This argument against the ordination of women to positions presbyteral and episcopal (my italics):
" First of all, it was perhaps providential that she resigned from her offices on the day of St. Matthias, the man who was chosen to replace Judas. Important are these words in Acts 1: "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it; and Let another take his office [episkopee, same word use for bishopric]. So one of the men [andres, males] who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." All apostles, thus, ought to be males; accordingly, all pastors ought to be males as well. This is what God's Word here and elsewhere teaches. Therefore, even though Dr. Käßmann had occupied her episcopal office for over ten years and women's ordination is seen by many in the Protestant church as normal, it bears repeating that she should not have held this office in the first place. What is more, not only did she hold this office illegitimately, she also, during her tenure as bishop, ensured that those objecting to women's ordination would not be allowed to enter into the ministry in the first place. The fact that this totally unscriptural practice did not cause an outcry in Germany and around the world speaks volumes about the level of indifference and ignorance regarding the deformation of an institution of the Lord of the church."
I am intrigued first by the leaps in logic: replacement apostle = male, therefore all apostles ought to be males; therefore all pastors ought to be males. It words smoothly, this argument, but jars logically. The revised Twelve ought to be male does not mean all apostles should be male (remember Junia?). Apostles have successors, true (Paul, for example, invested a lot in Timothy); but arguments abound about who their successors are (catholic/Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican tradition posits bishops as their successors; but other denominations propose different offices); so it is stretching things to conclude therefore all pastors ought to be male.
Right, in this instance, I won't take any comments re the general arguments for and against the ordination of women (we have had a good go at that over at Anglican Down Under) but I will take comments on 'leaps of logic' in the interpretation of Scripture, especially comments that can cite other examples ... on any topic of interest in the Bible.
Part of 'due diligence' is attention to the logic of any argument ...
On history’s eradication of memory
1 month ago
Straightaway I found a good article on leaps of logic!
ReplyDeleteHere's a sample:
"Recalling the bitter climax of George Orwell’s masterpiece Animal Farm, first published in the UK in 1945 as Animal Farm: A Fairy Story, the modification of the original credo of ‘all animal are equal’ to ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others‘, this tendency, endemic within many fields of academic inquiry, is the tendency to be blind to the lapses in reason in every system of thought but one’s own."
Read the whole at http://dunedinschool.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/sigmund-freud-and-the-animal-farm-school-of-intellectual-inquiry/
True Peter, it is something of a leap. But really the only problem is with leaving out the steps of the logic.
ReplyDeleteLet me set out the missing step.
Jesus, directly and through His Spirit, appointed 13 Apostles, all of whom were men. The probability of such a male-only choice being by chance is 0.5^13, or 0.0001220703125 - that's 0.01% or one in 10 thousand.
Thus the massive (99.99%) burden of proof in this issue lies with those who would seek to change the church's long-held understanding.
From there we would observe that a body like the Anglican Church recognises the office of Bishop as an extension of the apostolic ministry. Again, the burden of proof lies with those who want to argue that a change is intended.
Finally, may I point out your own very poor logic with regards to Junia. I refer you to this post as a first basic demonstration of how poor the Junia argument really is, at least in the field of "logic".
David,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is highly likely that Jesus purposefully did not choose any females to be among the Twelve. However, by proceeding from there to the proposition that, therefore, all bishops (and presbyters) should be male you have left out the middle premise of the syllogism.
What was Jesus' purpose in choosing only males?
Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that, in those days, most physically fit Jewish women of the appropriate age would have been caring for one or more children, or pregnant, or experiencing regular periods of being "unclean"? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that, in those days, Jewish women were more or less untrained in Scripture and also, according to Josephus, could not give testimony?
David- I'm surprised you point to that post as demonstrating 'how poor the Junia argument is'. With all due respect, the original post was not one of your more coherent ones, and the (very helpful and constructive) exchange of comments between yourself and 'Occasional Reader' does much to clarify where the weight of the evidence and reasoned argument lies - very much with the OR side of things, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteNo-one is claiming the Junia instance is 'conclusive' for 'women's ordination', but it is certainly relevant to discerning a fuller NT picture, and women generally play a higher a more prominent role than is conceded. Why the determination to diminish the place of women in the early church?
However, let me explore your logic above: you claim the 13 male (capital A) Apostles as establishing the 'church's longstanding understanding'. You haven't provided Peter's 'missing link of logic' at all. To do that, you need to demonstrate that all subsequent leadership within the church is predicated upon the gender of the Apostles. Unless I have you wrong, surely you would also affirm that the role of (capital A) Apostles concluded at the end of the 'Apostolic Age', and occupied a unique position in the economy of salvation. If we were still to have such (capital A) 'Apostles' today, then you may mount a case that such Apostles should still be male.
But you haven't made the case that leadership in the church is functionally equivalent to the role of the Apostles, and of course there have been numerous explanations why the Apostles at the time of Christ needed to be male, in that culture and at that time. If nothing else, it may well be an instance of God's accommodation to cultural norms at the time - at least as a logical possibility.
Finally, you allude to seeking 'to change the church's long-held understanding' on women in ministry. Are you thereby endorsing the primary rationale for holding such a view throughout history (as pointed out by Bill Witt) - the belief that women are intellectually inferior and more prone to deception? That was pretty much the exclusive interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 until the mid-20th century (and I still heard it repeated by DBK at Moore in 1981 as the main reason women should be excluded from leadership - in society generally as well as the church: "you don't see women winning chess tournaments").
The fact is the 'church's long-held understanding' has been all but dropped on ALL sides, and relatively novel arguments employed to argue against women in leadership, while affirming their intellectual parity with males.
Just to push David's logic a little further: the 13 Apostles were all Jews as well (I'll leave it to you to do the calculations of probability). Does your logical consistency hold that bishops should revert to being Jewish?
ReplyDeleteI think Peter's challenge stands: there are leaps of logic aplenty here.
Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that, in those days, most physically fit Jewish women of the appropriate age would have been caring for one or more children, or pregnant, or experiencing regular periods of being "unclean"?
ReplyDeleteI would argue not, since one of the things that Jesus did is, by fulfilling Law, do away with such distinctions. He would hardly do away with them and also perpetuate them.
Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that, in those days, Jewish women were more or less untrained in Scripture and also, according to Josephus, could not give testimony?
Again, I thoroughly doubt it - otherwise the wonderful fact that 2 women were the first testifying witnesses to the Resurrection would rather collapse.
No, neither of those arguments seem reasonable to me but, rather, seem to fly in the face of other Biblical data.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteBut you haven't made the case that leadership in the church is functionally equivalent to the role of the Apostles, and of course there have been numerous explanations why the Apostles at the time of Christ needed to be male, in that culture and at that time. If nothing else, it may well be an instance of God's accommodation to cultural norms at the time - at least as a logical possibility.
Well, I did it by inference. The full argument would refer to the ordinal:
ALMIGHTY God, who by thy Son Jesus Christ didst give to thy holy Apostles many excellent gifts, and didst charge them to feed thy flock; Give grace, we beseech thee, to all Bishops, the Pastors of thy Church, that they may diligently preach thy Word, and duly administer the godly Discipline thereof; and grant to the people, that they may obediently follow the same; that all may receive the crown of everlasting glory; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
There is, therefore, in the Anglican ordinal, a clear assertion of a continuation of ministry from Apostle to bishop. Now, no-one is arguing that it is identical but it is certainly
"apostolic".
Your point on the understanding of women stands, but I would point out to you that I have never made such an argument and trust you are not in the least implying that I am.
As for the Apostles being Jewish, I am sure you know well that it is not an argument on the same field. Jesus ministered in Israel. The Gospel was given first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. So, as Jesus established a new Israel there is no surprise to us that He picks 12 Jews.
come on, Tim - you can surely do a bit better than cheap shots like that.
Come to think of it, I laid the argument out precisely when I originally wrote:
ReplyDeleteFrom there we would observe that a body like the Anglican Church recognises the office of Bishop as an extension of the apostolic ministry.
Which bit of that paragraph did you either not understand, not read, or choose to ignore?
Hi David
ReplyDeleteI would appreciate it if you moderated your language when commenting: 'cheap shots' is not fair assessment of important challenges Tim Harris has made to your contributions here. It was you, after all, who said:
"Thus the massive (99.99%) burden of proof in this issue lies with those who would seek to change the church's long-held understanding."
A statement such as this implies that 'the church's long-held understanding' is a morally and intellectually unimpeachable belief which neither should be nor could be overturned. Tim has rightly pointed out that for centuries this belief has been sustained by presuppositions about the weakness, deceivability and intellectually inferiority of women. That you do not hold such beliefs yourself does not mean that 'the church's understanding' acquires the virtue of longevity. It's longevity is morally problematic so the burden of proof in overturning it is not solely with those seeking to overturn it.
The Jewishness of the apostles is, in fact, a highly relevant consideration in these matters. When did the successors of the apostles cease to be Jewish? Answer: when the gospel was established among the Gentiles. The acceptance of the Gentiles as fully equal to the Jews led to change in the composition of the apostolic succession: Gentiles as well as Jews. I suggest it is a plausible argument that only in the 20th and 21st centuries have women been accepted as fully equal to men in the eyes of church as well as society and this warrants further change in the composition of the apostolic succession.
The ordinal rightly implies bishops are successors to the apostles. Also rightly it makes no comment about the composition of those successors, save for the ability of those chosen to be bishops to carry out their duties. We know the framers of the ordinal embraced change -Cranmer, for example, embraced marriage, setting aside 'the church's understanding' long-held about celibacy. I am confident that Cranmer, were he alive today, would have no difficulty accepting women bishops and presbyters.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses. Please be assured I wasn't attempting cheap shots, but maybe I was careless in my expression. Sorry about that.
You make the assertion that (it seems to me) substantiates my case: 'Now, no-one is arguing that it is identical but it is certainly "apostolic"'
I'm not sure I follow you here. The office of 'Apostle' is not one and the same as the episcopate. The (Sydney) Anglican understanding (as I understand it from my time at Moore) is based on the identification of the 'office' of overseers with elders. The belief is that the apostles appointed elders to exercise oversight over church communities in different localities. The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is apostolic to the extent she is grounded upon the Apostolic witness to Christ - but that does not assume the ongoing presence of 'Apostles' in anything other than the apostolic gospel traditions.
My point being that there is no logical equivalence between male apostles and ministry today. The listing of some overlap of ministry responsibilities (such as in the ordinal) does not establish an equivalence of office, especially in view of the distinctive features of the Apostolic ministry.
To revisit the paragraph you cite above: the ambiguity is in the phrase 'an extension of' - which I take in the sense of 'proceeds from' (in which case I agree), not 'is a continuation of' (in which case I have serious concerns, as would the likes of Peter O'Brien, amongst others).
I guess my other uncertainty is in what you mean by 'the apostolic ministry'? Is this a specific ministry (with a stress on the article) identified with the Twelve, or ministry more generally within the context of being an apostolic church? I am not asking this out of a desire to score cheap shots - I am genuinely interested to understand your perspective.
With regard to the Apostles as Jews, you note (and I agree!): "So, as Jesus established a new Israel there is no surprise to us that He picks 12 Jews"
I would modify the final phrase to "there is no surprise to us that He picks 12 male Jews" - that is to say, to complement the 12 patriarchs. I locate the significance of the male Apostles not in a creational 'headship', but in the 'Patriarch/Apostle' paradigm. But that is not a paradigm I see carrying over into church leadership today (but it does carry over into our ecclesiology).
Grace and peace.
I guess my other uncertainty is in what you mean by 'the apostolic ministry'? Is this a specific ministry (with a stress on the article) identified with the Twelve, or ministry more generally within the context of being an apostolic church? I am not asking this out of a desire to score cheap shots - I am genuinely interested to understand your perspective.
ReplyDeleteWell, personally I am convinced that it is a continuation of the teaching of the Apostles and nothing more. In that sense it is Apostolic and is the sense I understand Cranmer to intend when he writes the above in the ordinal, an ordinal which assumes that the bishop will be a man and begins in the 1552 with the charge of 1Tim3.
So I take the position that the Apostles were the foundational teachers of the church after which all teachers should be modelled. And Christ chose 12+1 men for this apostolic task and then one of those Apostles set out how other men should continue that teaching charge over the church.
But, of course, you are entirely familiar with such a position so, again, I find it perculiar that you still do not "understand" it.
I locate the significance of the male Apostles not in a creational 'headship', but in the 'Patriarch/Apostle' paradigm. But that is not a paradigm I see carrying over into church leadership today (but it does carry over into our ecclesiology).
Yes, but nobody (least of all me) is arguing a rigid 100% mapping of that original Apostolic ministry. Again, you are arguing against caricatures and straw men.
I would appreciate it if you moderated your language when commenting: 'cheap shots' is not fair assessment of important challenges Tim Harris has made to your contributions here. It was you, after all, who said:
ReplyDelete"Thus the massive (99.99%) burden of proof in this issue lies with those who would seek to change the church's long-held understanding."
A statement such as this implies that 'the church's long-held understanding' is a morally and intellectually unimpeachable belief which neither should be nor could be overturned. Tim has rightly pointed out that for centuries this belief has been sustained by presuppositions about the weakness, deceivability and intellectually inferiority of women. That you do not hold such beliefs yourself does not mean that 'the church's understanding' acquires the virtue of longevity. It's longevity is morally problematic so the burden of proof in overturning it is not solely with those seeking to overturn it.
It is somewhat inaccurate (and almost disingenuous) to lump in the traditional position on women in leadership with some of the more extreme reasoning given for that position. It certainly shows, to my mind, a lack of willingness to properly engage with the conversation partner when that's the sum force of the argument.
Many different arguments have been put forward for the traditional view, some of them more acceptable than others. We might equally note that the current egalitarian argument has much in common with what the Arians have long held to - but that is not a reason to tar one with the other. So yes, let's stay away from the cheap shots - that's exactly what they are. You may not like the fact that the church has held to a position for almost 2000 years but it remains a fact.
The Jewishness of the apostles is, in fact, a highly relevant consideration in these matters. When did the successors of the apostles cease to be Jewish? Answer: when the gospel was established among the Gentiles. The acceptance of the Gentiles as fully equal to the Jews led to change in the composition of the apostolic succession: Gentiles as well as Jews.
So, by that exact argument, when did the teaching leadership of the Church get assigned to women? Surely when the gospel was proclaimed to women by our Lord. But, we find that He does not appoint women.
As it happens, your argument doesn't hold for a key aspect of the Incarnation is a consistent movement to the Gentiles.
I suggest it is a plausible argument that only in the 20th and 21st centuries have women been accepted as fully equal to men in the eyes of church as well as society and this warrants further change in the composition of the apostolic succession.
What utter nonsense! Women were clearly marked out as equals by Jesus Himself and by the Apostle Paul (Gal 3:27 and all that).
The ordinal rightly implies bishops are successors to the apostles. Also rightly it makes no comment about the composition of those successors, save for the ability of those chosen to be bishops to carry out their duties. We know the framers of the ordinal embraced change -Cranmer, for example, embraced marriage, setting aside 'the church's understanding' long-held about celibacy. I am confident that Cranmer, were he alive today, would have no difficulty accepting women bishops and presbyters.
With the greatest respect, you have nothing but wishful thinking on your side at this point. Is there one single shred of evidence that Cranmer would have supported such a move? Doubtful.
Thanks David. I am clearer now where we differ. I distinguish the role of the Apostles more sharply from church leadership today (including the episcopate) than you appear to. My surprise is that given some of the commonalities of theological education we share is that we differ at this point.
ReplyDeleteMy view is that the Apostles established the authoritative 'apostolic teachings' to which pastors and teachers are to be faithful (and by which prophets are to be evaluated) , but cannot themselves add to such teachings 'beyond things that are written'. I would be surprised if we differed here.
However, where we appear to differ is that I see more of the teaching eldership responsibility in the office of bishop, as implied by the 1 Tim. 3 readings, than the ministry of the apostles, which is grounded in a direct call of Christ in the NT period (interestingly - if my recollection is right - Luke doesn't call Paul an apostle but gives him a similar status as Barnabas). However, Paul is adamant he was called by Christ, and states this was accepted by the Jerusalem pillars in confirming his apostolic authority.
In the interest of not arguing against 'caricatures and straw men' - would you clarify how the episcopate is equivalent to the role of the Apostles? Listing similar activities does not establish this (my dogs take daily exercise, chase balls and go swimming, and so do I - but it doesn't make me a dog). What I am more interested is in to what extend you see the Apostles and the episcopate sharing in the same authority? If not, it seems to be the equivalence breaks down.
Hi David
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for me to get a clear sense that you are hearing the full force of some arguments being made here. Let me try again!
(1) The church's understanding that women may not be in positions of teaching leadership has not been supported through most of two thousand years by beliefs about the inferiority of women held by extremists: it has been supported by ordinary people and theologians presuming that inferiority. Tim Harris cited the example of Broughton Knox; some of the church fathers held views very embarrassing by today's standards - yet we cheerfully role out those same fathers in support of (say) the doctrine of the Trinity.
(2) In general terms the church can hold to an understanding for a long time and be wrong. Slavery is a well known example. Less discussed (but see a new post by me above) is discipline of children.
(3) Jesus treated women as equal to men, and Paul in Galatians 3:28 agreed. It is possible that the earliest church (a) implemented this understanding in its leadership, one sign of which is Junia, a woman, being numbered among the apostles, while it also (b) lived with historical and cultural constraints of its time (thus, as Tim has been pointing out, the Twelve were men replicating the Twelve Patriarchs). But the later church, perhaps for excellent reasons we do not fully understand, institutionalised leadership in such a way that women were not treated as fully equal to men.
Certainly my reading of the church fathers is that there was a strong tendency to view women as inferior to men, not as their equals:
“Both nature and the law place the woman in a subordinate condition to the man” Irenaeus, Fragment no 32.
“It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater . . . This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power.” (Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I, § 153)
“The Apostle wants women who are manifestly inferior, to be without fault, in order that the Church of God be pure” Ambrosiaster, On 1 Timothy 3,11.
Perhaps the great Thomas Aquinas rights the ship of theology through these centuries as it leans against women being equal to men?
"“Vis-a-vis [seen as caused by] the natura particularis [i.e., the action of the male semen], a female is deficient and unintentionally caused. For the active power of the semen always seeks to produce a thing completely like itself, something male. So if a female is produced, this must be because the semen is weak or because the material [provided by the female parent] is unsuitable, or because of the action of some external factor such as the winds from the south which make the atmosphere humid. But vis-a-vis [seen as caused by] natura universalis [Nature] the female is not accidentally caused but is intended by Nature for the work of generation. Now the intentions of Nature come from God, who is its author. This is why, when he created Nature, he made not only the male but also the female” Summa Theologiae, 1, qu. 92, art 1, r.
(4) The Reformers embraced change, challenged shibboleths, and generally were bold to read Scripture against the grain of received tradition. I do not think it wishful thinking that Cranmer, alive and active in our day, would support the ordination of women.
David,
ReplyDeleteI wrote,
Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that, in those days, most physically fit Jewish women of the appropriate age would have been caring for one or more children, or pregnant, or experiencing regular periods of being "unclean"?
You responded,
one of the things that Jesus did is, by fulfilling Law, do away with such distinctions. He would hardly do away with them and also perpetuate them.
I agree that Jesus fulfilled the Law not to perpetuate its distinctions but to do away with them. However, at the time Jesus was appointing the Twelve the Law was still in force and its distinctions remained. Jesus could hardly have fulfilled the Law during His lifetime if He had not observed its distinctions. The new covenant did not begin until after Jesus' blood had been shed on the cross. That was when the women gave their testimony that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteI've just worked out where your 'cheap shot' accusation was coming from (I must admit it took me by surprise) - I think you have misunderstood the point I was making. Far from trying to suggest you are arguing the same case as the traditional rationale for excluding women from ministry (ie. women are inferior and more prone to deception), I was pointing out the opposite - you are in fact a revisionist!
While you agree at the level of policy (the exclusion of women from leadership), you are rejecting the theology that has traditionally undergirded that policy – a theological belief, based on a reading of Scripture, that the inferiority of women is established in creation (understood in ontological terms). This traditional view was far more consistent and widely advocated than I think you allow – right up until recent times. You are not upholding the traditional teaching of the church on women in theological terms – a view that has undergone widespread revision, from complementarians as much as egalitarians.
No slur by association was or is intended – my point is rather to welcome you as a fellow revisionist!
No slur by association was or is intended – my point is rather to welcome you as a fellow revisionist!
ReplyDeleteLOL! That made for wonderful reading at the end of a long tiring Sunday.
I agree that Jesus fulfilled the Law not to perpetuate its distinctions but to do away with them. However, at the time Jesus was appointing the Twelve the Law was still in force and its distinctions remained. Jesus could hardly have fulfilled the Law during His lifetime if He had not observed its distinctions. The new covenant did not begin until after Jesus' blood had been shed on the cross. That was when the women gave their testimony that Jesus had been raised from the dead.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Janice, I don't think this does justice to the actual Biblical evidence.
As just one example, in Mark 7:19 we see Jesus abolishing such Torah distinctions prior to his death on the Cross.
If Jesus was able to do away with such Law then why not also, as you argue, do away with the male/female distinction? And yet, He does not so thing.
Peter...
ReplyDeleteJesus treated women as equal to men, and Paul in Galatians 3:28 agreed. It is possible that the earliest church (a) implemented this understanding in its leadership, one sign of which is Junia, a woman, being numbered among the apostles, while it also (b) lived with historical and cultural constraints of its time (thus, as Tim has been pointing out, the Twelve were men replicating the Twelve Patriarchs). But the later church, perhaps for excellent reasons we do not fully understand, institutionalised leadership in such a way that women were not treated as fully equal to men.
At this point all I want to point out is the consistent argument I have made previously when writing about this. Your argument is:
"...it is possible...do not fully understand...perhaps"
At each key point it is conjecture that underpins your logic.
Hi David
ReplyDeleteI think conjecture is present in these discussions!
It is conjecture, for example, that we may be without doubt that the ad hoc, often implicit material in the Bible in respect of kephale, order in creation, maleness of the apostles when applied to ministry in the 21st century, means no woman may be ordained as presbyter or bishop!
David,
ReplyDeleteAs just one example, in Mark 7:19 we see Jesus abolishing such Torah distinctions prior to his death on the Cross.
As I understand it, the translation of Mark 7:19 is disputed. Is the food purged by passing through the gut, or is it cleansed? Are these the words of Jesus, or of Mark, or are they a scribal interpolation?
In any case, the context of the passage relates to ceremonial hand-washing prior to eating. The Pharisees and scribes were complaining that Jesus' disciples ate with unwashed hands and, therefore, did not follow the "tradition of the elders". Matthew 15:20 makes it very clear that Jesus was saying that, "to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man." That is, the distinction he was abolishing was not a Torah distinction but one dreamed up by the "elders" who, according to this source, "believed that Shibia, an evil spirit, sat upon the hands at night, and this spirit had to be washed off before eating," and that, "[w]hoever eats bread without scouring his hands is as though he eats unclean bread".
Furthermore, if Jesus had, in fact, "declared all foods clean," one can reasonably ask how it was that Peter did not get the message and, in Acts 10: 14, declare that he had never, "eaten anything that is common or unclean."
Jesus could not have fulfilled the Law during His lifetime by breaking or abolishing any of it. He said Himself that, "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Mt 5:18 - RSV)
As I understand it, the translation of Mark 7:19 is disputed. Is the food purged by passing through the gut, or is it cleansed? Are these the words of Jesus, or of Mark, or are they a scribal interpolation?
ReplyDeleteI find that response quite strange, Janice. What is disputable about the translation? Whether it is the narrator or Jesus speaking, the original is quite clear - Jesus proclaims all food "clean".
Now, granted, there are a limited number of variants of this text, but they are much later italian or syriac texts that do no more than slightly change the voice or tense of the "clean" word.
To suggest that there is a "later scribal addition" is an argument utterly unsupported by ANY textual evidence.
In any case, the context of the passage relates to ceremonial hand-washing prior to eating. The Pharisees and scribes were complaining that Jesus' disciples ate with unwashed hands and, therefore, did not follow the "tradition of the elders".
Yes, true - but the issue at stake is still a Torah issue, that certain things are "clean" or "unclean". The argument at that point is simply that all foods are "clean", an entirely Torah distinction. That is not to diminish the extra burden that the Pharisees had added (ie insisting that the rules for the Levites in specific situations be applied to all people in all situations) but the basic issue is clearly stated - "cleanliness" which is a Torah issue.
Furthermore, if Jesus had, in fact, "declared all foods clean," one can reasonably ask how it was that Peter did not get the message and, in Acts 10: 14, declare that he had never, "eaten anything that is common or unclean."
Indeed - and surely the simple point is that Peter just didn't get it. Plain and simple.
Jesus said Himself that, "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."
Yes, and yet we are also told "all foods are clean". Thus we can either choose to make one over-rule the other or, alternatively, pursue the very Anglican policy of not reading one text so that it make another repugnant and seek to reconcile the two. I put it to you that by fulfilling the Law Jesus rendered the food laws unnecessary - that is a classical way to read the texts.
I realise that it rather undermines your argument on the way that Jesus treats women but we should not let what we want to be true to overturn what is actually true.
Peter, I'm curious that you use the term "ad-hoc" about statements in Scripture. Also, you know very well that the main argument actually flows from 1Tim2 - strange (or maybe not so strange!) that you should omit that from your list ;-)
ReplyDeleteJanice, I'm not sure your argument holds at all. True, the direct issue in Mark 7 is the insistence of the Pharisees that a law meant only for the Levites in specific cirumstances should be applied to all Jews at all times.
However, the fact remains that Jesus (or Mark - you are right that it is not clear - there is zero textual evidence for a scribal insertion, btw) tells us straight: "Thus all foods are clean". In the context of Torah observance that label "clean" is quite easy to understand. Jesus has simply negated the food cleanliness laws.
How did Peter not get the message? Well, that is the point of the Acts narrative - he doesn't! He should have but he didn't and is rebuked for it. Again, the message to Peter is to not call unclean what has already been called clean.
Finally, you cite Matt 5:18. I put it to you that your way of reading this sets it against Mark 7:19 (a very unAnglican approach, since we are to not read one text so that it makes another "repugnant"). Surely a better way to understand these 2 texts is that, by fulfilling the Law, Jesus is able to announce all foods clean? That is entirely consistent with both texts and a long-held position.
Janice: I agree that Mark 7:19b is ambiguous as it stands.
ReplyDeleteBut verse 18b seems pretty clear in denying that food of itself defiles us. So I read v. 19b in context.
In his dominical utterances Jesus fulfilled all righteousness: 'You have heard ... But I say to you ....'
As for Peter - well, he could be pretty slow in catching on at times! How long did it take him and his fellows to 'go into ALL the world'?
sorry for the duplicate posting - didn't think the original had gone through!
ReplyDeleteHi David
ReplyDeleteI thought I was referencing 1 Tim 2 with the phrase 'order in creation'!
I use the term 'ad hoc' because I do not think what is said adds up to a sustained argument either clearly in favour of male leadership of churches or against female leadership :)
David,
ReplyDeleteI am happy to accept that there is no textual evidence that there has been any later addition to the text. On the other hand, as I understand it, there is also no, Thus he declared, in the text either. That is why the verse reads very differently in different translations and that demonstrates that the original is not "quite clear" at all. If it were not so the Messianic Jewish organisations that insist the food laws have not been abolished would have a much harder time arguing their case.
One argument I've read that relates to why Peter might not have understood Mark 7:19 as abolishing the Torah dietary laws is that neither he nor any other Jew would have regarded "unclean" flesh as food per se, rather in the same way, I suppose, that I don't regard road-kill, cockroaches, or even locusts, as food. If the Pharisees and scribes, or indeed anyone in the "multitude", had understood verses 14 and 15 as referring to "unclean" foods and that Jesus was saying it was OK to eat pork it seems likely, to me at least, that something like a riot would have ensued. But as it was Jesus appears to have been left in peace to enter a house.
I put it to you that by fulfilling the Law Jesus rendered the food laws unnecessary ... Jesus has simply negated the food cleanliness laws.
In the context of this discussion of Mark 7:19 your logic is a major problem for me. It sounds to me as though you are saying that Jesus had already fulfilled the Law prior to His confrontation with the Pharisees in Mark 7. But Jesus did not say, "It is finished," until immediately before His death. (John 19:30)