Can I be Gay and still be a Christian?

Question:

Hi. I'm 16 years old, I believe in Jesus, but I am gay. I was sexually abused by my uncle as a child, and the thought of sex with a man is completely revolting to me. Can I be gay and a Christian at the same time?

Answer:

A resounding, but qualified, "yes."

Now, if you stop reading right there, you will miss most of this answer, since "yes" is not the whole answer. As with most things in life, there is more to this answer than just "yes" or "no."

At its core, being gay is about having a sexual attraction to a member of the same sex. This attraction is a temptation to engage in sex with a member of the same sex. The temptation is not a sin, but if you give in to that temptation and actually engage in sex, it is a sin. Temptation is temptation, but temptation is not sin. Jesus was tempted to sin, but resisted the temptation, and did not sin.

Let me state a few things up front.

First, it is possible that your attraction to women is more a result of your sexual abuse than a natural born inclination, however, I am not even remotely qualified to make that diagnosis, so it is also possible I am wrong about that. I hope you are getting counseling about the violence that you suffered as a child so that those scars may begin to heal.

Either way, even if it is a natural born inclination, being "born" that way does not justify the behavior. We are all "born" sinful (meaning that we are all born with lusts and desires to commit sinful acts), and it doesn't make our sin OK in God's eyes. So it is possible that you really were born with that particular temptation. That does NOT mean that "God made me this way," nor does it mean that following that inclination is OK.

Second, it is entirely possible that you will remain tempted by other women for the rest of your life. In other words, I find it highly unlikely that God will "deliver" you from this temptation by removing it. God never promises to eliminate temptation, only to give us the power to overcome temptation. For example, I, myself, am attracted to women, and I will never be "delivered" from that temptation. But I take careful steps to avoid that temptation, in fact, I am careful to keep myself from being in a situation where I might even have to "resist" the temptation. I guard my heart constantly.

So here is the bottom line: Christians are tempted to sin. Every single one of us. And every single one of us give in to some of those temptations, and actually commit sin. And we are also forgiven for the sins we commit, because we deeply and sincerely repent of them (meaning we are sorry, and we commit ourselves to surrendering to God's grace so we can overcome that temptation and not commit that sin again). Jesus death on the cross covers our sins; those we committed in the past, as well as any we may commit tomorrow.

So, yes, you can be tempted with homosexual desires and still be a Christian.

Now here comes the hard part.

If you genuinely love Jesus, then you will need to be serious about avoiding and overcoming sin, and that includes homosexuality. While it is true that all believers sin, sexual sins are not the same as many other kinds of sins. By that I do NOT mean they are more evil, or worse, or anything like that.

What I mean is that sexual sins have a tendency to result in much more immediate, visible and devastating ramifications (diseases, relationship damage, unwanted pregnancies, emotional scars, etc.) than many other sins, and like drugs, they produce physical pleasure, an actual chemical reaction in the brain. Further, if engaged with another person (as opposed to pornography, for example), they spiritually bind us to that person. All of these mean that it is easy for sexual sins to lead us into emotional, physical and/or spiritual bondage. Being in bondage to something means that we literally do not have the ability on our own to overcome it. We cannot resist the temptation. We are a slave to that desire. We are emotionally, spiritually or physically addicted to that behavior or person. Drugs and sexual sins quickly produce this kind of emotional, spiritual and/or physical bondage, so I strongly recommend you do NOT play around with sexual sins or drug abuse (and I am certainly NOT saying that homosexuality has anything to do with drugs, any more than heterosexuality has something to do with drugs . . . just saying both kinds of sins produce physical and emotional bondage).

So in all likelihood, you will probably need to commit yourself to leading a celibate life as a believer. This may sound unfair at first, but it depends on how serious you are about your relationship with Christ. Many hundreds of thousands of people down through the centuries have committed themselves to celibate lives for no other reason than a deep and sincere devotion to God and God alone, and they did not want ANYTHING, not even a relationship with another person, to come between them and God.

So can I be gay and be a Christian?

Absolutely, in exactly the same way that any person tempted by any other sins can be a Christian. But no person can claim to follow Christ and at the same time knowingly and intentionally commit sins with no repentance, and no intention of ending those sins. This is the same for every believer: I cannot claim to follow Christ and unabashedly live with my girlfriend, or cheat others without remorse in my business, or lie constantly to my constituents, or continuously cheat on my wife, or get drunk every chance I get. As a believer, Jesus does not want me to live in any kind of continuous, intentional, unrepentant sin. Jesus absolutely will, and does, forgive us of our sin, and wash it away. Not so that we can keep doing it, but so that we can be set free from sin, and not do it any more.

All believers get the same message from Jesus:

Then Jesus stood up and asked her, "Dear lady, where are your accusers? Hasn't anyone condemned you?" "No one, sir," she replied. Then Jesus said, "I don't condemn you, either. Go home, and from now on do not sin any more." (John 8:10-11)

So may I live a "normal, homosexual lifestyle" and be a Christian?

No, not really.

The point of our faith in Jesus is NOT so that we may continue in sin, but so that we may overcome our sins, and "not sin any more."

The grace of Jesus covers all sin, and there is no sin so great that God's grace cannot cover it. Your failings, my failings, everyone's failings. The bigger the sin, the bigger grace is to wash it away.

I'll let Paul finish this thought:

What should we say, then? Should we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 

Of course not! 

How can we who died as far as sin is concerned go on living in it? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into union with the Messiah Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, through baptism we were buried with him into his death so that, just as the Messiah was raised from the dead by the Father's glory, we too may live an entirely new life. 

For if we have become united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old natures were crucified with him so that our sin-laden bodies might be rendered powerless and we might no longer be slaves to sin. For the person who has died has been freed from sin. 

Now if we have died with the Messiah, we believe that we will also live with him, for we know that the Messiah, who was raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has mastery over him. For when he died, he died once and for all as far as sin is concerned. But now that he is alive, he lives for God. 

In the same way, you too must continually consider yourselves dead as far as sin is concerned, but living for God through the Messiah Jesus. (Romans 6:1-11)

Does John 1:1 actually say, "the Word was a god"?

Question:

I got into a conversation with some Jehovah's Witnesses, and they said that according to Greek grammar, John 1:1 should read, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Is this true?

Answer:

No.

In order for me to explain why that is wrong, I'm going to need to explain a few rules of Greek grammar, which most people will find horribly boring. I apologize, but unfortunately, this is the best way to refute this claim, so if you really want to know why this JW doctrine is wrong, you will need to bear with me. If not, feel free to stop reading now.

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Greek only has a definite article ("the"), and does not have an indefinite article ("a"). This is true. They also claim that since Greek normally attaches the definite article ("the") to the noun, any time it does NOT attach the definite article to the noun, it automatically implies the indefinite article ("a"). This is NOT completely true, but the really irritating part is that the Jehovah's Witnesses KNOW this is not completely true, which I shall prove at the end of this post with their own translation.

You can read the Jehovah's Witnesses full argument on this issue here. If anyone is interested, I have the writings of most of the scholars they reference, and it is NOT true that those scholars support their interpretation of John 1:1. Their explanation is, at best, the kind of thing a first year Greek student might come up with before he gets a wider, and much more in depth understanding of Greek beyond the bare basics.

Now, it is true that the only way to imply the indefinite article is to leave off the definite article, and that construction DOES occur in the New Testament, however there are at least ten ways to make a noun definite in Greek, and attaching a definite article to it is only one of the ten ways. This means that an indefinite article is only implied in about 15% of all cases in the New Testament where the definite article is missing. In other words, there are other rules that help us determine if a noun that is missing a definite article is supposed to be indefinite. So what rule applies to John 1:1?

Ok, now comes the really boring Greek grammar stuff. You have been warned.

The first thing you need to know is that Greek is a highly inflected language, meaning the endings on most words, particularly the nouns and verbs, tell us the role they are playing in the sentence (subject, primary verb, object, predicate, etc.). As a result, the word order rules in Greek are much more flexible than in English, and because of that, many Greek words can appear anywhere in the sentence. Greek writers typically used this inherent word order flexibility to emphasize or de-emphasize specifics words and concepts within a given sentence. Most of this is extremely subtle, but it can occasionally have a huge impact on what the writer is trying to say.

The third clause in John 1:1 is normally translated "And the Word was God," which the JW's claim is incorrect because the noun "God" does not have an article, and thus, it should be translated with the indefinite article as "a god."

Here is the clause in question in Greek:

και θεος ην ο λογος

And God was the Word.

Just as in English, a sentence in Greek in which the connecting verb was some form of "to be" (is, was, are) has a subject and predicate (rather than a normal sentence which has a subject and object). In English, the subject is always first, and the predicate is always second, and it is used to equate the predicate to the subject. For example, "John is king," "Jane is black," "Bill is cold," or "Sue is angry" are all this kind of construction. In most cases, it matters which of these is the subject and which is the predicate. In the sentence, "Bill is cold," we are saying that "being cold" is something Bill is experiencing. We are not saying that "being Bill" is something cold is experiencing.

In Greek, we would normally determine which noun is the subject and which is the object from the endings, but in predicate constructions, this is a problem, as both nouns are in the same case, so they have the same ending. Since a Greek writer can put these words in any order, determining which is the subject and which is the predicate could be a problem . . . except that Greek has a rule for this. Here is how the rule works:

If both nouns have the article, or neither noun has the article, then the first noun is the subject and the second noun is the predicate. Thus, in the following sentences (shown in English for ease of understanding), "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate:

A)   The John was the king.
B)   John was king.

In example (B), since there is no particular reason for leaving off the article, it would be legitimate to translate that sentence, "John was a king," or maybe, if the context was not clear as to who "John" was, it might be translated, "A John was a king."

However, if only one of the nouns had the article, then the rule is that the noun with the article is the subject, while the noun without the article is the predicate. Thus, although they read oddly in English (remember, we are pretending that our English words are actually Greek words), in both of the following sentences, "John" is the subject and "king" is the predicate.

C)   The John was king.
D)   King was the John.

Here are the two really important things to remember: First, Greek uses word order for emphasis, and second, if both words have the article, the FIRST word is the subject, and the SECOND word is the predicate.

Remember that the third clause of John 1:1 follows the pattern of example (D) above, where one noun has the article (ο λογος = "the Word"), and one noun does not have the article (θεος = "God").

So we know that "the Word," although it appears at the end of the clause, is actually the subject, and "God," although it appears at the beginning of the clause, is actually the predicate. From this rule, we know this clause SHOULD be translated, "And the Word was God," NOT "And God was the Word."

Ok, so why did John place θεος ("God") at the beginning of the clause? For emphasis. The effect is something like this, "And the Word was GOD!"

But how do we know it is not supposed to be translated "a god"? Simple, remember that if both words have the article, then the first word is the subject and the second word is the predicate? That means, according to the rules of Greek grammar, you cannot place the predicate at the beginning of the sentence AND also give it the article. So, Greek grammar demands that if you want to place the predicate at the beginning, as John did in this clause, you MUST drop the article (so that your readers will know this is the predicate, NOT the subject).

This means that John could NOT do both. He could EITHER give it the article and leave it without any particular emphasis, OR place it at the beginning of the sentence for emphasis, where he would be required to drop the article. If he chose to place it at the beginning for emphasis, the rules DEMAND that he must drop the article.

When the rules demand that you drop the article, the absence of the article does not, in fact, cannot indicate the indefinite.

Thus, the effect is the exact opposite of what the JW's claim. By placing the predicate θεος at the beginning of the sentence, John is required to drop the article, but in so doing, he is placing extra emphasis on the noun θεος, which gives it extra force in the sentence, and produces the result, "And the Word was GOD."

Now, here is the really underhanded part of this argument from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They actually DO know that the absence of the article only rarely indicates the indefinite, as proven by their own translation, the New World Translation (Available online here).

John 1:6 reads as follows in the New World Translation:

There came a man who was sent as a representative of God; his name was John. [emphasis mine]

Here is how the Greek reads in that verse:

εγενετο ανθρωπος απεσταλμενος παρα θεου ονομα αυτω ιωαννης.

The word θεου ("of God") does not have an article, which according to their claims, means it should be translated, "of a god." But they know their claim is not true, and they demonstrate that in this verse.

How about John 1:12 where the New World Translation reads:

However, to all who did receive him, he gave authority to become God’s children. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek reads:

οσοι δε ελαβον αυτον εδωκεν αυτοις εξουσιαν τεκνα θεου γενεσθαι

Again, θεου ("of God," the Greek literally reads, "the children of God") has no article, so by their rules, it should read, "the children of a god."

Here is the next verse, John 1:13. New Word Translation:

And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God. [emphasis mine]

And the Greek:

οι ουκ εξ αιματων ουδε εκ θεληματος σαρκος ουδε εκ θεληματος ανδρος αλλ εκ θεου εγεννηθησαν.

Again, θεου does not have an article attached to it (εκ is a preposition meaning "from"), so according to their own arguments, this should be translated, "from a god."

These are all from the same writer as John 1:1, in the same chapter.

Just so you can verify this for yourself, because Greek is an inflected language, the article can have 17 different spellings. I will list them all here (in alphabetical order) so you can see that there is no article attached to θεου in any of these sentences: αι, η, ο, οι, τα, ταις, τας, τη, την, της, το, τοις, τον, του, τους, τω, των.

There are numerous other examples directly from their own translation I can give where it is clear they either don't really understand how the article works in Greek, or are being intentionally deceptive about the rules governing its use.

The bottom line is that John 1:1 tells us, to quote preeminent Greek scholar Daniel B. Wallace, "Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But He is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely confirmed in και θεος ην ο λογος." [Quoted in Basics of Biblical Greek, by William D. Mounce, pages 27-28].

Far from meaning what the JW's claim, this verse, when coupled with verse 14 (and the Word become flesh, and dwelt among us), actually proclaims the deity of Jesus with emphatic boldness that leave no room for doubt about the claims John is making about Jesus: He is the God, He is the creator, He was not created (he was already there in the beginning), and He became flesh to pay for our sins so that we could be saved.

Is Christianity Intolerant?

Question:

Why are you Christians so intolerant of the beliefs of others?

Answer:

Unfortunately, there really are people out there carrying the title of "Christian" who are terribly intolerant of the beliefs of others (I will come back to this at the end), but there are also many serious believers who are not intolerant in the slightest. In fact, believers are encouraged in many places in scripture to be tolerant of the beliefs of others.

In order to understand what this really going on here, we will once again need to define our terms. The word "tolerance" is used quite a bit in our culture today, but to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, that word does not mean what they think it means.

According to the dictionary, to be tolerant means, "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."

In today's culture, most people believe that tolerance means, "to accept as equally valid and fully endorse the beliefs, opinions or behaviors of all people."

Real tolerance is about how you treat people with whom you deeply disagree. It is about being civil and polite to those who hold opinions that you believe to be filled with errors. It is, as Ravi Zacharias has said, disagreeing without being disagreeable.

You see, we don't need tolerance for things with which we are in agreement, only for those things with which we disagree. If I think someone's view that Jesus might rapture the church at any moment is valid, and I can endorse it, there is no difference between what I have just done and agreement. If I "endorse" a person running for office, I'm telling you that I agree with her, and I want her to win. If I "endorse" a scientific theory, I'm telling you that I agree with it, and I believe it to be true. Likewise with philosophical ideas, theological doctrines, or social and private morality. Endorsement means agreement.

If, on the other hand, I have a different view of the end times, then I can't really say that I think their view is valid, nor can I endorse it. If I do not agree with the positions of a person running for political office, I cannot endorse him. And no one who believes a scientific theory is in error would ever endorse it. We simply cannot accept as valid a theory or belief that we think is in error, nor can we endorse something that we believe to be wrong.

So it should be noted above all else that the current definition of tolerance is nonsense. No one really does it, and to expect others to do it when no one actually does is ridiculous. In the same way that no atheist would EVER endorse the beliefs of Christianity, Christians cannot be expected to endorse the beliefs of others.

However, there is no reason that I must treat someone with hostility, call them names, belittle, mock and ridicule their views, or simply be anything less than polite and civil simply because we disagree. We can disagree and treat each other with respect at the same time.

With that in mind, I am going to contrast two confrontations. The first is between Jesus and a woman who is sleeping with a man to whom she is not married, and on top of that, holds doctrinal beliefs with which Jesus disagrees.

The second is between members of a church who believe any kind of politeness shown to those with whom we disagree is wrong, and anything less than hostility, name calling, and rudeness is akin to endorsement.

First, Jesus encounter with the woman at the well.

A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus told her, "Please give me a drink," since his disciples had gone off into town to buy food. 

The Samaritan woman asked him, "How can you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?" Because Jews do not have anything to do with Samaritans. 

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who is saying to you, 'Please give me a drink,' you would have been the one to ask him, and he would have given you living water." 

The woman told him, "Sir, you don't have a bucket, and the well is deep. Where are you going to get this living water? You're not greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it, along with his sons and his flocks, are you?" 

Jesus answered her, "Everyone who drinks this water will become thirsty again. But whoever drinks the water that I will give him will never become thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become a well of water for him, springing up to eternal life." 

The woman told him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I won't get thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water." 

He told her, "Go and call your husband, and come back here." 

The woman answered him, "I don't have a husband." 

Jesus told her, "You are quite right in saying, 'I don't have a husband,' because you have had five husbands, and the man you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true." 

The woman told him, "Sir, I see that you are a prophet! Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain. But you Jews say that the place where people should worship is in Jerusalem." 

Jesus told her, "Believe me, dear lady, the hour is coming when you Samaritans will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You don't know what you're worshiping. We Jews know what we're worshiping, because salvation comes from the Jews. Yet the time is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth. Indeed, the Father is looking for people like that to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." 

The woman told him, "I know that the Anointed One is coming, who is being called 'Messiah'. When that person comes, he will explain everything." 

"I am he," Jesus replied, "the one who is speaking to you." (John 4:7-26)

This Samaritan woman was sinning by living with a man who was not her husband, and she held doctrinal views that differed from Jesus. On the theological front, Jesus  lets her know that the Messiah coming through the Jews vindicated their doctrines, and showed the Samaritans were wrong. And yet, notice the tone of this entire exchange. Jesus treats her with respect, and is able to disagree with her without any harsh language or name calling. He did not condemn her for her sins, nor did he treat her harshly because she held views about worship that were in error. 

What did He do? He gave her the truth with gentleness and grace. He corrected her theology while treating her with respect and dignity, and offered her a chance to believe the Truth. Because of His tolerance, she did not become defensive, but responded with enthusiasm to His words:

Then the woman left her water jar and went back to town. She told people, "Come, see a man who told me everything I've ever done! Could he possibly be the Messiah?" The people left the town and started on their way to him. (John 4:28-30)

The end result of this respectful tolerance coupled with a gentle delivering of the Truth?

Now many of the Samaritans of that town believed in Jesus because the woman had testified, "He told me everything I've ever done." So when the Samaritans came to Jesus, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there for two days. And many more believed because of what he said. They kept telling the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, because now we have heard him ourselves, and we know that he really is the Savior of the world." 

(John 4:39-42)

Contrast how Jesus treated a woman who was theologically in error AND was living with a man out of wedlock with the following clip of members of the Westboro Baptist Church interacting with Russell Brand, who is a supporter of homosexual marriage. Notice that not only did Jesus never called the Samaritan woman a "slut" or a "whore," but did the opposite, addressing her with respect when He called her a, "dear lady." In contrast, notice how they call Russell Brand a "pimp," and the homosexuals, "fags," and claim that the despicable behavior that the members of WBC show others is actually "loving," while being polite, civil and refraining from name calling would be "hateful."

Russell Brand Interviews Westboro Baptist Church

The end result of Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman where he demonstrated real tolerance? Many Samaritans believed and were saved.

The end result of the encounter between members of Westboro Baptist Church and Russell Brand where they demonstrated no tolerance of any kind? No one is even remotely interested in becoming as hate filled as these two representatives from WBC.

Despite the attempt by Westboro Baptist Church to redefine the meaning of the words "love" and "hate," no one is really fooled. We all know loving behavior when we see it, and we all know vile, filthy name calling when we see it. Whether or not these WBC people really are believers, their behavior does not imitate that of our Lord.

Christians are called to be tolerant of the beliefs and behaviors of others. We are not commanded to accept ideas we believe to be in error nor endorse behaviors we believe are wrong, but we are commanded to treat others with kindness, respect and civility. 

Make no mistake, this culture is NOT tolerant of our beliefs, but that does NOT mean we return the favor.

You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matthew 5:43-44)

Now THAT is tolerance.

We are charged to give this world a message of Truth and grace while being genuinely loving, gentle and kind. Both because it is the right thing to do, and because it is the only way to truly reach this generation.

Let us all go, and do likewise.

Is Hell Real?

Question:

I have a hard time believing that a loving God would condemn people to hell forever. I recently read, "Love Wins" by Rob Bell, and I like what he says a lot more. Isn't it true that it is much more loving and likely that everyone will end up getting saved in the end?

Answer:

Let me start by saying, unequivocally, that I do not like the doctrine of hell. There is nothing about it that I like, and if it were just up to me, I'd ditch that doctrine in a heart beat. But that is not the purpose of this blog. I'm not doing this to tell you what I like, or what I want to be true, but to explain to the best of my ability what the Bible actually teaches. As such, I will always endeavor, given the medium of a blog and the expectations of length within this medium, to cover the entire issue.

Rob Bell is an exceptional communicator who often takes the position that the historical scope of acceptable Christian doctrine is much wider than that which we in the twentieth century call "orthodox" Christianity." The problem with his approach is that he rarely places these "alternative views" in their proper historical context, and tends to leave the impression that many of these fringe doctrines were widely accepted, and rather common place. His unspoken, but clear inference is that these "alternative views," by virtue of having popped up periodically throughout the history of Christianity, are therefore equally valid as any orthodox view held today.

The truth is that throughout the history of Christianity, one can find examples of almost every imaginable variation of virtually every Christian doctrine, but very few of these fringe ideas were ever accepted or believed by more than a hand full of people, and almost without exception, they were immediately refuted by men very well versed in the Word. Some of them, such as Arianism (the idea that Jesus is not eternal, is a created being, and is not equal to the Father), were given the opportunity to present their case before the entire church. Most of them, however, were either refuted so quickly by learned scholars of the Word that there was no need to bring them before the church, or they stood on so little to begin with that they simply died from sheer neglect.

One of these fringe views is the Christian Universalist position. There are a couple variants on this, but all of them tend to share in one idea: that after death, everyone will get a second chance at salvation, so no one will end up in hell forever. The first recorded proponent of this idea was Origen, who lived from 185 - 254 AD. His views tended to change over time, but he did indicate at one point that he believed everyone would eventually be saved. This idea disappeared within a hundred years of his death, and didn't really appear again until the nineteenth century.

This is the view that Rob Bell is proposing in his book, "Love Wins."

On the surface, there appears to be some Biblical support for the idea that every single person on the planet will be saved. For example:

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11 NIV)

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. (1 Corinthians 15:20-23 NIV)

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:18-19 NIV)

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:19-20)

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1Timothy 2:3-4)

Rob Bell's reasoning on this last verse is simply, "If God wants something, does He get it?" His answer is, of course, that God always gets what God wants, therefore all men will be saved. The truth is that there are lots of things that God wants that scripture clearly indicates He does not get. Not because He cannot get it, but because He is serious about free will. The biggest and most obvious is that God never wanted man to sin in the first place, but Adam and Eve did anyway.

On the surface, these passages seem to present a compelling case that through Jesus, every single man, woman and child on the planet will be saved.

The problem is that scripture is filled with passages, even within these same letters, that place them in a completely different light. For example, the first passage from Philippians is actually a quotation from Isaiah, which reads:

I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, that before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are righteousness and strength.' All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame. (Isaiah 45:23-24)

Not only that, but earlier in Philippians, Paul said:

Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. (Philippians 1:27-28)

And later in the same letter, he says:

For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. (Philippians 3:18-19)

There is a lot more, but I don't really have the space to cover all of it here. The point is that when read in context, it becomes clear that Paul is NOT using these terms universally, the assumption at every point is that not everyone will be saved, and whenever he says "all men," the context makes it clear he means, "all who believe."

OK, but Rob Bell kind of indicated that after death, everyone would get a second chance to repent and believe, and at this time, love would win, and everyone would become believers.

Yes, Rob Bell does imply that this will happen. The following are all the passages in scripture upon which this doctrine is based:

None.

Unfortunately, there are zero passages in the Bible that indicate people will get a second chance after death to believe. Rob Bell, and anyone else who wants to believe it, has made it up out of wishful thinking and thin air.

So what does the Bible actually say about hell? Ironically, Jesus talks about hell far more than almost anyone else in the Bible. Here is a quick sampling:

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:41-46)

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:22)

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" (Luke 16:19-31)

But the most frightening passages of all are from Revelation (the full name of this book, given in the very first line, is actually, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ").

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." (Revelation 14:9-11)

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:10-15)

Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Revelation 21:6-8)

So that's it. Everyone who doesn't believe goes to hell? Hitler gets the same punishment as Gandi (who did not believe in Jesus)?

Well, actually, that is not as clear cut as it might seem. While it is in no way certain, there are passages in scripture that seem to imply that while all unbelievers are punished forever, and all of that punishment is very, very bad, it is not all exactly the same. Let me stress here that this is at most just an implied doctrine, it is never explicitly stated outright, and is in no way certain. Plus, even if it is true, even the lightest of punishments will be very, very bad. 

In this passage Jesus seems to indicate that the punishment of some will be greater than that of others (some are beaten heavily, some are beaten lightly, while some are killed and cut up):

The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, 'My master is taking a long time in coming,' and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! (Luke 12:42-49)

Again, this next passage Jesus seems to imply that the punishment for some will be "more bearable" than for others.

"Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." (Matthew 11:21-24)

In this passage, Paul indicates that some will face "more wrath" than others on the day of judgment, and applies the principle of a person receiving rewards beyond salvation or punishment beyond condemnation in accordance with what he has done.

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) (Romans 2:5-15 NIV)

The bottom line is that there is no getting around the teaching of hell in the Bible. And taking the position that we reject God because many will be condemned to hell is the worst kind of stupid. There are no protest marches in hell, and no way to mount political pressure on God to get Him to change His decisions. If hell is real, it doesn't matter if you like the doctrine or not, if you reject God for any reason, hell will become your reality. The determination should not be, "do I like this," but simply, "is it true"?

Personally, I tend to go with the guy who said He would raise Himself from the dead, then did it. I'm going to believe him. So yes, it is true.

Now what are you going to do about that?

Is it True that Christians Should not Judge?

Question:

I've always heard that Jesus said, "Judge not," but I heard a guy on TV say that was not true, that Christians are commanded to judge others. Do you know which one is right?

Answer:

Both are right.

Once again, in order to understand this answer, we need to define our terms. There are no less than FIVE different meanings for "judge" in the Bible.

First Definition: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises; to determine or declare after consideration or deliberation, to carefully evaluate based on available facts. To Figure out. To Evaluate.

This is allowed!

Then Jesus told the crowds, "When you see a cloud coming in the west, you immediately say, 'There's going to be a storm,' and that's what happens. When you see a south wind blowing, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and so it is. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky, yet you don't know how to interpret the present time? Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? (Luke 12:54-57)

Second Definition: To hear and decide on in a court of law; try: to make a judgment in a legal case. 

This is allowed!

"Then the other servant came and said, 'Sir, look! Here's your coin. I've kept it in a cloth for safekeeping because I was afraid of you. You are a hard man. You withdraw what you didn't deposit and harvest what you didn't plant.' The king told him, 'I will judge you by your own words, you evil servant! You knew, did you, that I was a hard man, and that I withdraw what I didn't deposit and harvest what I didn't plant? Then why didn't you put my money in the bank? When I returned, I could have collected it with interest.' (Luke 19:20-23)

Third Definition: to form an opinion or make an assumption, particularly a quick judgment without examining all the fact; a snap judgment; often: to form a negative opinion about based on incomplete information ( i.e. “You shouldn't judge him because of his clothing.”) 

This is NOT allowed!

Moses gave you the Law, didn't he? Yet none of you is keeping the Law. Why are you trying to kill me?" The crowd answered, "You have a demon! Who is trying to kill you?" Jesus answered them, "I performed one action, and all of you are astonished. Moses gave you circumcision—not that it is from Moses, but from the Patriarchs—and so you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a man perfectly well on the Sabbath? Stop judging by appearances, but judge with righteous judgment!" (John 7:19-24)

This one is simply, make sure you have all the facts before you come to any kind of conclusion. Be fair, give the benefit of the doubt, and treat them like you would want to be treated if you were in their situation.

Fourth Definition: To pass sentence on; condemn

This is NOT allowed!

Therefore, let no one judge you in matters of food and drink or with respect to a festival, a New Moon, or Sabbath days. (Colossians 2:16)

Do not criticize each other, brothers. Whoever makes it his habit to criticize his brother or to judge his brother is judging the Law and condemning the Law. But if you condemn the Law, you are not a practicer of the Law but its judge. (James 4:11)

Fifth Definition: To govern; rule. Used of an ancient Israelite leader.

This is allowed!

Then I saw thrones, and those who sat on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. They came back to life and ruled with the Messiah for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4)

Samson judged Israel for twenty years during the Philistine domination. (Judges 15:20)

But even when we do the kind of judging that IS allowed, we need to keep the following in mind at all times.

Deal with our own stuff first!

DO NOT address someone else’s sin if you are struggling with a particular sin yourself.

Therefore, you have no excuse—every one of you who judges. For when you pass judgment on another person, you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, practice the very same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who act like this is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on those who practice these things and then do them yourself, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or are you unaware of his rich kindness, forbearance, and patience, that it is God's kindness that is leading you to repent? But because of your stubborn and unrepentant heart you are reserving wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will repay everyone according to what that person has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing good; but wrath and fury for those who in their selfish pride refuse to believe the truth and practice wickedness instead. (Romans 2:1-8)

Do not judge things that God has not clearly spoken on!

God actually allows us to have our own convictions on things, and to have differing opinions from others on issues. Be careful not to get dogmatic on things that God has NOT explicitly addressed. It is OK for others to have convictions or opinions on things that differ from you, particularly on those things that do not relate to the critical, core doctrines of Christianity. Getting in loud, hostile arguments about end times issues, the rapture, worship styles, Bible translation, which denomination is right, and a host of other peripheral issues should not happen among believers. It is OK to discuss or debate differences, but do it with honor and respect.

Accept anyone who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of arguing over differences of opinion. One person believes that he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. The person who eats any kind of food must not ridicule the person who does not eat them, and the person who does not eat certain foods must not criticize the person who eats them, for God has accepted him. Who are you to criticize someone else's servant? He stands or falls before his own Lord—and stand he will, because the Lord makes him stand. One person decides in favor of one day over another, while another person decides that all days are the same. Let each one be fully convinced in his own mind: The one who observes a special day, observes it to honor the Lord. The one who eats, eats to honor the Lord, since he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat, refrains from eating to honor the Lord; yet he, too, gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:1-6)

Do not judge non-believers by Christian standards! 

I wrote to you in my letter to stop associating with people who are sexually immoral— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, greedy, robbers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you to stop associating with any so-called brother if he is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunk, or a robber. You must even stop eating with someone like that. After all, is it my business to judge outsiders? You are to judge those who are in the community, aren't you? God will judge outsiders.  (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

This means coming to a conclusion about something that someone has done (they lied to me), and even allowing them to face the consequences of that behavior (I do not trust them any more) is NOT the same as condemning them (verbally or socially harassing, humiliating, or injuring them) for that action. For example, I am allowed to recognize that my neighbors are living together without being married, and that is a sin. I am even allowed to let them know that I cannot allow them to sleep in the same room together in my house. 

I am not allowed to call them names, ridicule them for their actions, go on TV and humiliate them, or in any way harass them because they are not living according to a standard they do not recognize or accept. If the topic comes up in conversation with them directly, I will explain to them what God has to say on the matter, including that it is wrong and why God doesn't want them to do it (even including an explanation that God's laws are designed to protect us form harm and liberate us from bondage to sin). In other words, I will witness to them.

But even then, I am not going to call them names or condemn them. No one comes to God because we say mean and hateful things to them. I will continue to love them unconditionally, even as they know I do not approve of their behavior, because they just might come to God if we tell them the Truth in a way that makes it clear we are doing it because we care about them, and we will continue to care about them, even if they continue to do things that are actually bringing them harm.

THIS is real tolerance. Treating people with kindness and courtesy despite disagreeing with them. That does NOT mean I endorse, support or excuse their behavior. I disagree without being disagreeable.

Here is the side of jugding that is not always widely discussed:

We MUST judge the following:

Spiritual leaders (evaluate and protect – be a watchman)

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

Dear friends, stop believing every spirit. Instead, test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: Every spirit who acknowledges that Jesus the Messiah has become human—and remains so—is from God. But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

Theological Truth (evaluate, correct and protect)

But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that person be condemned! What we have told you in the past I am now telling you again: If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that person be condemned! (Galatians 1:8-9)

Fellow believers (discern and restore)

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of him. Have nothing to do with him so that he will feel ashamed. Yet, don't treat him like an enemy, but warn him like a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15)

And, of course, we must always do the following:

Judge with grace!

Do not have anything to do with foolish and stupid discussions, because you know they breed arguments. A servant of the Lord must not argue. Instead, he must be kind to everyone, teachable, willing to suffer wrong, and gentle when refuting opponents. After all, maybe God will allow them to repent and to come to a full knowledge of the truth, so that they might escape from the devil's snare, even though they've been held captive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

So you absolutely CAN evaluate and draw conclusions about people, situations, and actions. If those actions directly impact your life, you can take appropriate action.  You cannot condemn people for failing, call them names, ridicule them, or in any way harass them. When dealing with unbelievers, it is the Holy Spirit's job to convict, produce guilt, and bring to repentance.

You are allowed to go to a fellow believer and talk to them about something they have done, particularly to bring them to repentance, but make sure you have ALL THE FACTS before you do. Don't charge in condemning them, but get all the facts, and talk to them about what they have done like responsible adults. If they have harmed you personally, follow the guidelines in scripture for dealing with the situation, always being ready and quick to forgive.

It is our job to deliver Truth with love and grace, to be compassionate, forgiving, and kind, and to reflect the character of our God at all times with all people. 

First and foremost, we are supposed to be known by our love and compassion for all, for loving what is good, and for our blameless devotion to our God.

What Translation of the Bible is the Best?

Question:

So a friend told me that the only real Bible is the King James Version, but I have a hard time understanding it. I kinda like the NIV, but she said that one is corrupt. I was wondering which version you think is the best?

Answer:

This is really two issues:

1) Is the KJV really the only legitimate Word of God?
2) If not, what is the best English translation?

The primary argument of the King James Version only view is that all other translations are corrupt because they leave out words, phrases or verses that are found in the KJV. How do we know they are wrong in leaving those words, phrases or verses out of the bible? Simple. If they are in the KJV, they are scripture. Period.

The first issue assumes that somehow an English translation made 1500 years after the New Testament was written is the one and only bible against which all bibles, before and after, must be measured. Thus, if we find a second century copy of the Gospel of John in Greek that differs slightly from the KJV (which did happen with Papyrus 75), the ancient Greek manuscript is wrong, not the KJV. How does this even make sense?

So, they are starting with an assumption that cannot be proven. Then, based on this assumption, when a modern translation is missing something that is found in the KJV, they accuse it of being corrupt, and quote this verse from Revelation to condemn it:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Rev 22:19 KJV)

There are two serious ironies here.

The first is, how are we to know if modern translations are leaving verses out of the bible that are supposed to be there, or if the KJV has added verses to the bible that were never supposed to be there in the first place? The only way to know this is to look at the oldest copies of the bible in Greek, and see how they read.

For example, 1 John 5:7 appears in the KJV, but not in any modern translations. Why? Because prior to the twelfth century, that verse did not appear in ANY Greek manuscript of the New Testament. It FIRST appears as a margin note in the twelfth century, and is found in only FIVE manuscripts (out of more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts), all of them after the twelfth century. So, here is the problem. This verse was not found in ANY bible in the 1st century, 2nd century, 3rd century, 4th century, 5th century, 6th century, 7th century, 8th century, 9th century, 10th century or 11th century, yet somehow the KJV only view wants us to believe it is original? If a new version drops that verse, are they not returning to the way the bible was for 1100 years PRIOR to its sudden appearance as a margin note? Doesn't the choice to return to the way the bible was for the first thousand years of its existence make more sense?

Besides, Revelation has another warning, one that proponents of this theory never mention.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (Rev 22:18 KJV)

The second ironic thing about Revelation 22:19 quote from the KJV listed above is that prior to the sixteenth century, the phrase "book of life" did not exist in ANY Greek manuscripts (it appeared first in a poor Latin translation). ALL Greek manuscripts in existence read "tree of life." So which is correct? The KJV or ALL the Greek manuscripts in existence?

The bottom line here is that modern translations are NOT attempting to corrupt the bible. Far from it, they are, through serious scholarly research into Greek manuscripts, attempting to produce a bible that is as close to the originals as possible.

There are a few other issues involved, but I don't have the time or space to go into them. If you are interested, the following web site addresses many of the KJV only issues fairly well:

Notes on the King James Translation and the so-called Textus Receptus

Bottom line: it is simply not true that the King James Version is the only valid, true and reliable translation of the Bible.

So what is the best translation of the bible?

The one you understand the best, and are most likely to actually read.

In other words, I have only run into ONE seriously BAD translation of the Bible (done by a guy who could not actually read Greek, who assumed that each Greek word had ONE, and only ONE meaning, and really did not understand Greek structure, syntax or grammar - and I am NOT providing a link to his web site), and quite a few really good translations.

The truth is, there is no such thing as a "best" translation of the bible. It is simply impossible to create a perfect translation of a Koine Greek document into modern English, if for no other reason than there are so many things in the ancient Greek for which we have no equivalent in modern English. For example, in John 1:1 the Greek word λόγος is translated "word," yet it does NOT mean "word" in that sentence. In fact, we have no English equivalent for what it means in that context, which is something like this:

λόγος is the principle of order and knowledge in the universe. The way everything in the universe held together, followed laws or patterns, the way learning made sense of that order, and the way new knowledge explained things that had previously been a mystery. All of this was λόγος. You could say that λόγος is all knowledge that ever was or ever will be. In its purest form, it is the actions, thoughts and knowledge of God Himself. [from my up coming book, "The Gospel According to John: Wide Open" due out sometime in 2015 or so . . . hopefully]

We have no English word that can relate this meaning, so what do we do? We use the sorely under-powered and seriously lacking alternative, "Word," mostly because no scholar on the planet can can think of anything better.

But there is more. Greek has constructions we don't have in English, some of which are due to it being a flexible language that uses WORD ORDER to convey subtle, but often critical, information in a sentence, and we have no set way to relate these nuances in English. Greek has greater distinctions and subtleties in many words than we have in English. For example, to contrast two ideas, we have "but, however, and although," each of which mean pretty much the same thing, and to connect, we have "and, as well as" and maybe a few others, each of which, again, mean essentially the same thing. Greek, however, has a five step progression from the strongest contrast (opposites) to the strongest connection (indicating unity, or the tightest connection). How do we accurately relate exactly where we are on this progression with a given conjunction?

Additionally, we are constantly learning more and more about Greek as time goes on. For example, it has only been in the last twenty-five years or so that we have learned that the Greek word αὐθεντέω meant "violence," not "authority" in the first century, and very few modern translations reflect this discovery even today (I only know of one: the ISV).

Different translations tend to reflect different subtleties, all found in the Greek. No translation is perfect, and every translation (including my own) has some problems that often cannot be overcome due to the limitations of human language. Every translation has moments of unmatched beauty, stunning clarity, and outright genius.

My recommendation: get several translations, and switch back and forth between them.

If you are interested, I own well over thirty-five different translations (on top of being able to read the Greek), and these are some of my favorites (in alphabetical order):

Amplified Bible, Contemporary English Version, Easy to Read Version, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Version, International Standard Version, King James Version, Message, Modern King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New International Reader's Version, New King James Version, Today's New International Version, Young's Literal Translation.

So buy a couple that you like, and most importantly of all, READ THEM! And you will be fine.

Oh, and if you have any questions about a specific passage or word, write to me, and I'll do my best to explain it to you.

Do all roads lead to God?

Question:

With all the billions of people of other faiths in the world, it just seems to me that claiming Christianity is the only way is intolerant in the extreme. It seems to me a more enlightened view is that all faiths lead to the same God. Given all the different beliefs in the world, isn't it arrogant to claim that you guys have the only way to heaven?

Answer:

That depends on whether or not we are correct. Just because someone claims there is only one path to a certain destination or one answer to a specific question does not automatically mean they are narrow minded, arrogant, or intolerant. Because . . . what if they are right?

Oh, and by the way, we don't actually claim that "Christianity" is the only way to salvation, we claim that the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation. The two are not the same. In other words, it is not the commands, traditions, trappings, doctrines, teachings or good works of Christianity that bring salvation: it is faith in the God of Christianity that brings salvation. This is the ultimate example of, "it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know."

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Joh 14:6 NIV)

To know if we are correct, we need to explore three questions:

1) What does it take to be saved (or qualify for heaven)?
2) What is the problem facing mankind that might keep them from salvation?
3) What is the solution to that problem?

Almost every faith on the planet has the same basic answer to the question of what does it take to be saved (or make it to paradise, or reach nirvana, or escape the cycle of reincarnation): your good must outweigh your bad. And the vast majority of all their various teachings center on telling us what we have to do, or how we have to live, in order for that to be true in our life.

Christianity, however, has a completely different answer. The Bible teaches us that being more good than bad is simply not good enough. God's standard is much, much higher than that.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mat 5:48 NIV)

So in Christianity, the only way to be saved is to be perfect.

You see, where most other religions view the requirements for salvation as a kind of test where you need to get a certain score to pass, Christianity views it as a judgement in a criminal trial. Each person will be on trial for crimes committed against God, and the "good things" we have done will have no bearing on determining our guilt.

For example, if I am on trial for murder, no amount of good deeds that I have done will have any bearing on whether or not I am found guilty. They might effect my sentence, but they will have no effect on my guilt. Being nice to my wife, and giving money to charity has nothing to do with the question, "Did I commit murder?" Likewise, the Bible teaches that our guilt or innocence is based on one question: have I sinned? No amount of "good deeds" have any impact on this question.

Further, sin is not defined as "evil." Sin produces evil, leads to evil, can make us evil, but strictly speaking, sin is not "evil." The Geek word for sin is ἁμαρτία, and this word does not mean, "bad" or "evil," it means, "to miss the mark, to fail, to be less than morally perfect." Because "sin" is a failure to be morally perfect, it is completely legitimate to refer to an evil act as a "sin."

So the question we will all face at our trial is this: Have you been less than morally perfect? If we have committed any sins (moral failures), we will be found guilty.

In line with this, the Bible clearly teaches that the problem facing mankind is sin, and each and every one of us is afflicted by this disease.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:22b-23 NIV)

Does this mean each of us are inherently evil, and if given half a chance, we will all become little Hitlers? Being thoroughly sinful does not automatically mean we are thoroughly evil, it means we are thoroughly imperfect. Thoroughly imperfect people can do good things, and can even resist doing evil things. So the problem of sin is not that it will inevitably turn us all into serial killers, the problem is that it keeps us from being perfect. And because of this inborn imperfection, we ALL will eventually do something that is a moral failure, we will do something wrong, and at that moment, we are condemned. We now fail to qualify for heaven.

No heaping of good deeds on top of our sins can make up for that crime. Thus, we all, each and every one of us, are doomed to be found guilty, and forbidden to enter heaven.

This is where Jesus comes in. The REASON He is the only way to salvation is that His death and resurrection are the only means to wash us clean of our imperfect behavior, and make us morally perfect in the eyes of God. Paul explains how it works this way:

But here is how God has shown his love for us. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. The blood of Christ has made us right with God. So we are even more sure that Jesus will save us from God's anger. Once we were God's enemies. But we have been brought back to him because his Son has died for us. Now that God has brought us back, we are even more secure. We know that we will be saved because Christ lives. (Rom 5:8-10)

Because Jesus died for us, we are forgiven and made clean, and because He rose from the grave, and now lives, we are given new life and saved.

And what does it take to get in on this awesome deal?

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame." (Rom 10:9-11)

Just a quick note: biblical faith is not only something we say, most importantly, it is something we do. In the same way that real love is demonstrated by what we do, real faith in Jesus is demonstrated by our actions, by how we live from this day forward, NOT by simply saying a prayer. In other words, if our faith is real, salvation is instantaneous, and the proof of that is that our lives are forever changed.

So here is the bottom line. If the Bible is right about how to get to heaven (be perfect), about what our problem is (we cannot be perfect) and about how that problem is solved (faith in Jesus makes us perfect), then all faiths do NOT lead to God. Only one road leads to God, and that road is called Jesus. Furthermore, if the Bible is right, there is nothing intolerant or arrogant about this claim at all.

On the contrary, we have an obligation to get this message out to as many people as we possibly can.

Is it Wrong to Sell Things in Church?

Question:

We're not suppose to sell things at church, 'cause when people in biblical times did it, Jesus flipped the tables. So isn't it wrong that my church has a cafe, where they sell coffee and stuff, right in the lobby?

Answer:

In order to understand the answer to this question, we first need to define our terms. The event you are referencing occured in the temple, not in the church, and that is a critical difference. The word translated "church" in the New Testament is ἐκκλησία. Unlike the temple, which was a building, an ἐκκλησία is not the building, it is the people. In fact, "church" is a really poor translation of ἐκκλησία; a much better translation is "community."

So the first thing we need to understand is that a "church building" is NOT a modern substitute for the temple. That is simply the building where the ἐκκλησία (community of believers) meets. The only thing that makes a church building "holy" or "sacred" is the people who meet there to worship God. There is nothing inherently sacred about any particular building. If the people meet in a livingroom or a restaurant or a field, the place where they meet is sacred ground while they are meeting there. Once they leave, it is just a place again. And the same thing is true for any building of any kind where the "church" meets, regardless of whether it has a steeple, pews, and an altar up front or couches, a TV, and an xbox in the corner. The building is not sacred, the people are sacred. In fact, if a few of you happen to pray together while standing in a grocery store, something which exists specifically to sell things, it has become sacred because the church is meeting there.

Thus, in my case, the building where we hold our Sunday worship service is NOT Living Promise Free Methodist Church, it is simply the building where Living Promise Free Methodist Church meets. The building is not the church, we are the church.

Second, Jesus was not upset at the "selling," he was upset that they were cheating the people. Notice what He said,

He told them, "It is written, 'My house is to be called a house of prayer,' but you are turning it into a hideout for bandits!" (Matthew 21:13)

They were being thieves and stealing from the people. And that is NEVER ok, no matter what the setting, but especially in the name of God. Even worse, they were cheating the people by artificially raising the prices on things the people were required by the law to buy (doves, lambs, etc.). The people had no choice, they had to buy those doves for the sacrifices they were required by the law to perform. Since the people had no option not to buy, this was practically akin to armed robbery, and it was happening in the one place that was supposed to be a refuge and comfort for the people.

So the problem was not the selling, it was the cheating and stealing.

Thus, since the building is nothing more than a place where the church meets, assuming they are not cheating people, or selling something that is inherently immoral, there is nothing wrong with a Cafe, or a Christian bookstore, or clothing store, or whatever, in that building. If your church wants to have a cafe next to the lobby, that is probably a really good idea (particularly since it will ensure that the coffee drinkers in the congregation are fully awake for the service).

Never forget that in Christianity, no building is sacred. We, the community of believers, are sacred when we gather to worship, not because of us, but because of the God who comes into our midst as we worship and pray.

For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them. (Matthew 18:20)

Can Women be Pastors? Part Three.

Question:

If you are right about there being no rule against women being in leadership, can you give any examples of women in the New Testament who were church leaders?

Answer:

Very good question. It is one thing to claim that those verses do not prohibit women from being in authority, but another thing altogether to show that there actually were women in positions of authority in the early church.

Keep in mind that BOTH the Jewish and Roman cultures were extremely male dominated, and one of the reasons Paul had to address issues with Christian women causing problems in church is that women were not used to being in those situations, so they did not know the rules of public interaction. In the Roman culture, women could not hold public office, could not vote, could not own a business (unless they inherited it from their deceased husband), could not attend or speak at public gatherings, and had no real rights of any kind. In fact, one of the chief charges made by the Romans about Christianity is that it was a cult that was going to "destroy the family" by granting women public and commercial equality, at which point they would no longer want to be wives and mothers.

So the first thing we should note is that no matter what Paul taught, women leadership was unlikely to be common or widespread, simply due to the culture. So while female leadership was relatively rare, you might be surprised to discover that there is evidence in the New Testament that some women were were active in church ministry, serving as prophets, apostles, and deacons, were teaching men, and were even in positions of leadership.

The first example of this is Aquila and Priscilla (also called Prisca). They are always mentioned together, and of the seven times they are referenced directly, Priscilla is mentioned first five times (Acts 18:18, 19, 26; Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19). They had a church that met in their home (1 Corinthians 16:19), where it appears they were joint leaders.  They both took Apollos under their wing and jointly mentored him in the Word of God (Acts 18:24-26). Here we see that Priscilla was a pastor, and clearly taught men, including the bold firebrand known as Apollos.

Next we have Phoebe, whom Paul calls a Deaconess (Romans 16:1).

Then there is the husband/wife team of Andronicus and Junia, who were both apostles. The Greek phrase "were prominent among the apostles" indicates that, of all those called apostles, these two were at the top (Romans 16:7). Some translations insist that the name "Junia" must be masculine, however, every single reference to Junia for the first 1200 years of Christianity referenced Junia as a woman, and virtually every translation of this passage in any language has the name feminine. The idea that this name must be masculine did not even appear in Christian writings until the thirteenth century. Today, no serious scholars dispute that Junia was an woman apostle.

Next, we find that Phillip the Evangelist had four unmarried daughters, all of whom acted as prophets (Acts 21:9).

Finally, we find Paul giving instructions for how male and female elders were to be treated. The Greek word for elder is πρεσβύτερος. It appears 67 times in the New Testament, and references a person in a position of authority, either in the Temple or in the Christian church.

What many do not realize is that in one case, this word appears in the feminine, which would mean "female elder."

Never speak harshly to an older man, but appeal to him as if he were your father. Treat younger men like brothers, older women like mothers, and younger women like sisters, with absolute purity. (1Ti 5:1-2)

Because πρεσβύτερος is contrasted with "younger men" and "younger women," translators almost always assume that it is intended to mean "older man" and "older woman" in this verse, not to mention that everyone "knows" there was no such thing as a female elder, right? The only problem is that although it is inherent in the meaning that the person is "older," it does not really mean "older man," as Greek has a different word for "older man" (πρεσβύτης). Further, because being "older" is inherent in the meaning of the word "elder," it is completely accurate to contrast an elder with a "younger" person.

This verse is actually giving instructions for how to treat male and female elders, as well as those who are younger, both male and female, so a more accurate translation would be:

Never speak harshly to a male elder, but appeal to him as if he were your father. Treat younger men like brothers, female elders like mothers, and younger women like sisters, with absolute purity. (1Ti 5:1-2)

While finding a woman in leadership was rare in the early church, due partly to the cultural constraints on women in a society where they did not have the same rights as men, it did happen. And if Paul had really intended that women should not be allowed in any kind of leadership position, there would be no evidence of women in leadership at all.

So women, if God is calling you into full time pastoral ministry, obey that call. You have the same rights in Christ as any man. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus be upon you and your ministry.

Can Women Be Pastors? Part Two.

Question:

How can a woman be a pastor if women are explicitly forbidden to speak in church in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

Answer:

As with the 1 Timothy passage, the translation on this one is usually flawed just enough to make it seem absolute, when Paul had no intention of making it as extreme as our translations often imply. Again, I will bold the translation problems. For the sake of context, I have includee verse 33 as well.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This passage has very similar translational issues as the 1 Timothy passage, so some of this has already been addressed.

The first thing we should note is that this passage is set in the context of verse 33, which shows that the issue facing the churches was of disorder and chaos during the meetings. Apparently, some of the women were causing some disruption in the service, and the issue had to be addressed.

As with “teaching” in the 1 Timothy passage above, "speaking" here means “continuously speaking.” It is not a prohibition against ever speaking, but against disruptive, continuous speaking. Further, the Greek word translated “speak” (λαλεω – laleo) is more accurately “converse, discuss, extended conversation.” What is disgraceful is for the wives to be disrupting the services by constantly asking their husbands questions, and engaging in ongoing conversations when they should be paying attention to the service. Again, the construction here indicates that women did speak in church, but they were not supposed to abuse that to the point of becoming a disruption. 

I have already addressed the translation issue with "submission," and the context here is the same. Women need to be respectful and reverent in a church service, which is a fairly obvious issue. 

Further, no denomination in any century has ever taught that women must literally remain silent in Church, as that would prohibit them from singing, prophesying or praying, which is something they clearly did. In fact, Paul gives instructions, in this very same letter, that in a Greek culture, the married women needed to cover their heads when they spoke out in a church service (Jewish culture was the exact opposite, with the men covering their heads during religious ceremonies, and the women leaving their heads uncovered, showing that the whole "head covering" issue is cultural). 

Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head, and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, which is the same as having her head shaved. (1Co 11:4-5)

Now clearly, if women were not allowed to pray or prophesy in church, there would be no need for a rule about keeping their heads covered while they spoke out in a church service. No such instructions would be necessary if women literally kept silent in church. 

Further, if we take this literally, it also means it only applies to married women, as single women had no husbands to ask questions of at home.

Occasionally paraphrase translations, because they can be freer in their phraseology, manage to capture the force of the Greek passage even better than word for word translations. This is one of those verses where a popular paraphrase, The Message, catches the force of this paragraph in 1 Corinthians 14 as concisely as I have seen anywhere.

Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God's Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking.

All difficult passages in scripture should always be interpreted in light of clearer verses elsewhere in the Bible. It is my contention that we should likewise do the same with the these passages, particularly since so much of the New Testament indicates that women were NOT silent in Church, and that they did hold positions of authority (I will address this in Part Three).

These passages should not be taken as absolute warnings about how women are prone to abuse their authority, but should be understood as what they are: isolated circumstances addressing unique problems within a specific cultural setting. The real principle at work here is that, just as Priscila and Aquila operated as a team in ministry (and jointly taught Apollos about Christianity, Acts chapter 18), so husbands and wives should work together in harmony within the body of Christ.

When judging how God views the issue of women in ministry, or in positions of authority within the church, we should always keep this verse in mind: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28). 

When Paul wrote these words to the Galatians, this was the very first time any person in human history made this statement, in ANY context, claiming all people were equal, regardless of ethnicity, status or sex. Paul, and Christianity, were on the cutting edge of human rights in the first century, and unfortunately, the church lost most of that momentum in later centuries.

The bottom-line is that in Christianity, all sincere believers are given equal access to the gospel, to ministry, and to any position of authority. Many believers in the 1850's used Galatians 3:28, among others, in stating that all believers, of all races, whether black or white, slave or free, are equal in the eyes of God. Just as so many of them had the courage to stand up to slavery when it was the law of the land, many of them eventually embraced the whole verse when they granted women the right to be ordained as pastors. Despite how controversial this issue seems to be, the vast majority of protestant denominations now ordain women, as illustrated in this Wikipedia article (it's a long list, but not complete, as the Free Methodist Church, which is where I serve as pastor, ordains women and is not listed):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_Protestant_churches

In America, the average person no longer has a problem with a woman holding a position of authority in the government, yet many believers would forbid a sincere, Christian woman who had just proven her leadership ability as the President of the United States or the Governor of a state from serving as the pastor of a church. This disconnect should not be. Long before any society granted full and complete equal rights to all people, regardless of race, economic status or sex, Christianity was on the cutting edge of civilization by doing exactly that. Our Lord and Savior makes no distinction between races, economic status or sexes, and neither should we.

Can Women be Pastors? Part One

Question:

I'm so tired of American Christians just ignoring the Bible when it suits their needs. Take your church [Free Methodist] for example. You ordain women; isn't this a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where Paul clearly says that women cannot teach or have authority over men?

Answer:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28).

This is the over-riding principle that should be used when trying to understand how Christ views believers. This verse makes it clear there are no boundaries or restrictions based on race, culture, economic status or sex when it comes to serving Christ. Most believers have no problem accepting this verse, right up until we get to the part about there being neither male nor female in Christ. They, as you, believe this principle is restricted by two passages in the New Testament which appear to prohibit women from being in positions of authority in the church, and they cannot understand how those verses can be interpreted any other way. These two verses are 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

In Part One of my answer, I shall address 1 Timothy; in Part Two I shall address 1 Corinthians; and in Part Three I shall examine the full biblical picture of women in authority.

I propose that, due to mistranslation and misapplication, these two verses have been applied improperly, and that once they are understood properly, we see that not only is there no scriptural barrier to women in authority, but when understood correctly, they actually assume women will be in authority, and provide careful warnings to make sure that wives in authority within the church do not abuse that authority with respect to their husbands.

A womanA should learn in quietness and full submissionE. I do not permit a womanA to teachB or to assume authorityC over a manA; she must be silentD. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the womanA who was deceived and became a sinner. But womenA will be saved through childbearing--if theyA continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

There are five problems with the way this verse is usually translated, which I have bolded and marked. 

A) To whom is this passage addressed?

B) Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

C) Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

D) Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

E) Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

So the first translational problem is, "To whom is this passage addressed?"

In Greek, there is no separate word for husband and wife: ανηρ (aner - “man, husband”) and γυνη (gune - “woman, wife”) are used for both, and the exact meaning must be determined from context. For example, just fourteen verses further down in 1 Timothy 3:14 we find this verse: “A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well,” where ανηρ and γυνη are translated “husband” and “wife” respectively.  

So what does the context tell us?

First, Paul compares them to the first husband and wife, Adam and Eve. Granted, this alone would not be enough to know for sure (as they are BOTH the first man and woman AND the first husband and wife), but there are more clues.

Second, Paul speaks of these "women" that he is addressing as giving birth to children. In other words, these are not women in general, but clearly, married women (Paul would never assume that single Christian women would be giving birth). 

Third, in verse 14, the Greek does not include the word "woman," but uses pronouns, and literally says, “SHE [singular] will be saved through childbearing if THEY [plural] continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” 

Since Paul is clearly addressing each woman individually with the singular in the first part, the plural in the second part cannot be a reference to women in general. That would literally mean that each woman will be kept safe if, and only if, ALL women continued in faith, love and holiness. It should be obvious that Paul did not intend that meaning, so the only plural reference that makes sense here is “she and her husband.”

Given this context, it is far more likely that Paul was intending this to be about how wives should treat their husbands when the wives are in positions of authority (which is a much more likely scenario of abuse), not about men and women in general. 

So with this first translational error corrected, the passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to teach or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 

(1Ti 2:11-15 NIV)

So the first thing that should be noted here is that context strongly suggests this passage is not about a general rule concerning all women, but is addressed specifically to husbands and wives, and specifically how wives in authority should treat their husbands.

The next translational problem is Does this passage really forbid women from teaching men?

When a prohibition is absolute (“do not do this, ever”), Greek uses the Aorist tense.[1] 

For example, in James 2:11 we read:

For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

Adultery and murder are never allowed, under any circumstances, and James reflects this absolute prohibition by placing the commands “do not commit adultery” and “do not murder” in the Aorist tense.

If Paul had intended this prohibition against wives teaching to be absolute, he would have used the Aorist, as James did concerning adultery and murder. However, Paul used the Present tense, which places this command in a completely different light. The tense he chose is best translated, “I do not allow wives to teach husbands continuously.” By choosing this construction, Paul is actually stating that some wives did teach their husbands, it is just that they should not be doing it constantly, which is what he advises for all believers in his letter to the Corinthians: 

For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. (1 Corinthians 14:31)

Adding this correction to our passage, it now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to assume authority over her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The third translational problem Does this passage really forbid women from having authority over men?

The word for “authority” in the New Testament is εξουσια (exousia). There are three Greek words that can be considered synonyms of this word (addressed in footnote [2] below), but the Greek word used in this passage in Timothy is not one of them. εξουσια is used of all levels of authority, including soldiers in the military (Matthew 8:9), the civil authority of human leaders (Luke 20:20), the spiritual authority of church leaders (2 Corinthians 13:10), the authority of Jesus over all of creation (Matthew 28:18), and when the Bible says that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1). 

However, Paul does not use εξουσια (or any of the synonyms of εξουσια) in this verse. In fact, the Bible does not forbid women from exercising authority (εξουσια) over men! Not even once! Let me state that again: No where in the Bible are women forbidden from exorcising εξουσια over men. No where.

So what does this passage forbid? Believe it or not, it forbids women who have authority from being abusive towards their husbands. In this passage, Paul does not use εξουσια, or one of its synonyms, but a completely different word that only appears ONCE in the entire New Testament: αυθεντεω. When a word only appears once in the New Testament (which happens over 2200 times), scholars must go to other Greek texts, both religious and secular, outside the Bible, to find out for sure what the word means.

An examination of the evidence reveals something shocking: it does not mean “usurp authority” as it is rendered in the KJV, nor is it “authority” as in most modern translations. So what does it mean? An examination of every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare) in every available Greek manuscript from 200 years prior to Paul to 100 years after Paul yields an astonishing discovery: it is used almost exclusively of murder, suicide, or abusive or violent action against one’s self (suicide) or against a family member or relative.[3] This meaning fits perfectly with the context of this verse being about unacceptable behavior within a family unit: how a wife should treat her husband. Which is why the ISV translates this verse: “Moreover, in the area of teaching, I am not allowing a woman to instigate violence towards a man. Instead, she is to remain calm.”

So why is it usually translated "authority"? Because usage gradually changed its meaning over time, and almost 500 years after Paul wrote his letter it came to mean "autonomous, illegitimate authority." During the time when Paul used this word, however, that is NOT what it meant.

This is important to understand: by using this word, Paul is not really saying anything about authority, he is simply admonishing wives to refrain from any actions that could be abusive toward their own husbands. If Paul had meant women had no authority over men at all, he would have used εξουσια.

Adding this new information, this passage now becomes:

A wife should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or to be abusive in any way toward her husband; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fourth translational problem is Does this passage really demand that women be completely silent in church?

The Greek word translated "quietness" in verse eleven and “silence” in verse twelve is ͑ησυχια (hesuchia), and primarily means "quiet tranquility," not literal silence. Although it can indicate being vocally quiet, even then it primarily references the state of the spirit, not the mouth.

For example, note how it is used in this passage:

For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. (2 Thessalonians 3:11-12)

Here, ͑ησυχια is translated “quiet fashion.” This was not a command to maintain silence when you work, but to be a productive person who refrained from causing trouble. We should be a source of strength, not discord, to those around us. One of the best ways to tell how Paul intends it to be understood is by checking how he uses ησυχια earlier in the same letter.

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (I Timothy 2:1-2)

A mere ten verses before making his statement about wives being silent, Paul uses the same word. No one would make the argument that Paul was telling Timothy that a truly godly life was one where we never spoke, but rather, he was encouraging us to live lives in which we are not a source of strife and conflict with others. As these verses show, Paul's primary point is that women, and the rest of us for that matter, should not allow ourselves to become a source of discord and conflict within the church, but rather, examples of quiet strength and humility. This is also one of the reasons that the more recent edition of the NIV changed their translation of this word in verse 12 from "silent" (in the 1984 edition) to "quiet" (in the 2011 edition).

With this in mind, this passage should now read:

A wife should learn calmly and in full submission. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. But she will be saved through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

The fifth translational problem is Does this passage really demand "full submission" of women to men?

Every language has words whose concepts are unique to that language or culture, and for which no other language has exact equivalents. The word translated “full submission” in 2 Timothy 2:11 is one such word. There is no exact English equivalent for ͑υποτασσω (hupotasso), so it is always a struggle to translate it correctly.

Although there is an underlying idea of submitting to the will of another, this word reflects a voluntary submission that arises from the tremendous respect and admiration because of that person's wisdom and leadership, not because they are a ruler over you. The over-riding concept is not about obeying someone, deferring to their decisions or will, or even letting them make the decisions. The strongest underlying idea is actually one of tremendous respect that is shown by supporting, encouraging, or even holding someone up so that they don't collapse. It is mostly about an attitude of respect, honor and support, not about decision-making or obedience or even deference to the decisions of someone else.

One of the best scriptures for illustrating the real meaning of this word is Ephesians 5:21: "Submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God."

Clearly, this cannot be about obeying, being superior, or having authority over someone, as this is something that we are supposed do to each other. What we can do is hold one other in such high regard that we are constantly treating each other with respect and honor while encouraging, supporting and lifting each other up. This is something that clergy and leaders can and should do to those placed under their authority.

A more accurate translation for this word, particularly in this context, would be "respect," not "full submission."

Thus, it is my opinion that a more accurate translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 would be:

A wife should learn calmly and respectfully. I do not permit a wife to be continuously teaching or being abusive in any way toward her husband; she must not be a source of strife. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was his wife who was deceived and became a sinner. So she will be kept safe through childbearing--if she and her husband continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1Ti 2:11-15)

Far from forbidding women to have authority, this passage is about women who do have authority, but are commanded not to abuse that authority within the confines of their own families, particularly with their husbands. If a woman is in authority within the church, that does not change the simple fact that her husband is still the head of the house.

Footnotes:
___________________________________

[1] Prohibitions occur in the Subjunctive or Infinitive (i.e. Matthew 5:34, 36, 42; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 2:22; James 2:11), and the Future Indicative (i.e. Matthew 4:7; 5:21, 27, 33; 19:18; Romans 7:7; 13:9). The difference between them is subtle. The Aorist Subjunctive or Aorist Infinitive place a little more emphasis on the prohibition itself, and tend to be very specific. A prohibition against adultery using the Aorist Subjunctive could be translated “do not commit adultery - ever!” The Future Indicative places more emphasis on how one should live from this day forward, as a normal part of our daily life, and tends to be more general. The corresponding command in the Future Indicative could be translated (over emphasizing the effect), “you shall not, from this day forward, commit adultery.” So the Future indicative would be more in line with "Go and sin no more," while the Aorist is more in line with, "Do not sin!"

[2] There are a few synonyms with similar meanings: κυριότης is a derivative of the Greek word meaning "Lord," and strictly speaking, means "Lordship, dominion, rule." This is used almost exclusively of the spiritual authority of God, demons or angels, and appears in Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; 2 Peter 2:10; and Jude 1:8. ἐπιταγή is the issuing of commands, and is not authority itself, but is something that someone who has authority is allowed to do. This word appears in Romans 16:26; 1 Corinthians 7:6, 25; 2 Corinthians 8:8; 1 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:3; 2:15. ὑπερέχω means "to be superior in rank, class or attitude," or "to govern" and appears in Romans 13:1 (where it is connected to εξουσια to produce "governing authorities"); Philippians 2:3; 3:8; 4:7; 1 Peter 2:13.

[3] See Betty Talbert’s thesis (for her Master’s degree in Apologetics) “The Meaning of Authenteo and its Implication in Translating I Timothy 2:12” She examines every occurrence of the noun form of this word (the verb is exceedingly rare), from 200 years before and 100 years after Paul wrote, tracing it's gradual change from "kinsmen murder" or "suicide" 200 years before Paul to something closer to "familial violence or abuse" by Paul's time.