Become As Little Children


In Matthew 18:1-6, Jesus gives some very important qualifications for those who would enter the kingdom of heaven. He would say, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Notice that this is something all who wish to enter that heavenly abode must do. But what did Jesus mean when he said that all who would enter heaven must become as little children? Surely he did not mean that those converted to him must act childish and immature. Rather he meant that those who are converted to him must be “childlike”. There is a vast difference from being “childish” and being “childlike”. With these thoughts in mind, let us look at three qualities of children:

1) One of the most outstanding qualities of a young child is his humble spirit. Young children have not yet learned what pride is. Those who wish to live for eternity in the presence of Almighty God must employ this same attitude of humility. As adults, we often trust in our own abilities all too much, refusing (because of stubborn pride) the help of those who truly can help us. This is all too often the case when it comes to salvation. We must turn to the One, and only One, who can save us–God. We must obey what He has set out for us to do (1 Samuel 15:22; Ecclesiastes 5:1; Hosea 6:6; Acts 4:19-20; Acts 5:29) . We must never think that we are “above” that which God would have us do. Without humility, we will never access the grace of the Almighty (James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:6). Is your pride more important than your soul? (Proverbs 16:18; Matthew 16:26).

2) A young child trusts with all his heart that his parents will be there for him in his time of need. A child trusts that his father will be there for him when he takes those first steps, or takes his first ride on his new bike. A child trusts that his mother will be there for him when he scrapes his knee, or when the other kids are picking on him. Those who would enter into that heaven must, too, manifest a simple, loving trust in the One who loves us and died for us. When God makes a promise, we should trust Him to see it through. When I do what He has told me through His word, I can rest assured and trust with all my heart that He will uphold what He has promised. I can also rest assured that He will be there for me in times of need, in times of rejoicing, in times of despair. God is faithful and will not forsake His children (Hebrews 13:5). Do you trust in God?

3) Have you ever seen two children engaged in a tussle, shouting to each other that they hate one another, only to see them five minutes later playing together as best friends, as if nothing ever happened. Children are so quick to forgive one another, while at the same time they are very quick to forget. Those who desire to live with God for eternity must manifest a similar attitude of forgiveness. The child of God must be willing to forgive those who repent of their wrongdoing if they wish to be forgiven of their sins by the Father (Matthew 18:21-22; Ephesians 4:32).

In closing, do we manifest the same forgiving attitude toward others that God manifests toward us (Matthew 6:14-15)?

Thanks so much to Pensacola Fencing Contractor for sponsoring my blog.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Become As Little Children

Does Galatians 6:10 Authorize The Church to Give to Non-Saints? Part 7

March 18th, 2003

I think I understand what your point is, but we simply disagree. The premise that you are setting forth is that in ALL cases when the scriptures address individuals, that means individuals ONLY and in ALL cases when the scriptures address the church, that means the church ONLY. For you (in your mind) to accept that Galatians 6:1-10 is speaking to churches would mean that you (in your mind) would have to prevent individuals from doing benevolence. (If that is not correct, let me know). However, the hermeneutic here is flawed. The assumption from which you begin is incorrect. You fail to realize that the church is made up of individual members and as such individuals must always be involved when the church acts corporately whether that is through worship, evangelism, or benevolence and that sometimes individuals can act on the behalf of the church outside the context of the assembly (such as an eldership making a decision for the church or the preacher writing an article for the newspaper on behalf of the church).

To say that Galatians 6:1-10 applies to individuals ONLY is simply not warranted from the text (that was why I went through the text again and emphasized the plural number in my last e-mail). There is absolutely no way to prove that Paul was only addressing Christians on an individual level ONLY. The “proof” that you set forth is really a by-product of the doctrine of saints-only. It goes something like this: “The Bible teaches that the church may give money from the treasury to saints only. Therefore, Galatians 6:10 MUST be talking about individuals and not the church. This must be true or else my doctrine is wrong. It is impossible for my doctrine to be wrong, therefore it must be true that Paul is ONLY addressing individuals.” You assume this to be true because your doctrine demands it, not because the text warrants it. This assumes the very thing that you must prove. And that kind of reasoning is not sufficient to establish truth.

Additionally, to say that the actions in Galatians 6:1-10 were “individual, not corporate” implies that Paul wrote the letter to the churches but did not give the churches any corporate action which they needed to take to correct the problems they faced from the Judaizing teachers. It puts one in the position of affirming that Paul wrote to the churches to correct a problem that was in the church, but that Paul had no expectation of the church to take any corrective action in that regard. Such a position contradicts the purpose for which Paul wrote the letter to the “churches” of Galatia. I would really like to hear your answer to this particular item.

You have got to at least acknowledge that the general thrust of the letter was written to the CHURCHES, not to individuals. As such, when Paul uses the plural number the FIRST thing that we must expect is that he is addressing the church. Addressing individuals would, therefore, be an exception to the general thrust of the epistle and must be PROVEN to be addressed to individuals ONLY. So for your case to stand, you must prove that Galatians 6:1-10 can ONLY be addressed to individuals. It just is not sufficient to say, “I think,” or “It seems to me” or “It appears to be this way;” it must be PROVEN that individuals ONLY were being addressed in Galatians 6:1-10. This is impossible to do given the plural nature of the verbs in that chapter.

My argument from 1 Corinthians 11 is that just as the plurality of the verbs in 1 Corinthians 11 make that corporate action so also the plurality of the verb in Galatians 6:1-10 makes that corporate action. An inspired writer does NOT have to use the word “together” every single time he wants to indicate corporate action. The same elements in 1 Corinthians 11 that make the action there corporate are found in Galatians as well.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Does Galatians 6:10 Authorize The Church to Give to Non-Saints? Part 7

Commandment Keeping

There are those in the religious world today who ridicule the idea of keeping commandments. They claim that keeping God’s commandments have nothing to do with our salvation today. If someone objects and says that we must keep God’s commandments to be saved, the charge of legalism is leveled against him. Is it true that keeping God’s commandments has nothing to do with salvation? Are we legalists because we demand that those who follow Christ keep his commandments? Let’s examine these questions in light of the New Testament scriptures.

Often, Jesus Himself is cited as one who criticized the Pharisees for being commandment keepers. However, such was not the case. We should note well that Jesus never condemned anyone for keeping God’s commandments. Jesus, however, did condemn the Pharisees for placing their own commandments above God’s! This is an entirely different situation. Matthew 15:1-9 is one such instance. Jesus confronted the Pharisees in regard to transgressing God’s command to keep their own tradition (15:3). He said that they had made God’s commandment of none effect by their tradition (15:6). Then He says that they in fact have taught for doctrine their own commandments, the commandments of men (15:9). Keeping such commandments should not be placed into the same category as keeping God’s commandments. To equate the desire to keep God’s commandments with the desire to keep man’s commandments in place of God’s commandments is to pervert the words of Jesus and entirely miss the point. Jesus expected others to keep God’s commandments. It is because these Pharisees had set aside God’s commandments, that Jesus’ anger was kindled against them.

In contrast to ridiculing commandment keeping, Jesus Himself preached it! In Matthew 19:17, Jesus told one asking about obtaining eternal life to keep God’s commandments if he would enter into life. The man asked what he lacked and Jesus added another commandment, namely, to go sell all that he had to the poor and follow Jesus (19:21). In John 14:15 Jesus said to the apostles, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Loving Jesus is dependent upon keeping His commandments. To say that we love Jesus, yet fail to keep his commandments is hypocrisy at best and outright lying at worst. Jesus reiterates in John 15:10 “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” Note two things about this scripture. First, Jesus equates keeping commandments with abiding in His love. When you note John 14:15 (that you can’t love without keeping the commandments) along with John 15:10 (that you can’t keep the commandments without abiding in love), one gains a very firm conclusion: we can love Jesus if and only if we keep his commandments. But second, what is even more remarkable about John 15:10 is that Jesus himself is a commandment keeper. He abides in the love of the Father through keeping the Father’s commandments. Here is a one-two knockout for those who claim that commandment keeping has nothing to do with salvation.

The apostle John explains further in his first epistle just exactly what the relationship between commandment keeping and salvation is. In 1 John 2:3, 4 we read, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” The simple conclusion is that one cannot come to know God without keeping the commandments. If you don’t know God, you can’t be saved (2 Thess. 1:8). The apostle John comments further in 1 John 5:2, 3 “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” We cannot even love God without keeping God’s commandments. In fact, John defines love for God in exactly these terms. He says, “This is the love of God.” Let we forget, love for God is the first and greatest commandment. Loving our neighbor is like this commandment, but ultimately comes second (Matthew 22:37-39). My relationship with God always takes precedence over my relationship with other people. This means that I must be concerned about keeping God’s commandments.

The bottom line is ultimately this. Those who ridicule commandment keeping, ridicule Jesus himself, for He was a commandment keeper (John 15:10). Those who ridicule commandment keepers, ridicule the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit was only promised to those who kept Jesus commandments (John 14:15-17). And those who ridicule commandment keepers, ridicule God the Father because we can neither know Him or love Him without doing such (1 John 2:3; 5:2). Such has nothing to do with being a legalist; and has everything to do with our being saved. So let’s keep those commandments and show God that we truly do love Him!

Thanks so much to the Memphis Concrete Company for sponsoring my blog.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Commandment Keeping

Genesis 8:20-22

When God specified what the ark was to be loaded with He provided for the worship needs of Noah and his family. Clean animals were required and so they were available when Noah landed.

This sacrifice is a very significant one. The earth had just been cleansed from idolatry and violence and every sin imaginable. At this point, as Noah makes the sacrifice, every human on the planet stands right with God. I don’t know whether Noah knew that the sacrifice he made was a shadow of things to come, but it was. He was looking forward to Christ in this sacrifice. Looking forward as God did in Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

This point marks a new beginning in the history of mankind. The line of Messiah is set. He will not come from the line of Cain. He will come from the line of Seth of whom Noah is descended. The Lord is pleased with the sacrifice of Noah.

We need to note the Lord’s promise. The Lord is not going to strike down the inhabitants of the earth again until the earth is destroyed. He has assured the success of His plan and no further measures of this kind will be needed. When I was in elementary school my classmates and I went through drills with regard to what to do in case of nuclear attack. Questions were asked all around the planet as to whether a potential nuclear war would be the end of life for this planet. The answer was right there in God’s book. “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” The promise for mankind is in the harvest.

Our text also has something to say about the doctrine of total hereditary depravity (which teaches that we are born in sin and wholly depraved). Verse 21 refutes this idea with this phrase, “for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” This is a far cry from being born sinful.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Genesis 8:20-22

Vision Problems?

How is your “good eye”?

In Matthew 6:22 NIV the Lord said, “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light.” Without understanding the Hebraic context in which Jesus is speaking…we are missing His teaching.

In case you are wondering whether or not you have a “good eye,” then read on and see for yourself.

Proverbs 22:9 NASB tells us, “He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.” The actual Hebrew text says. “He who has a good eye is blessed because he gives bread to the poor.”

What about the evil eye?

Proverbs 28:22 NASB tells us, “A man with an evil eye hastens after wealth and does not know that want will come upon him.”

Jesus, who always upholds the Hebrew Scriptures, is reaffirming the necessity for generosity in life. We are not to be greedy or avaricious. We work, we receive, and we are blessed. We give to others.

We assume this is our money or material wealth. Not always. Money might be the easiest of God’s gifts to give. But perhaps it isn’t always the best for the person we are helping.
A Jewish medieval treatise (Orchot Tzaddikim) says, “There are three kinds of generosity; generosity of money; generosity of one’s body; and generosity of one’s wisdom” (also see article).

This fits into the Christian mindset as well. Generosity need not always be demonstrated with money. Sharing one’s ideas, talents, and knowledge; assembling with others in worship and work; taking time to be with a sick one; being a sympathetic listener….is showing our “good eye.” These are things money can’t buy.

So……“How’s your eyesight?”

If you aren’t sure, visit the Divine Ophthalmologist for a check-up.

May all of God’s people have 20/20 vision!

—Barbara Hyland, guest writer

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Vision Problems?

Paganisms Promises?

Witches, warlocks, bards, movies, and druids: you’re probably thinking that Halloween is over for this year, so why the strange list? Well, according to Reuters news service, pagans are celebrating Samhain, the Celtic new year, and “a time for remembering dead ancestors before the darkness of winter” explained one pagan priestess. According to the article, paganism is on the rise in Britain where they claim to have nearly 100,000 adherents to the religion. The same priestess explained the phenomena: “People are not finding enough insight with a Christian God. Christianity is all about having rewards when you are dead, druids are all about living life fully and reaching out.” Does Christianity offer insight? Is it merely about getting rewards after one is dead? Does being a Christian mean that you have to have a dull and boring life?

Christianity offers insight which no other religion can offer, namely, God’s insight. Of course, paganism doesn’t believe in one God, per se; paganism believes in the existence of multiple gods. Every living and non-living thing has a “spirit” in paganism, and these become the things that are worshipped. The same Reuters article quoted a pagan gathering chant: “We call upon the powers of the south, the inner fire of the sun and the island of fire. We seek the blessing of the great stag in the heat of the chase. Spirits of the south join us now in this our sacred circle. Hail and welcome.” Does paganism have insight that Christianity doesn’t have? The American Heritage dictionary defines “insight” as follows: “The capacity to discern the true nature of a situation; penetration.” How can one have more insight (discern the true nature of a situation) than the one who created everything, to begin with? When you have a question regarding the operation of your car, do you consult the “spirits” of the motor, doors, windows, and wheels? Or do you read the operator’s manual, written by the manufacturer? From what source does true insight come? Really all that paganism does is replace God with a system of idolatry that has no insight to offer other than what one person feels, and that is no insight at all. The prophet Habakkuk wrote, “Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach!” (Habakkuk 2:19).

Is Christianity merely about getting rewards after one is dead? Are we just wrapped up in some big cosmic game show so that if we play the game right we get the prizes at the end? That seems to be what is being suggested and it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Heaven isn’t a reward, per se; it’s the continuation of life. Paganism claims to value life fully but doesn’t understand that there is no value in life when sin has marred one’s soul. Sin takes life away by enslaving individuals to its mindless grasp (2 Peter 2:19, 20) and dumping them into eternal death (Revelation 21:8). Jesus said, “I come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). True life; real life; eternal life comes from Jesus and walking in His footsteps, not from some personified spiritualization of rocks.

Does being a Christian mean that you have to live a boring and dull life? I suppose that depends upon what one considers boring and dull. If you find it exciting to talk to trees and worship boulders, then I guess Christianity might be boring! However, if one is discussing whether or not Christians are allowed to enjoy the benefits of life, the answer is, “of course!” God made the world and all the things that are within it for man. He has provided “fruitful seasons filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). He has blessed Christians richly with every blessing that he can provide (Ephesians 1:3). He has given all things for us to eat if we receive them with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:3). He has the blessed man with friendship, companionship, and wonderful relationships (Ephesians 5:31). He is the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). He has given us freely all good things to enjoy (1 Timothy 6:17). He’s told us that all things are ours (1 Corinthians 3:21). And promised blessings not only in this life but in the world to come (Mark 10:30). With all of these things at our disposal, what cause does anyone have to claim that the Christian can’t have a full, rich, wonderful, and blessed life now? The problem is not that Christianity can’t provide these things. The problem is that most “Christians” don’t know what true Christianity is, much fewer pagans!

The Reuter’s news service article ends with a story about a man who went to one of these pagan “stone circles” and chipped off a piece of the stone to take with him. About a year later, he mailed the chipped-off piece back to the owners of the “rock circle.” In his letter, he told them to glue it back onto the stone as it had only brought him “bad luck.” The same mentality that caused him to value such, ended up causing him to condemn it. What a fickle standard by which to judge reality. Paganism offers no true insight to life; it has no value for this life, and can provide no lasting life beyond the grave. It is merely another excuse on the part of man to do that which is right in his own eyes (Deuteronomy 12:8).

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Paganisms Promises?

Reviewing “Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church”


Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, from the series Sources of Early Christian Thought, is a terrific contribution to any library of biblical interpretation texts. The editor and translator, Karlfried Froehllich, has organized the material into ten chapters. The first chapter is an extended introduction. This is followed by translations of texts ranging from the pre-Christian Rabbis, to Origen, to Irenaeus and concluding with Tyconius.

The most valuable portion of this text is the certainly the Introduction. Within the Introduction, Froehlich provides a review of the manner in which different groups have sought to understand and interpret the Holy Scriptures. Beginning with the Jews, he reviews the Jewish canon and Jewish hermeneutics. Following this, he takes up a review of three primary witnesses to methods of Jewish interpretation: the Rabbis, the Qumran community, and the Diaspora. Though this portion, in particular, is a little dated (the author refers to the council of Jamnia prior to the work by Lewis which disputes certain assumptions), it is nonetheless quite helpful because it provides a glimpse into how these formative groups viewed and treated their Holy Scriptures. Specifically, Froehlich describes with some clarity the purpose of the Rabbis and how they were seeking to use the Scriptures to help solve legal questions and facilitate daily living; and how the Qumran community was preoccupied with an eschatological approach and the Diaspora were influenced strongly by their Hellenistic culture. While these groups do not provide the modern Christian with a definitive method for approaching the Old Testament, they do however cast a great spotlight on a specific principle which will be addressed momentarily.

In treating the first century and first generation Christian interpreters, the author seeks to highlight the importance that allegory and specifically typology played—particularly in reference to Paul. However, the most important point of this section is taken from the following statement: “Emerging as a community independent of Judaism, Christians of many backgrounds now started to appropriate the Jewish Scriptures as thesir own, being taught to read them as a hidden witness to God’s new covenant with humankind in the Lord Jesus Christ” (p.10). This seems to be particularly important for the modern Christian in that it provides an example to follow emulate—taking ownership of the Scriptures and seeking to make them your own, relative to your own culture and circumstances.

There are essentially two principles that one can easily understand by reviewing the pre-Christian communities and the leading thinkers of the first four centuries are really quite simple: first, it was largely dictated by their culture and circumstances that the group was facing. Second, there is clearly not a divinely inspired method with which the modern interpreter can grab hold of with a great deal of confidence.

Beginning with the second century, the great diversity of opinions on and approaches to the Scriptures began to reveal itself. So much so, that a dual approach began to develop that was based largely on geography. It is in many respects surprising to find the great diversity that existed then. It is equally alarming today to find the lack of appreciation, if not fear, for diversity among some groups of Christians. For that matter, that same negative attitude and approach towards diversity in interpretative methods was cemented generations earlier. For the modern Christian, the question remains: how to deal with the difference of opinions and approaches to interpreting and understanding the Scriptures. For now, these questions remain unanswered. However, one thing can be made certain, the clarity that many people find comfort in is actually much more cloudy than they may realize.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on Reviewing “Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church”


Over time, it would seem as if some of the more recent interpretations with regard to the Adam and Eve story, recovering favorable accounts of women in leadership roles, and clarifying notes in Galatians 5:13–18 would correct the reading lens for Scriptures where Paul and Peter defer to the law and tradition with respect to women’s behavior and roles, such as in 1 Peter, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy.  Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley sum it up well by saying, “Paul understands freedom not as the opportunity to pursue one’s own interests but to be even more at the service of others.”  The focus has for too long been on order in the church, instead of why the order in the church is important – if anything is going to be a stumbling block for someone to come to know Christ, it certainly should not be the body of Christ.  Not only do women still need to temper their freedom with consideration and respect for culturally accepted behavior so as not to be a stumbling block to men, but men need to do the same so as not to be a stumbling block to women.  The fact ought to be recognized that cultural appropriateness is not defined for all times by the Greco-Roman culture and Jewish law and tradition of those times.  Instead, it is defined by the norms associated with that culture.  As more join the voice to have one set of membership privileges and allow the Holy Spirit to determine giftedness for roles, the more likely the concept will be attributed with increasing validity and influence.  The pressure to consider this perspective for the Churches of Christ as well as for other religious groups with the same restrictive policy will grow.  If and when the one set of membership privileges becomes the pervasive culture in American churches, transitioning to this perspective may become a matter of necessity of a congregation’s survival.  Now is the time to exchange restrictions for women for freedom for all in serving the cause of Christ.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on CONCLUSION



One of the passages in Scripture that receives a great deal of attention in supporting freedom in selecting roles is Galatians 3:26–28, which includes what some have called the pre-Pauline baptismal formula used during baptism:  “…for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.  As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.  Galatians was a letter authored by Paul sometime between the late 40s to early 50s to the churches in Galatia.  Apparently, sometime after Paul’s evangelism in this area, other Christian missionaries had impacted these churches with the idea “…that people’s access to Christ required that they obey the Mosaic law, or at least some of its major requirements, including circumcision.”  Paul’s letter was mainly to assert that “… the life of God’s people is now meant to be Christ-centered and not Torah-centered.”  He explains that the law had served its purpose as a disciplinarian (Gal 3:25), which was meant to be temporary until faith (Jesus Christ) had come (Gal 3:26).   Paul then reminds them of their baptism in Galatians 3:27.  Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans expand on this by stating that “new believers took off their old clothes when entering the waters of baptism and put on new garments after coming up out of the waters.  This symbolized the reality that the believers had cast off their old lives and were now new creations in Christ, alive to a new kind of existence.”  Paul continues in Galatians 3:28 by clarifying that all are one in Christ:  Jews, Greeks, slave, free, male, and female.  Although the verses in Galatians 3:25–27 seem to have alignment between various theologians, who normally might have points of disagreement, Galatians 3:28 has been the subject of various polemics.  

One of the major proponents that this verse has implications of equality in women’s roles

is Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.  She states that “the legal-societal and cultural-religious male privileges were no longer valid for Christians…; it allowed not only gentiles and slaves but also women to exercise leadership functions within the missionary movement.” Dale Martin goes a step further by stating that “… it is misleading, from a historical point of view, to read Galatians 3:28 as addressing equality.” He explains that over the centuries, it has had significant shifts in its interpretation.  More specifically he states that throughout the ancient church it referred to “…the abolition of the sexes, to ascetic asexuality,…and the overcoming of the division in unity.”  Regarding Piper and Gruden, even though they concede on men and women being joint heirs in Jesus Christ, they deny that it should affect social roles.  This is in light of 1 Peter 3:1–7 that includes verbiage regarding women submitting to their husbands as well as verbiage including the concept of being joint heirs in Jesus Christ:  “In other words, Peter saw no conflict between the ‘neither-male-nor-female’ principle regarding our inheritance and the headship-submission principle regarding our roles.  Galatians 3:28 does not abolish gender-based roles established by God and redeemed by Christ.”   This interpretation omits the frame of context expressed in 1 Peter 3:1, “Wives, in the same way [as slaves to their masters, and as Christ to his abusers], accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives’ conduct,…”  Again, a recurring theme was the cause of Christ.  The reason for the submissive role or balancing act was due to the male sensitivity to women, especially their wives, behaving in a manner that was counter-cultural for the secular social roles of women of that time.

Gruden, in a separate work, seems to present a more encouraging view of Galatians 3:26–29.  In the process, however, he seems to be unaware that the implications of what he is saying is counter to the point that he thinks that he is making, which is to state that these verses should have no impact on women’s social roles.  He states that “to say that we are ‘one’ means that we are united, that there should be no factions or divisions among us, and there should be no sense of pride and superiority or jealousy and inferiority between these groups that viewed themselves as so distinct in the ancient world.”  What he does not realize is that those kind words as well as pointing to creation order, instead intelligence or ability, do not adequately camouflage a superiority-inferiority dynamic that he states that should not occur.  Schüssler Fiorenza would probably refer to this superiority-inferiority dynamic between the two gender roles as a “…a social construct of oppressive power relations.” These would be the same oppressive relations involved in much of the past and present “legitimate” atrocities previously mentioned.  

The irony of these polemics seems to be that a passage in Scripture seeming to be about a lesson to the Galatians about liberty from the law and welcomed lack of a hierarchical status in Christ has been countered with references to the law and creation order.  Of all the counter-strategies used to discourage, these two would seem like the two most obvious to avoid, and, yet, they are still used and somehow deemed reasonable and valid arguments by many.

Posted in Blogging | Comments Off on SEARCHING THE FORMATIVE TEXTS: FREEDOM


There are three keys that will be helpful in proceeding towards the most accurate interpretation and understanding of these texts. First, there is no worthwhile evidence which suggests that the two different texts represent instructions for separate assemblies—Paul was, in fact, referring to one general or generic assembly in each of these passages. Referring to the two passages in chapter eleven (11:2-16 and 11:17-34), Paul does not use his customary Περὶ δὲ (which would indicate a response to a written question or concern) in either verse two or verse seventeen. This would seem to indicate that he is responding to information that was shared by some of his visitors from Corinth. In 11:2 Paul praises them for maintaining the traditions; while in 11:17 he says that he will not praise or commend them. The use of the word παραδοσισ in verses two and twenty-three connect these two passages together under a single theme. After discussing the troubling idea of pagan worship in 10:14-22, Paul gives his attention to proper Christian worship in 11:2-14:40. Because there is such a clear symmetry, and because there are no breaks in thought or context, the appropriate conclusion here is that Paul is referring to the same general assembly.

Further, the content of the text assumes that Paul is referring to a public and mixed assembly. Paul is focusing on male and female relationships within the context of praying and prophesying (activities that take place during the Corinthian worship). Prophesying is never intended to be a private experience but for the entire gathered a church. It is something that happens “through believers in the context of the church where prophecy may be evaluated” (14:23-29). Additionally, 11:16 clearly demonstrates that this was a concern for the entire assembly, not merely a portion of it.

Also, if in 11:2-16 (where Paul affirms women praying and prophesying), he was supposedly referring to a divided assembly, then why would it be necessary for Paul to instruct women to pray and prophesy with their heads covered. If there were no men present in this assembly then there would be no reason to honor her husband or father by keeping her head covered. For Paul, the issue of head-covering is based solely on public propriety and scruples (i.e the honor/shame phenomenon). Simply put, the restriction Paul places on the women is “coherent only in a public setting,”

Second, there is no reason to conclude that Paul would ever forbid in chapter fourteen that which he has just permitted in chapter eleven. It is difficult enough to entertain the idea that Paul would contradict himself in the first place, however, to do so in such proximity and on such a weighty matter makes the idea preposterous. As much as Interpretation #5 may appear to be reasonable (perhaps even the most reasonable), it must be rejected because it cannot adequately answer the tension between chapters eleven and fourteen.

The third interpretive key is that any interpretation which suggests that Paul does not authorize women to pray and prophecy in chapter eleven ought to be rejected as fundamentally flawed. First of all, there is no hint, or evidence, of any disapproval of Paul’s comments concerning women’s participation as prophets and prayer leaders. In fact, it is worthwhile to draw our attention back to Acts 2:17-18 where Peter clearly expressed an expectation for a female prophetic voice. Also, Paul’s leading comments which introduce this passage reveal a total approval of the actions of the Corinthians. He was commending them for the way in which they maintained the traditions that had been handed down to them. Clearly, among those traditions was the active practice of prophecy—from both males and females. Paul’s only corrective was for them to ensure that they adhered to the cultural decorum of honoring their heads.

1 Corinthians 11:10 provides additional noteworthy evidence. When Paul directs men to pray and prophecy he says that a man “ought not to cover his head” (11:7). However, when he directs women on how to pray and prophecy he does not mention covering their heads. Instead, he says that ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς (they should have authority on their head). Why the difference in the language? Why not just say that men should not cover their and women are to cover their head. This interesting caveat should not be dismissed lightly. In fact, it seems to be worth an extra measure of scrutiny. The principle word, authority, is εξουσια; and it is in the active voice, not the passive. If it were in the passive then it ought to be translated and interpreted to indicate that while wearing a covering she wears the sign of her husband or father’s authority. The key is that the authority does not belong to her. Instead, since it is in the active voice the translation and interpretation changes to describe her as the one having the authority. This is certainly an awkward and challenging translation. Help is found by looking at Paul’s other uses of authority in 1 Corinthians. Of the nine times, Paul uses this word (in 1 Corinthians) eight are clearly in reference to the person having the right or authority to make a choice. For example, between 9:4-9:18 Paul uses the word five times referring to his rights as an Apostle. In the same manner, it seems that Paul is stating that the woman who is properly covered has the right to pray and prophecy in the assembly.

Assuming that there are no additional (viable) points to consider and that all the information has been brought forth by the literature, then we are at something of an impasse. While some of these options seem to have more validity than others, it is clear that each potential interpretive choice carries objections and difficulties that cannot be answered—at least not fully answered. An observation worth noting at this point is that any conclusion reached must be approached with caution and not a great deal of confidence. To do otherwise idles on foolish, considering that the learned scholars that have weighed in on the issue are not close to an agreement (they can’t even narrow the choices to three or fewer).

This having been said, the fundamental challenge with these two texts is that if 14:34-35 are taken literally or at face value, there is a stark contradiction with 11:5, where Paul clearly authorizes women to speak (in the form of prophesying and praying). If we accept that Paul did indeed write these texts, then there must be an explanation for 14:34-35. In other words, he could not have literally meant that 1) women are not permitted to speak in the assembly and 2) that was the normal expectation for all the churches of the saints. At this point, we return to the aforementioned problem that no interpretation distinguishes itself apart from the others. This leaves the modern interpreter with the daunting task of identifying the interpretation that has been picked apart the least by the scholars— not exactly the most promising method of scholarship.

One option remains (which I, Jeremy endorse): that the text in 14:34-35 is an interpolation by a post-Pauline editor. It should be said immediately that this interpretation is taken with a great deal of trepidation and concern. What follows are the three “factors” that led to this endorsement. It is conceded from the start that each of these following is subject to valid scrutiny.

  1. The text in 14:26-40 makes more sense without vss. 34-35. Without these verses, the passage has a greater flow and cohesiveness. With them included it appears choppy and disjointed.
  2. Without a certain understanding on what Paul would have meant, we are left with an obvious contradiction to 11:5. As has been demonstrated, any attempt to explain this contradiction is met, at best, with difficult arguments to reconcile; and at worse, the interpreter is left performing biblical gymnastics which lacks textual integrity and further distorts the understanding of the text.
  3. 14:34-35 contains language and idioms that are foreign to confirmed Pauline texts. For example, the manner in which Paul referred to the law has previously been discussed.

At the most basic level, the one certainty which can be concluded from this study is that to use 14:34-35 as a proof-text to prohibit women from utilizing their spiritual gifts in the assembly is misguided and actually limits the involvement of the Holy Spirit.

With regard to 1 Timothy 2:11–14, in John Piper and Wayne Gruden’s work, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:  A Response to Evangelical Feminism, they advocate that this text is clearly supportive regarding the restriction of women’s roles and state, “We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonor the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership.”  In order to do this, one would need to make a few interpretive decisions.  This is the actual text: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”  The first interpretive decision is that the creation story was a historical event.  The second one is that the first born’s higher status was not a cultural tradition but a God-ordained higher status that should still be honored.  The third one is that “authority” in 1 Timothy 2:12 meant the twenty-first century meaning of authority, and fourth, with regard to women leading or teaching men that “deacon” with regard to Phoebe in Romans 16:1 meant deaconess, not deacon.  

Regarding the Adam and Eve story, Steven L. McKenzie has suggested that the Adam and Eve story in Genesis was an attempt to offer an explanation of assigned gender descriptions and roles in society by stating that man was created first and then woman as a companion.  He refers to it as an explanation rather than a historical account since “…it is unlikely that the story in Genesis 2–3 was ever intended to be understood as an actual set of events.  The symbolic nature of the story would have been clear to its original audience from the names of its characters.  Adam and Eve were not proper names in ancient Israel.”  Adam’s character was symbolic of humankind for all men, and Eve’s character was symbolic for all women.  The implication here is that the order of creation was important.  The first born was traditionally favored and more privileged.  Although the intent of this explanation might have been more of a description of why things were the way that they were, some have interpreted this explanation as a prescription of the way things should be, which was what was offered in an ancient Greco-Roman era.  

Concerning the word “authority,” in 1Timothy 2:12, it is derived from the word, authentic, which would imply an aggressive means of taking over or dominating.  This would seem to be inappropriate and disrespectful behavior, regardless of whether or not someone was male or female, and regardless of ancient or modern times, but especially within ancient times. 1Timothy 2:12 seems to imply that women and men were being taught within the same room by a man and that a woman might have previously taken over a class from a man.  Since men at that time were very sensitive to being offended by women, it seems as if Paul had to constantly remind the women of etiquette based in the traditional law or culture of patriarchy in order for them to be considerate of the men’s feelings.  Even though social roles within the church were supposed to be based upon charismatic giftedness, Paul’s expectation was that they would temper their freedom with the etiquette infused with the same law and tradition from which they had been set free.  One of the main drivers of this balancing act,  Schüssler Fiorenza asserts, was that “Christian mission caused social unrest because it admitted wives and slaves as well as daughters and sons into the house-church, even when the paterfamilias was still pagan and had not converted to Christianity.”   This type of balancing act or Pauline etiquette was not exclusive to the relationships between women and men.  Other examples are found in Acts 16:3, when Paul has Timothy circumcised prior to spending time with the Jews, in 1 Corinthians 8: 9–13, when Paul instructs them not to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols if it would cause another with weaker faith to stumble, and in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, when Paul acknowledges his freedom in Christ but chooses to temper that with becoming like those he desires to be saved.

Regarding “deacon” versus “deaconess,” Schüssler Fiorenza states that “Phoebe is characterized by the masculine form of the title diakonos [deacon].”  This would be as opposed to the feminine, deaconess, whose role was to minister to women.  What seems to support this view of the masculine deacon is that the same word, diakonos, is also used by Paul to describe himself (Eph 3:7; Col 1:23), to describe Tychicus, a male minister in the Lord (Eph 6:21), to describe Epaphrus, a male minister in the Lord (Col 1:7), to describe Timothy, a male servant expected to instruct the brothers and sisters (1 Tim 4:6), to describe the criteria for deacons (1 Tim 3:8), as well as the same word to address the saints, bishops, and deacons in his greeting to the Philippians (Phil 1:1).