It is a good thing for us that God answers His own question, who can understand that deceptive and desperately sick heart of man?

His answer is our comfort. “I the LORD search the heart and test the mind…” This means that even though we battle between good and evil within ourselves; even though we cannot take the greatest confidence in our own intellects, consciences, and dutifulness; still God sees us clearly. God can help us. He can take what is broken and repair it.

So pray for clarity as you work at interpreting God’s Word. Pray for sincerity as you are faced with difficult passages. Pray for contrition. Pray for transparency. Pray for stamina. Pray to be thorough. Pray to handle God’s Word with utmost respect. This will be imperative to fulfill your duties as an elder in Christ’s Church.

And when you are uncertain as to the meaning of the text, keep studying. Keep searching. Keep asking teachers and theologians your questions. Never fake it. Jesus was known for asking marvelous questions at a tender age.1

These are the words of the prophet, Jeremiah. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? ‘I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.’”1

What do you need to know about yourself? You are selfish and sly. It is very likely that you will not want to obey God in all things and that such a poor condition of the heart, will cause you to read Scripture in a way that allows you to disobey.

Commenting on his film, Schindler’s List, which is a movie based on the atrocities of the Holocaust, Steven Spielberg suggested that people are good by nature, and have to learn to hate. The bible, however, does not support this claim. It is the reverse. Man is born sinful by nature and has to learn to do good.2

The difficult question is, how do you know when you are lying to yourself? If we believe the Bible to be true, then we must conclude that millions upon millions of people have chosen self-deception over truth. How? They have run headlong into false religions, humanistic philosophies and all manner of false teaching that denies God’s good Word and His Gospel. As Romans 1:25 says, “…They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!”

This suggests the people are mini-tyrants. We think we’re kings! We think we get to decide right and wrong, truth and error, value and worthlessness. We have made ourselves out to be gods.

Thankfully, when God rattles our cage and implants Himself and His Word in us, there comes a constitutional change. We are born again. We become different. However, sin has not been completely eradicated. It still resides in us.

But now we have choices to make in order to grow and mature by setting our hearts on God, or to continue to play around on our tiny thrones and set our minds on the flesh (sinful nature). The deception of our heart is still quite common and much time and love of God is required to mortify the sin in us.

You can see how that old man might get in the way of Scripture interpretation. Can’t you? The old man will look to be influenced by “bible interpreters” that allow him to be comfortable in his own skin. Or, he might simply remain uniformed by avoiding reading passages altogether.3

Paul wrote to young Timothy, the Evangelist. Timothy was tasked with setting churches in proper order. He would teach and assist in establishing church officers. Timothy served as a go-between of the Apostles and Prophets to the various church congregations.

In one of two letters to Timothy, Paul wrote, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”1

I was playing catch with my oldest daughter the other day, with gloves and a softball. She is thirty-something. We talked about the various issues and challenges of life. The conversation traversed down various paths including: phobias, prescription drugs, medicine, science, religion, DNA, philosophy, psychology and relationships. It is pretty typical for the two of us to “run around in the woods” of conversation that way. What is not typical is to play catch; she happily just purchased a glove for such occasions.

In any case, I told her that my absolute rule, that I will never give up for finding perfect peace is this: God’s Spirit and God’s Word is all I need to be complete before Him. Plus nothing. My forgiveness, along with all ethical behavior, choices, burdens, confidences, insufficiencies, etc. are going to be met by Him and His Word. His Word (Scripture) and Power (Holy Spirit) are sufficient for me. If they are not sufficient then I am in trouble.

Furthermore, God intends good things for me if I obey His Word (some might call those good things “human flourishing”). Alternatively, I can expect troubles to grow up like weeds in my earthly garden if I disobey His Word. This is the regular teaching of Scripture.2

Granted, human flourishing might be the blessings of God produced in me by suffering and persecution. And, it could be, that the material blessings of God get corrupted by my own greed and pride. Nonetheless, both visible and invisible blessings and curses are a biblical reality and a consequence of how God deals with His creatures.3

You and I might not be able to interpret accurately how God is dealing with our behavior, but this does not mean that visible blessings and curses can never be counted. Certainly, the LORD wanted the Israelites to consider the signs both of his blessings and curses as consequences for their behavior.

Moses said, “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the LORD your God.Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out…But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field. Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.” [Deuteronomy 28:1-5; 15-19]

All of this to say, “Respecting God’s Word is paramount.” Nothing can get in the way of what He has said through His human authors. And proper respect requires the Holy Spirit’s work in us to understand and obey His Word.

It is the reader’s work (your work) to get to the bottom of the things the author is trying to communicate. What is his intention? He has written a message, presumably with words formed into sentences containing: subjects, predicates, direct objects, nouns, verbs, adjectives and the like.

Some writers are clearer than others. They are easier to understand. These are the ones who often make reading more enjoyable. Nevertheless, the reader is never given permission to misinterpret the meaning of the writer. Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder! The writer needs to be respected. And you do that by interpreting his work objectively, and not according to your subjective whims.

Ultimately, because we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, every interpreter must agree with the biblical writer, for the writer is the one God inspired to write. It is improper, and denies the objectivity of the Word of God, to add our thoughts into the text or ignore the writer’s original intent.

Subscribe now

His words caught me by surprise. He made the statement during a conversation we were having about men and women and the different roles they played in the Church. We both thought that men were supposed to shoulder the burden of the office of elder and deacon. We both felt clear, “Scripture said so.” But I wasn’t about to agree with him regarding women wearing hats in church. That seemed “dated” to me.

I am sixty years old, which marks me as one of those who can still remember when all the women in church wore hats to worship. It was the norm back in the early 1960’s. And, truth be told, most people would have assumed that Paul’s teaching from 1 Corinthians 11 was the cause of it. What did Paul write?

1Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. 2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

I had to admit the more I read the passage and Paul’s reasons for “head coverings” the more my hermeneutical rules called me to account. If my greatest concern is to respect the writer’s intention, then what did Paul intend? Did he want women to wear some type of symbol on their heads? Or at least wives? And, if so, then when and where? Everywhere? Or only during worship in the divine assembly? Also, if so, then were women (or wives) required to cover their heads only when they prayed and prophesied? And what has long hair got to do with it? And why should it matter to the angels?

And what is Paul saying to men (or husbands)? Is it inappropriate for a man to pray and prophesy with a hat on? Today, you still frequently see men remove their hats when a group of them begin to pray.

Share Aspire to be an Elder

I recently hosted a training day for customers at our Gappa Security Solutions company’s location. Three men attended from an area school district. None of them spoke of their faith, if they had any at all. And I didn’t ask. However, when it was time for lunch, I told them that it was our habit to thank the Lord for the meal. None of them objected. And when I began to pray, one of the attendees immediately took off his hat (that he’d been wearing the entire morning). This told me that he had some experience in a Christian culture.

I confess, as a man, I will not wear a hat when I pray; and that is whether I’m in Church worship or praying anywhere. But is it because of an unbiblical and strained tradition I grew up under, or did the Apostle and the Christian Church hold to ideals and practices that still hold water with God and therefore convict me?

Determining this is a burden for each of us who claim to want to understand and obey God’s Word. Proper bible interpretation is our task. And in regard to head coverings we ultimately must return to Paul. What was his intention? Toward what was he driving? Why did he want the women to cover their heads with a symbol, while he wanted men to keep theirs uncovered?

My brother, Mitch, stuck me with a text that haunted me. I did not want to be mocked or scoffed at because I believed a teaching no one else believed. But as I tried to debunk the need to obey Paul’s instruction, I realized that commentators throughout history agreed with my brother. They were even unapologetic. Consider just a few:1

Tertullian (approx. AD 155–225), a prolific writer and apologist from Carthage, North Africa, wrote the earliest and longest defense of head covering that we possess today. He said, “I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter—let me address you according to the names proper to your years—veil your head.”

St. Augustine (AD 354–430), bishop of Hippo (modern-day Algeria), wrote theological books, including The City of God and Confessions which are still widely read today. He wrote, “It is not becoming, even in married women, to uncover their hair, since the apostle commands women to keep their heads covered.”

Also according to Augustine, “It is not as though one part of humanity belongs to God as its author and another to darkness, as some claim. Rather the part that has the power of ruling and the part that is ruled are both from God. Thus the apostle says, “A man certainly should not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but a woman is the glory of man.”

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), an Italian Dominican friar, priest, and influential philosopher and theologian, is considered by the Catholic Church to be its greatest theologian and one of the thirty-three Doctors of the Church, wrote “A veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. Therefore, the man existing under God should not have a covering over his to show he is immediately subject to God; but the woman should wear a covering to show that besides God she is naturally subject to another.”

John Calvin (1509-1564) French lawyer, theologian, and ecclesiastical statesman. He was the most important figure in the second generation of the Protestant Reformation. Calvin wrote, “Here there are two propositions. The first relates to the man, the other to the woman He says that the man commits an offense against Christ his head, if he prays or prophesies with his head covered. Why so? Because he is subject to Christ, with this understanding, that he is to hold the first place in the government of the house — for the father of the family is like a king in his own house. Hence the glory of God shines forth in him, in consequence of the authority with which he is invested. If he covers his head, he lets himself down from that preeminence which God had assigned to him, so as to be in subjection. Thus the honor of Christ is infringed upon….Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonor their head For as the man honors his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband.”

Matthew Henry (1662-1714) was a British Noncomformist minister and author who was born in Wales but spent much of his life in England. He is best known for the six-volume biblical commentary Exposition of the Old and New Testaments. He comments, “The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another.”

Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) a Baptist pastor in London, is highly regarded cross-denominationally and is known as the “Prince of Preachers” said, “The reason why our sisters appear in the House of God with their heads covered is ‘because of the angels.’”

R.C. Sproul Sr. (1939-2017) was an American Reformed theologian and ordained pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America. He was the founder and chairman of Ligonier Ministries said, “It does disturb me, that the . . . tradition of the woman covering her head in America did not pass away until we saw a cultural revolt against the authority of the husband over the wife.”

I decided to quit fighting the Apostle. I determined to practice and teach God’s Word to the best of my understanding. My wife complied. I preached on 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 when I worked through the epistle. However, I never harped on the practice in our church, for I determined not to die on the hill of male and female propriety in worship. This doesn’t mean I have changed my views. My wife wears a hat during worship and has for thirty-some years. She is the only one.

In the sermon I taught that head coverings for women within the divine assembly of worship are normative (for today), as well as men not covering their heads in the service. I spent additional time on Paul’s reasons and other details. And, yes, I brought up the standard arguments that are used to get rid of the passage by modern Christians (her long hair is the symbol; coverings had to do with authority in the culture of the day, Corinthian prostitutes had shaved heads, etc.)2

I choose not to belabor those points here, but I do recommend - as I have along the way - that the reader must not put words into the Apostle’s mouth or take them out of his mouth. Paul wrote about coverings and authority and symbols and angels and the creation order and headship and the relationship of the Godhead in this passage. Those are his proofs and points. And they either continue to exist for us today or they never did.

Subscribe now

This is what the text says.

Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you. (2 Corinthians 13:11-13)

So here we have a sentence of just seven words, “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” It makes you ask, “Is the modern Christian instructed to kiss other Christians upon greeting?” Perhaps, our first question should be, “Was Paul instructing the Corinthian Christians or even the first century Christians to kiss upon greeting?”

John Ellicott comments on this verse, “The tense of the Greek verb indicates that the Apostle is giving directions, not for a normal and, as it were, liturgical usage, but for a single act. In doing so, he repeats what he had said in 1Corinthians 16:20. The same injunction appears in Romans 16:16; 1Thessalonians 5:26. What he meant was that, as the public reading of the Epistle came to a close, the men who listened should embrace each other and kiss each other’s cheeks, in token that all offences were forgotten and forgiven, and that there was nothing but peace and goodwill between them. It was, perhaps, natural, that the counsel should be taken as a rubric, even at the cost of its losing its real significance, and becoming a stereotyped formula.”

In other words, Ellicott believes that the letters, where Paul’s formula was used, were sent to individual churches and read before the congregation. And that once the letter was heard, a holy kiss would be that congregation’s way of accepting Paul’s ambassadors, and Paul himself by the letter he penned to them as a brother in Christ.

Ellicott’s point is well-taken. However, the formula repeated in the other letters mentioned above seems like it begs to become a common practice. In other words, just as Paul’s salutations and benedictions began to be repeated in churches during worship, so why not greet one another with a holy kiss? The Apostle Peter says something similar, “Greet one another with the kiss of love.”1 This is why Ellicott could understand how it became a rubric (an established guideline) for churches.

The Expositors Greek Testament suggests as much, “By ἅγιον (holy) the kiss is distinguished from an ordinary greeting of natural affection or friendship; it belongs to God and the new society of His children; it is specifically Christian.”

So why don’t we kiss in churches today? Does a hug count the same? Won’t a handshake be enough? Or did Paul intend to establish a ritualistic kiss? I know some that would never want to go into a church where people were kissing each other. But again, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it. What was Paul’s intention?

Sometimes the stress on surrounding words are where the author’s intention resides. The word holy attached to kiss is instructive. Not just any kiss will do. Paul would not want a hypocritical kiss, nor a romantic or flirtatious kiss, nor a meaningless kiss, and especially not a Judas kiss. The kiss is not his greatest concern. The word “holy,” however, is imperative.

In the Pulpit Commentary we read, “St. Paul, of course, in enjoining it here and in other Epistles, has in view the concord (agreement) which it expressed.” In other words, there are kisses and there are kisses. What is at the heart of it? To be a holy kiss suggests that there is a peace in fellowship being communicated. THIS is holy. It is set apart. Love for Jesus Christ and one another must be the thing that evokes the kiss.

Unlike foot washing, I do not believe the “holy kiss” is as easy to hermeneutically disregard as a universal obligation. Though I do lean in the direction of John Gill, who writes, “I say, it is an allusion to this custom, for it is only an allusion; the apostle did not mean that any outward action should be made use of, only that their Christian salutations should not be mere complaisance, or expressed by bare words, and outward gestures and actions, either of the hand or mouth; but that they should spring from real love and true friendship, and be without dissimulation, hearty and sincere.”

Share Aspire to be an Elder

Subscribe now

What are the three? They have to do with foot washing, kissing, and hats.

Let’s start with foot washing.

The text in question is from John 13:2-17. It says,

During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

I’m intentionally giving the fuller context to the two sentences that concern readers most. Those two sentences are:

If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

Those sentences without their context sound an awful lot like Jesus wants us to take off shoes and socks and wash people’s feet. Given the entire context of the passage, there is still a question as to what the Lord was getting at.

If you think like me, getting my feet washed would be embarrassing. Pretty awkward. I think it would tickle. And then, do I put my dirty socks back on? Or is re-socking your Christian brother or sister part of the procedure? My knee-jerk reaction is, I certainly hope I don’t have to to that or have it done to me!

Fortunately, what I want to do and don’t want to do does not determine truth. If Jesus wants us to be washing feet today, then we should wash them. What was His intention? And were there stipulations involved to determine when to obey? Was He speaking figuratively? Did He intend foot washing to be a third sacrament?

You should spend your time with the passage, but here is how I have learned to interpret Jesus’ words.

First, the emphasis is that Jesus, though He was the disciples’ teacher and lord, humbled himself in service to them. Washing a person’s feet was commonly done by servants. It was a culture and history in which feet often needed washing - for the dust and dirt. Some cultures in modern history still have a need for it.1 However, the point was not the foot washing in itself, the point was servitude. Jesus served his brothers in the most menial way and that is the standard by which He wanted them to serve one another.2

Second, the washing of feet was highlighted while the washing of the whole body was assumed. (Notice how Jesus corrected Peter in his exuberance.) So there seems to be a metaphor at play here. The metaphor, I think, is a comparison between justification and sanctification. What I mean is, the Christian (like Peter) is forgiven for his sins and bears no guilt before God because of the work of Jesus. His body has been washed. That is justification. Whereas, in the course of daily life, we still sin and must confess it and be forgiven. Our feet get dirty, though are body is clean. This is daily. It is ongoing. It is corrective cleaning. That is sanctification.

So when Jesus washed the disciples feet it was an emblematic lesson teaching them the need to correct themselves daily and obey God. Furthermore, they were to help each other become clean in this fashion - as one would stoop to help wash a brother’s feet.

I do not believe foot washing was meant to be some kind of sacramental practice (nor do the Reformers) as some have attempted throughout the history of the Church.3 We see it practiced ceremonially within the Roman Catholic tradition, as Popes have washed the feet of Emporers’ upon ordination, and also washed the feet of new converts on the Church calendar day of Maundy Thursday.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

For instance:

1. Women are not being taught that braided hair, pearls and gold are off limits. The point Paul is making is that women concerned about godliness should dress modestly with self-control. She shouldn’t be concerned about ostentatious apparel, but good works should become her focus.

Scripture supports Scripture here as the Apostle Peter makes the same point, but more obviously. He writes, “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.” (1 Peter 3:3-4)

Certainly, Peter was not banning clothing?! Just as he was not banning gold jewelry or braided hair. Peter, like Paul, was simply setting priorities. A woman should clothe appropriately the heart and spirit, for that is what God is after.

Share Aspire to be an Elder

2. Paul tells Timothy, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23) To whom does that Scripture apply? To Timothy. He was the one with the frequent stomach problems. Paul advises wine in a medicinal way to his younger Christian brother.

Does this apply today? I think there are universal things we might glean from it. For eg. our fundamentalist brothers should not be quick to condemn the drinking of wine, for the Apostle would not have told young Timothy to sin. Also, there might very well be medicinal, or perhaps, calming effects produced by the drinking of wine. However, the biblical instruction is for Timothy. Period.

It should not difficult for us to limit the application to Timothy, for it is Timothy that Paul directly intended to follow his recommendation. Timothy was the “audience”.

3. Finally, Paul wrote, “This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 1:18-20)

To whom does this text apply? Is it a universal prescription to the Church? Perhaps if your name is Timothy, Hymenaeus, or Alexander!

No. The biblical instruction was quite limited to the persons Paul names. However, we can still take a couple of universal applications away.

Firstly, there is a “good warfare” that is able to be waged; and “faith and a good conscience” play a part in it. Such Christian warfare is repeated in other New Testament passages and applied to the Church as whole and not just Timothy - thought he too is a member of the Church.

Secondly, we learn that men have been known to shipwreck their faith. That is a word we should not take lightly.

Thirdly, we learn that Satan has been used by a Church authority (Paul) to teach blasphemers a lesson. And that is a theme that reoccurs in Scripture as well.

Some people belittle Scriptural passages as “culturally bound”. They don’t like when others try to apply the Bible to today’s generation. They mock such attempts. They consider many portions of God’s Word outdated and meant for another people in another time, just not ours!

I side with J. Robertson McQuilkin. He writes, “...To set aside any of Scripture simply on the basis that it is cultural and therefore valid only for one specific cultural setting is to establish a principle that can be used to set aside any or even all biblical teaching. The interpreter thus becomes the authority over Scripture...”.1

One has to do with the order of creation. “For = γὰρ, (gar), Adam was formed first, then Eve.”

Who formed the man and the woman? God did. Had that changed by the first century? No. God still had formed them in the order He formed them. Has that now changed in our day? No. God still had formed them in the order He formed them. So then, if Paul uses God’s creational order as one of his reasons, it is still a reason.

The second reason Paul gives is that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” To which, I’ve heard some people say, “It took Satan to deceive Eve, but only Eve to deceive her own husband.” The implication is that Adam was more gullible than Eve.

Paul’s point, however, is that Eve was deceived. Adam was not. Eve did not deceive Adam, nor did the serpent deceive Adam. You might say his sin was with “eyes wide open.” He walked into it without the excuse of having been beguiled. Adam, ultimately, bears the burden for mankind’s fall.

The third reason Paul gives has to do with women being “saved through child bearing.” This point is a bit more of a mystery, but it appears that the “saving through child bearing” could very well also be an Edenic fact and harken to God’s Word when he announced:

“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.” (Genesis 3:15)

This announcement was of the Messiah to come. He would come as offspring of the woman. Therefore, it is a great honor for Eve and all women to bear offspring. Child bearing provides salvation to all humanity.

Was he simply instructing a first century church how to operate with social etiquette at a time when women were treated with less liberty than men? Was he trying to tap the brakes of the church vehicle knowing women would need time to catch up educationally? Or was Paul really a male chauvinist pig, as the older woman in my congregation seemed to think?

I suggest we don’t put words into Paul’s mouth, but that we allow the Apostle to provide his own reasons, if he has some.

Also, let me open up the text to expose more context. Here is what it says:

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15)

It is interesting, if you noticed, Paul actually uses the word “For” to begin the sentence following the text we’ve been looking at. It is the Greek word, γὰρ, (gar). It is a conjunction used to express cause, give an explanation, and infer.

In other words, Paul is about to tell you WHY a woman should learn quietly with all submissiveness, rather than teach and exercise authority over a man.

He appears to give three reasons:

1. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

2. Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

3. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Now whether you, the reader, understand why Paul mentions these three points is something that can be examined and discussed. However, the thing you should immediately notice is that all three reasons are rooted in the beginning of time – back at the Garden of Eden.

The thing you cannot argue is that Paul gave his instruction, about women, based upon the culture of his day. He based his instruction upon things occurring at the beginning of human history.

Consider one of the previously mentioned portions; where Paul wrote, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

The graduate might ridicule the letter as being sexist or misogynistic. He would tell you that a woman is every bit as capable as a man in all fields. He might suggest that in the first century women were oppressed and treated like property. I imagine these rebukes against Paul would come fast and hot.

I’ll never forget one of the older ladies in our church proclaiming to me, “Paul was against women!” (My jaw almost dropped open.) I thought it quite brazen of her to speak against an Apostle and inspired writer of Scripture.

I can see how she came to believe this, for she was a child of the culture. She had raised three daughters and one son in the era of women’s liberation. Perhaps they spent evenings watching Norman Lear sitcoms.1 It was about all that was on the television for a couple decades. Whatever input she drew from modern culture, a resentment for the Apostle was the result, at least when it came to what he wrote about women.

Not all opposition to that Scripture text’s relevance is that condemnatory. A Christian, trying even to honor Paul might still reject his instruction for today’s woman.

Some have argued that Paul realized how uneducated women were throughout the Roman world and that he thought it would be best that they kept quiet and allow certain men to do the teaching, at least those men who had been educated. Though, as we will see, those are not the reasons Paul gives.

Another Christian might add that Paul’s instruction about women “not teaching” was geared to a first century reality in which women were sometimes treated like property or assumed she be under male headship, but that God’s ongoing design for the gospel and the church was to emancipate women from either. And, therefore, though women were not able to teach early on in the church, over the course of time they would be permitted. This approach to the text compares women’s liberation in the church to the abolition of slavery.2

Again, this argument is foreign to Paul’s reasons. More on that next time.

In other words, if the Apostle Paul wrote, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery...” (Ephesians 5:18) then for us to excuse it and say “Well, things have changed!” is to apply a pencil’s eraser to the Bible.

Debauchery: is when a person indulges himself in sensual pleasure excessively. It is embracing too much of something in order to feed a physically desired appetite. The Apostle certainly treated debauchery as something sinful. And he uses the example of too much wine drinking as one way to sin.

Paul ends verse eighteen with his alternative to debauchery, “be filled with the Spirit...”. You may even argue God’s Spirit was Paul’s remedy for it. God in you is the solution offered to overcome the temptation to excessively indulge your senses.

But is what Paul wrote normative (the norm) for all the church through all of time? Was the Apostle wrong? Is drunkenness debauchery? Or isn’t it? If so, then could we argue that only wine is to be avoided or would any alcohol or some other abused substance lead a person into debauchery? In other words, too much beer, bourbon, vodka, or even small substances of marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs, is also debauchery. Too much sex is debauchery.

If we interpret the normativeness of Scripture by whether or not something is approved today, in the culture around us, then we will need to erase Paul’s example of getting drunk on wine. As we all can see, in our culture, there are a lot of people getting drunk regularly and bragging about it. Drugs are also increasingly available. And sex can be had with anyone who is willing. This is regular practice. It is who we are! So should some things be edited out of Paul’s letter?

The thing is, God does not let us decide what still matters and what was bound to the culture of Paul’s day. That would make us the determiners of truth, and equivalent to allowing small children decide what they want to eat off their plates at dinner.

Instead, Scripture must interpret Scripture. It is an important hermeneutical rule. It is the rule implied when Jesus said, “Scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)

Subscribe now

1 normative: establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behavior.

The question is whether the writer means his words to be applied merely to the people in the situation he is addressing, or whether he means for his words to be applied beyond that situation and permanently.

For example, Paul wrote a letter to Timothy. In the letter he writes many important things that the church has applied universally since people began reading his letter. Paul urged prayers for kings and others in positions of authority. He warned against men being angry and quarreling with one another. He provided character requirements for men to hold the office of elder. He did the same for deacons. These things seem like they should still count.

But, in the same letter, Paul also instructed women to “adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness – with good works.” (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

And, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

He also wrote, “This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (1 Timothy 1:18-20)

Also, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23)

The question for the reader/interpreter is, “What did Paul mean to be obeyed only by Timothy and some in the early church, and what did he intend to go beyond them and become universal, a timeless teaching to be applied even to the church today?”

Without question, some Scripture text appears bound to the audience receiving the letter, while other Scripture text was intended to become a norm for everyone. How do we tell the difference?

Share Aspire to be an Elder

Subscribe now

Earl Radmacher expelled them all. They are products made up from verses used out of context. It happens all the time and Christians get these ideas stuck in their heads.

1. Two or three Christians do not constitute a church, local or otherwise. Rather, the two or three people has to do with witnesses against sin and/or crime.

2. This is not about power in prayer either. Just because you have one Christian praying, or two, or one hundred and twenty-two, this verse has nothing to do with Christians getting what they want by agreeing through prayer. Rather, it has to do with disciplinary decisions which prayerfully rely upon God for support.

3. Jesus is not suggesting, here, that a few Christians have the power to bind Satan or anything else for that matter. That is not the context of His conversation either. Rather, he is telling his disciples that if proper disciplinary steps are taken in attempts to restore a wayward brother, and if the brother refuses to submit himself to the Church, then the remaining step is to put him out of the fellowship, to treat him as a “Gentile and tax collector.” This is to officially bind up the abuser. In words from the text, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heave.” In other words, Jesus assures the disciples, their work is not in vain, for their decision will be supported from heaven by His Father.

You can see how people get false ideas stuck in their heads, when they take verses out of context.

As you may have noticed, I did not put a check by any of the subjects #1 through #9. I just waited to see what he would do. The answer Earl Radmacher was looking for was #8. None of these. None of the subjects can be developed from this passage because the passage refers to only one subject: Discipline in the Church.

Here it the text from Matthew 18:15-20

15“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

Radmacher was masterful. First, he explained the point of Jesus’ words throughout the entire text. They all had to do with the subject of church discipline – how to correct a sinning brother.

He unpacked each verse to show us the context. Jesus begins with, “If your brother sins against you...”. Then he explains the proper way to correct him (to fix what is broken). You go to him in private. Who knows, he may agree with you and repent without need for further correction. You too will be satisfied.

If he remains stubborn and refuses your effort, then you take a person or two along with you as others who witnessed him in his wrongdoing. In fact, here, Jesus adds, “That every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.”

Jesus is referencing Deuteronomy 19:15, where Moses wrote, “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.”¹

In other words, one person is insufficient to testify against another’s guilt. One is not enough to establish guilt in court. If you lack witnesses (although the person may have done the wrong) the charge may have to be left to rest. Merely one person’s accusation against another is insufficient, for the one witness may be a malicious witness – only out to get the person!

Share Aspire to be an Elder

1If you can find the time, pull out your bible and read from Deuteronomy 19:15-21. It adds greatly to passage at hand. Jesus was dealing with church discipline just as Moses was dealing with it.

This was brought home to me when I attended that Committee on Biblical Exposition (C.O.B.E.) conference in Illinois. A theologian by the name of Earl D. Radmacher¹ spoke on Matthew 18:15-35 with an emphasis on verse twenty, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

But before he spoke, he gave us this handout:

He read the passage and we followed along. Then he asked us to put checkmarks alongside of the subjects we felt could be taught from the text. Give it a try! Read all of Matthew 18: 15-35 and then put mental check next to all the subjects you think the text teaches.

In the next post I will tell you what happened. It was an eye-opener for me.

1 Radmacher, now deceased, was the president of Western Seminary in Portland Oregon.

An easy way to become confused about a writer’s meaning is to take only a small portion of what he wrote and try to make sense of it. Like, instead of reading the entire letter to the Colossians, we read only a paragraph; or instead of a paragraph, we read only two sentences.

Consider this sentence from Hebrews 10:26-27.

26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

What does the writer mean? Taken by itself, it sounds like a Christian could lose his salvation and become an adversary of God’s, if he continues to sin once he knows the truth. And as God’s adversary he will have to face the fury of fire. And so some Christians have taught people that they could lose their salvation if they “willingly” sin, aka. “continue to sin in an unrepentant way.” Does that seem possible based upon the sentence? Perhaps.

However, you have not read this sentence in its full context. And once you do, you will figure out that it doesn’t mean that at all.

The letter to Hebrews is, after all, a letter to Hebrew people who have heard of Jesus and His Gospel and began to believe yet were doubting and became tempted to reject the New Covenant and return to their previous life under the old one – taught to them by the chief priests, Scribes, Pharisees and the like.

In context, therefore, “the knowledge of the truth” of the good news is being rejected by some Hebrew people. And when a person rejects the gospel of Jesus he rejects Jesus’ work. In essence, the young Hebrew man or woman who turns back to their previous religious upbringing, is simultaneously turning away from their Messiah, the only Savior. Their old religion is still without God’s ultimate remedy for forgiveness of sins. In other words, if the Hebrew “convert” goes back to his former manner of life in Judaism, he will be left with no forgiveness, only the fury of fire. That sounds completely different from the interpretation proposed by some that a Christian can lose his salvation by unrepentant sin.1

Share Aspire to be an Elder

The point is: the more we keep the whole letter in our minds, the better. Every word is found in a sentence. Sentences are found in paragraphs. Paragraphs are found in a special order determined by the writer when he composed his letter, or book.

We have to HEAR what the writer is writing when we read. Add to that, if the writer has written other letters or books, then we must consider how the one we are currently reading fits in with those.

Leave a comment

Some will explain that God is the ultimate WRITER and, therefore, He has placed in Scripture these nuggets or images of truth for us to find. Whereas, the individual authors of Scripture did not need to see the intricacies of the blanket they helped knit, for it was God’s blanket, (goes the argument) and the meaning of what they wrote may have been hidden from them.

But if the Word of God is not what the writers meant, then where does that leave us? If modern people can see things that were never intended or seen by biblical writers, then where did the modern person learn it?¹

And so, the scarlet ribbon hung from out the harlot’s window in Jericho, they say, represents the blood of Jesus. And just as the red blood of Jesus provided salvation, so did scarlet ribbon save the household of the harlot. Therefore, they conclude, God meant the ribbon to be a type of the shed blood of Jesus Christ (the anti-type).

And so, God takes Eve, the mother of the living, from the side of sleeping Adam (type) just as God also took the sacraments for the life of the Church from the side of Jesus while he slept on the cross (the anti-type).²

Where does it end? When types, symbols, allegories and mystical meanings are introduced into the text by the reader, the reader is no longer limiting himself to interpretation, but instead has become the author. Hasn’t he? Remember, the reader must not put words into the mouths of the biblical authors.

Consider this warning from William Tyndale.

“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Neverthelater, the Scripture useth proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle, or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”³

The biblical writers used language in varied figures of speech. Furthermore, God gave them insight as to symbols, types, and allegories. But they were the ones God inspired to deliver His Word to mankind. They gave us His Word. We don’t give the Word. We receive it and strive to understand it clearly in order to obey it.

1 There is a great danger that the interpreter practices a sort of mysticism. He comes up with things particular to himself, or a favorite author, or a cadre of friends. But, if he finds no support from any biblical writer, then the interpretation must be abandoned; no matter how excitingly it seems to support his views of God.

2 Types and Anti-types do play a role in Bible interpretation. I maintain that the biblically inspired writers knew when they were “building” with such tools and we are told of them by the writers of Scripture, not outside of them.

3 William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man (Parker ed., Doctrinal Teatises, 1928, 307-9. Taken from Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1994) p. 270.

It becomes difficult for readers to know the mind’s of writers. The writer must make it clear. And the minute symbols are marshaled, we immediately must wonder, what is the symbol referencing?

So when the Apostle John writes “what he saw” in the Revelation and he says, “And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth,” we immediately begin to think, to whom or what is this referring?

Our first inclination (and it is a good one) is to see if John, himself, tells us who or what the woman is as well as the child she is about to bear. Certainly we do not think there will be some gigantic space woman (clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet) as someone who claims a strained literalism.

What does John say? He does not tell us plainly that the woman is Israel, or that the woman is Mary, or that the child is Jesus. However, John goes on to give us more information that will lead a biblical reader to connect those dots.

1. She gave birth to a male child, on who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron (v5).¹

2. A great red dragon appeared in heaven (v2) and he stood before the woman in order that when she gave birth, he might devour the child (v4).

3. Her child was caught up to God and to his throne (v5).

4. Furthermore, the dragon swept down a third of the stars from heaven and cast them upon the earth (v3).

5. The dragon had his angels (v7).

6. The dragon is referred to as “that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world.” (v9).

1 This will remind a bible student of the Messianic Psalm 2 verse 9. And if you simply read further in Revelation, you will find where John tells the reader, “From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:15-16)

A Christian exclaims, “I take the Bible literally!” And that sounds noble on the surface, but then the person interprets “the stars” as literally going to “fall from heaven,” (Matthew 24:29) and that “all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized...” meant that every individual without exception – each man, woman and infant child – were presenting themselves to be baptized by John. (Mark 1:5)

I suggest that proper interpretation would read the latter instance as intentional exaggeration – hyperbole. Did every Tom, Dick and Harry really go out to the Jordan River? Or rather did it seem like almost everybody was there? Hyperbole makes sense. It would be similar to the newspaper reporting, “Everybody in the City of Milwaukee watched the Brewers in the ‘82 World Series!” It is a true report, but it is hardly literal.

Subscribe now

As for the stars falling from heaven, I believe this is properly read and interpreted as the use of symbolism and, with perhaps, a mix of apocalyptic language.

In regard to symbolism, the reader would believe that Jesus was thinking of Joseph, son of Jacob, who had a dream in which twelve stars represented he and his brothers, and the sun and the moon represented his parents. So as Jesus describes the sun and moon being darkened and the stars falling from heaven, he is speaking symbolically of the destruction of Israel (the descendants of Joseph, his eleven brothers, and Jacob and Rachel).

Apocalyptic language is a form of symbolism. It is a genre attributed to certain Jewish post-Exile writers. Apocalyptic language mobilizes words as symbols to carry meaning, such as beast(s), the sea, horns, stars, censors, seals, trumpets, etc. The meaning of such words or symbols is usually tied to God’s supernaturally dramatic judgment carried out between heaven and earth. Literature that purports to be apocalyptic ranges from the canonical books of Daniel 7-12, the entire book of Zechariah, (maybe some Isaiah, and Joel) Matthew 24-25 and Revelation.