Not Recommended Reading: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Part 1)
I had heard of the title of this book, and it has sold almost a million copies; so I thought it might have some good material in it. It only took to the third page to find out otherwise. In an effort, therefore, to keep anyone else from spending their hard-earned money on this book, the goal is to show what its problems are.
The writers, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, are correct when they say that they "find a frighteningly large number of people who, by and large, are biblically illiterate" (14). One can usually tell such is the case when Jeopardy contestants miss fairly easy Bible questions but can rattle off answers about Bulgarian poetry from the 14th century.
So, the authors are correct in their assessment that a book like this is sorely needed, but their principles are oftentimes stated in general terms without specific examples, and various sections also reflect their biases. They do state an important truth at the outset when they say that "the aim of good interpretation is not uniqueness; one is not trying to discover what no one else has ever seen before" (21). In other words, just because an interpretation is different does not make it a good one. They add: "Unique interpretations are usually wrong" (22).
The reader, then, is prepared to enjoy some practical wisdom concerning good Bible study. But the next page dashes his hopes. While discussing the meaning of the word flesh, the authors observe that Paul seldom refers to the physical body when he uses the Greek word sarx; instead, he often refers "to a spiritual malady sometimes called 'the sinful nature\Here we lear, here learn the authors' affection for the New International Version, the least reliable of the modern translations. There is a reason why all other translations use "flesh"; that's what the word means!
The reader may judge for himself; what does Paul mean when he writes Romans 13:14? "Make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts." Does anyone have trouble understanding those words? Does it help to understand the verse if "flesh" is changed to "sinful nature"? No, it adds a Calvinist dimension that is not in the text. The authors praised this rendering of the NIV, but in the newest edition, the publishers changed it. The NIV now advises its reader not to "think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh," which is a legitimate translation—and not Calvinistic.
In the very next paragraph, they take issue with the male spiritual leadership that God placed in the home and in the church. It is easy to see that their theology is leading their interpretative skills rather than the other way around. They will elaborate on these points made later, but they foreshadow their views from the outset.
The Role of Leadership
The authors bemoan the fact that those
who argue that, despite contrary evidence in 1 Corinthians 11:2-3, women should keep silent in the church, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, at the same time deny the validity of speaking in tongues and prophecy, the very context in which the "silence" passage occurs (23).
What is the complaint here? They have more than one. They think that it is inappropriate to say that women should not be allowed to speak in the congregation (1 Cor. 14:34-35)—especially when Paul has given them permission to pray and prophesy in 1 Corinthians 11. On top of that, some would say they should not exercise spiritual gifts at all even though that is the context of chapter 14. They would have a point if they understood both texts, but they don't.
Nothing indicates that Paul is talking about a worship assembly in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. In fact, as Paul moves on to a discussion of the Lord's Supper, he implies that he is about to talk of what occurs in the assembly, which implies the preceding topic did not: "For first of all, when you come together as a church…" (v. 18). 1 Corinthians 11:5 does not imply a gathering of men and women for worship, which is necessitated in the Lord's Supper portion of the chapter. The women praying and prophesying may well have been ladies' groups meeting for just that purpose.
However, Paul begins a discussion of spiritual gifts, which lasts from chapters 12 through 14. He teaches that the gifts are temporary, which is the reason love is so much more valuable; it abides (1 Cor. 13:13). Finally, the purpose of chapter 14 is to show that prophecy was a more profitable gift than speaking in tongues. Apparently, women in the congregation desired to prophesy (or speak in tongues) and were told to keep silent in the church.
Because the authors want to justify female preachers, they needed to do away with the Scriptures that teach otherwise. They allege that in the case of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that it "occurs in two different places in the Greek manuscripts and was most likely brought in as a marginal gloss from someone who was not quite satisfied with Paul's affirmation of women both praying and prophesying in worship (as in 11:2-5)."
Really? How fair is this? What is the other place it occurs? Why did they not mention it? Was it just a few verses later—say after verse 40, for example? At any rate, the reader should know that not a single manuscript of 1 Corinthians omits the passage.
Where is the evidence that the two verses might be a marginal gloss? Most sources do not even mention such a possibility. And then they have the nerve to assign a motive to why the passage was included (even though they have offered no compelling proof that it does not belong)! Yes, they suggest, someone did not like Paul's affirmation that women could pray and prophesy in the church in chapter 11. Apparently, they forgot that they did not prove Paul was talking about a worship assembly there. They assumed it. Is this the way to read the Bible for all its worth?
More likely are the opening comments Brad Price made in his introductory comments on these two verses for his commentary on First Corinthians: "Verse 34 is one of the better known verses in this book. This passage is not difficult, but it has created a lot of controversy because many do not want to let males be the leaders in the home (Eph. 5:22-24) and in the church (1 Tim. 2:8-15; 1 Cor. 14:34-35" (677). This assessment certainly seems to fit Fee and Stuart.
So how do they "explain away" 1 Timothy 2:8-15? They attempt to classify women teaching men in the assembly as a non-moral issue (unlike homosexuality). They claim those immoral practices are always wrong but that other matters are not—such as "foot washing, exchanging the holy kiss, eating marketplace idol food, women having a head covering when praying or prophesying, or a woman's teaching in the church are not inherently moral matters" (86).
Was keeping the Sabbath day holy a moral matter? Would Israel have sinned if they violated this law just because it was not a moral matter? Were Israel's dietary laws moral? No. They are not part of the new covenant, either, as Acts 10 demonstrates. The authors make a very poor case for women leading in worship by suggesting it is not a moral issue. Morality aside, it is still prohibited in the Christian system.
Second, while all agree that some comments are based on the culture of the time, they did not prove that women leading in worship was one of those. People washed feet in those days because visitors wore sandals, and the streets could be dusty. Today, men usually wear socks and shoes and have no need that someone wash their feet for them.
No verse suggests that male spiritual leadership was based on culture. To combat the obvious meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:8-15, they attempt to draw inferences from other verses that they do not imply. They begin with Romans 16:1 and affirm that Phoebe was "a deaconess." According to Strong, the word is translated as "minister," "servant," or "deacon." She could not be a deacon since she could not be the husband of one wife, and there are no requirements for the office of a deaconess in the New Testament. She could be a servant, however, just as all Christians ought to be. In light of the clearly-worded 1 Timothy 2:11-14, it would be wrong to use this passage to imply a contradiction.
The authors next claim that Junia is "named among the apostles" (86). They failed to provide the entire context. Romans 16:7 reads: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." The greeting seems to be to two specific individuals who are also Paul's countrymen and fellow prisoners. Notice that Paul does not say they are notable or outstanding apostles. He in no way implies that these two, Andronicus and Junia (the latter evidently a female), are two apostles about whom the reader knows nothing. They are of note among the genuine apostles whom we have already met.
The word translated from the Greek as "of note" can be used in a positive or negative sense. According to Strong, it means, in a good sense, "of note, illustrious"; in a bad sense, it means "notorious, infamous." These two had an excellent reputation among the apostles. Paul is not suggesting that Junia is an apostle. Jesus could have settled that issue already by appointing one or more female apostles during His ministry. This attempt to find a female apostle falls flat.
The authors next try to pit the Bible against itself when they write: "Priscilla is Paul's co-worker [cf. Phil. 4:2-3]—the same word used of Apollos in 1 Cor 3:9 and 1 Cor 11:5 over against 1 Tim 2:12 [and 1 Cor 14:34-35, which is suspect textually])… [sic]" (86). The fact that one set of Scriptures is placed over against others is shameful. No one should be trusted with interpretation who takes this route. The Bible does not contradict itself.
First, Priscilla is not mentioned specifically in Philippians 4:2-3. The authors may have meant Romans 16:3, where Priscilla and Aquila are called Paul's "helpers." In 1 Corinthians 3:9, Paul says he and Apollos are "laborers together with God." Timothy is also a fellow laborer (1 Thess. 3:2). So was Philemon (v. 1). So were Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke (vv. 23-24). Paul worked with many brothers and sisters; what is the point? How are these facts supposed to nullify 1 Timothy 2:8-15?
When the authors finally get around to discussing 1 Timothy 2, they try to make it a local problem that Paul was addressing. They invoke the "rowdy women" explanation. Yes, at Ephesus there were some troublesome women in the church. They may have even been helping false teachers to make headway there. Therefore, Paul's admonitions to the ladies were based on a cultural problem (89). Have the authors never read 1 Timothy 2:13-14? Paul cites two reasons for women not to teach or usurp authority over men.
1. Adam was formed first.
2. Adam was not deceived in the transgression; the woman was.
These reasons have nothing to do with the culture at Ephesus. The authors do not even mention these two verses. They conspired to omit the truth of the matter.
Not a good motive: