Is the Newsweek article about the Bible accurate?

Question:

I just read the Newsweek article, "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." After having read that, how can anyone honestly remain a Christian?

Answer:

If anyone wishes to read this article, the full text can be found here.

If much of what the Newsweek article said were actually true, Christianity would be in serious trouble. The truth is the article is filled with false information, twisted facts, and insinuations that are simply not true.

The first few paragraphs paint a grim picture of biblical illiteracy and misuse in America. Personally, I think this part contains some valid criticisms, and we believers would do well to address these kinds of issues in our church.

Six paragraphs into the article is this claim:

No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Very little of what is said here is true.

Claim: "No television preacher has ever read the Bible. Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation..."

Truth: The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, while the New Testament was written in Greek. There are tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people around the world, myself included, who can read these testaments in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek languages. 

But are they reading the Bible?

Claim: At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.

Truth: While it is true the original first century documents no longer exist, with over 5800 Greek copies of the books found in the New Testament in existence, modern textual scholars have declared with a high degree of confidence that at least 96.4% of the Greek New Testament that exists today is letter for letter identical to the originals. Further, when it comes to confidence in the information related in the New Testament, the most conservative estimate is that 98.33% of the information related in our current Greek Text is identical to the information contained in the original. Further, when it comes to the fundamental doctrines, the "articles of faith," virtually all scholars are in agreement that the Greek New Testament as it exists today is 100% accurate to the doctrines taught in the original documents.

To those not familiar with the field of textual research, 5800 Greek copies of the New Testament might not seem like a lot. But consider this: there are more copies of the books in the New Testament than the next 100 ancient manuscripts combined! The second place for most copies goes to Homer's Illiad, of which there are now almost 1800 copies in existence, but after this, the numbers drop off rapidly. Third place goes to Sophocles, with 193 copies. In fourth place is Aristotle, with 49 copies. In fifth place is Tacitus with 20 copies. By the time we get to the manuscript in ninth place (Euripides), we are down to single digits at 9 copies. All other ancient manuscripts are less than that.

These 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are NOT translations. The originals were written in Greek, and these are COPIES of the Greek. For more on this information, you can read this article, this web site, or this blog.

Further, the oldest manuscripts of the NT are from the second century, and are likely only a few dozen copies out from the originals; maybe even closer than that. While many of them probably are copies of copies of copies out hundreds of times, there are so many copies in existence that by comparing them to each other, as noted above, provides us with a very high degree of confidence that what we are reading today is virtually identical to what the disciples wrote 2000 years ago.

So, yes, contrary to what this article claims, many tens of thousands of people around the world are literally reading what amounts to exact words of the New Testament as it was written 2000 years ago, and many millions more are reading ONE translation of the New Testament, directly from the Greek into their native languages.

Claim: About 400 years passed between the writing of the first Christian manuscripts and their compilation into the New Testament. (That’s the same amount of time between the arrival of the Pilgrims on the Mayflower and today.)

Truth: The implication of this statement is that for the first 400 years of Christianity, no one had access to the New Testament. The truth is that for the first several hundred years after the originals were written, the various books of the New Testament were copied and circulated individually. So while many early churches may not have had the entire New Testament in one binding, they did contain most of the content of the New Testament as individual books.

Further, we have proof that within a generation or two, many of the books were circulating in collections. We have copy of the four gospels together in a group (in the same order as they are today) and another copy of Paul's letters (plus Hebrews) that date to about 100-150 years after they were written (between 175 and 225 AD). And the first complete Bibles (including OT and NT) date to about 250 years after the manuscripts were completed (about 325 AD). We have TWO complete Bibles (created in two DIFFERENT scriptoriums) that date from this time period.

Claim: While there were professional scribes whose lives were dedicated to this grueling work, they did not start copying the letters and testaments about Jesus’s time until centuries after they were written. Prior to that, amateurs handled the job.

Truth: Papyrus 66, which contains the Gospel According to John, dates from sometime between 150-200 AD, and is now accepted to be the work of a professional scribe. That means the church employed professional scribes very early on.

However, many of the copies were done by amateurs. Papyrus 75, which contains both Luke and John, and dates to somewhere between 175-225 AD, is known to be a copy made by an amateur. Detailed analysis of both texts have revealed that P-66, which was produced by a professional, has at least four times as many provable copy errors as P-75, which was produced by an amateur. So the actual evidence shows that, contrary to the implications of this claim, just because a scribe was an amateur does not mean what he produced was sloppy or inaccurate.

Claim: And Koiné was written in what is known as scriptio continua—meaning no spaces between words and no punctuation. So, a sentence like weshouldgoeatmom could be interpreted as “We should go eat, Mom,” or “We should go eat Mom.”

First, all the oldest manuscripts have pauses and punctuation at the end of the thought, so we do have rudimentary punctuation.

Second, because all nouns, adjectives, verbs, and many other Greek words had endings that tell us how that word is being used in the sentence, it is actually not that hard to read once you learn the language. I've been reading scriptio continua manuscipts for so long that I barely notice any more, and I rarely have any difficulty reading the text.

Third, while there are a few places where punctuation really could change the meaning of the sentence, that is actually kind of rare, and for the most part, because Greek is a free form language, punctuation in the middle of a sentence would make no sense (and would be largely unneeded, as the endings tell us the function of the words).

For example, in Greek, the sentence above ("weshouldgoeatmom") would be crystal clear no matter what the word order, because the endings on the words would make it clear what function each word served in the sentence. With a few simple exceptions (such as plurals), English doesn't use endings to clarify the use of a word in a sentence. To get a feel for how it works in Greek, let's create a few "endings" that tell us how a word is being used. For our example, we will say that @ at the end of a word will indicate direct address (we are talking directly to that person), and $  at the end of a word will indicate the subject of the sentence.

Using our invented endings, the above sentence would read "we$shouldgoeatmom@." Now we know, no matter where the word "mom" appears in the sentence, we are talking TO mom, not suggesting that we eat her. This also means we can put these words in any order, and we will still know what the sentence means. Thus, if we read "mom@shouldgoeatwe$" or "shouldgowe$mom@eat", we still know that we are talking to mom, and the subject is "we." So, when you take into consideration that all verbs in Greek also had endings, with no punctuation or spaces, and regardless of word order, we can immediately decipher all of these to mean, "Mom, we should go eat."

This means that contrary to what this article implies, scriptio continua is not that hard to figure out in Greek, and is not that much of a hindrance to understanding the content of the New Testament manuscripts.

Claim: And what biblical scholars now know is that later versions of the books differ significantly from earlier ones—in fact, even copies from the same time periods differ from each other. “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” says Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, a groundbreaking biblical scholar and professor at the University of North Carolina who has written many books on the New Testament.

Truth: In case any of you are not familiar with the expert referenced here, Bart Ehrman is an atheist whose many books and articles on the Bible have one purpose: to discredit the Bible, and with it, Christianity. So when this article quotes Ehrman, it is using what an attorney would call, "a hostile witness," and this alone should make it clear the real intent of this article.

I've read almost every copy of every published copy of the New Testament from the first few hundred years of Christianity, and I can personally testify that there are ZERO significant differences between early manuscripts and later manuscripts. But if there are so many variations in the manuscripts, how can I make that claim?

Because while it might be technically true that there are more variations among the many manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (400,000 variations when taking all manuscripts into consideration, and the NT in Greek contains 138,020 words), what this article doesn't say is that by far the vast majority of these variations literally have no impact on the meaning of the text, or are so subtle the differences cannot be translated into English.

When you get to variations that actually impact the meaning of the text, we are down to a few hundred, and if you go to variations that would literally change a teaching or doctrine, maybe a couple dozen. But when it comes to fundamental, critical doctrines, ZERO variations that would change the teaching (such as salvation, the death and resurrection, faith, grace, etc.). In case anyone is wondering, there are no scholars, including Ehrman, who dispute these facts.

Next, when referencing the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), while it is true that John likely did not write it, the claims in this article are simply not true.

Claim: Unfortunately, John didn’t write it. Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages.

This is blatantly wrong.

This passage is called the Pericope de Adultera, and first appears in Codex Bezea, which dates from somewhere in the range of 375-425 AD. Further, of the three complete Bibles that predate Codex Bezea, one is missing the page (Alexandrinus), so it is unknown if it does not contain it; one has diacritical marks at that spot (Vaticanus), indicating a known alternate reading exists; and one (Sinaiticus) does not contain it.

Didymus the Blind made it clear in his writings that most copies of John from about 300 AD on contained that passage (we should note the the oldest complete Bible in existence date from 325-400 AD, which is this same period). Jerome reports that it was found in most Greek and Latin texts by 375 AD. And further, several of the early church fathers from the first or second centuries (such as Papias) indicated a familiarity with the story.

All of that is a long, long time before the Middle Ages.

Claim: Moreover, according to Ehrman, the writing style for that story is different from the rest of John, and the section includes phrases that do not appear anywhere else in the Bible.

This is also misleading.

First, it is not clear that the writing style of this passage is different from the rest of John.

Second, there are 5446 different Greek words in the New Testament. Of these, almost half of them only appear ONE time in the New Testament. In fact, every single section of John contains words and phrases not found in any other section of John. For example, the famous opening section of John, 1:1-14, which is completely undisputed, contains three words not found anywhere else in John, and two words only found in ONE other place in John. And if you expand out to the whole first chapter, there are no less than 16 words that are not found anywhere else in John, and another 11 words that are only found in ONE other place in John.

It is true that at first glance, the Pericope de Adultera seems to have a high number of words not found anywhere else in John. In the 12 disputed verses, there are 13 words not found anywhere else in John. But this is not actually so unusual for John. In the 12 undisputed verses from John 19:30-41, there are 14 words not found anywhere else in John.

But when it comes to rare phrases, it should be noted that the critical command Jesus states at the end: "Go and sin no more" (In Greek: μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε) only appears ONE other time in the entire New Testament: John 5:14.

So the critical, most often quoted climax of the story uses a phrase only found in John.
After examining all the evidence, most modern scholars believe the story is authentic, but could have originated from one of the other disciples, and after being passed down orally for a while, was added to John so it would not be forgotten.

Claim: For Pentecostal Christians, an important section of the Bible appears in the Gospel of Mark, 16:17-18. These verses say that those who believe in Jesus will speak in tongues and have extraordinary powers, such as the ability to cast out demons, heal the sick and handle snakes. Pentecostal ministers often babble incomprehensible sounds, proclaiming—based in part on these verses in Mark—that the noises they are making show that the Holy Spirit is in them.

Truth: Having grown up in a Pentecostal church, I can tell you with no hesitation that I have never actually heard anyone reference Mark as evidence that believers will speak in tongues, heal the sick or cast out demons. There is no need, as all of these are recorded as historical events that happened to numerous believers in the book of Acts.

For example:

When the day of Pentecost was being celebrated, all of them were together in one place. Suddenly, a sound like the roar of a mighty windstorm came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw tongues like flames of fire that separated, and one rested on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit gave them that ability. (Acts 2:1-4)

When handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched his skin were taken to the sick, their diseases left them and evil spirits went out of them. (Acts 19:12)

And when it comes to handling snakes without harm, there is this:

Paul gathered a bundle of sticks and put it on the fire. A poisonous snake was forced out by the heat and attached itself to Paul's hand. When the people who lived there saw the snake hanging from his hand, they told one another, "This man must be a murderer! He may have escaped from the sea, but Justice won't let him live." But he shook the snake into the fire and wasn't harmed. They were expecting him to swell up or suddenly drop dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. (Acts 28:3-6)

So contrary to the claims of this article, none of these beliefs are based on a disputed passage of scripture since they are found in numerous other, undisputed passages.

Claim: But once again, the verses came from a creative scribe long after the Gospel of Mark was written. In fact, the earliest versions of Mark stop at 16:8.

I have previously addressed the facts of this claim in a previous post. You can read that post here. In short, the evidence for the inclusion of the last 12 verses of Mark is far, far stronger than the evidence against it.

Claim: Then comes the problem of accurate translation. Many words in New Testament Greek don’t have clear English equivalents. Sentence structure, idioms, stylistic differences—all of these are challenges when converting versions of the New Testament books into English.

While this is true, what this article doesn't point out is that this is true of translations between ALL languages, including any modern languages. French has words English doesn't have. English has words Spanish doesn't have. German has words Russian doesn't have. Russian has words Spanish doesn't have.

Further, as a person who can read Koine Greek, and have translated John and Philippians from Greek into English, I can assure you that these translation problems have not led to massive numbers of false doctrines. It is true that some peripheral teachings can be clarified and corrected by reading the Greek directly, but it brings no changes to the vast majority of doctrines, and no alterations of any kind to the fundamental articles of faith of Christianity.

Claim: The gold standard of English Bibles is the King James Version, completed in 1611, but that was not a translation of the original Greek. Instead, a Church of England committee relied primarily on Latin manuscripts translated from Greek.

Truth: While the KJV is a fine translation, and many people prefer it over all other translations, calling it the gold standard is opinion, not fact. But more than that, despite the claims here, the KJV is primarily a translation directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Latin was only employed in the translation of the Apocrypha. Even Wikipedia acknowledges this:

In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. (See the full Wikipedia article here.)

Claim: In other words, with a little translational trickery, a fundamental tenet of Christianity—that Jesus is God—was reinforced in the Bible, even in places where it directly contradicts the rest of the verse.

The implication of this is, of course, that the Bible doesn't claim Jesus is God, and we Christians only believe it because of bad translations. It's not true, and I address one of the most blatant examples of the Bible teaching the deity of Jesus in a previous post, which you can read here. This is not even close to being the only place the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, but it does show that the closer we look at the Greek, the more obvious it becomes that the Bible openly and boldly teaches that Jesus is God.

Claim: That kind of manipulation occurs many times. In Philippians, the King James Version translates some words to designate Jesus as “being in the form of God.” The Greek word for form could simply mean Jesus was in the image of God. 

First thing you need to know is that the Greek in this passage is poetry, so it uses poetic language. Since Paul did not normally speak in poetic language, most scholars believe Paul was actually quoting a popular Christian hymn that would be well known to his readers.

Realizing this is poetry, here is what the Greek in this passage states:

First, that Jesus was in the very form of God,
second, that He did not misuse His equality with God,
third that He then took on the form of a servant, and
finally, that He was made to resemble a man.

Now, realizing this is poetic language, what else could this passage possibly be saying except that Jesus was originally God, and that he changed His APPEARANCE so that He looked like a man?

A very new translation, called the ISV (go here to find out more about this translation), recognizing that this passage is Greek poetry, has produced an ingenious translation that attempts to preserve the meaning of the words while presenting them in a form English speakers recognize as poetry. The result preserves the intent and meaning of each clause while beautifully communicating that this is a first and foremost, a poem, or more likely, a song.

In God's own form existed he,
and shared with God equality,
deemed nothing needed grasping.
Instead, poured out in emptiness,
a servant's form did he possess,
a mortal man becoming.
In human form he chose to be,
and lived in all humility,
death on a cross obeying.
Now lifted up by God to heaven,
a name above all others given,
this matchless name possessing.
And so, when Jesus' name is called,
the knees of everyone should fall
wherever they're residing.
Then every tongue in one accord,
will say that Jesus the Messiah is Lord,
while God the Father praising.
(Philippians 2:6-11)

Claim: Which raises a big issue for Christians: the Trinity—the belief that Jesus and God are the same and, with the Holy Spirit, are a single entity—is a fundamental, yet deeply confusing, tenet. So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts?

Nowhere.

This, again, is blatantly misleading. It is true that the NAME of the doctrine is not found in the Bible, as that was invented, for the sake of convenience, many centuries later. But that does NOT mean the teaching is not found in the Bible. It is actually pretty easy to prove that the Bible teaches that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, that these three interact with each other as distinct individuals, and yet somehow, the Bible repeatedly insists there is only one God. What the Bible does NOT do is try to explain how these can all be true. It just claims they are.

And that blatant New Testament teaching is what we call, "The Trinity."

The rest of the article contains just as many erroneous claims, distorted facts, and blatantly false implications as I have already addressed, but I think what I have presented here is more than enough to demonstrate that you should not to believe much of anything you read in this article.

If anyone reading this has a specific question about any of the other issues raised in this article (wise men, creation, flood, David and Goliath, homosexuality, women in authority, etc.), please feel free to contact me, and I will address them in detail.

If you would like to read a more scholarly, accurate and balanced evaluation of the Bible, there are many, many choices out there. One such book that is both scholarly and accessible to the average lay reader is "How We Got the Bible," by Neil R. Lightfoot (available through Amazon here). If you would like a deeper, more detailed (and more faith driven) account, I recommend "From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible," by Norman L. Geisler, which is available in a downloadable, Kindle version here.

Most of all, don't make the mistake of accepting anything said in this article at face value. It is, at best really, really bad scholarship, and at worst, a blatant, vicious hit piece intended to discredit both the Bible and Christianity.

Don't believe a word of it.

Is Christianity Deceptively Selective About the Commands in the Bible?

Question:

The Bible lists things like eating shellfish right along side homosexuality as equally bad, because both are abominations, yet they [Christians] keep eating shrimp while saying homosexuality is wrong. Isn't this kind of selective obedience to the Bible hypocritical?

Answer:

There are three questions here.

1) Why do Christians seem to selectively pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament they obey?
2) What is an abomination?
3) Are "eating shrimp" and "homosexuality" really classified together in the Old Testament?

And maybe even a fourth question:

4) Are Christians hypocrites?

The simple answer to the first question is that we are told over and over again in the New Testament that the law, and the commands found in the law, no longer apply to those who believe in Jesus, as His death and resurrection have set us free from the law. This is a central issue for Paul, one that he addresses repeatedly in several letters.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man. So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6)

Paul insists that this is a central tenet of Christianity. The law could make us aware that we are not righteous, but it could not make us righteous. It could make us aware of our sin, but it could not cleanse us of our sin. That is why Jesus' death and resurrection were so important.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Galatians 2:20-21)

However, something that becomes clear in Paul's writings on the law is that the moral commandments in the law are simply an expression of God's character, and as such, are eternal. Both Paul and Jesus constantly insist that the moral part of the law is still binding on believers, because the moral commands embody the heart of God that we be holy and loving. Further, just for clarity, virtually every moral law from the Old Testament is repeated in the New Testament.

The part of the law that was ceremonial, such as the cleanliness laws, dietary laws, festivals, sacrifices and so on were intended to point us to Christ, and those were never really intended to be eternal. You can still do them if you really, really want to, but there is not really a point to it any more. They are just a shadow; Jesus has come, and He is the reality that they were pointing to all along. So live the reality, not the shadow.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17)

Thus, none of the dietary commands are binding on believers, but the commands to be truthful, to refrain from adultery, theft, murder, coveting and so on are all still in effect. This means that Christians are not really "picking and choosing" which parts of the Old Testament they want to keep, and throwing out the stuff they don't want to keep. The quick and dirty guideline is this: if it is a moral command, it is still binding (and has been repeated in the New Testament), if it is a ceremonial law (sacrifices, dietary, cleanliness, festivals, etc.), it is no longer required for followers of Jesus Christ.

Second, is an abomination a especially horrible sin?

The Hebrew word usually translated "abomination," תּועבה, means "disgusting, loathsome, nasty, horrible," but here is the really important part: this word appears 117 times in the Old Testament, and is attached to virtually every moral or idolatrous sin in the Bible. Among the sins listed as abominations are (in alphabetical order), adultery, atheism, bestiality, breaking a vow, cheating, creating discord, demon worship, evil schemes, hardening the heart, homosexuality, incest, justifying wickedness, lying, magic, murder, oppressing the poor, pride, shedding innocent blood, theft, and violence. And this is not an exhaustive list.

The point is simply that God finds all sin disgusting. Sin is an abomination to God.

Ironically, despite this common connection in our culture, one of the things not on this list is eating shrimp.

There is a second Hebrew word, שׁקץ, that is used almost exclusively of foods that are ceremonially unclean. It only appears 11 times in the Old Testament, and means, "filthy, dirty, polluted, very unclean." In some translations, such as the KJV, this word is also translated "abomination." This is the word used in the passages where Israel is forbidden from eating shellfish (which would include shrimp).

So are homosexuality and eating shrimp really equated in the Bible? No. Homosexuality is treated as a moral issue while eating shrimp is an issue of ceremonial cleanliness (meaning the ban on eating shrimp has been lifted in the New Testament).

On the other hand, contrary to what some seem to imply, homosexuality is not treated as some especially horrible sin that is set apart in God's mind from all other sins. Sin is sin, and God finds all sin disgusting (an abomination), including that lie you told last week, the time you gossiped back in middle school, and the pencil you stole from work. However, while God clearly finds all sin disgusting, He really does know the difference between something that is truly evil, such as plotting and carrying out a murder, and a victimless sin, such as stealing a paper clip. All are equally sin, but they are not all equally evil. See my post, "Do All Roads Lead to God?" for a more in depth discussion of the difference between "sin" and "evil," and the real meaning of "sin."

So the bottom line is that the Old Testament law has moral commands that are eternally binding on all believers, while it also has ceremonial laws which were always intended to be temporary, point to something greater, and now that the greater, Jesus, has arrived, they are no longer binding on believers. In other words, God Himself has given us permission to be selective in what we obey concerning ceremonial laws.

Theologically speaking, there is  much more to this, but there is no where near enough room in this forum for what God was really doing with those ceremonial laws, and why it is that Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it," as well as why Paul calls the "fulfilled" law, "the Law of the Spirit of Life."

As for the last question, "Are Christians hypocrites?"

Frankly, in the strictest sense, yes we are. We constantly preach holiness and love, yet are often sinful and selfish. We talk about being set free from sin, yet all too often there is no discernible difference in our behavior from that of any self proclaimed modern pagan. The difference, however, is that most of us are aware that we are imperfect, that we are constantly failing, and that we are unlikely to attain a true moral perfection in this life. We don't claim to be perfectly sinless, we claim to be forgiven, to be washed, and to have access to a God who is, little by little, helping us correct the flaws in our character so that we can sin less and less. And because we are so keenly aware of our own failings, we have no desire to beat you up about yours. We once were where you are now, we have not forgotten it, and we are deeply aware that our current state is due to Jesus, not to anything we did.

A real hypocrite is not the person that Christ is gradually healing who is trying to help you find that same healing for your wounds; a real hypocrite is the person who stands above you bruised and bleeding, claiming to have no injuries of any kind, while castigating you for your cuts and lacerations. The real hypocrite tries to make you feel like you are less so they can be more. The real believer treats you like you are priceless, worth every minute and effort, and that you can become more like Jesus, not more like them.

In other words, the essence of the hypocrite is pride, arrogance and selfishness, while the essence of the believer is humility, humbleness, and selflessness. And we freely admit we are not there yet. 

We who believe in Jesus and have the eternal life He promised are on a journey, and much to our delight, there is room on this bus, right here next to us, for you to join in the journey.

Social Morality Part One: Does the Bible Endorse Slavery?

Question:

Isn't the Bible's view on homosexuality kind of like the Bible's view on slavery? The Bible endorses slavery, yet Christians have long admitted the Bible was wrong and rejected slavery. If you were willing to reject what the Bible said on slavery, why are you not willing to do the same thing with homosexuality, and admit that the Bible is wrong about it as well?

Answer:

Your entire question is founded upon a premise that needs to be addressed before I can answer your question: Does the Bible endorse slavery? So in part one, I will address what the Bible actually says about slavery. In part two (which I will address in a few weeks, as there are a few other questions I want to get to first), I will address what the Bible actually says about homosexuality.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible that can lead to the idea that Slavery is perfectly fine with God. For example, here is Jesus talking about slaves and masters:

The student is not above the teacher, nor a slave above his master. (Matthew 10:24)

Far from condemning slavery, Jesus seems to be blatantly reinforcing the idea that slaves are genuinely inferior to their masters. Further, in Matthew 18:23-35 Jesus tells a parable where the master was about to sell a man's entire family, and although he initially showed mercy, he later demanded the slave be imprisoned and tortured until that slave's full debt could be repaid. There seems to be no indication in the story that Jesus Himself has a problem with the practice of slavery, selling slaves, or even of harsh treatment of slaves.

Paul follows this example, and rather than demanding that Christian masters free their slaves, goes no further than demanding they treat their slaves well.

Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him. (Ephesians 6:7-9)

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)

Not only is there no condemnation of slavery, passages like these, and many, many more seem to show at the very least that Jesus, Paul, and by extension God, are fine with slavery, and at most, they fully endorse the practice.

So does this mean that the Bible endorses slavery? Well, yes and no.

Saying that the Bible endorses slavery is somewhat parallel to saying that it endorses death. 

Does the Bible endorse death? Well, yes and no.

Adam and Eve were warned that breaking their one law would result in death, and we are told that because of their failure, death has reigned over the history of mankind. Murder, on the one hand, is forbidden, and even causing an accidental death requires the guilty party to make recompense. However, God Himself set up death penalty laws for certain crimes, and people were killed in wars that God authorized in the Old Testament.

Most striking of all, Jesus Himself came to the earth for the express purpose of being killed for crimes He did not commit.

However, the entire point of the gospel message, of the death and resurrection of Jesus, is to ultimately defeat death, and finally rid the world of death once and for all. So the Bible views death as a very bad thing, and God is working to eliminate it from our planet once and for all, but unfortunately, death is a reality of daily life, and is an necessary part of reigning in some kinds of sin.

How does this parallel the slavery issue?

The first thing you need to understand is that what we generally mean by slavery today, which is forced, life-long slavery based on sex or race, was virtually non-existent when the New Testament was written. The slavery that divided the United States during the civil war is rare in the Bible, and when it does occur, it is not viewed in a positive light at all. The sex slave trade that is so prevalent in the world today is NOT the "kind" of slavery that was practiced in the Bible. So on those two specific "kinds" of slavery, the New Testament says almost nothing, as they were not part of the experience of the first century church.

There were several different kinds of slavery during the first century (when the New Testament was being written), none of them were racial, the most common was the kind we call "bond service," and believe it or not, it was often, although not always, voluntary. That is to say that many of those who were slaves were in that state because they owed some kind of debt, and their bondage was a means of working off that debt. Notice, for example, in the parable that Jesus told above, the issue with each slave was "paying off a debt." Thus, slavery was rarely a life-long issue, and there were laws in existence in the Roman empire that allowed for slaves to earn their freedom (this was also true in the Old Testament, where slaves were to be set free after seven years of service). An internet search on slavery in ancient Rome can verify all of this.

Were there abuses? We're talking about people here, so of course there were abuses, and according to some ancient sources, those abuses were fairly widespread. Either way, however, this "bond servant" practice of the first century, although not desirable, is viewed in the Bible as an unfortunate, but justifiable extension of the "bondage" of debt that is found through out all societies. It is not based on race, or for the purposes of abusing women sexually, but was in place as one of the means of controling and managing personal debt in their economy. Thus, scripture does not address "bond servant" slavery as a moral issue, any more than it addresses financial debt as a moral issue (although the treatment of slaves WAS considered a moral issue). If anything, it was viewed like prison incarceration today: a necessary thing that no one really likes, but for which there are very few realistic alternatives.

Through out the entire Bible, it is clear that bondage and slavery is not good or desirable, and to escape it is a very good thing. The Passover, for example, is a celebration of Israel's escape from RACIAL slavery (one of the few times that racial slavery IS addressed in scripture, and no tolerance is extended to it at all). In the New Testament, sin is compared to the kind of bondage one experiences in the "bond servant" kind of slavery, and we are taught that Jesus was literally tortured and murdered in order to set us free from that bondage. In fact, the wording used is that He "paid our debt" to set us free from the "bondage" of sin, which uses the language of the "bond service" form of slavery to explain how Jesus offers us eternal salvation.

Further, just as God was working to eliminate death from our planet, yet He also set up death penalties to punish and help reign in certain kinds of sin, so God is working to free us from every kind of bondage, yet over the history of our planet has often used slavery as a means of punishing and reigning in certain kinds of disobedience to His laws.

 Just as the Bible uses the word "death" to describe far more than physically dying, it uses "bondage" and "slavery" to describe far more than simple, physical slavery. So you can't just take the appearance of the words "slave" or "master" and extrapolate a general view of slavery in the Bible from any one passage. In the same way that the Bible understands that death is a bad, but inescapable part of life, it also views slavery as a bad, but inescapable part of life. In fact, according to the Bible, every single one of us is a slave to something, whether we like it or not. The only question is who is our master, and to what degree we are enslaved?

The Bible teaches, for example, that being in debt is a form of slavery, and it lays out specific principles to help us escape from this kind of slavery.

The wealthy rule over the poor, and anyone who borrows is a slave to the lender. (Proverbs 22:7).

In a central theme of the entire Bible, it states that the most serious form of slavery is to sin, because it results in eternal death.

Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thank God that, though you were once slaves of sin, you became obedient from your hearts to that form of teaching with which you were entrusted! (Romans 6:16-17)

And in a really interesting twist, the Bible says that one particular kind slavery, that is, slavery to righteousness through Jesus Christ, is a very good thing, and is the only way to be truly free.

And since you have been freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in simple terms because of the frailty of your human nature. Just as you once offered the parts of your body as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater disobedience, so now, in the same way, you must offer the parts of your body as slaves to righteousness that leads to sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were "free" as far as righteousness was concerned. What benefit did you get from doing those things you are now ashamed of? For those things resulted in death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become God's slaves, the benefit you reap is sanctification, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in union with the Messiah Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:18-23 ISV)

This kind of slavery frees us to be who we were actually MADE to be by our creator. It is an intentional paradox that the only true liberty to be found in the universe is by becoming a slave of the creator of the universe.

The Bible does not use this kind of wording lightly. It is very serious about all forms of slavery, but particularly the ultimate bad form (sin) and the ultimate good form (righteousness). Notice how the New Testament writers often introduce themselves (note that the Greek word δοῦλος has a fundamental meaning of "slave," but is usually translated "servant" or "bond servant" in most translations when referencing believers, partly to distinguish between our modern concept of a "racial slave" versus the New Testament concept of a "bond servant" - I have reverted back to its fundamental definition below):

Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
(Romans 1:1)

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, To all God's holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons: (Philippians 1:1)

James, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. (James 1:1)

Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (2 Peter 1:1)

So does the Bible endorse slavery? Absolutely.

It very much wants us to become slaves of the Lord Jesus, where we will find real freedom and eternal life, so that we can finally be set free from all other slavery, all of which will harm or kill us.

And . . . Not at all.

The Bible very much wants us to be completely set free from all forms of bondage that are endemic to the human experience: physical slavery, financial bondage, emotional bondage, spiritual bondage and relational bondage. And whenever possible, Christians have always resisted and discouraged all forms of slavery. I gave the quote from Paul, above, where he was giving Christian "masters" instructions about how to treat their "slaves." However, when presented with a situation in which Paul had the chance to do something about "bond servant" slavery, he did.

In the letter to Philemon, Paul literally uses emotional and social leverage to "force" Philemon into a corner on the issue of his slave, Onesimus. In arguing for Onesimus' freedom, he tells Philemon to charge all of Onesimus' debts to his own account (which would effectively set him free), THEN reminds Philemon about how much he already "owes" Paul (implying that Philemon is a "moral" bond servant to Paul), and issues a not so subtle warning that Paul himself will be personally checking up on all this by telling Philemon to prepare the spare bedroom, because he will be visiting soon. Paul uses the gentlest of words, wrapped in the iron of serious social and emotional arm twisting, to make it very clear he wants Onesimus to be set free.

So did Christianity suddenly decide that the Bible's take on slavery was wrong, and we should reject that teaching and condemn slavery? No, not at all.

Christianity recognized that the entire point of the gospel was to set us free from ALL forms of slavery, so that we can become slaves to the one true God, in the only kind of "bondage" that is not really slavery at all. And when the racial slavery of blacks was infecting our country, Christians quickly recognized that this was as unjustifiable as the racial slavery of Israel to the Egyptians, and called it what it was: evil.

So what the Bible does is recognize that some of the milder forms of slavery that are found in our lives are unavoidable, and tend to be endemic to the human experience, thus some of them must be tolerated, but they are NOT endorsed. They are NOT good, they are NOT encouraged, they are NOT supposed to be a part of our lives, and the goal of Christianity is to see us all set free from all of them.

Some, however, such as racial or sexual slavery, are not even to be tolerated.

So, no, Christianity did not suddenly decide the Bible was wrong about slavery. It actually recognized that there are many "kinds" of slavery; some are very bad, but unavoidable (such as slavery to sin), some are very unpleasant, but have to be tolerated (such as financial slavery), and some are unjustifiably evil and must be eliminated (such as racial or sexual slavery).

But for those of us who follow Jesus, the Bible promises that we will eventually be set free from all forms of bondage.

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)

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?

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 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.