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.

How Do I Choose a Church?

Question:

They [denominations] all believe something different. Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists . . . How do I know which one is right?

Answer:

Well, for one thing, I think you might be asking the wrong question. You seem to be focusing exclusively on "Truth," which is very important, but it is not even remotely the only issue, nor is it one that you and I can most effectively employ (at least not with completely certainty) when evaluating various churches. In fact, once we get past a few central doctrines, it is not even the best means of evaluating a church.

Within Christianity, as you have noted, there are quite a few "doctrinal" divisions. Most notable is the Catholic/Protestant split. Then there is the Calvinist/Arminian split. The orthodox/liberal split. The traditional/contemporary split. The immersion/sprinkling split. And on and on and on.

And when it comes to the question of who has "The Truth," the answer is . . . all of them. And none of them.

Let me explain.

Not all doctrine is of equal importance. Paul was by far the most theologically complex writer in the New Testament, yet even he broke it all down to one central, critical Truth:

This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he? You weren't baptized in Paul's name, were you? . . . For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent wisdom, so the cross of Christ won't be emptied of its power. For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved. . . . Jews ask for signs, and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified. He is a stumbling block to Jews and nonsense to gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is God's power and God's wisdom. . . . For while I was with you I resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1Corinthians 1:12-13; 17-18; 22-24; 2:2)

You see, despite all those splits, there is one set of central doctrines, in fact, THE central doctrines, upon which all of Christianity agrees: Jesus' identity as the Son of God, His death on the cross, and His resurrection. If we confess openly that He is our Lord, and believe with all our heart that He died on the cross to pay for our sins, and rose from the grave to secure our salvation, we will be saved.

Upon these core doctrines of the faith virtually all of Christianity is in agreement. As for the rest, I have very strong views on what is or is not correct. On baptism, I hold to believer baptism and immersion. On worship, I am very contemporary. On basic theology, I am very orthodox. On soteriology, I am very Arminian. On the church and the Bible, I am very Protestant.

But these positions are mitigated by three critical observations.

First, I have a strong and abiding confidence in man's inability to be perfect, either spiritually, physically, morally, doctrinally, or any other way. And that includes myself. I simply do not believe that ANY of us can claim perfection in our doctrine or theology. What this means is that once we get past the core doctrinal issues of Jesus, His death and resurrection that are critical to even BEING a Christian, I will not say that other believers are "wrong," but rather, that I DISAGREE with them. And this is NOT a semantics issue for me.

Second, it is absolutely undeniable that God uses believers who have strong disagreements with me on doctrinal and theologcial issues to further the kingdom of God and bring people to salvation. I am a staunch Arminian, yet some of the teachers and pastors I admire most, whose ministries are undeniably producing massive fruit for God, are Calvinist. I strongly disagree with many Catholic doctrines, yet I am deeply moved and inspired by Pope Francis, and will freely admit that I have much to learn from him about showing God's grace on a day to day basis. God does not require that our theology be perfect in order to use us in His kingdom. All He really requires is that we know His Son, and follow Him with all our heart.

Because of these first two observations, I harbor very little hostility toward most denominations, even those with whom I have my strongest theological disagreements. For example, I am thoroughly Protestant, but I also understand the foundational disagreement between the Protestants and Catholics (is the Church equal to or subordinate to the Bible?). This central difference means that the Catholic Church only requires that a particular doctrine not be contrary to scripture, where most protestants, particularly those of a more fundamentalist persuation, require that each doctrine be explicitly supported in scripture. While I simply cannot bring myself to embrace a doctrine that is not supported in scripture, because I understand why the Catholics can and do, it allows me to treat them with much more grace, and much less judgment. Even more than that, it allows me to embrace them without reservation as my brothers and sisters.

The third observation is that, while Jesus was the complete embodiment of Truth, beyond the central doctrines relating to salvation (mentioned above), He did not present Truth as the ultimate arbitrator of who was or was not a true believer.

Even the most cursory reading of the gospels will reveal that Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees, and as clash after clash reveals, they might have been His stuanches opponents, if not out right enemies. Yet, did you know that Jesus had almost zero doctrinal disagreements with the Pharisees? In fact, not only is He never recorded explicitly refuting a Pharisitical doctrine, on several occasions He thoroughly confirmed first century Pharisee doctrine. For example, Jesus parable of Lazarus and the rich man confirms the Pharisee doctrine that (at that time) both the righteous and the wicked descended into the earth at death, where the righteous were comforted, the wicked punished, and the two could see each other across an impassable gulf.

So what was the basis for the hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees? Not what they believed, but how they lived. Despite their doctrinal accuracy, they were corrupt, hypocritical, judgmental, harsh, power hungry, impure, intollerant, self-righteous phoneys. They elevated their traditions for the express purpose of avoiding the command of God, specifically, "love your neighbor as yourself." They did not actually CARE about their fellow men. They had no qualms whatsoever about destroying lives to elevate their social, political or religious standing. Jesus had MUCH stronger condemnations for them than He ever did for those with whom He had clear doctrinal differences (such as the Samaritans) . . . and let's be clear here; if you have a doctrinal disagreement with Jesus, YOU'RE WRONG!

So how do you choose the best church?

First, make sure they really do hold to the central tenets of Christianity (Jesus is God, died on a cross, rose from the grave, is the sole source of salvation). Beyond this, make sure that you will feel doctrinally comfortable there (which probably will NOT mean you agree with 100% of what they teach). I am a pastor in the Free Methodist Church, and while I am very comfortable here theologically, I do have a few very minor doctrinal disagreements with official Free Methodist theology. Find a church where you have no major disagreements, but do NOT use doctrinal perfection as your ultimate measuring rod.

Second, make sure they are unwavering in their belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Undermining this critical foundation will open the flood gates to any and all ideas that happen to float by, and will give you no measuring stick against which to judge anything anyone ever teaches, preaches or endorses. It has been my experience that undermining this foundation almost always eventually leads to watering down the central, critical doctrines of Christianity, that being Jesus and salvation.

Third, make sure they LIVE what they believe! Specifically, that they are motivated to get out of their pews (or chairs, or homes) and go LOVE people. Despite what some seem to preach, we believers are not supposed to be known by what we are against, nor even really by how accurate our doctrine may be, but by how effectively we LOVE OTHERS!

Our command is to go tell people about Jesus, and love them.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  (Matthew 28:19-20)

I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. This is how everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:34-35)

And this is his commandment: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus the Messiah, and to love one another as he commanded us. (1John 3:23)

Do not owe anyone anything—except to love one another. For the one who loves another has fulfilled the Law. For the commandments, "You must not commit adultery; you must not murder; you must not steal; you must not covet," and every other commandment are summed up in this statement: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." Love never does anything that is harmful to its neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the Law. (Romans 13:8-10)

Was the ending of the Gospel According to Mark Added Later?

Question:

My Bible says that the last twelve verses of Mark are not original, are not found in the oldest manuscripts, and were added later. Is this true?

Answer:

This is an example of the difference between facts, and someone's interpretation of the facts. Here are the facts:

Over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been found. Some of these are fragments, some are collections of portions of the New Testament (such as the gospels, or Paul's letters), and some are the entire New Testament. When you include all copies of the New Testament, including translations into other languages, there are over 24,000 copies of the New Testament. Of these, more than 10,000 contain the gospels.

So how many of these manuscripts are missing these 12 verses?

Of the 5000 Greek manuscripts, Mark 16:9-20 is missing from four. Of the 24,000 total manuscripts, it is missing from a couple dozen. At first glance, this would appear to support the opposite case, that the overwhelming evidences suggests they should be included, however, two of the four manuscripts from which Mark 16:9-20 are missing are two of the oldest manuscripts that contain Mark in existence: Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, both of which are believed to have been created sometime between 325 and 350 AD. There is only one copy of Mark older than these two books, and it is missing the last few pages, so we have no way of knowing how Mark ended in that manuscript.

What should be noted, however, is that the exclusion of the ending of Mark from the Codex Vaticanus can be interpreted to support the belief that the longer ending should be included.

Each page of Codex Vaticanus is vellum, which is made from leather. The text on each page is arranged into three columns, and since vellum was relatively expensive, when one book ended, the next book would start in the very next column. For example, here is the end of Luke and the beginning of John in Codex Vaticanus.

Here is the ending of Second Thessalonians and the beginning of Hebrews.

The entire New Testament is this way. When one book ends, the next books starts in the very next column. But not so for the ending of Mark and the beginning of Luke.

When Mark ends, the next column is left blank (the very light text visible is bleed over from the beginning of Luke on the next page). This is the ONLY time in the Codex Vaticanus that a blank column appears after the end of one of the books. What I find interesting, is that in the one book of the New Testament where there is a dispute about the ending, the Codex Vaticanus leaves a blank space where it appears the longer ending could be added. In fact, here is what happens if we attempt to insert the longer ending of Mark in that space using the exact same letter size and spacing as the rest of the page.

It just so happens that one blank column is almost exactly the space that would be needed to add the missing verses to the end of Mark.

This means at the very least, the copyist who created Codex Vaticanus knew about the longer ending (but possibly did not have access to it), and intending to add it later, left enough space to include the full ending. So the exclusion of the ending of Mark in Codex Vaticanus may not be as clear cut as some have indicated.

But even more telling, almost two hundred years prior to the creation of the Codex Sinaiticus (approx. 325 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (approx. 350 AD), early church fathers quoted from the longer ending of Mark. Over the first few hundred years of Christianity, the end of Mark is quoted numerous times, including in 160 AD Justin Martyr referenced Mark 16:20, in 172 Tatian used the full longer ending of Mark when he created a harmony of the four gospels, and in 184 Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19.

So the real evidence is that the longer ending of Mark is attested by numerous Christian writers in the second and third centuries, is missing from two Bibles in the fourth century (although one of them left enough blank space to include it later), and is found in almost every other manuscript in existence. To me, the overwhelming evidence is that the longer ending has existed from the very beginning, and so, I think the case for the originality of the longer ending in Mark is very strong.

But even if I am wrong, the resurrection has already been recorded prior to that section, and every single doctrine found in the longer section is found somewhere else in the New Testament, so even if we exclude it, it has no impact on our faith or doctrine.

Does God Exist? Part 2

Question:

Millions of people are good without God. We don't need God to be good. Why not choose the path of reason instead of the unnecessary superstition that there is a God?

Answer:

The comments that preceed this question are perfect examples of one of the truths of life I have noticed over and over again. Virtually every atheist I have ever met has been a very moral person. They have a clear understanding of right and wrong, and they are, as this quote states, very good people. The problem is not in their morality; the problem is that they live this morality in a way that demands the existence of the very God they deny exists. In other words, they live, and in some ways, speak as though God really does exist, while simultaneously denying His existence.

Let me explain.

If there is no God, then morality is a human construct, and humans can change it at will to fit the current situation. Morality, then, is no different that the rules of a house poker game. Nothing wild? One eyed jacks wild? Three cards? Five cards? Seven cards? Two cards down, the rest up? All cards down? One card on your forehead so only your oponents can see it? Ace's high? Ace's low? And on and on and on. If there is no God, then morality is whatever we want it to be, with no absolute, universal rules of any kind.

In fact, the very definition of things like "good" and "bad" would be completely arbitrary to the point of having no meaning whatsoever. If Hitler wanted to define "good" as the absence of all undesirables (Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, blacks, etc.) from existence, that definition is no more or less valid than any other definition of "good." If I want to take your brand new car away from you and keep it as my own, while that action may be illegal based on current law, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with it, because all definitions of "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than opinion.

The problem is, no one actually believes this, and no one outside of a psychiatric hospital or a high security prison (excepting those who have not yet been caught and encarcerated) actually lives their life as though morality is nothing more than a human construct. No matter what we claim to believe about God, humans cannot escape absolutes in morality. The most hardened atheists I have ever encountered have made some of the most astonishing statements that assume moral absolutes. Here is an example of what I am talking about from Penn Jillette, a staunch atheist. Listen to the entire story, and notice at time 4:30 how he describes the believer about whom he is telling this story:

"He was a very, very, very good man."

Penn Jillette talks about receiving a bible from a Christian.

The thing is, if there is no God, as Penn Jillette insists, this statement he just made is completely meaningless, since "good man" is an arbitrary tag that should mean something different to every person. But that is not how anyone actually talks, and that is not how Penn Jillette talks here. He is speaking in absolute terms, as though "good" exists independently of human opinion, and human behavior is measured against that standard.

And that is the problem.

While Penn speaks in the positive, it is often easier to understand the problem here if we switch to the negative. For example, while we may not always be able to agree on what is "good," we know beyond any doubt that there are some actions that are simply wrong, and can never be anything other than wrong, regardless of culture, age, government, or religion. Torturing and raping a six year old girl is evil, and will always be evil, no matter what the circumstances, culture, era, or reasoning. We all know this, deep down in the core of our being, and nothing could convince us otherwise. In the deepest depths of our hearts we know that labeling such behavior as evil transends human opinion. It is absolute, and no amount of argument or justification will ever change that determination. It doesn't matter what someone believes, this truth is independent of opinion, and requires no consensus to be True. It is manifestly obvious that this is True, and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong.

We KNOW this to the very core of our being.

But if there is no God, absolutes such as this cannot exist. Without God, NOTHING in morality transends human opinion. We invented morality, and we can change it at will, whenever we want. When it comes to morality, the most we could ever say is that "I disagree with you." We cannot say, "you are wrong." We can make laws forbidding that behavior, we can punish those who engage in that behavior, but what we cannot say is that there is anything inherently "wrong" with that behavior.

And this startlingly simple truth, that moral absolutes really do exist, is one of the inescapable "hooks" that God has placed within each and every person. We know, beyond any doubt, that some things are simply wrong. We cannot escape the existence of absolutes, if for no other reason than to deny them is in itself, an absolute (that "no absolutes exist" is itself an absolute statement of truth, thus an inherent contradiction).

So when I say that every atheist I have ever met speaks as though there really is a God in heaven who has set the moral absolutes for humanity, and they themselves live as though these absolutes are not up for vote, but are so inherently obvious that they need not even be justified, this, to me, is one of the most compelling bits of evidence I have ever encountereed that God MUST exist. In order for an atheist to tell me I am "wrong" about anything I say or do, the very God he argues against must exist. In other words, no matter what he claims, his argument is not one of reason, but mere opinion.

Who, but God, could construct human minds in such a way that His staunchest enemies, those who despise Him the most, must predicate their strongest arguments against His existence on a premise that cannot be True unless He DOES exist? Is it rational to deny the existence of the foundation upon which your arguments rest?

The only truly rational conclusion is that God is real.

Now what are you going to do about it?

Does God Exist? Part One.

Question:

Dad, how do we know that God exists?

Answer (part one):

This was the very first serious theological question that my son, Elijah, asked me. He was just four years old.

There are quite a few really good answers to this question, but I find two of them particularly compelling. The first, the Cosmological Argument, is somewhat scientific in nature. Believe it or not, my answer to the four year old holding my hand was a very simplified version of the Cosmological Argument. For those of you who are not familiar with that classical answer, I thought that I would post a short video that explains it really well.

The second, which I shall address in Part Two, is more philosophical and moral in nature.

The following video is a really good modern treatment of the ancient, and classic, Cosmological Argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJ0ED1mV7s&noredirect=1

Did Jesus Claim to be God?

Question:

I know that Christians believe Jesus is God, but I can't find any place where Jesus claims to be God. Isn't that a problem for Christians?

Answer:

Well, if Jesus never did claim to be God, it might be a problem. However, the Truth is He did claim to be God on several occasions. The most blatant, and most enlightening, is found in the eighth chapter of the Gospel According to John. In this chapter, starting in verse 12, Jesus is involved in a prolonged confrontation with some of the Jewish leaders. In verses 21-24 we see this exchange:

Later on he told them again, "I am going away, and you will look for me, but you will die in your sin. You cannot come where I am going." So the Jews were asking, "He isn't going to kill himself, is he? Is that why he said, 'You cannot come where I am going'?" He told them, "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world, but I am not of this world. That is why I told you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (Joh 8:21-24 ISV)

The words translated "I AM" in verse 24 are εγω ειμι (ego eimi), which literally means "I am." Jesus is using this as a direct reference to Exodus 3:14, where Moses had asked God how he should answer the question when the Israelites asked him for God's name, and God responded with:

God replied to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM," and then said, "Tell the Israelis: 'I AM sent me to you.'" (Exo 3:14 ISV)

The problem is that in Greek, the phrase εγω ειμι was a really common phrase that was normally understood to mean "I am the one," or "I am he," or even "that is me." So all those listening understood Jesus to be saying something like "I am who I say I am," which is why they immediately responded with:

Then they asked him, "Who are you?" (Joh 8:25a ISV)

So how do we know that Jesus really meant this as a claim to divinity? Because He makes it crystal clear at the end of the chapter when the confrontation finally comes to a head.

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and he saw it and was glad." Then the Jews asked him, "You are not even 50 years old, yet you have seen Abraham?" Jesus told them, "Truly, I tell all of you with certainty, before there was an Abraham, I AM!" (Joh 8:56-58 ISV) 

The phrase "Before there was an Abraham, I AM" actually makes no sense in Greek. It is grammatic nonsense akin to someone telling me, "I made this for you tomorrow. Yesterday I'm going to make you another one." The only possible way to read this statement is that Jesus is claiming to be the I AM of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one who gave the law to Moses, rescued Israel from Egypt, and established the nation of Israel.

And because this statement could not be interpreted any other way, the Jews immediately responded to what they saw as blasphemy:

At this, they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the Temple. (Joh 8:59 ISV)

This also means earlier, in verse 24, Jesus made His identity central to our faith. By stating "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." Jesus made it crystal clear that faith in His deity was not optional, but was, in fact, absolutely necessary for salvation. Jesus is the Lord of creation, the God of the universe, and making this the center of the Christian faith was not something the Church did hundreds of years later, but rather, something Jesus did before the Church even existed. It is because of this clear claim by Jesus that Paul later explains that salvation involves two parts:

If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9 ISV)

Do you have questions about Christianity?

At the tender age of 19, my faith was almost destroyed by the professor of my Old Testament class. His constant barrage of "facts" about the origins of the stories and books of the Bible was systematically eroding my faith in the Bible as the Word of God. I felt utterly helpless, unable to answer his question, much less defend my faith. In desperation, I poured out my anguish to an Intervarsity Christian Fellowship worker named Joe Whitchurch. He handed me the book, "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict," and it was as though it had been written for my class. It is no understatement to say that book, and the man who just happened to have purchased it that same day on his way to meet with us, and was willing to part with it for the sake of a desperate student, saved my life that day. My debt to Josh McDowell for writing the book, and Joe Whitchurch for parting with it (even before he had a chance to read it for himself) for saving my faith can never be repaid. What I could do, however, was turn around and provide that same gift to other believers. Unfortunately, at 19 I still did not know enough to help others, and try as I might, my lack of answers prevented me from being able to save the faith of some of my fellow students in that same class.

I determined then and there that no one would ever damage the faith of another believer while I was in the room, and so I dedicated the remainder of my life to studying every nuance of Christianity, as well as all the evidence for the validity of this faith. In keeping with that, I gained a passing knowledge of Hebrew, and learned to read and write New Testament (Koine) Greek. I read every article I could find relating to creation and evolution, archaeology, church history, textual criticism, philosophy, doctrine, theology, ministry, culture, and translation. I read most of the published portions of every manuscript of the Bible (both Old and New Testament) in Greek from the first 500 years of Christianity. To better understand the issues involved in translation, I produced my own translations of the Gospel According to John and the Letter to the Philippians, as well as large portions of several other books of the New Testament.

Over the years I have had the privilege of answering hundreds of questions from believers and unbelievers alike seeking to better understand what the Bible says, and along with that, what Christianity teaches on almost every conceivable topic. Now, as the Teaching and Discipleship Pastor at Living Promise Church [Update: As of March, 2015, I am the Senior Pastor at Trinity Episcopal Church in Flushing], one of my jobs is to do exactly what I have been doing for decades: answer the questions of all who seek to understand the Bible and draw closer to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

And that is the purpose of this blog: to share with all of you the many questions I have received over the years, as well as any new ones I get along the way, and my answers to those questions. I do not claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim to be able to answer every question. There are things about God that I do not understand any better than any other believer, but I'm completely comfortable with that. As my beloved father-in-law used to say, "If I could understand everything about God, I would be equal with Him." What I can do, however, is lay out the evidence for Christianity, explain the seemingly convoluted history of textual research that has resulted in our modern Bibles (as well as explaining the apparent differences between some translations in certain verses), simplify complex doctrines, and expand upon some of the extraordinarily subtle aspects of the Greek that often cannot be translated into English.

Hopefully, in the process I can help you live a bolder walk with the Lord, gain a more vibrant and strengthened faith, and pursue your purpose and ministry with more confidence and conviction than ever before.

Even if you are not sure about this whole "God" thing, maybe I can still answer some of your questions, settle your fears, or give you things to think about that you had not considered before. And who knows, maybe even help you find the God that really is there.