towards those who disagree.
She has withering criticism for those who would question her understanding of the Bible. Mostly, this criticism consists of summary contradiction. This, coupled with a careless reading of her theological enemies' positions, brings us to the unfortunate conclusion that this is Bad Bible Teaching.
This presentation has a confusing format. Oddly, the outline is actually at the end. There are four points in the actual presentation (number 2 is not numbered, and number 5 doesn't seem to be discussed, since it is not identified with a heading). We omitted all of the article that occurs before the actual points.
We should also state for the record that we are no fan of Beth Moore. We are here to examine Ms. Prata's presentation.
(...)
How to subvert God’s word: 4 steps to female preachers
1. First, ask if God really said what He said. Did God really say that women may not preach?
To install a woman at the pulpit, one must subvert traditional interpretations of what God hath said. ("Traditional interpretations" is not the same as "biblical interpretations." We care little for what tradition says.)
To wit: when the serpent asked Eve if God really said what He said, Eve answered the serpent correctly, mostly, but he no doubt noticed Eve had added a Law to what God had said. She repeated God’s command not to eat the fruit, but added to it- “nor touch it.” Since the interpretation varied from Adam to Eve, the serpent took that crack in the wall and ran with it.
Next, (This is item 2.)
Next, (This is item 2.)
simply ignore thousands of years of settled interpretation ("This is the way we've always done it" is not how doctrine is determined.)
with a snap of the fingers, by mirroring satan’s contradiction of the plain command. This implies that interpretations are never settled. (Why should interpretations remain settled? An interpretation is nothing more than a translator's opinion, based on scholarship, consensus, compromise, previous interpretations, and cultural biases.
John MacArthur, approvingly cited below, changed his interpretation regarding eternal sonship. Should he have remained settled in his interpretation?
Teachings and interpretations always ought to be subject to scrutiny. After all, Ms. Prata is right now engaged in the process of evaluating someone's teaching. In fact, she regularly claims to be gifted in discernment. So she objects to someone evaluating "traditional interpretations" while simultaneously being willing to evaluate the evaluations.)
No, God didn’t say THAT, did he? No you will not die. Yes you can preach.
They say they will review the verse to understand the interpretation. They look at word studies, (and cherry pick their preferred definition), and review previous interpreters (cherry picked, of course). (Ms. Prata has her preferred interpretation and word studies, but thinks others should not do the very same things.)
They say they will review the verse to understand the interpretation. They look at word studies, (and cherry pick their preferred definition), and review previous interpreters (cherry picked, of course). (Ms. Prata has her preferred interpretation and word studies, but thinks others should not do the very same things.)
They do this with an agenda, not looking for exegesis, drawing meaning out of what is there, but for ways around it. (Somehow Ms. Prata knows these peoples' minds. She knows they are dishonest. Why? Because they question the status quo, which is unacceptable.)
Here’s how-
The people who harp on women belonging in the pulpit say that the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet, doesn’t mean what it appears to mean. (Actually, doesn't mean what she wants it to mean...)
The word at issue with the ‘let’s all interpret this differently’ crowd is authentein.
The people who harp on women belonging in the pulpit say that the phrase in 1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet, doesn’t mean what it appears to mean. (Actually, doesn't mean what she wants it to mean...)
The word at issue with the ‘let’s all interpret this differently’ crowd is authentein.
Strong’s Definition: to govern, exercise authorityStrong’s Usage: I domineer, govern, have mastery over.
This ‘reverend’ below is in the comments where it was announced Moore’s preaching at Duke, and applauding it. He says to study authentein.
This ‘word study’ involves re-interpreting the verse to say that as long as a woman doesn’t become a tyrant at the pulpit, it is OK to preach. (We don't see any of this in the above excerpt. If this fellow did write this, we would want to see for ourselves.)
They say that since the word in one of its usages means domineering, if a woman preaches humbly, it’s OK.(The word is used only once in the Bible. To what other usages is Ms. Prata referring?)
I’m not kidding. This “teaching” is what Beth herself taught in her 1995 book “To Live is Christ: Joining Paul’s Journey of Faith“. It’s an overview of Paul’s life and teaching. Here is how Beth Moore interpreted authentein, what follows are Beth Moore’s words, with a discernment mini-lesson for each paragraph from me:
“If you glance through the Book of 1 Timothy, you will notice a continuing exhortation for order in the churches. Paul wrote about servants (deacons), overseers, widows, elders, and slaves. In stressing order in the church, he made some statements about women that raise controversy. Although these statements are not my focus, I do not want to be charged with cowardice by omitting any mention of them. We are wise to view Paul’s exhortations in context. He used far more ink to address deacons and overseers.” ~Beth Moore
[My note: the verse wasn’t “controversial” for 2000 years. By her dubbing the verse “controversial” it slyly insinuates there is something wrong with it.] (We're no fans of Beth Moore, but it is clear she did not dub the verse controversial, rather, she acknowledged that Paul's statements raise controversy. This is different. Ms. Prata will later refer to an article written by Armin J. Panning, who also acknowledges the controversy surrounding this verse. Therefore, Beth Moore acknowledging this as controversial is not the problem Ms. Prata thinks it is.)
I’m not kidding. This “teaching” is what Beth herself taught in her 1995 book “To Live is Christ: Joining Paul’s Journey of Faith“. It’s an overview of Paul’s life and teaching. Here is how Beth Moore interpreted authentein, what follows are Beth Moore’s words, with a discernment mini-lesson for each paragraph from me:
“If you glance through the Book of 1 Timothy, you will notice a continuing exhortation for order in the churches. Paul wrote about servants (deacons), overseers, widows, elders, and slaves. In stressing order in the church, he made some statements about women that raise controversy. Although these statements are not my focus, I do not want to be charged with cowardice by omitting any mention of them. We are wise to view Paul’s exhortations in context. He used far more ink to address deacons and overseers.” ~Beth Moore
[My note: the verse wasn’t “controversial” for 2000 years. By her dubbing the verse “controversial” it slyly insinuates there is something wrong with it.] (We're no fans of Beth Moore, but it is clear she did not dub the verse controversial, rather, she acknowledged that Paul's statements raise controversy. This is different. Ms. Prata will later refer to an article written by Armin J. Panning, who also acknowledges the controversy surrounding this verse. Therefore, Beth Moore acknowledging this as controversial is not the problem Ms. Prata thinks it is.)
“In 1 Timothy 2:11–12, Paul wrote, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” When he said, “A woman should learn in quietness” and “be silent,” he did not use a Greek word that meant “complete silence or no talking. [He used a word] used elsewhere to mean settled down, undisturbed, not unruly.” Remember, Paul’s primary ministry was geared toward Gentiles who had never been trained to have respect and reverence in worship. Paul encouraged women to observe traditional customs lest the young churches suffer a bad reputation.” ~Beth Moore
[My note: It was cultural, Beth Moore says. Nope, it was a command.] (Ms. Prata glosses right over the point Beth Moore made, that the word translated "silent" does not mean to not speak. And she is right:
Hmmm. We suppose that this is why Ms. Prata didn't address it.)
“Consider a traditional Jewish worship service. Men sat on the lower floor of the synagogue while women sat in the balcony or at the back of the room. Women were not allowed to utter a word; they merely listened. Contrast this picture with a Christian worship service in the New Testament world. The men and women were together in a private home. The worship centered around praising God, singing, fellowshipping, eating together, sharing testimonies, and receiving instruction in their new faith. Women were included as never before. Talk about a radical idea!” ~Beth Moore
[My note: This is true. Truth is often mixed in with false teachers’ lessons, in order to confuse the undiscerning.]
“The Christian movement was new and fragile. Any taint of adverse publicity could greatly hinder the mission of the church and mean persecution for believers. Women had to restrain their new freedom in Christ (Gal. 3:28) so as not to impede the progress of the gospel. Paul’s “weaker brother” principle (1 Cor. 8:9) applies. He said, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” Thus, women were to learn quietly, without calling attention to themselves.” ~Beth Moore
[My note: The faith was never “fragile”. (Summary denial.)
[My note: This is true. Truth is often mixed in with false teachers’ lessons, in order to confuse the undiscerning.]
“The Christian movement was new and fragile. Any taint of adverse publicity could greatly hinder the mission of the church and mean persecution for believers. Women had to restrain their new freedom in Christ (Gal. 3:28) so as not to impede the progress of the gospel. Paul’s “weaker brother” principle (1 Cor. 8:9) applies. He said, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” Thus, women were to learn quietly, without calling attention to themselves.” ~Beth Moore
[My note: The faith was never “fragile”. (Summary denial.)
We don’t need to delicately walk on eggshells lest it all collapse. (Summary denial, with a misdirection. Beth Moore was not talking about how "we" are to behave.)
Women didn’t have to ‘restrain their freedom.’ (Did Ms. Prata even read this? Beth Moore even quoted an actual verse about exercising freedom!!!)
In the paragraph above, Moore lauds their new freedom! Now suddenly women are unhappily restricted. (??? There is nothing in what Beth Moore wrote that women were unhappy.)
Genesis 3:5, ‘God’s holding out on you!’]
“In regard to instructing women not to teach men, you must understand that most women in Paul’s day were illiterate. They were not taught in synagogue schools or trained by a rabbi. Paul goes on to say in verse 12 that women should not usurp authority over men. The Greek word authenteo, “one who claims authority,” is used only this one time in the Greek translation of the Bible. This word refers to an autocrat or dictator. Paul says women were not to come in and take over!” ~Beth Moore
[My note: Lydia, Priscilla, Lois, Eunice and other women were lauded as teachers and disciples of the word. Moore is stretching things now. But yes, women were not allowed to come in and take over… THE PULPIT. Why? God doesn’t want them preaching there. (Ms. Prata is now making things up. ! Timothy 2:12 does not mention the pulpit.)
“We cannot regard verses 11 and 12 as a prohibition against women opening their mouths in church or men learning anything biblical from women. Paul gave instructions for how women are to pray and prophesy (1 Cor. 11:5). He was fully aware of Priscilla’s role in teaching Apollos in Ephesus (Acts 18:26). Paul issued differing instructions for churches based on their cultural settings and his desire for order in the church.” ~Beth Moore.
[My Note: Priscilla’s “role” was not a role, as in, an office of teacher in the church. (Ms. Prata reinterprets Beth Moore's statement in order to object to it. Pricilla did indeed have a role in teaching Apollos, and acknowledging this does not allow Ms. Prata to change "role" into an official office.)
She didn’t teach in church. (Why is this important? Because Ms. Prata wants 1 Timothy 2:12 to be about church. It's not. But it has to be in order to bolster Ms. Prata's doctrine.
Let's quote it again:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
Ms. Prata's reinterpretation of this verse lets Pricilla off the hook for teaching a man: "I do not permit a woman to teach... a man. Pricilla was teaching a man. Period. By making this verse into an "in church" verse, she reverses its meaning.)
The verse explicitly says she and her husband took Apollos aside. Priscilla is mentioned 6X in scripture and every time, with her husband.] (Which of course is irrelevant. There is nothing in 1 Timothy 2:12 that permits a woman to teach a man if the woman's husband is present.)
But a careful study of that word [authentein] means, leads us to understand that it means to take authority, period. (Ms. Prata quoted the actual meaning above. But she selects the cited meaning and ignores the cited usage.
But a careful study of that word [authentein] means, leads us to understand that it means to take authority, period. (Ms. Prata quoted the actual meaning above. But she selects the cited meaning and ignores the cited usage.
And since she appealed to traditional understandings, how about the traditional KJV:
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
We know by now that tradition, cherry-picking, and various authorities, are shifting targets when it comes to Ms. Prata.)
It has nothing to do with abusive authority. (Now she doubles down by denying the usage even exists. Let's remind the reader of what she herself typed:
Strong’s Definition: to govern, exercise authority
Strong’s Usage: I domineer, govern, have mastery over.
It's right there in black and white: "Domineer.")
In fact, if he was talking about abusive authority he wouldn’t be just talking about women; he’d also be talking about what? Men, because it would be just as much a sin for them as for women. (Now Ms. Prata wants the issue to be about something Paul didn't write. Paul was telling Timothy about what he didn't permit "a woman" to do. Yes, he does not mention what "a man" cannot do because that's not what he was writing about.
Unfortunately for Ms. Prata, men do receive varieties of similar instruction:
Ph. 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
We know Paul was writing to the men of the Philippian church. Should we assume that Paul's instruction was deficient because it didn't mention women? Maybe women are excused from humility?)
John MacArthur, “God’s High Calling for Women” (Ms. Prata calls in her favored expert, John MacArthur, to contradict Beth Moore. But that's all it is, a contradiction. It's MacArthur's opinion about a word. An interpretation.
Remember when Ms. Prata wrote, They look at word studies, (and cherry pick their preferred definition), and review previous interpreters (cherry picked, of course). Apparently there is no problem when Ms. Prata is doing the cherry-picking.)
Remember, the false teachers like Beth Moore are wordsmiths. They know what to write to create doubt, they make allusive remarks, and they reinterpret traditionally interpreted verses to match their own agenda. Usurp means usurp. Take authority over means to take authority over.
3.After causing one to doubt that God actually said, then reinterpreting the verse, the next step is to designate the unwanted verses as Clobber Verses.
In this, one must diminish the verse’s importance by saying it’s numerically insignificant compared to ‘the rest of the Bible’ or, by its nuance etc. AKA, it’s a “Clobber Verse”. Here’s Beth again on 1 Timothy 2:12 from the same book, this time, the introduction:
“Having admired the apostle Paul for years, I was somewhat surprised by a few comments made by people who learned I was writing a Bible study on his life. I received questions like, “How can you, a woman, write a Bible study about a man who obviously had no tolerance for women in ministry?” Sadly, the controversy surrounding small bits of the apostle’s teaching has often kept students from delving into the heart and liberating theology of the whole man.”
Wordsmithing: Moore said “no tolerance for women in ministry“. (Sigh. No, Beth Moore was relating what people said to her. Perhaps Ms. Prata ought to read a little more carefully.)
“Having admired the apostle Paul for years, I was somewhat surprised by a few comments made by people who learned I was writing a Bible study on his life. I received questions like, “How can you, a woman, write a Bible study about a man who obviously had no tolerance for women in ministry?” Sadly, the controversy surrounding small bits of the apostle’s teaching has often kept students from delving into the heart and liberating theology of the whole man.”
Wordsmithing: Moore said “no tolerance for women in ministry“. (Sigh. No, Beth Moore was relating what people said to her. Perhaps Ms. Prata ought to read a little more carefully.)
No, Paul (via the Spirit) had no tolerance for women in preaching. (1 Timothy 2:12 doesn't tell us this.)
He welcomed Prisca, Phoebe, Susannah, Lydia and many other women in their ministries. Just not preaching.
Clobber verse: Moore said, “small bits of the apostle’s teaching“. Small bits? Like those verses don’t matter? No, all scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; (2 Timothy 3:16). How many times does God have to say it before it isn’t a “small bit” any more?
4.Next on the agenda for feminists to get women behind the pulpit is to pretend there’s “tension” between what ‘Paul has said’ and ‘what Christ has said’. Drive a wedge between them, like satan did with Eve and Adam. Once Eve ate the fruit and handed it to Adam, he had a choice to make. We know
what he chose.
4a. Include other verses that SEEM to affirm your position (but don’t really.) This is another masquerade at seeming pious and theological. Currently Psalm 68:11 is being used to support women preaching. Duke Chapel did in the photo screen shot at top, and many others did in Moore’s Twitter comment stream.
The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim good news are a great army: (Ps 68:11)
No tension exists. (Is Ms. Prata claiming that there is NEVER tension between Bible verses? This would be a truly astonishing claim.)
4a. Include other verses that SEEM to affirm your position (but don’t really.) This is another masquerade at seeming pious and theological. Currently Psalm 68:11 is being used to support women preaching. Duke Chapel did in the photo screen shot at top, and many others did in Moore’s Twitter comment stream.
The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim good news are a great army: (Ps 68:11)
No tension exists. (Is Ms. Prata claiming that there is NEVER tension between Bible verses? This would be a truly astonishing claim.)
That would be saying that there is tension between the Holy Spirit in one book and the Holy Spirit in another book. (No, it would be claiming that there are Bible verses that might be difficult to resolve.)
But the idea is to appear pious, eagerly and sincerely delving into the word of God so as to rightly divide it. Appearances are everything to a false teacher.
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).
Tim Bates at Things Above Us parsed Moore’s statement of alleged ‘tension’ in his article –
DON’T MENTION THE TENSION: STTA! by Tim Bates
Beth Moore, a teacher who is tossed about by every wind of doctrine, recently cited “tension” between the books of the New Testament that—through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit—recorded Jesus’ earthly ministry (Matthew-John) and the epistles that were also inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the context in which she jumped headlong into inevitable heresy (i.e. Jesus and Paul disagree or, better stated, the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit disagree) it was appropriate to call out her use of the word tension. There are not irreconcilable tensions about gender roles anywhere in the New Testament. The Bible has no contradictions because God cannot lie.
LOL, that was just the first paragraph. I love it.
Armin J. Panning, a Lutheran professor and Seminary president (passed on now) published a well-written, clear, 4 page word study of the word authentein, here, if you are interested. He rebuts the modern interpretation soundly and theologically. (Well, no. He concludes,
With authentein the apostle expresses the general principle. The woman is not to exercise authority over the man. Whatever activity or pursuits would tend to overturn that order of things is to be avoided. In writing to Timothy, the specific application of the principle or the area in which Paul realized that an overturning was most likely to happen, was in the area of teaching.
Panning made no comment about preaching, church leadership, or church services. He was quite clear: The woman is not to exercise authority over the man, particularly in the area of teaching. That's it. None of Ms. Prata's theories are even mentioned.
We are now left to decide to what context Paul's instructions should be applied regarding 1 Timothy chapter 2. Ms. Prata wants this to be about church services and church authority, but Paul doesn't address this until the 3rd chapter of 1 Timothy.
We don't think Paul was discussing church order at all in chapter 2. If indeed Paul was discussing church order, we find it strange that just prior to the subject verse [1 Timothy 2:12] Paul was discussing non-church things:
8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
- "Pray everywhere" - "everywhere" is not about church order
- "Adorn themselves in modest apparel" - modesty is not about church order
- "Good works" - Good works are not about church order
- "Learn in silence and full submission" - silence and submission are not about church order
We have now arrived at the subject verse:
11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
By extension, this also is not about church order.
Let's explain further. We would first note the use of the singular: "A woman" and "a man." A church service cannot be just a woman and a man. therefore the verse obviously does not mean what happens in church.
We could leave it there as having sufficiently refuted Ms. Prata. But we shall continue. We find that the Greek word for "a woman" also means "a wife," just as the Greek word for "a man" means "a husband." Utilizing these words instead, the proper context emerges. This is regarding the role of a wife with her husband.
This is further bolstered by Paul's conclusion:
1Ti. 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Paul did not cite Adam and Eve because they represent church order, he cited them because they represent marriage. Adam and Eve are the prototypical marriage. This is therefore not about various church women and various church men on Sunday mornings, it is about one woman and one man, more precisely, a wife and a husband. It cannot mean women teaching men or women usurping authority from men. It's about a wife not teaching and not usurping authority over her husband.
This we believe is the crucial issue regarding this passage. 1 Timothy chapter 2 is not about church order. It seems rather clear when one examines these verses apart from preconceptions.
Further, a great part of the misunderstanding is the confusion that results when people like Ms. Prata confuse the issues of teaching, pastoring, and authority. Let's list our points:
- Biblical pastors are shepherds, not teachers. Teacher is a separate position [Ep. 4:11].
- Biblically, pastors are not the CEO heads of the local church, a team of elders are [1Pe. 5:1-3].
- Teaching is not exercising authority.
- Teachers or pastors are not necessarily in authority. Therefore,
- A woman teacher or pastor is not necessarily in authority. And,
- It's not relevant anyway, since we believe Paul was talking about marriage.
In our view, women may take any role in the church for which they are gifted, as long as they are not elders. This position is reserved for men [1Ti. 3:2]. And in concession to some of the more conservative Christians, we would say that any position that does not require a woman to exercise authority over a man is acceptable for a woman.)
Conclusion
Steps to get women preaching:
1.Hath God said? Pious doubt.
2.Contradict God’s word.
3.Declare your hated verse a ‘clobber verse’ and dilute its importance by burying it in a numerical pile under other verses.
4.Mourn an alleged ‘tension’ in God’s word between the hated verse and more preferred verses, driving a wedge between them.
4a.Misuse other verses to continue to appear pious and theological.
5.Emerge with a new interpretation, and stick to it.
Beth Moore ended her introduction to her book on Paul’s life this way:
Our focus today is on Paul’s personal exhortations to Timothy, his son in the faith. Midway through my preparation for this study, I began to realize that one of God’s priority goals is to raise up and encourage passionate, persevering servants who are completely abandoned to His will. Paul’s exhortations to Timothy stand as timeless words of advice to every servant of the living God, regardless of generation or gender.
“Regardless of gender”. There you have it.
Steps to get women preaching:
1.Hath God said? Pious doubt.
2.Contradict God’s word.
3.Declare your hated verse a ‘clobber verse’ and dilute its importance by burying it in a numerical pile under other verses.
4.Mourn an alleged ‘tension’ in God’s word between the hated verse and more preferred verses, driving a wedge between them.
4a.Misuse other verses to continue to appear pious and theological.
5.Emerge with a new interpretation, and stick to it.
Beth Moore ended her introduction to her book on Paul’s life this way:
Our focus today is on Paul’s personal exhortations to Timothy, his son in the faith. Midway through my preparation for this study, I began to realize that one of God’s priority goals is to raise up and encourage passionate, persevering servants who are completely abandoned to His will. Paul’s exhortations to Timothy stand as timeless words of advice to every servant of the living God, regardless of generation or gender.
“Regardless of gender”. There you have it.
No comments:
Post a Comment