Bible commentaries written by women. Yea or nay?

[DMcFadden]

Sorry, I don't really think that it is quite the contrary, having understood your basic position from other posts.

I really don't care that you disagree with me, you should take that up with the rest of the saints from the vast bulk of our history before the 20th century.

My point about the M.Div. was, again, addressing the issue from a churchly standpoint, and not a pragmatic one, as you have done.

Of course, since Baptist fellowships have a pretty blatant disregard for the broader church as a judicial body, I guess that this may pass some by.

Fair enough. Being part of a group having a "pretty blatant disregard for the broader church" so that these finer points just "pass some by," I yield.

 

[Archlute]

Sorry, I don't really think that it is quite the contrary, having understood your basic position from other posts.

I really don't care that you disagree with me, you should take that up with the rest of the saints from the vast bulk of our history before the 20th century.

My point about the M.Div. was, again, addressing the issue from a churchly standpoint, and not a pragmatic one, as you have done.

Of course, since Baptist fellowships have a pretty blatant disregard for the broader church as a judicial body, I guess that this may pass some by.

Fair enough. Being part of a group having a "pretty blatant disregard for the broader church" so that these finer points just "pass some by," I yield.

Yet another victory chalked up to the fine art of gentle persuasion

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?

Which leads to a related question: this passage in Acts is descriptive; does that make it prescriptive? Are historically descriptive biblical passages normative for doctrine just as are more obviously didactive ones?

The context seems to indicate it was a positive thing.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Was Priscilla right to instruct Apollos?

Which leads to a related question: this passage in Acts is descriptive; does that make it prescriptive? Are historically descriptive biblical passages normative for doctrine just as are more obviously didactive ones?

Not unless we're going to believe that men rushing out to grab a wife like the Benjaminites (sp?) did in Judges 21 is an acceptable thing to do. ;^)

One must tread warily when basing doctrinal upon descriptive passages. That's what polygamists do, after all.

Yes, but they interpret the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.

 

[AV1611]

The context seems to indicate it was a positive thing.

In these matters we need to proceed conservatively, it is not clear what her role was and so we need to refrain from deducing and constructing an argument from such a minor comment.

I do not use commentaries written by women because they are, in my use, a teaching aid.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The context seems to indicate it was a positive thing.

In these matters we need to proceed conservatively, it is not clear what her role was and so we need to refrain from deducing and constructing an argument from such a minor comment.

I do not use commentaries written by women because they are, in my use, a teaching aid.

"He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately." (Acts 18:26)

It is difficult to read that and say that Priscilla was not, in some sense, instructing him, and that this was not a good thing in the context.

 

[AV1611]

It is difficult to read that and say that Priscilla was not, in some sense, instructing him, and that this was not a good thing in the context.

You have illustrated my point for me, we are unable to know for sure what that "in some sense" is. Is my mother allowed to instruct me and teach me? Of course. Does that therefore mean she is allowed to write commentaries to teach academics, pastors, seminary students and the laity? It does not follow.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is difficult to read that and say that Priscilla was not, in some sense, instructing him, and that this was not a good thing in the context.

You have illustrated my point for me, we are unable to know for sure what that "in some sense" is. Is my mother allowed to instruct me and teach me? Of course. Does that therefore mean she is allowed to write commentaries to teach academics, pastors, seminary students and the laity? It does not follow.

So would it be wrong for your mother to write down her instruction and publish it so that others could read it?

Having said that, I am not 100% keen on women writing commentaries myself, but find it difficult to argue that it is totally unbiblical.

 

[jaybird0827]

As far as the question being "yay" or "nay", the answer is "nay" from this corner.

 

[Gryphonette]

Well, yes, but everyone thinks that about everyone else.

Yes, but they interpret the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.

Egalitarians are convinced complementarians are doing that WRT Galatians 3:28, for instance. Arminians believe Calvinists do this, Calvinists say no, it's the Arminians who are doing it, and so on.

Paedobaptists say credobaptists are interpreting the Bible in a contradictory manner, and credobaptists hit that ball right back at them.

In other words,, you're technically correct, but since it applies to every one of us, one way or the other, as a distinguishing mark it's not very helpful. ;^)

 

[Gryphonette]

Actually, I doubt anyone would argue against her right to WRITE one.

Is my mother allowed to instruct me and teach me? Of course. Does that therefore mean she is allowed to write commentaries to teach academics, pastors, seminary students and the laity? It does not follow.

Assembling one's thoughts on a book of Scripture in a cogent manner and writing them down is surely an excellent exercise.

It's not the writing that is a potential problem, I wouldn't think, no matter how conservative one is, but rather the publishing of the work aimed at a particular target market.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Yes, but they interpret the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.

Egalitarians are convinced complementarians are doing that WRT Galatians 3:28, for instance. Arminians believe Calvinists do this, Calvinists say no, it's the Arminians who are doing it, and so on.

Paedobaptists say credobaptists are interpreting the Bible in a contradictory manner, and credobaptists hit that ball right back at them.

In other words,, you're technically correct, but since it applies to every one of us, one way or the other, as a distinguishing mark it's not very helpful. ;^)

Well I suppose that is why we need good exegetical commentaries in order to refute them?

 

[Gryphonette]

LOL!!! Good point.

Yes, but they interpret the Bible in such a way that it contradicts itself.

Egalitarians are convinced complementarians are doing that WRT Galatians 3:28, for instance. Arminians believe Calvinists do this, Calvinists say no, it's the Arminians who are doing it, and so on.

Paedobaptists say credobaptists are interpreting the Bible in a contradictory manner, and credobaptists hit that ball right back at them.

In other words,, you're technically correct, but since it applies to every one of us, one way or the other, as a distinguishing mark it's not very helpful. ;^)

Well I suppose that is why we need good exegetical commentaries in order to refute them?

Ya got me there. Good return.

 

[Mushroom]

This is a good question and one I have pondered a lot myself, especially considering the amount of writing I do which usually contains some instruction or at least application of the Scripture. For the record, when I set out to write, it is genearlly not with the intent of instructing or teaching, but rather adding a perspective or sharing what the Lord has taught me in His Word and through years of walking with Him. Do I consider that to be authoritative? No.

Would I write a commentary? If I had a better grasp of Greek and command of Hebrew (which I don't) it would be a possibility. Here's why I don't have a problem with that. A commentary, though authoritative, is not the same as preaching. Preaching and teaching from pulpit carry with it a weight that books simply do not have. Preaching and teaching God's Word from the pulpit is the Word of God for the people.

A commentary is scholarly work which tries to accurately determine exactly what the Scriptures say based on the original languages. Can that scholarly work be done by a woman? I believe so. Is it the final word? Absolutely not, just as the work of some of the best commentators is not the final word. The truth is, we should take EVERY commentary, even the best, with a slight question in our minds. It doesn't mean that we don't seriously weigh what they have to say and compare it Scriptures and with other godly men, but we have to remember that they are just men (and women if that is the case) who write. Their personal lives, their theological viewpoint, the authority they have (or had in the church) should also be taken into consideration when scrutinizing their work and using it as a support for the teaching and preaching of God's Word.

It's just rather baffling to consider that you or I could write a serious commentary on, say, the book of Micah, and our respective churches think enough of it to recommend it as the basis for a bible study class on that book, but the author wouldn't be allowed to actually teach the class if there are men in it. Even though the information being taught in the class came from us.

Perhaps the only true Scriptural injunction is against women preaching from the pulpit, and we're being unduly restrictive by not allowing women to teach bible study classes to groups with men in them?

It simply is illogical to say women may write commentaries, and men may read them and recommend them to be used for bible study, but the authors may not teach a class that includes men.

Well, what if a non-Merarite Hebrew wrote an instruction manual on the proper assembly and disassembly of the tabernacle, and yet was not allowed to participate in the use of that manual? Would that be analogous?

 

[AV1611]

It's not the writing that is a potential problem...but rather the publishing of the work aimed at a particular target market.

Exactly.

 

[AV1611]

So would it be wrong for your mother to write down her instruction and publish it so that others could read it?

If it was to be used within the SPHERE of the home then it would be ok but commentaries of the variety we are speaking of are not written for that but are rather tools for teaching the Church and that women are not allowed to do.

 

[greenbaggins]

Of course, the above comments assume that these folk are actually being "stricter than the Word", and that a denial of this role to women constitutes a foolish sin. in my opinion, and contra to Lane, debating the meaning of Scripture is not a "grand old tradition" that is open to the general public, but a privilege of the scholars and theologians of the Church, which would necessarily exclude women commentators. Notice that Jobes not only writes commentaries, but obtained an M.Div. instead of an M.A. at WTS, a degree traditionally limited to ordained ministers. I do not think that is an insignificant point.

I do not limit Paul's instruction regarding the roles of women strictly to the public and instruction (nor do I believe would he), but extend them to all relationships and functions among believers, wherever they are to meet. I do not approve of having women moderators correct men in theological discussion, and have mentioned this in the past. So call me a Neanderthal, but I do believe that even in relatively conservative Presbyterian circles, the culture has exerted its influence in ways that many of us have failed to perceive. I am hard pressed to find any significant commentaries written by women prior to this century, and I do not think that it was because they were too busy at home nursing their babies, it was because the Church had no place for women seeking to instruct the Church. That is what the writers of commentaries are engaged in, whether it is in an indirect manner or not, and that is why I am opposed to women such as Jobes and others taking that role upon themselves, whether it is claimed that they have written stellar commentaries or not. I know some women who can give a rousing sermon, but that doesn't mean that they are justified in doing so, nor that they should be given ear.

I can certainly understand where you are coming from, and I have thought of these issues myself in wondering about this issue. What eventually decided me in favor of using commentaries written by women is that I am not obliged to believe one word of anything that they write. What they write is an opinion. That is certainly how commentaries are viewed today by almost all scholars. By your argument, if women are not allowed to write, then neither should they discuss theology with men, lest men get some ideas from women, and use those ideas. The structure is precisely the same. By your argument, a pastor's wife should never read and critique her husband's sermon, lest she be exercising authority over him. I have my wife read every single sermon before I preach it, in order to know what might be potentially confusing. She catches typos, and asks me about certain theological questions, and suggests lines of practical application, all extremely helpful to me. She sees that role as her way of helping me do my job. I don't have to take her suggestions (and sometimes I don't). I see that as precisely parallel to what a commentary is doing. A commentary is a help. I do not believe that a woman belongs in the pulpit or in teaching Sunday School to men, or in the office of elder (or deacon, for that matter). I hope that we can see that both these positions respect the male leadership role in the church.

 

[Archlute]

Of course, the above comments assume that these folk are actually being "stricter than the Word", and that a denial of this role to women constitutes a foolish sin. in my opinion, and contra to Lane, debating the meaning of Scripture is not a "grand old tradition" that is open to the general public, but a privilege of the scholars and theologians of the Church, which would necessarily exclude women commentators. Notice that Jobes not only writes commentaries, but obtained an M.Div. instead of an M.A. at WTS, a degree traditionally limited to ordained ministers. I do not think that is an insignificant point.

I do not limit Paul's instruction regarding the roles of women strictly to the public and instruction (nor do I believe would he), but extend them to all relationships and functions among believers, wherever they are to meet. I do not approve of having women moderators correct men in theological discussion, and have mentioned this in the past. So call me a Neanderthal, but I do believe that even in relatively conservative Presbyterian circles, the culture has exerted its influence in ways that many of us have failed to perceive. I am hard pressed to find any significant commentaries written by women prior to this century, and I do not think that it was because they were too busy at home nursing their babies, it was because the Church had no place for women seeking to instruct the Church. That is what the writers of commentaries are engaged in, whether it is in an indirect manner or not, and that is why I am opposed to women such as Jobes and others taking that role upon themselves, whether it is claimed that they have written stellar commentaries or not. I know some women who can give a rousing sermon, but that doesn't mean that they are justified in doing so, nor that they should be given ear.

I can certainly understand where you are coming from, and I have thought of these issues myself in wondering about this issue. What eventually decided me in favor of using commentaries written by women is that I am not obliged to believe one word of anything that they write. What they write is an opinion. That is certainly how commentaries are viewed today by almost all scholars. By your argument, if women are not allowed to write, then neither should they discuss theology with men, lest men get some ideas from women, and use those ideas. The structure is precisely the same. By your argument, a pastor's wife should never read and critique her husband's sermon, lest she be exercising authority over him. I have my wife read every single sermon before I preach it, in order to know what might be potentially confusing. She catches typos, and asks me about certain theological questions, and suggests lines of practical application, all extremely helpful to me. She sees that role as her way of helping me do my job. I don't have to take her suggestions (and sometimes I don't). I see that as precisely parallel to what a commentary is doing. A commentary is a help. I do not believe that a woman belongs in the pulpit or in teaching Sunday School to men, or in the office of elder (or deacon, for that matter). I hope that we can see that both these positions respect the male leadership role in the church.

I appreciate your thoughts, and would agree with you regarding general theological conversation, or having one's wife provide feedback on a sermon, as both of those are solicited and informal. I'm less inclined to discuss theology with a woman who is being assertive and attempting to "school" me on a particular point, but that may still be the Neanderthal coming out in me.

I think where we differ is in regards to how we view the nature of a commentary. I have a difficult time, when defining some of the boundaries of this issue, regarding them as anything other than teaching authorities. They are works put out by "authorities" (since not just anyone will be published w/o proper credentials) to be used by the community of the Church for the purpose of teaching those within the Church. I wouldn't disregard them as authorities just because we are free to disregard faulty conclusions that may be found therein, since I have no problem with anyone disregarding a foolish statement that their pastor may make from the pulpit as well!

Now I realize that with some of the more left leaning academic works that their authors probably would not see their role as such, and I also make a slight distinction between one who is an "academic authority" and one who is an authority within the body of Christ, although the two roles will often overlap. However, coming from the position that these works are meant to teach the Church and that they are a teaching authority of sorts, I have a hard time using them. I also think that my hesitance in using them comes from a reluctance to see this practice continued to be recognized from within the Church. I do not want it passed by as a normal and continuing practice within Christendom (although I am sure that in our current age of pragmatism within both the Church and the academy that my boycott will have minimal effect). I actually have an easier time employing a commentary written by an unbelieving Jewish scholar who is a man, than I do by a believing Christian scholar who is a woman. At least he is writing in unbelief, while I feel that as a sister in Christ, the woman should have a little better understanding of what she is doing.

So in the end, I think our difference comes down to how we view the role of commentaries in the life of the Church, and not our position, in practice, regarding the conversational role of women in the Church. Feel free to correct me if I've missed something though.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

So would it be wrong for your mother to write down her instruction and publish it so that others could read it?

If it was to be used within the SPHERE of the home then it would be ok but commentaries of the variety we are speaking of are not written for that but are rather tools for teaching the Church and that women are not allowed to do.

But is writing a commentary - which no one is forced to read - in the same league as a women preaching, which is definitely usurping the role of a man.

For instance, if Anne Ivy (sorry Anne, you were the first name came into my head ) writes about what she thinks a Bible verse teaches on this board, she is giving us a commentary on the verse, however, it is a bit of a stretch to say that she is usurping the role of a man in teaching.

 

[greenbaggins]

I appreciate your thoughts, and would agree with you regarding general theological conversation, or having one's wife provide feedback on a sermon, as both of those are solicited and informal. I'm less inclined to discuss theology with a woman who is being assertive and attempting to "school" me on a particular point, but that may still be the Neanderthal coming out in me.

I think where we differ is in regards to how we view the nature of a commentary. I have a difficult time, when defining some of the boundaries of this issue, regarding them as anything other than teaching authorities. They are works put out by "authorities" (since not just anyone will be published w/o proper credentials) to be used by the community of the Church for the purpose of teaching those within the Church. I wouldn't disregard them as authorities just because we are free to disregard faulty conclusions that may be found therein, since I have no problem with anyone disregarding a foolish statement that their pastor may make from the pulpit as well!

Now I realize that with some of the more left leaning academic works that their authors probably would not see their role as such, and I also make a slight distinction between one who is an "academic authority" and one who is an authority within the body of Christ, although the two roles will often overlap. However, coming from the position that these works are meant to teach the Church and that they are a teaching authority of sorts, I have a hard time using them. I also think that my hesitance in using them comes from a reluctance to see this practice continued to be recognized from within the Church. I do not want it passed by as a normal and continuing practice within Christendom (although I am sure that in our current age of pragmatism within both the Church and the academy that my boycott will have minimal effect). I actually have an easier time employing a commentary written by an unbelieving Jewish scholar who is a man, than I do by a believing Christian scholar who is a woman. At least he is writing in unbelief, while I feel that as a sister in Christ, the woman should have a little better understanding of what she is doing.

So in the end, I think our difference comes down to how we view the role of commentaries in the life of the Church, and not our position, in practice, regarding the conversational role of women in the Church. Feel free to correct me if I've missed something though.

Very interesting thoughts. We seem to agree that women are not to exercise authority in the church over men, but disagree as to whether commentaries constitute churchly authority. I think we can get at this question from a logical standpoint by using the argument of the beard: how many hairs does a man have to have before he has a beard? This fits right in with other PB discussions. If we say 1000, then is 999 a beard? Similarly with regard to a woman's "authority." How much authority does she have to have before it is too much? I would argue that the dividing line is in church office, and exercising the offices of church office. But this implies, does it not, that the woman is actually in the physical church, exercising these forbidden activities?

Now, I fully grant that a commentary written by a woman could be used in an inappropriate manner. But then, so could any commentary. You seem to see a commentary's authority as at least somewhat overlapping with churchly authority (though you clearly distinguish between them). I am not convinced of that point. What do we mean when we say "churchly authority?" Does it not have to be actual in-the-church authority being exercised? If it is in the home, it is not the same as the church (though there are many parallels). If it is in the workplace, it is not in the church. If it is in the academy, it is not the same as the church.

 

[Archlute]

I've got to head out for the day, so I'll just leave you with this - if a woman has even one hair on her chin I think that she has an obligation to shave, regardless of what one wants to call it

On a more serious note, I do recognize that I prefer a broader view of church authority than some Protestants, and see it extending throughout the relationships and interaction of believers and governing their teaching materials/conversations/etc outside of the worship service, as well as within. I may flesh that out later if desired, but I'm off for now.