# Commentary by Woman Theologian



## Tom Hart (Mar 18, 2016)

I am not sure which thread to put this under, so forgive me if this is the wrong place.

Recently an acquaintance recommended to me several commentaries, one of which is written by a woman theologian. At that I felt myself immediately recoil. I cannot help but feel that this would in a sense put me, a man, under the authority of a woman teacher, which is expressly forbidden in 1 Tim 2.

I understand that this theologian is respected by many. When I read her profile, I find that she does not appear to be ordained, but that she is happy to be a teacher of the next generation of Christians.

Is this a correct way of thinking? I suppose it's my decision. I know that most people I know would call me too hardline.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 18, 2016)

Tom Hart said:


> I am not sure which thread to put this under, so forgive me if this is the wrong place.
> 
> Recently an acquaintance recommended to me several commentaries, one of which is written by a woman theologian. At that I felt myself immediately recoil. I cannot help but feel that this would in a sense put me, a man, under the authority of a woman teacher, which is expressly forbidden in 1 Tim 2.
> 
> ...



If you are reading a woman's writing, that in itself isn't wrong. However, there are a few things that come to mind:

1) I highly doubt there is anything NEW that she would bring to the table that men like Calvin, Turretin, or others haven't already said.

2) What would be your purpose for reading this commentary? Are you looking for a "fresh" perspective? If so, that's always a key word that leads down an anti-Christ path.

3) I do not think you understand biblical authority if you cringe at reading a woman. That would be equivalent to saying you are under Joel Osteen's authority for reading his garbage books (no, I'm not calling him a woman either). 

4) She is not preaching. However, if you feel as if this is equivalent to preaching, then remove yourself from the book.

5) If it violates your conscience, remove yourself from the book immediately. 

6) Why in the world would you even have such a book? The only thing it would most likely be good for is critiquing what is written. 

Just a word of caution: if you plan on using the book for devotion, private worship, or some kind of meditation, that would be a violation of the regulative principle. The RPW is not limited to corporate worship. It stretches to any aspect of any kind of worship.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 18, 2016)

I recently had occasion to consult Marianne Meye Thompson's commentary on John, and was very favorably impressed. I hope to return to it more fully in the future.


----------



## Justified (Mar 19, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> 6) Why in the world would you even have such a book?


 Perhaps the woman has something positive to contribute to the field of theology? I don't know why a man would inherently have more to contribute than a woman. The biblical prohibition on women elders/pastors is not that they have defective intellectual capacities for theology, bible study, original languages, and so on.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Just a word of caution: if you plan on using the book for devotion, private worship, or some kind of meditation, that would be a violation of the regulative principle. The RPW is not limited to corporate worship. It stretches to any aspect of any kind of worship.


 Where do you find a positive prescription for a husband led bible study? Can I never sing a hymn at all to Christ, since non-inspired compositions are prohibited, in private devotions? I have always found the application of the RPW in private devotion suspect.


----------



## Justified (Mar 19, 2016)

Like Elder Cunningham has said, if it violates your conscience, stop. My own views would be to take the book on its own merit. She's not your pastor or anything of the like. If she has something positive to contribute, awesome; if not, quit reading.


----------



## Stope (Mar 19, 2016)

Side note: For the longest time I thought Meredith Kline was a woman [emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 19, 2016)

I have been directed to this commentary for the purpose of studying a particular book in order to be prepared to teach on it. So, I find myself being taught by a woman. Taking 1 Tim. 2:12 at face value, I can't help but feel uncomfortable. (Or are the instructions given here only applicable to worship?)

I was never comfortable with woman professors in seminaries, teaching theology and such to men. I am not suggesting that women are incapable of teaching, but I question the appropriateness of having them teach men.

I wonder how the pastors and theologians of the Reformation, or the leaders of the early church, would react even to the idea of a woman seminary professor, not to mention a woman pastor.


----------



## Beezer (Mar 19, 2016)

Tom,

I understand the concern that you have and appreciate your candor.

In general there are too many books out there and not enough time (or money) to devour them all, so discernment is an absolute must when selecting which commentaries you are going to invest in. With this in mind I always do a "background check" on an author I'm unfamiliar with, so I don't do a belly flop when diving into my studies. With regards to your concerns, in this case the book author being a female, I think it would entirely depend on the theological background of the woman and how you are approaching your studies. Biblical scholars come in all shapes and sizes and I don't show any partiality so long as they are trusted and I can walk away having learned something. However, if I sense the author, regardless of gender, might approach the text with a flawed hermeneutic I stay far far away. So a good example of a litmus test for me would be whether the woman author is ordained or not. There is a well known and highly regarded female theologian that teaches at a seminary in my state who recently published the first volume of a Systematic Theology. I've read glowing reviews in some of the most Reformed corners of the blogosphere; however, she is ordained in her denomination, which raises a red flag for me personally.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Mar 19, 2016)

Karen Jobes, a WTS PhD, writes some excellent stuff.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 19, 2016)

If you can't learn profitably from a woman, merely because she is a woman, then perhaps you never should have listened to your mother?

Priscilla taught Apollos, Act.18:26.

There's one setting: the church, with it's ministry, which is by God organized in an exclusively male fraternity. If you can change the Scripture, you can change that; otherwise, it is set for our humble compliance.

Then there are other settings. At the very least, mothers wield God-given authority in their sphere. Outside of the Bible's determination, no one--man or woman--is obligated to listen to anyone of either sex, unless they will to do so, unless their conscience prohibits them.

God has blessed some women with spiritual insight greater than that of many men, which they may be called upon at due seasons to pay heed. Or face the consequences.

Women at least are noble, and no man should be too proud that he NEVER listens to them. What folly; no wonder God spoke to Balaam through an ignoble ass: He couldn't get him to listen to anyone dignified.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 19, 2016)

py3ak said:


> I recently had occasion to consult Marianne Meye Thompson's commentary on John, and was very favorably impressed. I hope to return to it more fully in the future.



Ruben, her brother and dad are good friends of mine. She was the most talented speaker in our seminary graduating class (of nearly 700) and the current George Eldon Ladd Professor of NT there. I believe she is ordained PCUSA. Her husband, John, is a Reformation historian of some renown who is a world famous Calvin scholar and one of the editors of the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series. She is very good, very smart, and (needless to say) somewhat "left" of the Puritan Board.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2016)

Thank you for the background, Dennis, that's very interesting! I was doing some research on John 10, and the standout commentaries were Augustine's _Homilies_, Bengel's _Gnomon_, Hendriksen's BNTC entry, and her NTL commentary. Although in justice I should point out that only George Hutcheson gave an adequate explanation of John 10:17.


----------



## Philip (Mar 19, 2016)

My comment here is limited to saying that three female theologians have been particularly influential in my own walk: Aimee Byrd, Edith Schaeffer, and Rosaria Butterfield. All three hold very strongly to the authority of Scripture and Biblical patterns of church governance and see no discrepancy between that commitment and serving the church by doing theology.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 19, 2016)

How is it that a woman cannot be ordained and be a pastor, yet she can become a seminary professor and theological commentator? Is that not an inconsistent understanding of the prohibition on women teaching men and on having authority of men?



Contra_Mundum said:


> Priscilla taught Apollos, Act.18:26.



The full verse says, "[Apollos] began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."

It would be a mistake in this case to say that Priscilla took it entirely upon herself to teach Apollos. In any case, I might say that private discussion, which seems to be what is happening here, is not the same thing as a woman teaching in a seminary or publishing a theological work. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> If you can't learn profitably from a woman, merely because she is a woman, then perhaps you never should have listened to your mother?



I don't think that's what's at issue here. It is not about the role of mothers in the home, but, again, about women in the church, teaching and having authority.

I wonder if anyone is aware of any of the Reformers or Puritans who may have said something about this.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 19, 2016)

So, who _is_ this woman?

Plus, I do believe that the RPW applies exclusively to corporate worship services.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 19, 2016)

Here's an old thread from 2008.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/40462-Women-teaching-seminary-biblical


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2016)

Tom Hart said:


> I wonder if anyone is aware of any of the Reformers or Puritans who may have said something about this.



The incomparable Matthew Henry said something which might be relevant:

*On 2 Samuel 20:16*


> Souls know no difference of sexes. Though the man be the head, it does not therefore follow that he has the monopoly of the brains, and therefore he ought not, by any salique law, to have the monopoly of the crown. Many a masculine heart, and more than masculine, has been found in a female breast; nor is the treasure of wisdom the less valuable for being lodged in the weaker vessel.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 20, 2016)

I guess I find it interesting that when someone says that expounding exegetically upon a text for the church is supposed to be that of a pastor's job, the frenzy begins with the idea that the intellectual capacity of a women is under attack. Quite absurd. However, I would like to note that women can be very smart. The intellectual capacity of a woman is not in question. To even think that this is in dispute is not only absurd, but is a misguided attempt to derail the thread.

I'd like to point out that Matthew Henry is pointing out that women (like men) can have an equal level of intelligence to make decisions. However, what he is NOT saying is that women can now likewise expound upon the Law by writing a 20 page thesis to help explain the text to levitical priests. 

It was pointed out in a previous thread that seminaries should be taught exclusively by ministers of the word, or at the least previous ministers. This would get rid of the non-sense going on in some seminaries like WTS. However, I'll go one further: I think seminaries should be under a local presbytery (or equivalent) and should be held accountable under this presbyteries care and discipline. 

Yet, this idea seems radical or unnecessary to some for whatever reason. They would rather have women teaching men what men should do in ministry or have seminaries/colleges effected by the culture rather then the bible. 

Finally, one should take note of Matthew Poole and Matthew Henry's commentary on 1 Corinthians 14. Here is Matthew Henry on 14:34-to the end:



> Here the apostle, 1. Enjoins silence on their women in public assemblies, and to such a degree that they must not ask questions for their own information in the church, but ask their husbands at home. They are to learn in silence with all subjection; but, says the apostle, I suffer them not to teach, 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12. There is indeed an intimation (ch. xi. 5) as if the women sometimes did pray and prophecy in their assemblies, which the apostle, in that passage, does not simply condemn, but the manner of performance, that is, praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, which, in that age and country, was throwing off the distinction of sexes, and setting themselves on a level with the men. But here he seems to forbid all public performances of theirs. They are not permitted to speak (v. 34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation: I suffer them not to teach. But praying, and uttering hymns inspired, were not teaching. And seeing there were women who had spiritual gifts of this sort in that age of the church (see Acts xxii. 9), and might be under this impulse in the assembly, must they altogether suppress it? Or why should they have this gift, if it must never be publicly exercised? For these reasons, some think that these general prohibitions are only to be understood in common cases; but that upon extraordinary occasions, when women were under a divine afflatus, and known to be so, they might have liberty of speech. They were not ordinarily to teach, nor so much as to debate and ask questions in the church, but learn in silence there; and, if difficulties occurred, ask their own husbands at home. Note, As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home. 2. We have here the reason of this injunction: It is God's law and commandment that they should be under obedience (v. 34); they are placed in subordination to the man, and it is a shame for them to do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing ranks, which speaking in public seemed to imply, at least in that age, and among that people, as would public teaching much more: so that the apostle concludes it was a shame for women to speak in the church, in the assembly. Shame is the mind's uneasy reflection on having done an indecent thing. And what more indecent than for a woman to quit her rank, renounce the subordination of her sex, or do what in common account had such aspect and appearance? Note, Our spirit and conduct should be suitable to our rank. The natural distinctions God has made, we should observe. Those he has placed in subjection to others should not set themselves on a level, nor affect or assume superiority. The woman was made subject to the man, and she should keep her station and be content with it. For this reason women must be silent in the churches, not set up for teachers; for this is setting up for superiority over the man.



Two things should be observed:

1) Intellectual ability is not the issue here...so drop it. It is clear that there is an issue of obedience to God's command. The woman could be smarter then the man, yet this is not the issue. The man should take responsibility of caring for his wife spiritually.

2) The scope of "the church" is not limited here to just a "sunday" service. Note the following from Matthew Henry: "As it is the woman's duty to learn in subjection, it is the man's duty to keep up his superiority, by being able to instruct her; if it be her duty to ask her husband at home, it is his concern and duty to endeavour at lest to be able to answer her enquiries; if it be a shame for her to speak in the church, where she should be silent, it is a shame for him to be silent when he should speak, and not be able to give an answer, when she asks him at home." 

And Also consider this: "They are not permitted to speak (v. 34) in the church, neither in praying nor prophesying. The connection seems plainly to include the latter, in the limited sense in which it is taken in this chapter, namely, for preaching, or interpreting scripture by inspiration. And, indeed, for a woman to prophesy in this sense were to teach, which does not so well befit her state of subjection. A teacher of others has in that respect a superiority over them, which is not allowed the woman over the man, nor must she therefore be allowed to teach in a congregation." 

Therefore, it should be easily concluded that there is something to be said about interpreting scripture for men to use in any preparation. When doing so, they are using this woman as an authority for the interpretation of the passage that they will be expounding before the assembling of the saints.


----------

