Questions and Answers (Part 6)

[Editor’s Note: The following questions and answers were from the fall of 2011.]

Sated Versus Intoxicated

Question: “In 1 Corinthians 11:21, does the word drunk mean ‘intoxicated’ or ‘full’ in the original Greek?”

In the original Greek, it can mean either one. The context must determine what the meaning is. Five of the seven times the verb appears in the New Testament it is referring to drunkenness. In John 2:10, however, it clearly refers to being full or sated. Jesus could not see men falling-down drunk and then create more intoxication for them and be consistent with His own teachings on sobriety. The verse means that most hosts put out the inferior wine when men had already consumed quite a bit (and maybe the guests won’t notice).

In 1 Corinthians 11:21, “sated” is what fits the context. The rebuke was that brethren were not sharing the food and drink. “Sated” or “filled” is the opposite of hungry. One has eaten to the full while other brethren had had no food. The text often indicates the sense of the word that is used. But, further, who can imagine Paul telling them what corrections to make and omitting even a word about actual drunkenness, which is listed in 5:11 and 6:10? The sense is “sated.”

Blessing Money

Question: “Many prayers for the offering on the communion table are started as: ‘Lord, please bless the money that is collected today….’ Is this Scriptural to want to bless money? [It sounds kind of Catholic.] What is a better way to say this?”

I could not find a time when blessing was used in connection with money, but concerning the Lord’s body, one text says Jesus blessed the bread while another says He gave thanks for it. That is all anyone means by it; so, it should be acceptable. It might be better to say, “Thank you for the gifts that are about to be given,” or “Grant us wisdom in its distribution,” but all those expressions are acceptable.

The Apostles’ Baptism

Question: Did the apostles need to be baptized after Jesus’ death to be added to the church? They were previously baptized under John’s baptism. Was that good enough, or were they likely baptized with the multitude on the Day of Pentecost?

This subject has been debated for a long time. It was inappropriate to use John’s baptism after the cross, which we discover concerning Apollos in Acts 18:24-9:7. And it may well be that many who were baptized of John were also baptized of Jesus (John 3:22-30). Those who came to Jesus were baptized by His authority. So, if the apostles were baptized by Jesus before the cross for the forgiveness of sins (which has nothing to do with the Mosaic covenant), then why would they need to be baptized again after the cross?

Nothing is said about either the apostles or the rest of the brethren being baptized on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). The purpose was the same as before the cross. However, those baptized on Pentecost appear to be those who had crucified Jesus (Acts 2:36-37). Of course, it is irrelevant regarding our situation. All of us born and living today must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.

Man and a Head Covering

Question: “What about the man? The man in the first century dishonored his head if he covered it in worship, but may he pray today with his head covered and not dishonor his head?”

This is an excellent question. We almost always discuss the woman but very seldom the man. There was no custom about men being sexually loose, depending on whether or not their heads were covered. Not only does nature itself teach that long hair is a shame for men (1 Cor. 11:14), but God specifically says that a man dishonors his head (who is Christ) if he covers his head while praying or prophesying, which would be as he is exercising spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 11:7).

Does the fact that he is not using a spiritual change the situation? No. The male is charged with leading prayer everywhere (1 Tim. 2:8). Whether he does so in the exercising of a spiritual gift or not does not matter. There is no basis to suppose that if he is praying in the Spirit, he is wrong for having his head covered, but if it is just a regular prayer, it is all right to do so.

Women Leading in Prayer

Question: “Is it all right for a Christian woman to lead a prayer in the presence of a non-Christian man or to teach a non-Christian man in private?”

There are several considerations.

Even if it were not technically wrong (which we believe it is), it would still send the message that it is all right for women to pray in the presence of men. Anyone knowing what the 1 Timothy 2:11-14 passage teaches would surely wonder what the rationale was for such a practice.

Those observing such a phenomenon would conclude that we are no different than the denominational world that has accepted the “equality” of men and women with respect to roles in the church.

Most important, however, is the fact that the New Testament does not provide any authority for a woman to pray or teach a man (Col. 3:17). If so. where is it? Is it in Acts 18:24-26?

Some quickly resort to Aquila and Priscilla. However, nothing indicates that she was the teacher while her husband kept silent or that she even said another word after, “Good evening.” We are not affirming that she was totally silent—only that we have no idea who said what during the course of their conversation. In the absence of the conversation being recorded, it cannot be assumed that Priscilla did the teaching, but that she functioned as a Teacher Encourager or Silent Partner.

Other Arguments

Sometimes, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is cited to show that, while a woman cannot exercise leadership over Christian men, she can teach or lead prayer over a man who is not a Christian—since it would not be usurping authority. This is obviously true. Since he is not a Christian, he cannot be a spiritual leader and therefore he has nothing to usurp. However, this argument only shows that she does not usurp authority; it still does not prove that she has the right to teach him. In other words, it is not a matter of usurping his role as a Christian male since he is not one and has no authority. It is a matter, however, of the woman having the authority to do so herself. 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids both usurping authority and teaching over a man.

[Suppose she teaches him the gospel and leads in prayer each time before they study. He decides to become a Christian. Presumably, she finds a man to baptize him, but then she says, “I can’t teach you any more or lead in prayer in your presence since it would usurp your authority.” He might think that becoming a Christian is detrimental.]

Worship

A third approach is that some say, “It doesn’t bother me for her to do so,” but how someone feels about it is irrelevant. The question is, “Where is the authority for her to do so?” Colossians 3:17 teaches that we must have Bible authority for all that we do. Okay, then, where is it? Where is the command, the example of women throughout the New Testament teaching men and leading prayer in their presence, or the implication that such was practiced? It is absent.

More on Women Leading Prayer

Question: “If a Christian husband asks his Christian wife in only the presence of these two people to say a prayer so that he can observe her Christian maturity, should she comply or refuse?”

The underlying question is: “Does the wife take away from her husband’s authority or leadership by refusing to pray in only her husband’s presence?” There are other ways to observe Christian maturity, such as in spiritual discussions between the two. Most men know how mature their wives are and would not even think of such an idea that would put her on the spot this way.

Years ago, some said that, if elders required a woman to pray in their presence, she would have to submit to them and do so. But others responded by pointing out that elders cannot require anything that the Scriptures do not authorize, and in this instance the Scriptures do not authorize such a practice. She should tell her husband that it would violate her conscience to do that which the Scriptures forbid. In 1 Timothy 2:8, men are to lead in prayer everywhere, which means in the assembly, at camp, in a devotional, and at home.

Women Teaching Classes

Question: “If an Elder wishes to see how a women’s Bible Class is progressing and he directs the teacher to conduct class as if he were not present, should she comply or refuse?”

If he wants to know how the class is progressing, he should ask his wife. If she is unavailable, another sister could make the evaluation. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 does not contain within it an exception clause for “invisible” elders.

Question: “Is a woman taking away authority from a man if she teaches a class containing at least one man?”

If it is a Bible class, yes. And why would a man want to show up for a ladies’ class?

Question: “Does it matter if the class is religious or not?”

Yes, it matters. If it is a Bible class containing spiritual instruction, then it falls under the purview of 1 Timothy 2:11-14—even if it is not called a Bible class. But suppose he wants to learn quilting. He has no authority in that area, and it is not dealing with spiritual concerns. She might teach him algebra or English grammar. None of these violate the principles of the text.

Question: “Does it matter if the class is in a university setting or where the church meets?”

No. She should not be teaching the Bible to male students in either location. If it is a non-religious subject, she could teach a course at the church building (elders permitting) if that were a convenient place to meet, or she could teach it on campus.

Question: “Does it matter if she just prepares the teaching materials and if a man does the presentation?”

Yes. There is a difference in having input and actually preparing the materials. It could also prove embarrassing if he had to stop and address the female preparer: “What did you mean by this comment?” It may not be technically wrong, but it does seem to violate the spirit of the commandment.