What the Bible Says About the Future of Your Body (2)

In John 11, Jesus finally makes it to Bethany where Lazarus had died a few days earlier. Prior to raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus has an interesting discussion with Martha, a sister of Lazarus: "Jesus said to her, 'Your brother will rise again.' Martha answered, 'I know he will rise again, in the resurrection at the last day' " (John 11:24-25).

In her response, Martha refers to an expectation about the end of the world, one that was commonly accepted by many Jews of her day. As Martha understood it, when God brought down the curtain of history, all the dead would be raised. (According to Mark 12:18, a group called the Sadducees did not accept this doctrine).

In John 5, Jesus himself endorsed the view that Martha took. He said that a time is coming "when all who are in their graves . . . will come out -- those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned" (John 5:28-29). Clearly, this language refers to the end of time and the final judgment of all who have lived.

Now, this is very different from several stories found the Bible where someone was brought back from the dead. That is, they were resuscitated or restored to life. Here is a list of those instances:

Old Testament

1. Widow of Zarephath’s son — raised by Elijah
   1 Kings 17:17–24

2. Shunammite woman’s son — raised by Elisha
   2 Kings 4:18–37

3. Man revived when touching Elisha’s bones
   2 Kings 13:20–21

New Testament

4. Jairus’s daughter — raised by Jesus
   Mark 5:21–43; Matthew 9:18–26; Luke 8:40–56

5. Widow of Nain’s son — raised by Jesus
   Luke 7:11–17

6. Lazarus of Bethany — raised by Jesus
   John 11:1–44

7. Tabitha (Dorcas) — raised by Peter
   Acts 9:36–42

8. Eutychus — revived by Paul after falling from a window
   Acts 20:7–12

One other passage, Matthew 27:52-53, tells of a large number of people, unnamed and described collectively, who, when Jesus died, "were raised to life." They went into Jerusalem, and "appeared to many people." It is a unique scenario in Scripture, . . . as was the death of Jesus. 

However we speak about these events, we should not refer to them as examples of resurrection. Why? Because all of these people were brought back to this life. They were not immortal. They were not raised to new and unending life. Not one of them was resurrected. That has happened only once: in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

Think of it this way. Of all the people in the passages listed above, how many of them are still alive? Answer: none. They all died again. Incidentally, there's a passage somewhere in the writings of C. S. Lewis where he remarks that it must have been difficult for Lazarus to have been raised from the dead: it meant that, knowing what it was to die, he eventually had to do his dying all over again.

But not Jesus. Romans 6:9 says, "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him." Unlike Lazarus, Jesus did not have to do his dying all over again. In fact, Paul insists that he cannot die again. That's because on the third day after his humiliating execution, Jesus was not brought back to this life. He was not resuscitated. Instead, he was resurrected.

But what does it mean to have a resurrected body? And what does that say about the future of your body? More about that another time.

Mary the Mother of Jesus (2)

The last post introduced the subject of this occasional series. From this point on, then, when I speak of Mary, I mean the mother of Jesus. As you might know, there are several other Marys in the New Testament: Mary Magdalene, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and the list goes on. In fact, at least eight and perhaps as many as nine different women in the New Testament are named Mary.

So, we're talking about Mary the mother of Jesus, and the question is: What does the Bible say about her? What can we know about her? A few statistics. She is mentioned by name:

5 times in the Gospel of Matthew

1 time in Mark

12 times in Luke

never in the Gospel of John (we'll come back to that)

and 1 time in the Book of Acts

In addition to those 19 places where Mary is mentioned by name, there are a few passages where she is simply referred to as the mother of Jesus. For example, although the Gospel of John never names Mary, in fact this gospel tells us some things about her we would not know otherwise. Without calling her by name, the Gospel of John provides us unique information about her in two passages.

In John chapter 2, when Jesus performs his first miracle, turning water into wine, she's there. Here's how the chapter begins: On the third day a wedding took place at Cana of Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. . . .

In addition, John is the only gospel account that clearly tells us that Mary was present at the crucifixion: 19:25 says that his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene were present.

So, again, there are points in the New Testament where, although Mary is not named, the writer clearly refers to her.

There is still another type of nameless reference to Mary. Here I'm thinking of passages that do not speak of "the mother of Jesus" but nonetheless identify her. A good example of this is found in Galatians 4:4, where Paul says, But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, . . . And, of course, we know who that woman was.

So, then, what do we have? The New Testament mentions Mary by name 19 times. In addition, the New Testament includes a handful of references to her that do not use her name. More later.

J. W. McGarvey on the Elders in Acts 14:23

Acts chapters 13 and 14 narrate what is often called Paul's First Missionary Journey. In this story, the Apostle is accompanied another great New Testament character, Barnabas. For a time, a relative of Barnabas, John, was with them (13:5 and 13).

The missionaries traveled from their home church in Syrian Antioch (modern Antakya, Turkey) to the island of Cyprus. From there, they sailed to south-central Anatolia where they taught many people about what God had recently done through Jesus of Nazareth.

Once they started back home, Paul and Barnabas retraced their steps and visited many of the newly-formed congregations of those who believed in Jesus. As they did so, they "appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust" (14:23). But, someone might ask, if according to 1 Timothy 3:6, an elder "must not be a recent convert," how does that square with the appointment of new Christians to this role in Acts 14:23?

Back in the nineteenth century, this question had occurred to J. W. McGarvey (pictured here) one of the best biblical scholars the Disciples movement ever produced. In commenting on Acts 14:23, McGarvey wrote:

If anyone is surprised that men were found in these newly founded congregations possessed of the high qualifications for the office laid down by Paul in his epistles to Titus and Timothy, he should remember that although these disciples had been but a comparatively short time in the church, may of them were, in character and knowledge of the Scriptures, the ripest fruits of the Jewish synagogue; and they needed only additional knowledge which the gospel brought, in order to be models of wisdom and piety for the churches. They were not "novices" (I Tim. III. 6) in the sense of being newly turned away from wickedness. [1]

Here we see deep understanding, an appreciation for ancient Judaism as the primary matrix from which earliest Christian grew. McGarvey's knowledge and good judgment shine through in this and so many other sections of his classic commentary.

Note

[1] J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), vol. 2: pages 50-51.

Below is a link to an online copy of volume 2 of McGarvey's commentary, the one quoted in this post:

https://archive.org/details/newcommentaryona02mcga/page/50/mode/2up

R. W. Officer Reports on Stone-Campbell Churches in I.T., 1890

During the second half of 1890, only a year after Meta Chestnutt first arrived in Silver City, R. W. Officer reported on the state of Stone-Campbell churches in Indian Territory. There were, he said, about 2,200 disciples in 54 congregations (an average of approximately 41 members per church). Fourteen of those congregations met in homes. Thirty of the churches met in community school houses. Only ten worshiped in a building owned by the congregation. There were a total of nineteen preachers in I.T. Virtually all of them, "by the work of their own hands," supported themselves and their families.[1]

Officer seems to have had mixed feelings about an entire region made up of congregations whose preachers were bi-vocational. On the positive side, those preachers followed in the footsteps of Paul, the apostolic missionary who worked to support himself. Officer noted that to the church at ancient Thessalonica the Apostle wrote, "Ye ought to follow, [imitate] us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you; . . . "[2]

Still, Officer knew from experience that strong financial support for missionaries and their ministries led to success:

The different religious communities (denominations) sent missionaries to this country with the Indians when they came years ago, sustained them by their missionary societies through their boards, sent men to assist them when the interest demanded, sent teachers, and helped to sustain them. They sent money to aid in building institutions of learning, and had the assistance of the Church extension funds to aid in building church houses.[3]

What might the Stone-Campbell churches in I.T. have been if they had received the same kind of support? What was more, Officer said, when he first came to I.T. ten years earlier, he could not build on the work done by others who had come before him. J. J. Trott had worked among the Cherokees some twenty years before. But after his death, the mission outpost Trott had established "went down," so much so that his own children "took membership with the denominations in their communities."[4]

In the mid-1880s, the Disciples' American Christian Missionary Society had sent Isaac Mode to evangelize the Creek Indians living in and around Wetumpka, I.T. Various hardships, especially Mode's difficulties with the Creek language, "were of such a nature that he did but little, and from some cause resigned."[5]

Besides those failures, Officer had always known a variety of "religious neighbors" in I.T. who collaborated in "a kind of a union of action to spoil our efforts." Sabotage by outsiders was compounded by "men claiming to be Christian preachers who seemed not to care for the cause." The progress that Officer and his colleagues witnessed had not come easily. He and other Stone-Campbell missionaries had overcome difficulties that were, said the Civil War veteran, "hard to imagine."[6]

Notes

[1] R. W. Officer, "Indian Territory," Octographic Review 33 (December 18, 1890), 6. The date of Officer's report is uncertain. The article appears after an editorial preface: "The following document had the misfortune of being delayed in Bro. Officer's hands before it was sent to us, and of being delayed in our hands after reading this office. Publisher."

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid. For a brief account of Mode's failed mission, see Stephen J. England, Oklahoma Christians (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1975), 42.

[6] R. W. Officer, "Indian Territory," 6.

A Simple Introduction to 2 Peter

This post is a simple, one-page introduction to the New Testament letter known as 2nd Peter. I wrote this as a study handout for a Sunday-morning adult Bible class that I teach occasionally.

In this study, I set out to resist the reputation of 2nd Peter as a "paranoid" or "combative" rant characterized by "mud slinging." Instead, I approach 2nd Peter as a letter in which the enemies of truth should be taken seriously, and according to which truth and goodness will defeat error and ungodliness when the Lord's people "double down" on their commitment to develop virtue (2 Peter 1:3-11) and grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord (3:18).

Who Wrote This Letter?

The writer identifies himself as “Simon Peter” (1:1). If our translations were more exacting, they would have it "Simeon," a rare spelling for the Apostle’s name (the only other occurrence is found in Acts 15:14). In 2 Peter 1:16-18, the author recalls his experience of the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-7). According to 3:15, he seems to know very well the man he calls “our dear brother Paul.” And, the author refers to the writing of Paul as “Scriptures” (3:16). We can only imagine that Peter and Paul had reconciled after their public controversy reported in Galatians 2:11-21.

To Whom Was the Letter Written?

The recipients of 1 Peter are identified as Christians living in what we might call a five-state region: "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1 Peter 1:1). 2 Peter is different. The letter is addressed in a much more universal way: it is 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). This is a bit of a puzzle since 2 Peter 3:1 might lead us to believe that 2 Peter was written to the same group as the first letter.

  

When Was It Written?

2 Peter 1:12-15 makes it clear that Peter wrote this letter not long before he died. A broad and consistent tradition has it that Peter was executed outside the city walls of Rome during the reign of the particularly cruel and depraved Emperor Nero. That likely happened around the year 66. An educated guess is that 2 Peter was written in 65.

Why Was It Written?

Here we might compare 2 Peter to 1 Peter. In his first letter, Peter instructs his readers about how to deal with outsiders who misunderstand and persecute Christians (1 Peter 4:4, 12). But in 2 Peter, he’s teaching them how to deal with insiders who are evil and who teach what is false (2 Peter 2:1; 3:3-4). The beginning and the end of 2 Peter suggest that, when it comes to spiritual warfare, “the best defense is a good offense” (see 2 Peter 1:3-11 and 3:17-18). This is the central the theme of our study.

P.S. The more extensive and detailed introduction to 2 Peter linked here comes from the NIV Study Bible.

"The Lord's Supper" in The Christian Messenger, 1831

John Allen Gano (1805-1887, pictured at left) was a protege of Barton W. Stone and served as a prominent leader among the "Stoneite" Christians in Kentucky and nearby states. His career as an evangelist covered the sixty years from 1827 to 1887, during which time Gano baptized more than 10,000 people. [1]

In 1831, Gano wrote two pieces about the Lord's Supper for The Christian Messenger, a monthly that Stone had published from Georgetown, Kentucky beginning in 1826. His second piece, a letter to the editor, was a response to an opponent named John G. Ellis. After Gano published a letter of rejoinder, Ellis then wrote in response to Gano's rejoinder. Thus, in their exchange the two men wrote a total of four pieces.

On occasion, Editor Stone himself would briefly weigh in on the topic and the discussion between Gano and Ellis. This post will review and comment on the entire discussion as it unfolded and on the outcome of the exchange.

1. John Allen Gano on "The Lord's Supper" 

Gano's initial article, titled simply "The Lord's Supper," appeared in the Messenger dated February 1831. He began by raising the question of frequency: "How often," he asked, "is it the privilege and duty of the Christians, to attend to the Lord's Supper?" He noted that when Jesus instituted the Supper in Luke 22:19, he said to his apostles "this do in remembrance of me." But clearly, that command did not address the question of frequency.

Gano assumed that "the gospel system is perfect, that its laws and commands are perfect" and that Christians are thereby "thoroughly furnished." Consequently, he wrote,

we feel disposed to examine farther, and if not from the lips of the Saviour, from the practice of his apostles at least, learn the proper understanding of this command, and the attention due to it.

From there, Gano observed that according to Acts 2:42, "breaking of bread," which he equated with the Lord's Supper, was one of the "acts of public worship" listed in that verse in which the earliest Christians at Jerusalem participated. From Acts 20:7, he concluded that not only did the first-century church assemble "upon the first day of the week," they did so in order "to break bread," that is, to observe the Lord's Supper.

Gano added that Paul's instructions to the church at ancient Corinth reinforces the basic point. In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul repeatedly corrects and warns the congregation because of their abuse of the Lord's Supper. But, wrote Gano, "how could they abuse that, which they did not attend to?" In other words, the specific way in which Paul addresses the problem underscores weekly observance of the Lord's Supper as the New Testament pattern:

Let us imagine one thus addresses his congregation, "Friends, when you come together, it is not to hear preaching, for one sleeps, another laughs, and another talks." Would not such a reproof or admonition plainly prove, that they did come, or ought to have come together to hear preaching? If so, the language of the passage just cited, being similar in form, this conclusion irresistibly follows; That [the earliest Christians] met every first day; when they did meet it was to eat the Lord's Supper; therefore [Christians in all times] eat it every first day of the week.  

In fact, he argued, based on the relevant New Testament passages, someone could just as easily deny that the first day of the week is when Christians are to assemble as he could deny that the primary purpose of the assembly is to share in the Lord's Supper.

Gano bolstered his case by referring to "the History of the Christian Church, for the first three centuries of its existence so far as it has come to us." He emphasized that early Christian tradition is "not inspired" and that all believers should establish their faith and practice on "the Bible alone." Nevertheless, for comparison's sake, early Christian history establishes that believers "assembled on the first day of the week, sung hymns, prayed, commemorated the death and resurrection of the Lord."

Finally, Gano responded to the possible objection that weekly observance of the Lord's Supper would make it all too common, and that its repeated practice would descend into cold formalism. Gano replied that this danger is connected to anything that Christians do repeatedly, since "every act of religious worship not attended to in the Spirit of Christ, is mere form." On the other hand, if the Lord, by the inspired teaching of this apostles, has taught us to break bread upon the first day of the week, then "assuredly it becomes us humbly to obey."

2. Barton W. Stone's Remarks

Immediately following Gano's article, Stone added a few of his own "Remarks." As if he anticipated a negative response from some who read the Messenger, Stone commented that Gano's arguments were "plausible, if not convincing to all." Further, he invited those who "may think differently" to "communicate for the C. Messenger the result of their investigation," yet always in "the meekness and gentleness of Christ." He also encouraged Gano "to continue for the Messenger his exhibitions of truth."

3. A Response from John G. Ellis

The very next issue of The Christian Messenger, dated March, 1831, included a letter sent from Dry Creek in Campbell County, Kentucky. The writer, a certain John G. Ellis, asserted that Gano's position on the Lord's Supper was "dangerous to Christian liberty." [2] What was the problem?

Ellis noted that Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:26, "For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death until he come." This language, he insisted, denies any restriction of the Supper to the first day of the week.

Furthermore, while Acts 20:7 indicates that "the disciples came together to break bread," these words should not be understood as a reference to "communion" since "neither wine nor cup is once named." Instead, here the breaking of bread should be understood in the same sense as it appears in Acts 27:35. According to that verse, Paul "took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it, he began to eat." Ellis pointed out that both passages include breaking bread, while neither passage mentions cup or wine. If one verse refers to the Lord's Supper, why not the other?

Ellis asserted that Acts 2 presents the same ambiguity. According to Gano's interpretation, the "breaking of bread" in verse 42 supposedly refers to the Lord's Supper, while "breaking bread from house to house" in verse 46 supposedly means the regular sharing of common meals among the earliest Christians.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 11, Ellis pointed out that the chapter nowhere specifies that the church at Corinth typically gathered "on the first day of the week." It is certainly true, wrote Ellis, "that Paul in these verses specially refers to the Lord's supper." Yet, Paul does not specifically mention "a special day." Moreover, none of stories of institution in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or Luke indicate that the disciples did or should eat the Lord's Supper every Sunday. Ellis concluded,

Seeing this is the fact my Christian brethren, let us be careful not to take the suppositions of poor erring man, though he may possess all the acquired knowledge of the world. . . . I assure my Christian brethren, that I am firm in the belief, that if I were honestly and conscientiously to celebrate the Lord's supper every day in the week, there is not a passage in the good word of God, that forbids it. On the contrary, it tells me "as often as you do this . . . "  . . . I am certain that [the] Lawgiver, and his law will ultimately prevail over human wisdom, self aggrandizement, and tradition of fallible man. 

4. Gano's Rejoinder

As one might expect, the very next issue of the Messenger, dated April 1831, contains a rejoinder to Ellis.

By way of review, Gano observes that his original piece set out to show "that the Holy Scriptures do authorize and require the breaking of bread, or celebration of the Lord's Supper every first day of the week."  Contrary to Ellis's suggestion, he denies that his article endangers Christian liberty. It is true the gospel means freedom from many things, including sin, condemnation, Jewish ritual, etc. Nevertheless, the gospel does not mean freedom "from Christ, his laws, authority and service." Although free, Christians "are bound to obey" their Lord.

With that, Gano sets out to answer the particulars of Ellis's letter. He begins with Ellis's contention that Acts 20:7 does not refer to the Lord's Supper. This is supposedly true "because the cup and wine are not mentioned." Yet Ellis assumes that 1 Corinthians 11:30 does refer to the Supper even though "the words drink, cup and wine" are likewise missing, an obvious inconsistency in the argument.

Next, Gano argues, contra Ellis, that if the language of "breaking bread" in Acts 27:35 does not refer to the Lord's Supper, this is no reason to conclude that all such language never refers to the Supper. Gano asserts that the differences "can only be understood by attending particularly to the context." Do not the various contexts of Acts 2:42, 20:7, and 27:35 reveal different meanings? Are there not clear differences between giving thanks at one's dinner table at home, compared to giving thanks at the Lord's table in the Christian assembly?

Besides, if in the Scriptures all instances of "breaking bread" are the same, then how can we resist the conclusion that the Lord has no say, and that mere humans have the authority "to decide the whole matter" regarding frequency? Does not Ellis's position "at once introduce confusion and disorder?"

Gano suggests that 1 Corinthians 16:2 further clarifies the matter: "On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have prospered, putting it in the treasury." He regards this the best translation of the verse, which "proves they met every first day at Corinth." This verse, when combined with Paul's instructions about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, and with Acts 20:7, points to an established order, an order that prevailed during the time when "Jesus alone reigned among his professed followers." Gano concludes his response to Ellis by asking:

Is there a single passage of scripture, that speaks of monthly meetings by name? Is there any authority in the word of God for communing only every three months, or once a year? Is not this remembering a crucified Saviour in his institution very seldom? who is to determine, when we shall eat the supper, if the apostles have not? If a majority of each church are to determine, do the minority eat oftener or seldomer, without being considered disorderly? My object is information from the Bible, for the truth's sake, under the humbling sense I feel of my limited abilities, and information.

5. Ellis's Response to Gano's Rejoinder

The June 1831 issue of The Christian Messenger contains a second letter from John G. Ellis. Apparently, he was not persuaded by what Gano had written in defense of his article on "The Lord's Supper." And Ellis wanted to publish a follow-up statement of his own.

Ellis maintained that weekly observance of the Lord's Supper is not a scriptural precept, making the words of 1 Corinthians 11:26--"for as often as ye eat this bread"--the centerpiece of his argument.

He ridiculed Gano's distinction between public and private acts of worship by again referring to Acts 27:37 and commenting: "Here [Gano] wishes to hold out an idea that Paul did not perform an act of public worship on board of the ship, in giving thanks in the presence of 276 people." (What Ellis does not acknowledge is that Gano's distinction was between worship at home and in other private settings, compared to worship in the presence of the gathered church. The story in Acts 27 describes a scene that hardly fits either of Gano's categories).

Ellis denied that Acts 20:7 carried the force of "a command of Christ and his Apostles." He asserted that "if there is a command in all the New Testament to meet every first day of the week, to celebrate the Lord's Supper, I cannot find it."

Not even when using "Campbell's translation" of 1 Corinthians 16:2 can Gano provide "even the shadow of a command to meet every first day of the week, to celebrate the Lord's Supper." All such argument amounts to human "law-making or legislating for the church of Christ." Ellis is quick to note that he believed it was "the duty of christians to meet often together, and to commune or celebrate the Lord's Supper often." What he objected to was the idea that weekly observance of the Lord's Supper should be regarded a matter of following Scripture. Ellis closed with the following:

I can assure my christian brethren that I do not intend to write another sentence for the C.M. nor any other paper on the subject of weekly communion, as I am fully of the opinion that the scriptures authorise no such thing. I wish to invite my C. Brethren to examine minutely what bro. G. and myself have written, and compare it with the word of God. My prayer is that all christians may closely adhere to the word of God, that we may all grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

6. Barton W. Stone's Final "Remarks"

By way of wrapping up the exchange between Gano and Ellis, Editor Stone penned a few concluding remarks. He noted that both men, in private correspondence with Stone, indicated they would not be sending anything more on the subject. Both men were willing to end the discussion, "to rest it with the public to examine, and to decide its claims to truth." Then Stone added,

It must be acknowledged that but little is said in scripture with reference to the weekly communion, but all must acknowledge, that it was the practice in the first centuries of the church. Let us never make this subject a cause of debate and contention amongst us. My mind has been long in the belief that weekly communion was according to truth, yet I could never find sufficient scriptural reasons to convince my brethren that it was a positive command. What satisfied me, could not satisfy them. We are all free, nor would I willingly take away the liberty of one christian.

Two Observations

The exchange between Gano and Ellis in the pages of The Christian Messenger is remarkable on at least two different counts. First, anyone who reads Alexander Campbell's series "On the Breaking of Bread," which appeared in several issues of The Christian Baptist during 1825, will immediately conclude that Gano's 1831 article, "The Lord's Supper," is essentially a digest of Campbell's series. The similarities between the two are striking.

In fact, reading Gano after reading Campbell on this topic is a bit like reading the Gospel of Mark after the Gospel of Matthew. Campbell's series of four articles is significantly longer than Gano's article. But the general correspondence between the two is undeniable. Not only does Gano cite the same passages (Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11), which is predictable, he also makes the same kind of inferential arguments. Finally, Gano bolsters his case for every-Sunday observance of the Lord's Supper by citing early Christian history, exactly as Campbell did, including the very same caveats. Even the order of the material is virtually the same. In short, the correspondence between Campbell and Gano is unmistakable. The conclusion that Gano had read Campbell's series, and that his article is essentially a synopsis of Campbell, is irresistible.

Second, anyone who reads the entire exchange between Gano and Ellis is likely to sympathize with Gano, as I do, in his inability to nail down anything in the debate over specific New Testament texts. It appears that two unspoken issues stand behind this frustration. First, unlike Gano, Ellis does not believe that the New Testament contains an implicit outline of worship for Christians, one that specifies a certain day for the assembly as well as specific activities. Second, Gano accepted an approved example in Scripture as carrying the same force of a positive command. Ellis did not. As one might expect, on both of these questions Gano's view corresponds to that of Campbell.

Notes

[1] Jerry B. Rushford, "Gano, John Allen (1805-1887)" in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 347. Rushford "wrote the book" on Gano, a 1972 master's thesis completed at Abilene Christian College in Abilene, Texas, titled "The Apollos of the West": The Life of John Allen Gano.

[2] John G. Ellis was not as well-known as John Allen Gano. For example, while Gano merits his own article in the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, Ellis's name does not appear in the Index of that work. Still, Ellis does seem to have had an important ministry in Campbell County, Kentucky. For example, in an 1839 issue of The Millennial Harbinger, Ellis apparently responded to a request from Campbell for a status report on the congregations with which Ellis was familiar. His brief description of congregations near Dry Creek in Campbell County, Kentucky, indicates that Ellis had conducted an active ministry among those churches.

J. C. Beker on the Theology of Paul

Beker, J. Christiaan. The Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul's Thought. Translated by Loren T. Struckenbruck. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

How should the letters of Paul be interpreted? Is there a key that will unlock the door to understanding? In The Triumph of God, the late J. Christiaan Beker, who then taught New Testament Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, presented his answers to those questions.

In 1980 Beker published Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Fortress Press, 1980), an insightful and provocative book which established him as a leading interpreter of the Apostle. In 1988, he issued a German, popular-level abridgment of the first book. His abridgment contains concepts from another of his previous works, Paul's Apocalyptic Gospel (Fortress, 1982).

The Triumph of God is Loren T. Struckenbruck's translation of Beker's German work of 1988 with an appendix entitled "Paul the Theologian." So, the book I'm reviewing here was at the time Beker's most recent attempt to explain to a popular audience what Paul's letters were, and are, all about.

Following the preface, which introduces the reader to Beker's basic concepts, "Part One: The Pauline Letter" presents his answer to the question of identifying the universal truth conveyed in Paul's contingent, occasional letters. Beker explains that this historical enterprise has often sacrificed the contingency and particularity of Paul's letters in order to gain coherence and "catholicity," which other attempts to interpret Paul conjecture too much. He critiques what he calls the "catholic solution" in which the author of Acts is said to have reduced the entirety of Paul's thought to a minimum. This solution stands behind several textual variants among Paul's letters which would give them a more universal appeal.

Second, Beker faults the "Marcionite solution" for its arbitrary attempts to identify the center of Paul's thought, attempts which sacrifice the situational character of the Apostle's letters in order to "discover" their doctrinal core.

Third, the "psychological solution," which proposes Paul's developing religious psyche as the basis for discontinuity or diversity among his letters, mistakes a conjecture for a real answer. For Beker, the satisfactory answer must be rooted in something firmer than mere speculation about Paul's religious psychology.

Having dispensed with what he considers misguided attempts to understand Paul, Beker turns to his own two-part solution. First, Paul's letters represent a dialectic, an interaction between the Apostle's thought (which is coherent) and the situations to which he writes (which are contingent). This approach rightly views Paul not as a systematic theologian who wrote timeless, doctrinal treatises, but as a missionary interpreter of the gospel who wrote occasional letters to churches in a variety of unique situations. Second, the coherence of Paul's thought is rooted in his Jewish apocalyptic worldview, which is the "basic framework" of his gospel. Beker outlines what he means by "apocalyptic worldview": (a) the faithfulness and vindication of God, (b) the universal salvation of the world, (c) the dualistic structure of the world, and (d) the imminent coming of God in glory" (p. 21). Then he elaborates on each point.

In "Part Two: Theological Consequences," Beker demonstrates his first thesis by revealing contingency in Romans and Galatians. With seasoned observation he notes, for example, that in Galatians 3 Paul's argument centers on Christ, the seed of Abraham, as the object of faith; but in Romans 4 it is rather the God of Abraham who is the object of faith. These sorts of distinctions reveal that, far from being a timeless systematic theology and its abstract (as they are typically portrayed), Romans and Galatians employ basic symbols such as "law," "Abraham," and "faith" in significantly different ways.

Next, Beker demonstrates his second thesis that it is the apocalyptic background that represents the real coherence in Paul's thought. Examining the Apostle's interpretation of the death and resurrection of Jesus, his triumph over demonic powers in his cross, and the Christian life of anticipation, the author shows that Paul's thought is, indeed, rooted in an apocalyptic outlook. Beker adds a chapter in which he discusses the close tie between sin and death in Paul's thought, along with Paul's understanding of the Law as both good but also instrumental in the hands of death.

Finally, the appendix underscores, first the need to find the coherence of Paul's thought at a level beneath the text of his letters and, second, the transparency of apocalyptic as that coherent center, a quality lacking in other attempts to interpret the Apostle. A useful bibliography, index of passages cited, and index of names round out the book.

At least two questions arise in response to Beker's position. First, will not the "fluid" and "subtextual" center of Paul's theology allow for a more open stance toward questions of authorship? (Beker denies the Pauline authorship of Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, and the so-called Pastoral Epistles). In other words, how can the flexible coherence of Paul's thought become the final arbiter in deciding which letters should be attributed to him? Second, if the apocalyptic framework and semantic system which are necessary to a true understanding of Paul's message no longer exist as such, in what way can his "truth of the gospel" be proclaimed in our contemporary setting?

Notwithstanding such questions, preachers, teachers, and other serious students of Paul can profitably use this book to understand one of the Apostle's leading modern interpreters who consistently provides penetrating insight into Paul's thought and letters.

Note: An earlier version of this review first appeared in Restoration Quarterly, Volume 35, Number 1, 1993.

Early Beginnings of the New Perspective on Paul

Stendahl, Krister. “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Consciousness of the West.” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199-215.

One of the early and seminal writings in the emergence of what is now called the New Perspective on Paul. Stendahl argues that Western Christianity, via Augustine and Luther, has wrongly interpreted the Apostle. He claims that, unlike Augustine and Luther, Paul did not speak of an inner struggle that each person has with his conscience.

Suffering in Second Timothy

Suffering and sacrifice just aren't a part of God's plan for you. True Christianity is all about having peace and prosperity and everything you want, or at least most of what you want most of the time.

No, I wasn't speaking for myself there. Yes, I was trying to give expression to what I hear a lot of these days. Sickening, isn't it?

For a few months now, I've been teaching a Wednesday-night adult class that's surveying the New Testament. A couple weeks ago, getting ready for our time with Second Timothy, I sat down and spent about fifteen minutes or more slowly (and I mean slowly) reading through this short letter. Here's some of what I noticed, or noticed again. . . .

It seems that by the time he writes this letter, Paul has managed to get himself into prison in Rome (1:16-17). At an earlier stage in his life, when he wrote to people like Philemon and the Philippians, Paul told them to get a room ready for him. Even though he was confined for awhile, he said he would soon be coming to see them (for example, Philippians 1:12-26 and Philemon 22-23) But this time around, usually referred to as his "second Roman imprisonment," he doesn't seem to be hopeful about getting out (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Timothy, on the other hand, is apparently at Ephesus (1:18), which is where Paul had left him according to 1 Timothy 1:3. From the first letter, it seems like Timothy was having to deal with a lot controversy. The second letter continues this theme. In a situation like that, says Paul, Timothy must teach his people to avoid disputing over words (2:14). Timothy himself must have nothing to do with these stupid, senseless controversies. And, he must avoid falling into the trap of becoming quarrelsome. He should be kind to everyone (2:23-24).

Apparently, handling this sort of assignment will not be easy for Timothy. Why? Because he is not one for taking the bull by the horns, so to speak. Running all the way through 2 Timothy is the hint that this young evangelist is very uncomfortable with conflict. At the beginning of the letter, for example, Paul says that he remembers Timothy's tears (1:4). What Timothy had been crying about is not clear. But what does seem clear is that Timothy is prone to being timid. Paul needs to remind him that the Spirit that God gave to us is not one of fear, but one of power, love, and self-control (1:7). Paul goes on to tell Timothy not to be ashamed. Neither he, Paul, nor his helper, Onesiphorus, were ashamed (1:12-17). From there, Paul goes on to issue several related examples and words of encouragement:

• be strong (2:1)
• take your share of suffering (2:3)
• I am suffering (2:9)
• I endure everything (2:10)
• You have witnessed my persecutions and sufferings. Now you endure (3:10-15)
• endure suffering (4:5)

These add up to a powerful testimony about the necessity for Christians, and especially their leaders, to endure hardship for the Lord's sake. So here are some questions we started out with in class. Before I asked these questions, I told the group that it wasn't my intention to bring everyone down. I was my intention to cause them to think about some things that are inevitable:

1. What is the most difficult thing you've ever had to endure? I'm not asking about just anything that was hard or painful. I'm thinking about enduring hardship for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of something that was important to you.

2. What is the most difficult conflict you've ever had with another person or group of people?

3. In those circumstances, what helped you or inspired you to hang on?

Been Readin'

Cold War Fever

So maybe you've guessed by now. These days I'm focused on the Cold War; especially that episode called the Cuban Missile Crisis, which occurred in October 1962. My previous two posts are short reviews of some important sources about the crisis. One, Robert F. Kennedy's Thirteen Days, is an early, first-person report that was polished up and published not long after his assassination in 1968. The second, Sheldon Stern's The Week the World Stood Still, is based on the author's transcripts of the tape recordings of meetings held in the Cabinet Room and in the Oval Office during the crisis. In addition to those two books and a few others I'm currently reading, I've recently come across a few articles you might find interesting. . . .

The Calvinists are Coming!

Something I've noticed about Religion majors at Amarillo College: many of them are Calvinists of sorts. A recent issue of the Economist magazine contains an article about how this phenomenon is impacting the Southern Baptist Convention: Southern Baptists: the new Calvins.

The Sunday-Night Slide

I always enjoy taking a look at Christian Century magazine. For many decades now, it's been the voice of mainline Protestantism in America. It's like the Christianity Today magazine for people who are to the left of evangelicals. Anyway, a recent issue contains an article about something I've mentioned here before: Sunday night services a fading tradition.

A Scholar of the Classics Reads Paul

I can still remember the shock. I had just started reading Philo. He was a Jewish leader who lived in Alexandria, Egypt about the time Christianity first began. My Greek wasn't good enough to read Philo in the original. I had to settle for an English translation. But even then, on nearly every page I came across phrases and expressions that reminded me so much of Paul. It was overwhelming evidence of something I'd never really understood before: Paul's rhetoric was hardly unique. In fact, in many ways it was typical. Wanna see? Check out Philo for yourself. Anyway, more recently, a real scholar of the Classics, Sarah Ruden, has published a book on the Apostle called Paul Among the People. I haven't read the book yet, but enjoyed John Wilson's interview with Sarah Ruden, which showed up in a recent issue of Christianity Today. The article is titled The Apostle of the Golden Age.

So, what are you reading these days? Anything especially good? . . .

Church Elders and Their Children, 4th and Final

In the first post in this series, I raised a question: Does Titus 1:6 teach that a prospective elder's children must be Christians? In the New International Version that verse contains the phrase "a man whose children believe." According to the wording of the King James Version, an elder is expected to have "faithful children." Churches of Christ have typically thought that this expression means one or more of a prospective elder's children must be baptized believers. Otherwise, according this view, the man is not qualified to be an elder. But is this the right understanding and application of the passage?

The second post takes up a more-specific question: What does the Greek word pistos mean in Titus 1:6? As we saw, this term has a wide variety of possible meanings. In the New Testament, only a fraction of the occurrences clearly refer to someone's Christian faith, or to Christian identity. Most often, pistos doesn't speak of a believer. Instead, the word simply means "faithful" in the sense of "dependable" or "reliable." However, the majority of popular English translations favor the idea that in Titus 1:6 pistos denotes a believer. The 20th Century New Testament went so far as to translate the phrase, "whose children are Christians." But is that really what the Greek term means in this passage?

The third post included two main ideas:

A. Churches make a mistake if they approach 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 primarily as legal texts. It's better to see these passages as descriptions of the ideal elder. In many cases, a church has done without elders because the people saw these texts as hard-and-fast checklists. As a result, they came to the conclusion that "nobody was qualified." As I see it, constantly reacting to every stickler's objection has hurt many congregations of the Churches of Christ. Anemic traditionalism, rejecting anything that doesn't match the norm of recent memory or the status quo, is not the same thing as faithfulness to the Word of God. It's not even good conservatism.

B. In order to answer our question about the phrase in Titus 1:6, we should pay careful attention to its literary context, the words that surround the word in question.

At this point, I want to finish out this series, attempt to fill in any gaps, and then leave it for you to evaluate.

Pistos in Titus 1:6

To decide what Paul means by pistos in Titus 1:6, our only recourse is to pay close attention to the qualifying statement that immediately follows it. In Greek it says, me en datygoris asotias ey anupotakta.

The King James Bible translates this, "not accused of riot or unruly." The New International Version says, "and are not open to the charge of being wild or disobedient." What follows here are a few notes on the specifics of the Greek phrase behind these expressions:

1. The first qualifier, according to the KJV, is that the elder's children are not accused of "riot." The NIV has "being wild." These renderings come from asotia, an especially strong word that isn't easy to translate into contemporary English. "Debauchery" sounds odd and archaic. So what is the right word? Apparently, I'm not the only person who's bumped up against this question. In the few other places in the NT where asotia occurs, translators seem to have a hard time coming up with the right English expression.

Take, for example, 1 Peter 4:4, one of the few other verses in the NT where asotia is used. Here, the word shows up in a context where the Apostle is describing the reaction of pagans to their neighbors who have recently become Christians. The NIV has, "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation." The New American Standard Bible and the New King James Version also use this odd word. Does anyone say "dissipation" anymore? Does anyone know what it means? To borrow a line from my teacher Jack Lewis, this is where most Bible readers, because they don't know what the word means, will just have to have a reverent feeling and go on. Here, Today's New International Version (TNIV) stretches it out in English, but nonetheless offers a huge improvement: "reckless, wild living." That's a fine rendering of what Paul is saying, I think.

2. The second qualifier is that the elder's children are not open to the charge of being "unruly" (KJV) or "disobedient" (NIV). Much like the first qualifier, this isn't the language of pulling your little sister's ear, or taking a bite of food before the prayer. Instead, this word describes hardcore rebellion. It speaks of someone who has no intention of obeying the rules. A few verses later, in Titus 1:10-11, Paul uses it to describe the "rebellious people" who by their teachings are "ruining whole households" (NIV).

So, these are the words used in Titus 1:6 to negatively define what it means for an elder's children to be pistos. But, if in this verse the word supposedly means "believing" (as in "Christian"), those descriptors certainly don't set the bar very high, do they? It would sound odd, it seems to me, if you described someone else as "a Chrisitan; you know, someone who isn't completely wild and rebellious."

In fact, the more we examine the context, the less likely we are to understand pistos in Titus 1:6 to mean "believer" or "Christian." Rather, taking everything into account, this verse seems to be saying: "An elder is a Christian man with a proven ability to manage a household. Above all, this means that his home isn't a place where people run amuck. His residence doesn't resemble a notorious frat house." My conclusion, therefore, is that in Titus 1:6 Paul does not expect that all of a prospective elder's children must share his Christian faith. What's more, the view that I'm proposing matches up well with what we find in the other New Testament description of the ideal elder.

The Parallel Passage in 1 Timothy 3:4-5

Anyone who compares Titus 1:6-9 with 1 Timothy 3:1-7 will notice something about that second passage: it nowhere says or even suggests that an elder's children must be Christians. Instead, it says, "He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)" (1 Timothy 3:4-5, NIV).

The question comes naturally: Why would Paul insist in Titus 1:6 that an elder must have children who are Christians, when in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, sent to a different destination, he makes no such demand? But the question begins to disappear when we do two things (1) pay close attention to how the other words in Titus 1:6 help us to understand what Paul means in this verse when he speaks of the elder's children as pistos. (2) use 1 Timothy 3:4-5 as an interpretive parallel.

Sometime back, I reviewed George W. Knight's fine commentary on the Greek text of the Pastoral Epistles. More than anyone else, he helped to solidify some of the conclusions I was coming to on this question several years ago. His observations on Titus 1:6 sum up my own thinking:

The qualifying statement here, "not accused of dissipation or rebellion" emphasizes behavior and seems to explain what it means for tekna (children) to be pistos (faithful). Likewise, 1 Timothy 3:4 speaks of the overseer "keeping his children under control with all dignity." In both cases the overseer is evaluated on the basis of his control of his children and their conduct. . . . What must not characterize the children of an elder is immoral and undisciplined rebelliousness, if the children are still at home and under his authority. Paul is not asking any more of the elder and his children than is expected of every Christian father and his children. However, only if a man exercises such proper control over his children may he be an elder. (G. W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992] pp. 289-290. The link over the title provides almost all of the text of Knight's commentary, including the section quoted here, compliments of Google Books).

A Challenge

I understand that this view runs against the general pattern of English Bible translation. And if you begin to looking around in the English commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles, you will often find the same thing. Great scholars from the previous generation (for example, J.N.D. Kelly, d. 1997) as well as more-recent commentators (for example, Luke T. Johnson) assume that our passage in Titus demands that an elder's children must be Christians. This view, and its corresponding practice, has also held an honored position among the Churches of Christ, though it has often been applied inconsistently and, as I see it, legalistically.

It's high time, though, for us in the Churches of Christ to embrace our own rhetoric on this question; to "go back to the Bible" and "handle aright the word of truth." If a compelling case can be made for the traditional interpretation, then a congregation should stay with it. But if, on the other hand, it seems clear that the congregation has been more strict than the Bible is, then a choice has to be made. Either the group can be as open as the Lord is. Or they can take the Pharisaic path of seeking "safety" by maintaining a man-made hedge that encircles and "protects" the Word of God.

Naturally, I'm interested to hear your comments and observations. Although I use comment moderation in order to prevent spam and ugly comments from angry exes, I never censor disagreement. So tell me: what do you think?

Church Elders and Their Children, Part 3

[A part of your problem is] your interpretation of who is eligible to be an elder . . . you are excluding an awful lot of folks from being your elders by a very legalistic interpretation of what Paul wrote. Can you have a non-believer in your home? Must you have multiple children? If your youngest child is not old enough to be baptized, are you not eligible to be an elder? . . . You are cutting off openings for your younger brighter folks coming along who are in touch with the culture and who are very gifted, able people. --Lyle Schaller, "dean of church consultants," speaking of the Churches of Christ, Interview in Wineskins magazine, Volume 1, Number 11 (April 1993), pp. 9-11.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus 1:6, King James Version)

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. (New International Version)

Here's the question: Does this verse mean that a prospective elder must have one or more children who are baptized believers in Christ? As Schaller pointed out, most congregations of the Churches of Christ say, "Yes." But there are several good reasons for understanding this passage in a different way. That's what this series of posts is about.

Before taking the discussion further, I want to say something about why this is significant. From 1993 through 2005, I worked with two congregations of the Churches of Christ in Connecticut. During that time, I became fairly well acquainted with the congregations of New England. In the 1990s, of about 81 congregations in the six New England states, only about 10-15% of those churches had ordained elders. Since then, some of these churches have taken that step for the very first time. Many of the congregations have been in existence for 30, 40, even 50 years or more. But even now there is only a small percentage of elder-led churches in that region. And why?

Legal Texts?

In general, the answer has much to do with an approach to elder selection that sees 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 as legal texts. This approach begins by assuming that if any prospective elder does not match up well with every descriptive phrase found in both of these passages, he is thereby disqualified. The church cannot appoint him, because he is not a God-approved elder.

This practice begins with a number of faulty assumptions. For example, we can begin by asking, "Why use these two passages in a way that would have been impossible for both of the original recipients?" Timothy didn't have a copy of the letter to Titus. And Titus wasn't reading the First Letter to Timothy. Making a super list by combining both texts is a practice of many contemporary Churches of Christ. In effect, it becomes a tool by which congregations start picking off elder candidates. Ironically, this practice of the Churches of Christ was never followed in any New Testament church. Another series of posts on this subject would focus not so much on the "trees" (like our phrase in Titus 1:6). Instead, it would back away from particulars and think about how best to understand and apply the "forest," the biblical teaching about shepherds.

That said, I want to return to our question. In my experience, the phrase we're studying is one of the most-common sticking points when it comes to whether a man is deemed qualified. The last post looked at some of the different ways that the Greek word pistos is used in the New Testament. Again, this is the word in Titus 1:6 that, in the New International Version, is translated "a man whose children believe." In the King James Bible the phrase reads, "having faithful children." Do those words expect that the elder's children must be Christians? In the last post we noticed that the Greek word pistos refers to Christian faith or identity in only about 25% of its 67 occurrences in the New Testament. This naturally raises the question of how pistos should be understood in Titus 1:6.

Context is Key

Before getting to that question we should clarify something that everyone knows intuitively about the meaning of any word; namely "the determinative function of context." I put that phrase in quotations because it comes from a book by Moises Silva called Biblical Words and Their Meaning. Anyone interested in how the field of linguistics can help us to be better interpreters of Scripture should read it. (The link over the title provides almost all of the book's content). A shorter overview of many of the same ideas can be found in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Chapter 3, "Basic Concepts," pp. 44-62.

Here's a bit of what you will encounter in those readings: Consider the sentence, "I sang before Queen Elizabeth." Upon reading that, most people assume they understand what is being said. The person is claiming to have performed for the Queen. However, what if you later discovered that Queen Elizabeth also sang on that occasion? In that case, the word "before" would not be interpreted as "in front of." Instead, it would more likely be a reference to time, as in "I sang before Queen Elizabeth sang." So, what does "before" mean? Only context provides the decisive clue. Or consider these sentences:

I ate ice cream with my friend.
I ate ice cream with my pie.
I ate ice cream with my spoon.

What does the word "with" mean? It all depends on the words around it, right? This is something that we all know. But we rarely think about it because we make any necessary adjustments naturally, without needing to think about it. The main point is this: What determines the meaning of a word in a sentence are the words that surround it. And, if you know something of the background, the history behind a statement (as in the example of singing "before" the Queen), that also can be decisive.

Now, let's apply these basic ideas to our interpretation of Titus 1:6. What do the words surrounding pistos tell us about what it means in this particular verse? To quote the passage again, a prospective elder's children should be pistos, "not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient" (NIV).

Almost as if Paul knows that people might wonder what he means by the Greek word in question, he adds that defining phrase. Again, in the King James, the phrase is translated "not accused of riot or unruly."

Question: Is that the sort of phrase Paul would use to describe people of Christian faith? Maybe. Or is that the sort of phrase he would use to simply say, "The elder's children, regardless of their age and personal faith, speak well of their father's ability to manage and direct a household"?

I vote for the latter. In other words, I don't believe that Titus 1:6 expects or requires an elder's children to necessarily be Christians. In the next post, I'll bring in another passage that can help make the case. Then, I'll conclude.

Naturally, I'm curious to hear your responses to these posts so far. What do you think?

Interpreting 1 Timothy 2:15

9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women shall be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self restraint. --1 Timothy 2:9-15, New American Standard Bible.

Disclaimer: I originally wrote what follows based on the wording of an older edition of the NASB, which appears above. I probably picked that translation because of its literal approach. As you'll figure out from my comments, I certainly don't think it's a superior translation of this passage.

I know, everyone wants to know the meaning and proper application of especially 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Maybe someday I'll talk about those verses here at "Frankly Speaking." For now, I'm content to deal with another not-so-easy part of this passage: verse 15.

Because he has spoken of Eve's transgression in the previous verse, in verse 15 Paul names the specific way by which women can gain salvation: they can do it through the bearing of children. What does that phrase and the rest of the verse mean? Of course, there's a lot more to be said than I'm going to say here. Feel free in the comments to add what you'd like. For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to quickly sketch the three main interpretations and then ask you what you think.

1. Some interpreters say that Paul meant that Christian women, in giving birth to children, will be kept physically safe. Apparently, this is the view taken by the translators of the New American Standard Bible quoted above. The translation of the NT by James Moffatt clearly supports this view: women will get safely through childbirth. The problem here is that not all Christian mothers have been preserved in giving birth. Tragically, many thousands have lost their lives. A second point against this interpretation is that Paul consistently uses the word translated preserved in the NASB to speak not of mere physical safety but of personal salvation (see, for example, 1 Timothy 1:15 and Titus 3:5). Because of this, most other translations use the word saved instead of preserved. I agree. I think saved is the more-accurate word here.

2. A different view suggests that verse 15 is pointing back to the birth of Christ. According to this interpretation, Paul is saying that when Mary gave birth to the Messiah, the transgression which was introduced by Eve began to be reversed. Salvation entered the world in the person of Jesus. The wording in the margin of the Revised Standard Version reflects this view: woman will be saved by the birth of the child. But this view also has its problems. For one thing, the verse never specifically mentions Mary or Jesus. And, as many of the commentaries point out, if Paul had wanted to make such a statement, he would likely have been much more specific and would have chosen different words.

3. A third view, and one that I think has the most going for it, takes the word translated preserved or saved as a reference to final, personal salvation. It's no promise or guarantee of physical safety in childbirth. Instead, this view understands childbearing as a reference to what might be called "raising kids." That is to say, the phrase refers to all of a woman's duty, especially to her children. The rendering of the Twentieth Century New Testament expresses it well: women will find their salvation in motherhood. The salvation of women, says Paul, comes as a result of fulfilling their God-given role in bearing, nurturing, and teaching children, a major part of what Titus 2:5 speaks of as being workers at home. Of course, simply doing her duty will never save a woman. No Christian lady is going to be finally redeemed simply because she was a good mother. According to this interpretation, that's exactly why at the end of the verse Paul insists that women must continue in things like faith, love, holiness, and good judgment.

So what is this verse talking about? What do you think?

My Friend is Better and "Jesus is Lord"

My friend Stan is in much better shape than we feared last week. He's banged up and will have to spend a good bit of time recuperating. But he's alive, with the hope of a full recovery. I'm thankful for your prayers for him.

- - - - -

Regarding the political character of the expression "Jesus is Lord," here's another quote from Michael Bird's new book, Introducing Paul:

Imagine it is the late 1930s and you are in a lavish hotel in Berlin for a sumptuous dinner with a cohort of German industrialists, bankers, barons, university lecturers and officers from a German SS Panzer division. The evening is relatively cheerful and the mood jovial; conversation revolves around the weather, advice on financial investments, holiday plans in Austria and the latest operas. Then an SS officer taps his glass and proposes a toast to the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, to his health and the new Germany, and everyone raises their glasses. And then you, being the committed Christian you are, propose another toast and bellow out in your best German, "Jesus ist Fuhrer!" Now what manner of reaction do you suppose it would prompt from those SS officers? Do you think they would even entertain the idea that Germany has room for two Fuhrers, the other being a Jew? (pp. 83-84).

- - - - -

A few weeks ago, I was in a used bookstore and came across this sweet, classic-looking paperback copy of Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea. It was a dollar, I think. Friday evening I started reading it a little at a time; for a few minutes sitting on the porch, a little bit more lying in bed.

That night it was so much on my mind that I couldn't sleep very well. I'd wake up, read for a little while, go back to bed, fall asleep, and then do that all over again. I finished it on Saturday afternoon.

There aren't too many writers who can do that to me. So what is it about Hemingway? Which writers can keep you up reading when you'd otherwise be sleeping?

Anakin and Luke Skywalker in Paul's Theology

One of my current reads is Michael F. Bird's new book Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message. Bird says that his aim is to introduce Paul "without losing people in the mire of scholarly debates and complex technicalities" (p. 6).

I'm about a fourth of the way through and have already decided that, barring some sort of unexpected problem with this book, it will replace F. F. Bruce's introduction as the supplementary text in the "Life of Paul" class that I teach every spring. Bird's explanations and overviews are really good and, for the most part, accomplish his goals quite well. I especially like the way he deals with the Adam-Christ typology in Paul's thought:

The argument of Romans 5:12-21 involves a synkrisis, or comparison between two 'types' or figures, Adam and Christ. In Adam we have a story of a world gone horribly wrong. As the one who was made to rule over creation is now subject to it, he forfeits his wonderful privileges of intimate fellowship with God. He suffers a severe loss of fortunes, loses divine favour, is exiled from paradise, and even his own being becomes disfigured and corrupted. The one created for immortality experiences the painful horror of death, and so do all of his offspring, . . . Death begets death. Sin dehumanized humanity, so that, despite possessing the divine image, they act like little more than complex beasts, fighting and devouring one another.

But in Christ we have a story of a world put right, as Christ is faithful where Adam was faithless, and is obedient where Adam was disobedient. Through his act of righteous obedience, Jesus overturns the transgression of Adam and so is able to deliver and transform the fallen progeny of Adam. Christ creates in himself a new humanity, which, through the renewing power of the Spirit, is able to undo the effects of the fall and become the new Adamic race.

In want of a modern analogy, George Lucas's six-part saga Star Wars can be called a "Tale of Two Skywalkers", and in many ways mirrors the Adam-Christ contrast of Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, where Adam and Christ stand for the two respective heads of humanity. They are representatives or types of either a corrupted humanity (Adam) or a redeemed humanity (Christ). The first Skywalker (Anakin Skywalker) faced the temptation to give in to the dark side of the force: he gave in to it and death, destruction and chaos followed. In contrast, the second Skywalker (Luke Skywalker) faced the same temptation, but was faithful and obedient to the Jedi vocation, and consequently hope, life and the triumph of good followed. In fact, Luke was able to redeem the first Skywalker, his father Anakin, from evil through his faithfulness (pp. 42-43).

Now there's a fun sermon possibility.

Paul's Letter to the Galatians

The "Life of Paul" class gets a lot of my attention these days. At the end of the last class session (on Monday), we broke with three questions: Who are Paul's opponents in Galatians? How does their "gospel" differ from Paul's gospel? And what do they say about Paul himself? The students were assigned to read Galatians on their own, and to come to class tomorrow with some answers to at least one of those questions.

Since I've given that assignment, I figure it might be a good idea to come up with some answers of my own. Here's what I've written down so far. I'd be glad for you to comment on or ask about any of this. It's a work in progress. What do you think?
_________________

At both the beginning and near the end of the Letter to the Galatians, there are clear indicators that Paul's message has its detractors among the churches he's writing to:

• "Evidently, some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ" (1:7).
• ". . . the one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty" (5:10). From the other references to Paul's opponents, it's apparent that "the one" here means "anyone" or "everyone." Paul is not thinking of an individual here.
• "As for those agitators . . . " (5:12).

So, who are these opponents of Paul? What sort of confusing messages do they teach? And what are they saying about the Apostle himself? A few passages give us a good bit of information that we can use to answer the second question: What do they teach?

For example, in 3:10-14, Paul speaks against any attempt to rely on one's observance of the law.

Later, in 4:8-11, he compares and contrasts "knowing God" with a very different experience in which the Galatian Christians, prior to their conversion, were enslaved by "those weak and miserable principles." Paul says he knows that the Galatians are now "turning back" because they are "observing special days and months and seasons and years." These would presumably include, above all, observance of the Sabbath, but also times like the Day of Atonement, New Moons, and the Passover, etc.

Finally, in 5:1-12, Paul argues against the requirement of circumcision for Gentile converts to Christianity. And, he makes a case against Gentiles themselves giving in to such demands.

So, it appears that the problem is, following Paul's establishment of the churches in Galatia, other Jewish Christians have arrived telling the new Christians that observance of Mosaic commands is not optional. Rather, it is mandatory. Scholars often call these teachers Judaizers, Jewish Christians who disagreed with what they regarded as Paul's overly-liberal teaching, and who contradicted that teaching.

The message of the Judaizers was news to the Galatians. Originally, they were told by Paul and Barnabas that the standard for everyone, both Jew and Gentile, was faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance and obedience towards God. This did not include biblical-traditional mandates such as Sabbath observance, circumcision for the men, and kosher dietary regulations.

Naturally, because of such differences, the Galatians would have been confused. They would have wondered which side was right. And they would have asked the judaizing teachers questions like, "If your version of the Christian message is true, then why did Paul teach us what he did, something that was very different?"

At this point, the Judaizers apparently answered by saying that Paul preached a different message because he was (a) confused and (b) driven by bad motives. From Paul's protests in the letter, we can "overhear" a handful of such accusations. It seems that Paul believes that his opponents have leveled the following charges against him:

1. Paul told you what he did because he is a people pleaser. He wants to be liked by others. And that is precisely why he lowered the standards for becoming, in Christ, a true Jew.

This seems to be what Paul is trying to deny in 1:10: "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." But the Judaizers didn't stop there. They also said something like,

2. Paul learned the gospel from other people. What he knows of the Christian message, he was taught by someone else.

In 1:11-12, Paul shoots back. The gospel I preached, he says, is not something I received "from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." In 1:13-14, Paul recounts his previous way of life in Judaism. Why does he do that, and at this point in the letter? He seems to be asking the Galatians, "What could possibly have knocked me off of my determined course, other than divine intervention?" Also, by relating some of his early-Christian biography, even giving specific time periods, Paul clearly intends to distance himself from Jerusalem and the Apostles who lived there. His implication is that he could not have gotten his message from them because, following his conversion, it was a long time before he even met any Apostles. But the opposition wasn't through. Apparently, they also said things like,

3. Having been taught the true gospel in Jerusalem, Paul traveled to places like Galatia where he misrepresented the message he had learned from the real Apostles.

Paul is clearly responding to that sort of accusation in 2:1-10. Notice the implicit questions in this section. Paul wants to ask two things in particular:

a. If the Apostles at Jerusalem believe that circumcision is so important, why didn't they insist on it for Titus when he was right there with them? (2:3)

b. If the leaders in Jerusalem disagree with my gospel, then why did they extend to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when I reported to them exactly what I preach? (especially 2:2 and 9).
Yes, says Paul, there are differences between myself and Peter. But those differences have nothing to do with message. They are differences only in target audience. I have been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, while Peter, on the other hand, has been given the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews (verse 7).

But the Judaizers had another arrow to shoot at Paul. Apparently, there was a story making the rounds. According to some, when the Apostle Peter came to Antioch while Paul was there, the two of them had a heated discussion, some sort of falling out. The agitators took this story to mean that when Peter and Paul compared notes at Antioch, they discovered that they did not, in fact, preach the same message.

Is this what Paul is responding to in 2:11-16? It seems so. Paul appears to be offering an alternate interpretation of the story the Galatians have heard. According to Paul's version, yes, he had had a spat with Peter. But it wasn't because the two of them believed different things. It was because Peter "was in the wrong" (v. 11). He had come to Antioch, where he enjoyed table fellowship with Gentile Christians. However, when "men came from James" (v. 12) Peter distanced himself from his Gentile brothers because he was afraid of what the James people would think and say. Peter's actions, says Paul, were a practical rejection of "the truth of the gospel" (v. 14). Something had to be done! So, says Paul, "I opposed him to his face" (v. 11). I said to Peter, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (v. 14). "Peter was acting like a hypocrite," says Paul. "And that's the reason why we got into it at Antioch."

Okay, I know, there's so much more that can be said about Galatians. But I need to stop here. Thoughts? Observations? Questions? Help?