Victory Over Sin 4: Paul and Romans 7

Martin Marty wrote several decades ago of the "Baptistification" of American Christianity. This trend and melting of Christianity into a generally Baptist ethos continues today. Marty's Christianity Today article focused particularly on the move away from infant baptism in American even in churches that historically baptized infants. I would add to this list churches such as our own (the Wesleyan) that find increasing grass roots opposition to women in ministry, not to mention the general sense in America that true Christians vote Republican and take well defined positions on any number of political and social issues.

And while many are proud to say that they attend "non-denominational" churches, these churches are really specimens of a Baptistified American Christian tradition. They are not Catholic; they are not Methodist; they are a Baptist base with a few modifications from other traditions. I would strongly disagree with the false impression that they are free of the denominational divides over theology from earlier days. They are simply a congregational "denomination" whose connections are cultural and theological rather than structural. The Message as a "translation" and The Purpose Driven Life as a catechism give us a lovely snapshot of the status quo in the non-denominational denomination of which I speak. David and John Drury have a great unpublished article on The Purpose Driven Life as the current catechism of American evangelical Christianity (see www.drurywriting.com/david).

By the way, I had to laugh recently after reading a quote from the Message. I thought "That's an interesting verse. Where is that in the Bible?" It was a verse from Ephesians and what was funny is that I had just taught a course on Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. Frankly, I think Paul would have the same reaction to the Message--That's interesting, who said that? It is the most culturally driven translation I know of.

I might add as a footnote that we and other groups have had some influence on the Baptist tradition as well. Most Baptists believe in free will and in the possibility of knowing you are "saved." These are not natural Baptist elements--they are foreign elements that actually remove the philosophical foundations of what they now call "eternal security," something distinct from the original "perseverence of the saints." These changes reflect the influence of Arminian traditions on the Baptist tradition. Similarly, I wonder if the Lutheran influence in relation to the faith/works debate has led to the general sense that "all sins are the same" and "I'm not perfect just forgiven."

It is this last part of the "Christian bookstore meltdown" that I want to address. I find even Wesleyan pastors who base their understanding of sin in the life of a believer on Romans 7:15: "What I want to do I don't do, but what I hate, that I do." I believe the reason this sentiment has won the day in American Christianity is because it resonates with our experience to the very core. This verse is how most American Christians feel. I want to do the right thing, but it just seems like I'm always doing exactly the opposite of what I want to do. I just always feel like a failure at doing the things that please God.

Now I personally don't feel that way about myself really. And I don't say that because I want to be the poster child for moral victory. I'm telling you this because what I did at the end of the last paragraph is exactly what Paul does in Romans 7:7-25--he is putting himself in the shoes of the person under the Law who wants to keep the Law but is unable because of the power of sin. He is not talking about his own current struggle to be victorious over sin or about some ongoing defeatism in the Christian life over sin. But in our pre-modern glory, our tendency is to read verses in isolation from their context as bumper stickers and memory verses. To do so in this case would be to misunderstand Paul, indeed to make the text say the opposite of the point Paul was actually trying to make.

This is an atrocious misreading of Paul!!! It requires us to rip these words from a sustained argument Paul is making against being a slave to sin and in explanation of the role the Law used to play before the coming of Christ. It results in reading Paul's words in a way diametrically opposed to his actual argument. Whether we can live up to Paul's theology is a different question, but what Paul was saying in this regard is overwhelmingly clear in the overall context of Romans 6-8.

To understand the section 7:7-25, we must go back to Romans 6 and even before. Paul's style in Romans is to make a point and then ask questions about that point either to bolster his point or to make sure his audience does not misunderstand him or draw the wrong conclusions from the point. In this case, Paul has made the comment that "where sin was abundant, grace was superabundant" (5:20). Paul knew what people were accusing him of. They were saying he taught, "Let us do evil things so that good things will come" (3:8).

Paul heads this objection off at the pass. "What will we say, therefore? Should we sin so that grace might be abundant? God forbid. How will we who have died to sin still live in it?" (6:1-2). Paul dedicates the rest of chapters 6 and 7 to this issue and the matter of where the Jewish Law plays into it all. From this comment alone we can see what Paul's position on this issue is. There is no ambiguity. Those who have died to sin should not continue to sin. If you conclude that Paul sees sin as the norm of a Christian's life, you have a lot of explaining to do.

I have been amazed at how difficult it is for some to accept that this is in fact what Paul is saying. I have had online students explore the contrast in Romans 6 between being a slave to sin and being a slave to righteousness. I inevitably have several who will conclude something like, "While Paul seems to say in these verses that a Christian is no longer a slave to sin, we know from Romans 7:7ff that he can't really mean this." Poppycock. If we are to conclude differently, we must do it in theology or experience class. Paul himself will have none of it. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free [past tense, something that should already have happened] from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:1).

Again, Paul's meaning in Romans 6 is not ambiguous in the slightest:

"For when you were [past tense] slaves of sin, you were free to righteousness... But now [present] that you have been freed [past tense] from sin and enslaved to God [past tense] you have [present tense] the fruit unto holiness, and [in] the end [you will have] eternal life" (Rom. 6:20, 22).

Paul is clearly talking about actions. He uses the word "fruit" in this passage in reference to how you live (cf. the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians). In 6:12 he has clearly connected the discussion to lifestyle when he says, "Do not let sin rule in your mortal body with the result that you obey its desires." In short, this chapter is no Lutheran "legal fiction" where God considers us righteous even though we are really still sinners through and through. This passage is about the rule of forces in a person's manner of living. The person enslaved to sin presents their members "to sin as instruments of unrighteousness" (6:13). The person enslaved to God presents their members "to God as instruments of righteousness."

There is not the slightest ambiguity in Paul's thought here. Christians should not be slaves to sin and thereby producing unrighteousness in their lives. Christians should be slaves to righteousness and producing a holy fruit in their lives. If you think Paul sees sin as the norm of a Christian's life, you have a lot of explaining to do.

Chapter 7 continues this theme, this time discussing the role of the Law in the equation. This was a sore point because Paul seemed to be bucking the Old Testament when he told people they were not under the Jewish Law. He seemed to be throwing away the very covenant between God and Israel that stood at the heart of the OT. This was one of the main reasons Paul wrote Romans, to assure the Roman Christians that he in fact believed that God remained righteous both in relation to Israel and the world: "I am not ashamed of the gospel... in it the righteousness of God is revealed..." (Rom. 1:16-17).

The place of the Law in Paul's theology is a difficult issue for me and many others to nail down. I feel like Luther's attempt to see it strictly in legal terms--a standard that God simply doesn't use any more--was a noble failure. In contrast, in some way I don't fully understand, Paul saw the law as a catalyst for sin's power. As he says in 1 Corinthians 15:56, "Sin is the sting of death, and the Law is the power of sin." I don't quite know how it all works, but not to be "under the law" for Paul means that in some way sin no longer has power over you the way it did before (cf. Rom. 6:14). It is not just a matter of legality. For Paul it involves a very real freedom from the power of sin that had been exacerbated by the Law.

Paul begins Romans 7 with the claim that people are only under the law as long as they are alive. Since we have died with Christ, we are no longer under the Law. But the verses of most interest to us are Romans 7:5-6, which repeat the same things Paul has already said in Romans 6:

"For when we were [past tense] in the flesh, the passions of sins through the Law were working [past tense] in our members, with the result that we bore fruit to death.

"But now [present] we have been set free from the law [past tense] by which we were being held [past tense], having died, with the result that we serve in newness of Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter"

Again, Paul is talking about actions, not about some theological fiction. We (including Paul) were in the flesh, and the power of sin worked through the Law in some way that led to sinful actions. But now that we are not under the Law, sin does not hold this power over our members, and we can now serve in newness of Spirit. Once again, if you think Paul sees sin as the norm of a Christian's life, you have a lot of explaining to do.

These verses are key to understanding Romans 7:7-25, for this passage expands on the concept of the first verse: "When we were in the flesh, the passions of sins through the Law were working in our members, with the result that we bore fruit to death." Paul answers two questions.

Question 1: "Is the Law sin?" (7:7). Paul, are you saying that the Law is actually evil? No. Paul explains that the law itself "is holy and the commandment is holy and just and good" (7:12). Rather sin took [past tense] opportunity through the commandment to bring about all kinds of desires (7:8).

As a footnote, I'm taking Paul slightly out of context in the way I'm presenting his thought here. Paul believed that he and the Romans lived at the turning of the ages, in the fulness of time (Gal. 4:4-5). There was a sense in which the world ceased to be "under the Law" when Christ came in the fulness of time. We might want to factor this element into our equation in the next entry.

Question 2: "Did the good [the Law] become [past tense] death to me?" (7:13). No. "But sin, in order that it might appear as sin, was working death through the good [the Law] in order that sin might become incredibly sinful through the commandment" (7:13). We note again that this entire discussion has taken place in the past tense. Paul is speaking of what was true of a Jew in particular ("those who know the Law" 7:1) before Christ.

We now enter the debated zone, 7:14-24.

"For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin" (7:14).

It is true that Paul was in flesh when he wrote these words, for he was in his body. But Paul cannot mean that he is currently "sold under sin" unless everything he has said up to this point was a lie, a farse.

To be "sold under sin" is an equivalent phrase to being a "slave to sin." Paul has clearly identified this state to the period before a person comes to Christ. Let's review:

"When you were slaves of sin... But now since you have been freed from sin..." (6:20, 22). This verse clearly locates being sold under sin as a condition prior to Christianity.

"When we were in the flesh, the passions of sins used to work in our members bearing fruit to death, but now we are released from the Law..." (7:5-6). Again, this verse clearly locates being in the flesh to the time before we died with Christ.

How about the verse right before 7:14: "Did the good [the Law] become death to me?" Again, Paul is talking about something true of their past.

Let's move forward and look to the end of Paul's argument, after he has finished the verses of 7:14-24: "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you [past tense] from the law of sin and death..." (8:2).

I give up if you still think Paul is talking about his current experience after such clear indicators from the context. Anyone who still wants to see 7:14 as a statement of Paul's current experience clearly doesn't care about what Paul was actually trying to say. They're only interested in reinforcing what they already believe.

Paul's statement in 7:14, as well as in 7:25, is a description of the default human state: "sold under sin." Before Christ, a Jew might have wanted to keep the Jewish law, but because the Spirit was not in force, they would have been unable to do so. Such a person might have said something like 7:25: "With my mind I serve the Law of God, but with my flesh the Law of sin." Since Paul goes on in 8:2 to say we are free from the law of sin and death, 7:25 cannot be a statement of Paul's current experience or the default state of a Christian. Paul is speaking of the person without the Spirit who wants to keep the Jewish Law but is unable to do so because of their flesh, something 7:5-6 and 8:8 tell us Christians are not "in."

Such a person might say something like 7:15: "I do not practice what I want, but I do what I hate." The reason is exactly what Paul has been saying throughout this whole section. Sin is taking opportunity through the commandment (e.g., 7:8, 11). Remember that he was speaking past tense then. Also here he is putting himself into that person's shoes: "I see a different law in my members, striving against the Law of my mind and warring against me by the Law of sin which is in my members" (7:23).

Again, Paul has already spoken several times of this working in my members in the past tense (e.g., 7:5). I am so tired of the response, "But Paul is speaking in the present tense." Yes, but it is a beginner's perspective on language to conclude that the present tense always means present time. I used the present tense above to make a theological point that was not true of my current experience. Take one joke introduction, "A man walks up to you and says..." No one thinks the speaker is talking about something that is happening right then. This is not a good argument at all, especially if you pay any attention at all to Paul's train of thought everywhere in this unit!

Notice the fevered pitch he reaches in his dramatic portrayal of the person who wants to keep the Law but is a slave to sin: "A wretched man am I! Who will rescue me from the body of this death?"

So many stop here. Paul is begging you today to go on to the resolution: "Thanks be to God! Through Jesus Christ our Lord [I am freed from the body of this death]."

Romans 8 begins with the victory song over the accomplishment of the "impossibility" of Romans 7:14-24: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus [the person in 7:14-24 was not in Christ Jesus], for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death [that we were just talking about]." The festivities continue: "The impossibility of the Law in that it was weak because of the flesh... God condemned this sin in the flesh" (8:3).

In fact, now "the righteous requirement of the Law may be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to Spirit" (8:4). Walking is the Jewish way of talking about ethics--how you live. This is no theological fiction where the Christian is like Luther's dictum: "At the same time sinner and righteous as long as you're always repenting." Hogwash! Paul's meaning is not ambigous in the slightest about the appropriateness of sin in the life of a believer. In the end, "those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (8:8).

So what is Paul's position on sin in the life of a believer. It really isn't that hard of a question. He answered it way back in Romans 6:15: "Should we sin, because we are not under Law but under grace? No, what are you crazy?" (the last line's a Schenck paraphrase).

Now I know that we must take experience into account and after I have spelled out what Paul has said here, we still have to work out a practical theology of sin. But the theory seems pretty clear. I remain dumbfounded at the prevailing popular interpretation of Romans 7 with all its defeatism.

In short, Paul has no theology that expects sin to typify the life of a believer. In the next entry, we'll discuss what we might do today with Paul's concept of flesh, especially in view of the "sin nature" arguments of later centuries...

Victory Over Sin 3: Introduction to Paul on Sin

With regard to the subject at hand, the part of 1 John that is most relevant is 3:9, John's comment that the person who has been born of God is not able to be sinning. I have taken this as a statement that sees sin as antithetical to the very "nature" of what it means to be a Christian. For John, it is certainly possible for a Christian to sin, but sin is something that needs forgiveness and some sins knock you right out of fellowship with God. John wrote so that his audience would not sin in the ways they were tempted, revealing sin's negative nature. Finally, love of the brothers is the antithesis of sin in 1 John.

What a radical statement 1 John 3:9 seems, that the person born of God cannot be sinning! Doesn't this flatly contradict what the apostle Paul has to say on this subject?

Nope. This is exactly Paul's position as well.

I begin with mention of 1 Corinthians 10:13, a memory verse for a Wesleyan child:

Temptation has not taken you except that which is human. But God is faithful who does not allow you to be tempted above what you are able, but He will also make an escape with the temptation, so that you are able to bear it.

Again, a "pre-modern" interpretation is one that is unaware that a text might be read differently than it strikes us, particularly that the original meaning might be different from the way it strikes us today.

[By the way, the key to "after modernism," "POST"-modernism, is the realization that we all--no matter how much we've studied--remain to some extent unaware of our assumptions. Thus no one except God is ever completely "modern" in his or her perspective. There's a little (or rather a lot) of "pre-modern" in all of us. This makes the terms pre-, post-, and modern labels somewhat less than precise, somewhat less helpful, and not a little condescending. I do not mean to use the term that way, although it does seem accurate to me to say that most Christians are vastly unaware of what it means to read the Bible's words in context.

It is this systematic and programmed unreflectivity that leads me to continue to use this term with regard to biblical interpretation. We can mark the rise of a better understanding of how to read the Bible in context to the period of the Enlightenment. I think we reject many of the values that went along with this Enlightenment perspective, that came to read the Bble's words as words are normally read rather than in magical ways. Nevertheless, the distinction between the original meaning and the "detached" way the words strike us in our traditions seems beyond question once a person understands this distinction.]

So what exactly was Paul talking about when he wrote these words in 1 Corinthians 10:13? It was in a discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols, of idolatry, of sexual immorality, and of the grumbling of the Israelites in the desert. All of these were issues for the Corinthian church. Again, Paul is not thinking of "micro-intention" in this passage. He is discussing things like going to a pagan temple or having sex with a prostitute. No Christian group should have any doubt but that God can provide victory over any temptation to do anything like these. Were some Corinthians tempted to visit prostitutes or sleep with their step mothers (1 Cor. 5 and 6)? There was no excuse for them. God is a God who makes it possible to overcome such temptations. Were some Corinthians tempted to attend public meetings at pagan temples to advance their careers in civic life? God had you covered even if this temptation was almost unbearable.

In short, Paul believed that sin on this level was completely avoidable through the empowerment of God.

We might further note for the record that Paul also says something akin to John's "sin unto death." In 1 Corinthians 9:27 Paul says, "But I subjugate my body and I lead it into servitude lest somehow after I have preached to others, I myself might become unworthy." At this point many of my Lutheran and Calvinist friends protest the deal about "works." You make this verse sound as if certain human "works" are necessary to be found worthy on the Day of Judgment (clarification--not so much talking of justification here but of salvation in the Pauline sense outside Ephesians. Paul's language of salvation in most places is future oriented, being saved from God's wrath on the Day of Judgment).

This isn't the time to discuss that but I just don't think Paul would have a clue what you're talking about. As a Jew he just did not formulate the distinction the way some Protestants have. If he did, then what could he possibly mean when he commends the Thessalonians for their "work of faith" (1 Thess. 1:3). As I say sometimes when my interpretations are criticized for being incoherent on something like this, "Talk to Paul about it. I'm just telling you what he said."

As a lead in to our next entry on Paul, I want to mention Galatians 5:16:

"Walk by the Spirit and you will never fulfill the desire of the flesh."

Here's a sticky wicket for the person who thinks Paul saw the Christian life as constant failure in relation to "the good I want to do." Au contraire. Paul here uses the "subjunctive of emphatic negation," involving not just one but two "nots." By the way, in English two nots make a yes. In Greek they only increase the "not-iness."

So Paul does not say, the Spirit might enable you to resist the flesh. Paul does not even say casually, the Spirit often enables you to resist the flesh. Paul says that Spirit and flesh are opposing forces over which the Spirit can always win.

What was he talking about in context? He was trying to head off the abuse of his theology at the pass. Much of Galatians targets a community that is in danger of "becoming enslaved" to the Jewish law unecessarily. They are Gentiles and Paul believes they are endangering their reception of God's grace by turning to the Jewish law for justification--"you have been nullified from Christ, you who are being justified in the Law, you have fallen from grace."

But (in my minority evangelical reconstruction), Paul has recently been burned by the Corinthians in his "not under law" teaching. "Hey, Paul," the Corinthians said, "we're so not under the Law--we have a guy here who's sleeping with his step-mother! Aren't we spiritual?" Paul was horrified. How can you be proud of something like that? No, don't let your freedom in Christ become an opportunity for the flesh (Gal. 5:13). It is in this context that these words of Paul appear.

So what are the desires of the flesh that Christians can have victory over? Paul gives us a list in 5:19-21: "sexual immorality, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, angers, quarrels, divisiveness, factions, envy, drunkeness, orgies and similar things..." Can a Christian have victory over the "flesh" and the sins it leads to because of its desires? Yes, Paul insists a Christian can and will.

Again, the tendency of the Western conscience is to make some of these hyper-introspective (e.g. envy or jealousy). Given what we think we understand about ancient Mediterranean personality (of course we could be being "pre-modern" on it in some way we don't currently anticipate), these would relate much more to concrete intentions rather than passing thoughts or even periods of certain feelings. A Christian can be completely victorious--by the power of the Spirit--over both concrete acts of sexual immorality and concrete intentions toward sexual immorality. A person can consistently resist the urge to act or formulate concrete intentions regarding jealousy, anger, or envy.

This would not mean that a person will necessarily become free of jealous thoughts or feelings from time to time, although I personally believe such things should decrease exponentially as one's Christian life progresses. But all Christians, not just some entirely sanctified subset, should be consistently victorious over concrete actions of the sort we have mentioned. Of course in a future entry we will discuss the fact that the ideal often isn't the real.

In the next entry I want to discuss the "mother of all misinterpreted passages" on this subject: Romans 7. Critiques, questions, and comments welcome...

Victory Over Sin 2

To me, 1 John provides the best snapshot of the subject of sin in the New Testament. It is a virtual treasure trove of "memory verses" on the the topic.

Definitions of Sin
For example, 1 John gives us two definitions of sin:

"All sin is unrighteousness" (1 John 5:17).

"Sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4).

While it seems a little difficult at first to know what these verses really mean specifically, I especially like the NIV translation of 5:17 (whether it's a good one or not :): "All wrongdoing is sin."


Classic Calvinist Texts
John has several classic Calvinist verses:

"If we should say we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1:8).

"They went out from us, but they were not from us. For if they were [truly] from us, they would have remained with us. But [they left] so it might be shown that they were not [truly] from us (2:19)

The first one is the most classic text of all to justify that Christians cannot help but sin all the time, and that the Wesleyan tradition is deceiving itself if it claims a person can have victory over sin. The second text is a classic text in defense of a certain position on eternal security. The idea is that if a person commits mass murder after claiming to become a Christian, you can be sure that person was never really a Christian in the first place.


A Classic Wesleyan Text
John also has a classic "Wesleyan" verse:

"Everyone who has been born of God does not practice sin, because His seed remains in him. And he is not able to be sinning, because he has been born of God" (3:9)

The person from the Wesleyan tradition responds to the Calvinist. Wait a second, there must be something wrong with your interpretation of 1 John 1:8 if John can go on to say something like this verse. This verse clearly says that sin doesn't fit with being born of God. God places His "seed" in you and that should make all the difference.


Honorable Mention to a Roman Catholic Verse
So that no one is left out, we might finally mention an oldie, but goodie Catholic verse:

"If someone should see his brother sinning a sin not to death, he will ask and will give him live, to those who are sinning not to death. There is a sin to death. I'm not saying you should ask about that one. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is a sin that isn't to death" (5:16-17).

Woah! What was that all about?

The Roman Catholic Church builds its distinction between "mortal" and "venial" sins from this verse. Mortal sins are the ones that can't be forgiven--they invalidate your baptism. Venial sins are in contrast sins that are open for forgiveness.


Pre-Modern Readings of These Verses
What I mean by a pre-modern reading of the Bible is a reading that is largely unaware of its assumptions. In short, we read the words as if they are written as timeless truths from God to me. Now, on the one hand, this is the very stuff of what a Scripture is. On the other hand, reading the Bible this way automatically means I am not reading its words in context. In this instance, John's words were written to a specific Christian community with a specific history. For example, the verse we mentioned above, 1 John 2:19, tells us that this church had recently undergone a split of sorts and a group had left the church.

So when I read these words as universal truths about sin, I am changing their meaning slightly from what John originally intended the words to mean. Now I certainly don't want you to think I'm saying this way of reading is the wrong way to read the words. All I want to point out that it is a different way of reading the words than reading them for what they originally meant. Reading them for what they originally meant is the "modern" way of reading them. Finally one "post-modern" way of reading them--one I think is the way we will read Scripture in the future--reads the words as God's message to us, but is aware that when we read them in that way, we are taking the words differently from what God inspired John to say to some church in Asia Minor.

Like I implied above, the very nature of a Scripture is to loosen the meaning from its original moorings and universalize them somewhat. The words take on a more timeless quality. Too be sure, not all the words can do this as well as others (e.g., "Greet the brothers with a holy kiss" doesn't universalize nearly as well as "Love your neighbor as yourself"). It was at these points that the ancient church (as well as ancient Jews like Paul) downshifted into allegory and metaphorical meanings.

Enough of all that. I wish us to take a pilgrimage from our pre-modern readings of 1 John to a contextual understanding and then return to a reflective understanding of these words as Scripture.

As good pre-moderns, our tendency is to read these verses in isolation and "define" them with the "dictionary" of our tradition. For each of the traditions I mention above, some of these verses are "naughty" verses--verses that don't fit as easily into our paradigms. 1 John 1:8 is a naughty verse for us Wesleyans. 1 John 3:9 is naughty for Calvinists. And 1 John 5:16 seems naughty for Protestants.

Enter coping mechanisms. To explain 1 John 5:16, a Calvinist might argue that some sins are just so bad that God kills you, even though your spirit will still be saved. I'm not sure what a Calvinist would do with 3:9. The NIV translates it as "continue to sin," which is a fair rendition of the present tense of the Greek. Actually even Wesleyans would have a problem with the idea that it is completely impossible for a Christian to sin.

As a Wesleyan, I cope with 1 John 1:8 by watching the wording and the tenses carefully. 1 John 1:8 does not read "If we say that we do not practice sin, we deceive ourselves." Indeed, if it did it would flatly contradict 3:9. What it says is that "If we say that we do not have sin." In this sense it basically anticipates what John will say in 1 John 1:10: "If we should say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us."

The perfect tense in Greek has the sense of something that was completed in the past. "I have been married seven years." The act of getting married is something that's been done for eight years. So to say that we don't have sin is to say that we have never sinned. This is the person who says, "I've never sinned." 1 John 1:8 and 10 are thus John's equivalent to Romans 3:23: "All have sinned and are lacking the glory of God."

Over the years I have perhaps gone slightly unorthodox (for a Wesleyan, that is) on my understanding of 1 John 5:16. To be sure, I have no systematic theology of this verse like Roman Catholics do. But on the whole it seems to me that John is saying some sins knock you out of the kingdom immediately and some don't. Of course I grew up with the "one sin you're out" approach. "Sin once in any way? You better pray; it's hell today." (I just made that up).

John doesn't seem to see it quite so rigidly. All sin no doubt damages our relationship with God. But not all sins sever the relationship instantly. On the other hand, some sins do. With regard to return to Christ, I have faith in the belief early settled in the 200's that a person whose relationship with Christ has been severed can repent and return to Christ. I can relate this somewhat theologically to the belief that the Holy Spirit leads us to repentance. So if you are truly repentant, then you have not committed some "unpardonable sin."


The "Modernist" Reading: 1 John in Context
When I begin to read 1 John in its historical context, I read the whole book, rather than a few isolated memory verses. I had long found 1 John somewhat vague in its statements. I now feel pretty good about what I think John was trying to say, but I will acknowledge up front that it involves some "reconstruction" on my part. In other words, the meaning of 1 John was clear enough to its original audiences. But since I am only listening in on their conversation, I am missing a great deal of the puzzle. While reading the text of 1 John alone out of context is dangerous because it can come to mean almost anything, even reading it in context is a little unstable in its meaning--we just don't have complete information.

The "they left us" verse in 2:19 unlocks 1 John for me. Some group had left John's community. What did they believe? I think 1 John says enough for us to identify them as "Gnostics" of a sort. They didn't believe that Jesus had come "in the flesh" (2). They believed that Jesus came "by water" at his baptism, but not that he died "by blood" on the cross (5:6). They saw no need for Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for their sins (2:2). In a manner of speaking, they did not see a need for forgiveness for sins through Christ (1:8, 10) and thus rejected Jesus as Messiah (2:22). They were thus "antichrists," opposed to God's work through Jesus (2:18, 22).

1 John 2:19 is thus not some absolute statement about eternal security. It relates to a group that never truly believed in Jesus. They may have worshipped with John's community for a while, but they did not truly belong.

As with Paul, reading 1 John in this way reveals a certain danger in absolutizing and universalizing his words. Many of these comments are addressed at a particular situation. Space forbids me from going on more about my thoughts on the community. My basic point here is that some words in the Bible were never meant to be universal in scope. Some of the things Paul says in one context he would not have said in a different one.

I supect that in part, Paul tells the Corinthians not to take each other to court because he knows that the group taking the others to court are wrong in everyway, enacting unrighteousness through pagan power structures. On the other hand, I am not convinced that Paul would have put things the same way if those taking others to court had been ensuring that righteousness would take place. Herein are the dangers of pre-modern interpretation, universalizing contextual words in ways that can in some cases actually reinforce ungodly ends. (not so much in this case, since it would seem that sin is almost always involved somewhere when a Christian takes another Christian to court).


Reading 1 John Reflectively as Scripture
With some sense of what the original meaning might be, we can now return to what 1 John might mean for us as Scripture. To reach this meaning, we need a bit of Wesley's Quadrilateral to bring us from then to now. I submit the following theology of sin from 1 John:

1. There is no person who does not need Christ's atonement. All have sinned, and anyone who says they do not have sin deceives themselves.

This dictum has the support of Christian history and is the agreed position of Christians everywhere today.

2. But 1 John 3:9 similarly sees sin as incompatible with the fundamental character of a Christian. God's seed and word in us stands in direct conflict with a lifestyle of sinning. Sin should not be typical of a Christian.

Here I face an uphill battle when it comes to the consensus of Christendom. The Wesleyan tradition reflects the position of only a small portion of the church in its belief that God can provide victory over sin. Nevertheless, this is the biblical position and one that I feel represents the right conception of God as One who is able to empower believers. The pessimistic view that God gives up on us in relation to sin seems somehow to undersell God. On these warrants I stand with my tradition in laying a prophetic stake on this issue. 1 John, and as we will see the rest of the New Testament, does not in any way encourage or assume that sin will be a part of a believer's life, particularly in terms of concrete, intentional wrongdoing.

1 John in particular formulates sin in terms of love and hate. In its original context, these words had overtones of the Gnostics who had left the community and had shown hatred for their brothers and sisters. 1 John calls them murderers (3:15), something reflected in their refusal to help their brothers and sisters in need even though they had the resources to do so (3:17). However, as Scripture, we can formulate the "touchstone" of sin in relation to acts of love (4:7-8).

I say acts because 1 John and indeed the New Testament authors thought of love more in concrete than in attitudinal terms. I doubt I can be perfect in love from an attitudinal perspective (although that is what we are ultimately discussing here, so I am open to correction). But I think a person can be by John's standard perfect in concrete love--in always doing that which is loving when a choice to love or not to love presents itself.

3. It is possible to "die" as a result of your sin. I suspect that the New Testament authors generally assumed that a person who had truly come to Christ was in for life. However, extreme cases required them to see that a person could "sin unto death" and thereby lose their reservation for salvation on the Day of Judgment.

4. We have a good lawyer. 1 John expresses the fact that all have sinned (1:8, 10) and that sin is fundamentally incompatible with the character of a Christian (3:9). But I think 1 John 2:1 pretty much sums the whole thing up for John:

"My children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if someone should sin, we have an advocate with the Father: Jesus Christ the Righteous One."

To be sure, John probably has concrete actions in mind here. I'm writing these things so that you won't be deceived by this heretical group and sin by leaving us or withdrawing your support from us. But if you have gone astray in these ways or have dabbled with leaving the community, God will forgive you. I am writing these things so that you will have fellowship with us (1:3). After all, we are presenting to you things that we have seen with our own eyes and heard with our own ears (1:1-2).

So all have sinned in the past, but it would be inappropriate to continue sinning now as Christians. Sin in the life of a Christian can actually lead to death. But if you sin, we have a go-between named Jesus. He died as an atoning sacrifice for sins (2:2).

We could discuss many points of what I've written here. Some comments are more open to debate than others. But since this is a rather long blog entry, I'll stop and give anyone who might want a chance to speak...

Why I Believe in Victory Over Sin 1

Why I Believe in Victory Over Sin
I grew up in the Wesleyan Church with preaching on entire sanctification. In a time when the doctrine was preached less and less, I heard many sermons about an instantaneous, distinct action that God performed in the lives of Christians to free them from the power of sin. In a moment, God was said to remove the part of you that made it almost impossible for you to defeat the temptations in your life. In its place He filled you with love and the power to live a holy life.

You hardly hear preaching like that anymore, even in the Wesleyan Church. The decline in preaching on "holiness" led Keith Drury ten years ago to write an article about the death of the "holiness movement." He was not celebrating, just observing. I myself would attribute the death of this kind of preaching to a number of factors, including 1) the difficulty in matching the doctrine to our experience, 2) the "baptistification" of American Christianity, and 3) our difficulty in finding the doctrine clearly in the Biblical text.

With the approach of a Wesleyan meeting on the subject of salvation in relation to our Discipline this month, I thought I would blog some of my thoughts on our doctrine in this regard. I'm viewing this blog as a kind of "amicus brief," a friendly word from an interested but outside party. I am only one biblical scholar, but I have some views I'd at least like to be considered in discussion, particularly before someone goes and "chucks" our Wesleyan heritage. I love my Baptist brothers and sisters, but it would be a shame for us to "give in" on some things where our understanding of the Bible is actually more accurate than theirs.

I submit these entries in three parts. In the first I want to commend our tradition for its belief that the New Testament teaches victory over sin in the life of a believer. I can honestly say that I do not know of a single verse in the entirety of the New Testament that teaches that a Christian cannot help but sin. I want to stake my claims against the prevailing, "we can't help but sin" sentiment in American Christianity today. That will take several entries as I show how skewed so many of the biblical interpretations are of the relevant passages.

In the second part I wish to address the question of Christian experience. We find that Paul has a particular standard he sets as the expected and ideal. But we also find that his churches sometimes failed to reach that standard. I want to be practical. There is an element of "becoming what you are" to the matter of sin in the life of a believer.

Finally, as a postlude, I may make a few comments on some of the pre-modern elements in the interpretations of the holiness movement of the past. These are interpretations and ways of splicing the biblical text together that didn't really work and in fact probably took us a little off track. If the survival of holiness depends on these interpretations, then I don't think we will see it resurrected.

Let's see what happens...

New Blogs

I've set up two new blogs. One is for professors to put interesting turns of phrase from student papers--

www.iwustudentquotes.blogspot.com.

The other one is for students to put up interesting turns of phrase by profs (except for comments, these need to be sent through me to be posted)

www.iwuprofessorquotes.blogspot.com

Enjoy and participate!
Ken

When to Submit

The train of thought on the previous post has become long and interesting enough to warrant a new post. Here's the thread:

Schenck: I guess I would consider the authority of a community in an "absolute" sense to be in proportion to its correspondance to the faith of the ages, the faith "catholic." By the way, I consider this touchstone to apply to the Roman Catholic church as well :>) In other words, the authority of the Roman Catholic Church depends on its correspondance to the true catholic faith rather than its own understanding of the faith catholic.

On the other hand, I believe that communities can be prophetic on various issues, in which their authority is tentative in relation to the catholic faith, but potentially absolute in relation to what the catholic faith might become.

But what I mean when I speak of being in submission to the communities of faith to which I belong will often be something much less than either of these in terms of its relation to absolute faith. It is about my submission to those in authority over me. Whether it proves also to be submission to the church catholic will often be highly debatable in any absolute or even prophetic sense.

Chris: So there are times when we can't be or shouldn't be submissive to our church's authority [meaning the authority of our particular local church and its respective denomination]? or do you just mean the church-at-large?

New Schenck: With the danger of being a hypocrite, here goes.

A person should never submit to any authority over them when that authority is in conflict with the faith catholic (e.g., Trinity). Can we create a category, the "ethic catholic," issues of consensus with regard to practice (e.g., homosexual practice)?

But take the issue of drinking alcohol. There's clearly nothing unbiblical about drinking in moderation. Yet, the communities of faith to which I belong prohibit it. I believe on an issue like this one it is my duty to submit to their authority and not drink. Such rules are often part of what brings group cohesion and are sociologically significant (e.g., not dancing). It does me no harm to submit to such rules, and it does a body good (the body of Christ in terms of cohesiveness).

I don't think it will be a perfect world when every church looks and acts and believes the same way. The diversity allows for the whole counsel of God to come through. Forces in tension have much more "strength" than a lukewarm, watered down unity.

There may be other issues where I believe the authorities over me are in conflict with truths that are not a part of the core faith and that are in the end detrimental to the church. While the Wesleyan Church mostly ignores the personal practice of tongues these days, there was a time when individuals who privately spoke in tongues got into big trouble. What of the days when people were prohibited from translating the Bible into vernacular languages? These aren't core issues, but they would seem to be positions that conflict with either the Bible or the trajectory of faith. Must we submit on them?

I feel that some people may called to be "prophets" on issues like these. Maybe God calls a Wycliff or a Bence to move the church in more biblical or Christian direction when a practice is actually detrimental to God's plan. Does God call us all to change the church on these issues? I know some people who feel that it is their job to correct everything that is wrong with everything. Most of the time I doubt they are truly called to be prophets.

I think there are other and often better ways to change the church than direct confrontation or disobedience. There is the "wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove" method. There is the "subtle change agent" model. The "frog straight into hot water model" backfires a lot of the time, I think.

Then there's the model "choose your battles." For various reasons, I've taken the easy route and chosen to play the kind of "prophetic" role with the issue of women. It's safe because it is one of the things that my own tradition is most prophetic on in relation to the broader church. I can submit to my communities of faith and yet speak out. I feel similarly about the power of God to live victoriously over willful sin.

Are there issues where I should speak out within or in a prophetic role toward my communities of faith? That's so tricky. There aren't any that I personally feel called to be prophetic on. How about you?

Pope Benedict XVI

We have a new pope.

I wouldn't have chosen Ratzinger, but what do I know? He had the office of Chief Inquisitor, although they don't call it that anymore. It is he who stomped out Liberation Theology in Latin America (a good thing?). It is he who prohibited priests from running for public office (a good thing?). He has been behind the purging of liberal Catholic universities and seminaries (a good thing?).

In short, there will be no "development" of the sort American and European Catholics want. I did a Google on former Benedicts to try to find out what agenda might hide in this name. I came across Benedict XIV, who was a hard liner on giving in to cultural trends and lost many converts to Catholicism in the seventeen hundreds. Is this why Ratzinger took the name--because he plans on "taking a stand for absolute truth."

I just hope he does not make any "infallible" statements on issues still open for debate. As you might expect, I have serious questions about the idea of papal infallibility. I have problems when one person can encase traditions in stone that cannot change.

Acceptance of the theoretical possibility of change is inherent in Christian tradition. I can't listen to the words of the Bible and not conclude massive theological developments between the Old and New Testaments. The afterlife would be a major case in point since the OT has very little about it and some of what there is in the OT is against it (e.g., Job 14:13-22). We need to put most our faith in the NT if we are to believe in a resurrection (although there is Daniel 12:2-3).

And what of the Trinity or dual nature of Christ? You could argue that Arius had as much biblical support for his position as Athanasius did. The church had to turn to philosophical categories it seems to hammer out these issues because the biblical language by itself did not settle the matter.

But are papal infallibility, purgatory, or the immaculate conception appropriate developments? I'm not sure that they contradict the biblical text as much as we sometimes act like they do, although clearly the Bible doesn't teach any of these things. LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation involves more "addition" to the Biblical text than a purgatory would, I think. But I don't accept these. I especially have questions about a solitary human authority over the church, although I understand he shares this power when he is not speaking ex cathedra.

I end with an affirmation of prophecy. While the primary role of an IWU is to prepare individuals for ministry, I believe another important role for a Christian religion department is to help the church think and reflect on itself. As Hesburgh, former president of Notre Dame put it, "This is where the church does its thinking."

I submit to the Christian communities to which I belong, authorities over me. I submit to the Wesleyan Church, and I submit to IWU. But I think communities like these need constructive criticism as well, even if they reject it in the end. When they reject it, it is my duty to submit to their rejections. But I think that it is healthy for a Wesleyan Church to have universities that reflect and critique it for the purpose of edification and growth. I do not mean of the cynical and destructive kind--that is unhealthy although far too common.

But I don't believe any earthly community of faith has it all figured out, and I think it is always healthy to have prophets among us who think they have corrective or steering words from God for our communities. A Christian university in a faith community seems a great place for prophets (and again, not cynics or skeptics).

I don't think the Roman church has as much room for prophets as it should. My greatest fear about Benedict XVI is that he will put the nail in the coffin on some issue that currently remains unresolved. I have a fear he will make some infallible statement on celibacy or birth control. Currently there is none, so these practices could currently be broadened even in the Catholic church.

But I fear a man who may want to make a point for God that God really doesn't want him to make. I doesn't matter whether birth control might help slow AIDS in Africa or if most American and European Catholics ignore Catholic teaching on birth control anyway. I fear a human with such overwhelming authority, yet who might in some instance have "a zeal without knowledge."

Left Behind Conference

I took some time off this morning to go to the Left Behind conference at Sunnycrest Baptist. It left me with the mix of feelings I have so often given the course of my life.

First, I believe that Sunnycrest Baptist Church is genuinely a force for good in this city of Marion, Indiana. This is a church that I think genuinely reaches out to this community. When I look at churches like it, I wonder how many lives are hanging on by just a thread--and it's the thread.

I might say similar things about the Left Behind series. From what I can tell, there are a lot of lives it has changed for the better. LaHaye tells stories of people who came to Christ after reading the books, and I believe it.

I noticed some things I liked about the way they presented their understandings. For one thing, they are so pre-tribulation rapture in orientation that it didn't quite have as much political impact as it might have. They emphasized that it was the rapture that would change everything, so the audience need not worry. They would be gone when everything went bad.

Of course there were some political implications, comments, and jokes. They were done in good spirit. There was one Gore play on words. Some careful wording distinguished between loving Muslim people and seeing Islam as the enemy of Christianity. The interpretations were up to date enough to include much stronger EU and post 9-11 anti-Islamic rhetoric.

But there was also some criticism of Bush's comments about Islam after 9-11 as well as some other policies that they felt were inappropriate given what was to come. One person was so bold as to say the audience would definitely see the rapture before they died (not said by LaHaye).

So why the mixed feelings? I left with the usual somberness because I feel that so much of this rehashed Darby model just isn't what the Bible says or what will happen. I find myself believing that I know that much of this force for good in the world is way off (and by "know" I mean I'm sure enough in my mind to say "know" rather than "think" or "feel").

For example, it would be hard for me to find a single Old Testament "prophecy" of LaHaye's sort that is fulfilled 100% literally in Jesus. LaHaye bolstered the faith of the audience by talk of the improbability that 109 prophecies about Jesus could all come true coincidentally in one person. I at least think I "know" that the vast majority of these 109 prophecies--perhaps all--were not originally 100% literally about Jesus.

So what am I to do? When I think a person's faith is inaccurately formulated, is it my task to correct them? I don't think it is if they're not hurting anyone. If they're hurting someone, intentionally or unintentionally, then I feel more of a burden. What about when teaching a college Bible class? I feel a little more obligation then, because college is not supposed to be Sunday School. But even then, its a dance, and I shouldn't be the one leading. My general rule is that "saving faith" trumps "truth" in my dealings with others.

So it's another day of life , another day of happiness and sobriety...

The Schenck Innoculation

One dinner when I was doing my graduate studies in England, I sat down with an acquaintance of mine. The college was "evangelical Anglican" in its base, so I thought Will might be a Christian. Without any evangelistic purpose in mind, I asked him, "So are you a Christian, Will?"

The response was scolding, "No"--in that drawn out, pretentious sounding high English accent. "I'm an atheist--the thinking kind."

Well! He sure put me in my place :>)

Now I came to be pretty good friends with Will over the next three years, so I want you to know that I like Will. Intellectually, I don't have any problem with his position. On the other hand, I recognize this answer--it's the typical answer of an ignorant atheist. This is the type of person who has no idea just how deep some Christians think.

Now mind you, I'm not thinking of myself when I refer to deep thinking Christians. I'm talking about the people who astound me when I hear them or try to follow their thoughts. Read some Alvin Plantinga when he's at his deepest, or Richard Swinburne. I don't always agree with these guys, but it sure takes me several rereads even to understand what they're saying. I remember hearing Thomas Oden give his testimony once--I didn't have a clue what he was talking about. It was so far above my puny seminarian mind (mixed of course with a good dose of unnecessary pretention on his part, I might add--if I understand his personality rightly).

In the moment that Will made this comment I felt pretty sure that he really didn't know many "thinking" Christians. I'll be up front with you--I went through immense crises of faith in seminary and doctoral days. I basically came to the conclusion that the incarnation and the resurrection are the rock bottom core items of Christian faith. Everything else is icing on the cake.

I long ago concluded that if I ever abandoned either of these, then I would no longer be a "literal" Christian (of course I'm presuming the literal existence of God as well in all this, as well as other things like God's involvement in the universe, etc...). If I concluded these weren't true, I might call myself a Christian but I would have become a "metaphorical" Christian. Maybe you could call yourself a "Christian sentimentalist" or a "Christ-fearer" after you've left this building.

But make no mistake about it. The church owns the building, and the church believes in these things. If you decide you don't believe these things any more on intellectual grounds, that's fair enough. I deeply respect that. But you don't own the building, and you can't take it with you. Resign from your office as bishop or district superintendent.

John Dominic Crossan left the priesthood--I respect that (although I think he more left to get married). On the other hand, Sprague and Spong somehow think it's their task to make the church believe like them. I respect their intellectual positions (well, maybe Sprague's. Spong's a pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know what he's talking about). But they've forfeited their positions of authority in the Methodist and Episcopal churches. They can feel free to start their own metaphorical Christian church. I'll respect them for that.

By the way, I'm not talking about doubts here either. I could live with Crossan, Sprague, and Spong if they had genuine intellectual doubts but continued to live under the auspice of their offices.

Like I said, the incarnation and resurrection are the cake for me--everything else is icing. And there is a lot of icing to be sure. These aren't the only important things we believe, but they're the heart of what we believe.

I generally hesitate to share the full brunt of my own faith struggles because I know how much we like icing in our communities. I'd love you to believe much more than just the cake. But when you've found something that makes you think your faith world is collapsing around you, remember me.

There are some serious questions you'll come across if you pursue things long enough. Have you ever noticed that Mark says Jesus will appear to the disciples in Galilee, Paul says Jesus appeared first to Peter, John tells us first of him appearing to Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem, Luke only tells of appearances in Jerusalem. It's genuinely hard to fit the resurrection stories together if you've tried to do it on a historical basis. It can be done, if this is important to your faith.

But ultimately, my faith stands whether they can be fit together or not. "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." This I believe. And while I believe in the "icing" of the truthfulness of Scripture--it's icing. My faith in the resurrection would stand even if you could show me a thousand errors in the Bible. "On Christ, the solid rock, I stand. All other ground is sinking sand. All other ground is sinking sand."

"God doesn't speak to me like He did to Moses." Sorry, who are you? You're not Moses, that's for sure. The truth doesn't care about anyone or anything. It just is. Get over it.

I'm not trying to take away any of the icing. I hope most of you will just think I'm odd or (worse) "liberal." But if one day you find yourself on the throes of a faith crisis, remember me. I concluded in my doctoral days that the reason my faith struggled so much was because no one ever clued me in on where the real stakes were. I grew up with an all or nothing kind of approach--"either every word of the Bible is true or none of it is true." I'm quite willing to believe in the truthfulness of the Bible, but its not where Christian faith ultimately collapses or stands. "On Christ, the solid rock, I stand."

So you're having questions about God? I'm genuinely sorry, and I'd love to talk. You're not having questions? Great! But I'd love you to keep me in mind if you ever do. I want you to know that there are plenty others who've had questions and have continued to believe. I want you to realize that there is no doubt you will ever have that someone else who believes hasn't had before you.

It was unfortunately not until I was in my twenties that something dawned on me. It suddenly occurred to me that my parents had already lived those same twenty years--about forty years earlier. Here so often I had thought I was teaching them something. Because it was the first time I was thinking something, I thought it must be the first time for them too. This is the arrogance of youth and of ignorance. There's not a thought any of us will ever have that a million others haven't had countless times in some similar form, even if our modern circumstances put new clothing on it.

It's the arrogant atheist that I find irritating. This is the person who acts like they've suddenly had some earthshaking thought no Christian has ever had before.

Ho hum. Been there, done that. Grow up. You having doubts about God? I respect that. And I respect the person who on intellectual grounds does not believe in God.

But don't pretend for one moment that you're any smarter than the countless Christian thinkers out there who had those same thoughts about forty years ago. No wait, try a thousand years ago for most of those doubts.

Popes and Delegations

Tomorrow is the funeral of Pope John Paul II. By all accounts he was a very godly man indeed. I might not agree with his thinking on every subject. Nevertheless, truth is not the same as godliness. I strongly suspect he was as sanctified as any Wesleyan who has ever lived.

I'm half upset/half really sad that Jimmy Carter was not in the delegation that went. True enough, in the end it was Carter's decision not to go--a reflection of the virtue of the man. Many would say a sign of his godliness--"in honor preferring one another." He bowed out so that others could go. I say this as someone who doesn't necessarily think Carter was the best president from a practical standpoint. But I think he was probably more Christlike than any of the presidents who have lived in my lifetime.

But whose heart was closer to that of the Pope's than Carter's in the delegation than went? President Bush? Not a chance. The Pope spoke out publically against the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps the Pope was wrong, but clearly he and Carter were more of the same heart on that issue--that violence breeds violence. Again, I don't always agree with this dictum, but clearly the Pope and Carter were in greater agreement.

But I'm glad President Bush went--he should have. Frankly, I'm glad they even invited him.

Condoleeza Rice? I suppose as Secretary of State that's a fair thing. Who should represent the United States in a foreign policy situation? That makes sense. A year ago it would have been Colin Powell. Okay, maybe she is a pick over Carter.

But Clinton? Bush Sr.? They are ex-presidents, so I'm okay with that. Did either of them deserve to go more than Carter. No, I don't agree there. Of course you could argue that Carter was only President for a couple years of the Pope's office. Reagan is the one who had the most dealings with him. But Carter had his heart.

Mrs. Bush? Well that's interesting. Power has its privileges. But Mrs. Bush versus Pres. Carter? I have serious problems with that. It seems really selfish to me, almost shameful. It's all about privilege rather than honor. Maybe I don't know the protocall. Maybe most dignitaries took their wives.

Would someone tell me who said it could only be five? Was it the Vatican? If it was Bush, then I'm very upset at him over this. But even if it wasn't, I feel very sad. This is not the collection of people John Paul would have chosen or wanted to honor him.

Terry Schiavo

What a mess!

Something smells fishy somewhere (no offense to fisherpeople).

On the one hand, I don't get the husband. The money's gone, the parents will take care of her, her wishes don't seem to be that clear--why not divorce her and raise your new family and let the parents take care of her. After all, they've got a wad of cash now to tap that would support her with a vengeance!

On the other hand, I have real problems with Randall Terry and others who say Terry tried to speak. I'm not much for conspiracy theories. Ockam's Razor says that the most straightforward explanation is usually the correct one. That means that conspiracy theories by their very nature are from the get go less likely explanations of things.

I guess the husband is going to allow an autopsy, so then we'll know better what was really going on.

But to step back from this specific incidence, what are so many Christians really angry at? Is it

1. that they don't believe Schiavo is really in a persistent vegitative state and that a murder is taking place?

2. that they don't understand what a persistant vegitative state is and think that because her eyes are open and her head is moving that there is really awareness of any kind there?

3. that they don't believe a person whose body is still breathing on its own can be allowed to die, even if the "human" part of the brain is gone?

I know that the first possibility is the majority of what I'm picking up on, and that's fair enough. Surely those who are saying "We should err on the side of life" are correct. As the one dissenting judge said initially, I don't see the harm in taking another brain scan. I don't either. Why not before you make a truly grave error?

I'm also afraid that there's a good deal of number two going around. It's unfortunate in a way that the whole brain doesn't die at the same speed. They tell me the "me" part of the brain dies first. With each passing minute without oxygen after five minutes, I will go from brain damage to a new category, "minimally conscious state." Then from my point of view I'm gone, but my shell goes to a persistent vegitative state to a coma to a coma on life support to a corpse. I would hate it if this situation turned out to be a case of "Christians looking stupid" because of ignorance.

But I have also heard the third option expressed. I have a family member who put it this way: "the Bible says that the life is in the blood, not the life is in the brain." True, but I don't think that was exactly what Leviticus was really talking about. Nevertheless, it seems a coherent position, and I respect it.

So what do you think?

At Even

Just after darkness fell at the end of the first day, the disciples were gathered together in one place in Jerusalem. Since morning, both Peter and Mary Magdalene had seen Jesus, risen from the dead. They had gathered to make sense of it. Some of the disciples still didn't believe it was real. They thought Peter and Mary had wanted to see Jesus so badly that their minds had played tricks on them.

Two other followers suddenly rushed in. "We've seen Jesus!" they exclaimed. "We were on our way home to Emmaus when a man joined us. We invited him for supper and when he broke bread, we knew it was him. Then he just disappeared."

As they were talking, Jesus just appeared, out of nowhere, in the room with them."Shalom lechem," he said, Peace to you.

When they were convinced that it was he, he reminded them that he would appear to them again in Galilee. Over the next forty days he appeared to them at different times and places. He appeared to Peter, Thomas, and Nathaniel by the Sea of Galilee. He commissioned the disciples on a nearby mountain. Then forty days after his resurrection, back in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost, over five hundred believers saw him ascend to the skies.

He would appear to others at various times for the next three years. The most notable were James, his own brother, and last of all, the apostle Paul.

No one has ever claimed to find Jesus' body. Indeed, one of the earliest rationalizations about the empty tomb comes from individuals who accused the disciples of stealing his body. But you'd think they would have confessed when they were about to die for their faith. They didn't.

The First Day of the Week

Early in the morning just after sunrise, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Joses, and Salome took spices they had bought and went to Jesus' tomb to anoint his body.

But when they arrived to the tomb, they found the stone rolled away from the entrance. Jesus' body was nowhere to be found. They encounter a man who startles them.

"Do you, do you know what's happened to the body?"

"He is not here. Tell the disciples to go back to Galilee; he will appear to them there."

Trembling and bewildered they left the tomb.

Where was his body? Who had taken it to Galilee? Should we tell anyone? What if they accuse us of taking the body. They decided they would not tell anyone until they could figure it out.

"Back so soon," Peter asked. He, James, and John were waiting on them, and they would all go to Galilee together.

"You're back awefully soon," Peter said.

"Were you able to get the stone rolled back?" Peter asked. The women remained silent.

Finally Mary got up the courage to say. "It was already rolled back."

"What?" A look of distress came over Peter and John.

"Did you see the body?" John asked.

"No."

Peter and John ran out of the house in Bethany. They both ran all the way to Jerusalem to the tomb. Nothing was there but the linen cloth.

John immediately began to think of resurrection. Peter just couldn't quite get his head around it all. They both hurried back to Bethany.

"Was there anything else that happened, anything else that you remember," Peter asked the women.

"There was a man there. He said that Jesus would appear to you in Galilee."

Saturday Evening

Back to Galilee, that's what to do, go back to Galilee.

It had been Sabbath. Can't travel that far on the Sabbath. He had to wait till the end of Sabbath. Now it's dark. Now it's the first day of the week. Peter would sleep and leave early in the morning.

Would they want me back in Galilee? Did Herod know who to look for? I'll go back to fishing. I'll go back to my wife and family.

The Marys were going to try to anoint his body in the morning. Not me. I couldn't stand to see his body, not after all that.

I would wait for the women to get back from anointing the body, then we would all leave for Galilee.

Sabbath Evening

What had happened?

Less than a week before, they had entered Jerusalem triumphantly. Jesus had authoritatively condemned the temple establishment by overthrowing the tables in the temple.

Just twenty-four hours ago they were eating supper with him. Now he was in the tomb.

Peter had gone back to Bethany. He, James, and John kept looking out the window, half expecting someone to come arrest them.

How could they have been so wrong? He had said he was the Messiah. God was going to restore His kingdom on earth. Peter had been ready to die for Jesus. But he was not ready for Jesus to die. That was completely unexpected. He would have fought to the death, but Jesus simply went with the men from the high priest.

What would he do now? How could God forsake Jesus? How could God let them crucify him?

There had to be something else to do. There had to be something more. What should I do? What should I do?

Almost Evening

It was the day before the Sabbath, and evening was quickly approaching when the Sabbath would begin.

A member of the Sanhedrin called Joseph went to Pilate to ask for the body. He had an unused tomb carved out of the side of a rock face.

Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead. Most people suffered much longer, that was part of the idea.

But after Pilate had verified it, he allowed it.

Joseph wrapped Jesus' body in linen, and placed it in the tomb.

Mary Magdalene and another Mary watched where they laid Jesus' body. Because the sabbath was on them, they would have to wait till Sunday to anoint the body.

The Ninth Hour

At the ninth hour, about three in the afternoon, Jesus cried with a loud voice the Aramaic words of Psalm 22:1: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Some around him didn't understand what he was saying. They thought he was calling for Elijah. They had heard him talking about someone coming from heaven. Maybe he was calling for him.

Someone saw his pain and ran for some wine vinegar, and offered it to Jesus.

Then Jesus gave out a long cry, and breathed his last breath.

A centurion was struck by his death. This was not the death of a criminal or an insurgent. This man must be innocent. This man must be righteous.

But Jesus remained hanging on the tree while the others were dying and his followers looked on from a distance.

The Sixth Hour

At about the sixth hour, darkness came over the land.

The Third Hour

It was about the third hour when they crucified him, nine in the morning.

They had flogged him. The Roman soldiers had mocked him, putting a purple robe on him like he was a king. They fashioned a crown out of thorns and put it on his head.

"Hail, king of the Jews," they said, bowing before him in mockery.

Jesus was in no condition to carry the cross. He was physically exhausted. His body had been beaten to a pulp. But most of all he carried the weight of the world.

A man from Cyrene named Simon had come for the Passover. The Roman soldiers grabbed him from the crowd and forced him to carry the crossbeam for Jesus. They brought Jesus just outside the gate to a place the Jews called "Golgotha," the place of a skull.

Pilate had fashioned the charge carefully: "THE KING OF THE JEWS." He wanted to mock the people.

They offered him wine vinegar to deaden the pain, but he refused it.

Two criminals were crucified with him. They mocked too. One of them was particularly harsh: "You're a disgrace, claiming to be our messiah. Where's the Son of Man now?"

The soldiers threw dice to see who would get Jesus clothes. Meanwhile Jesus hung naked from the cross.

The Crowds

A little later Pilate takes Jesus and a murderer to the crowds.

"Because I am such a good man, I will release a Jew to you. Here are two kings. Which one do you want? Barabbas? He has murdered one of your own. He's a thief."

"And then there's Jesus. He's your messiah. Sometimes he turns tables over in the temple. He doesn't talk much."

"GIVE US BARABBAS!"

Pilate looked at his assistants puzzled. "What's with these Judeans?"

"Barrabas or Jesus?"

"GIVE US BARABBAS!"

Pilate looked at Jesus. Why were the crowds so angry with him?

"Then what do you want me to do with Jesus, your king?"

"CRUCIFY HIM!"

Pilate was puzzled.

"Very well, then. Release Barabbas, flog Jesus and crucify everyone in the prison."

Pilate

Some Jewish leaders take Jesus to Pilate. Pilate has come down from Caesarea to keep close watch over the city at the Passover.

The Jewish leaders ask Pilate to come out to them. They want to observe the festival that evening, so they do not want to become unclean by entering a Gentile's house and such a place of uncleanness.

Pilate wants to know the charge.

"He's another fake messiah."

Pilate takes a look at Jesus and smiles. "Bring him in."

"So I finally get to meet the king of the Jews." Pilate says. "Are these charges true? Are you the king of the Jews?"

Jesus said nothing.

This intrigued Pilate. Jesus was not like the usual insurgent. He did not seem violent.

"You know I hate these priests. They're suck ups. It's all about themselves and their power. They're paranoid you know. But why do they hate you?"

Jesus remained silent.

"You know you don't help yourself if you don't say anything. And I have better things to do today than stand here talking to you."

Still Jesus said nothing.

"It's a simple question. If you aren't planning on being king just tell me. Maybe I'll set you free. You either think you are and are a lunatic, or you're not. Tell me, are you indeed the king of the Jews."

Jesus looked him straight in the eye and smiled.

"I am."

Rarely did Pilate feel at a loss for words, but this one stumped him. He looked away.

"This guy's crazy but harmless. We'll set him free to the people at the festivities."

Early Morning

Early in the morning Caiaphas and some elders interrogate Jesus. Witnesses testify that Jesus has said words against the temple, words about its destruction.

"Is this true? Are you an insurrectionist?"

Jesus remains silent.

"Are you going to take over Israel? Do you think we priests have made the temple unclean? Are you going to take it over and purify it? You're not even a priest."

Jesus remains silent.

"Do you really think you can defeat the Romans and us? Where are your supporters? Where is your army? What Judean will follow a Galilean? You're from Galilee. A king of Israel must be from the tribe of David, a Son of David."

Jesus remains silent.

"Tell us now, do you really think you are the coming king? Look at you, beaten up by my guards. Do you really think you are the king of the Jews? How can you think you are God's anointed one? Are you indeed the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?"

Jesus waited. He certainly did not look like a king. But he looked the high priest right in the eye.

"I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God. You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds to visit God's judgment on the earth."

The high priest dismissed him. "Take him to Pilate. I have too much to do today to worry with this guy. Tell Pilate he's another fake messiah. Tell him to crucify him."

Middle Night

Judas comes to the garden with a crowd holding swords and clubs. He greets Jesus with a kiss on the cheek. They don't know which one is Jesus. One of those with Jesus cuts the ear off of one of the high priest's servants.

"Funny that you arrest me this way," Jesus says. "You'd think I was a revolutionary. You always could have arrested me when I was teaching in the temple."

The disciples with Jesus scatter. A young man, maybe a son in the house where they ate the last supper, has come out with only an outer garment. They grab it, and he flees away naked.

They take him to the high priest's house. Peter follows from a distance. As he warms himself outside by a fire, he is accused of following Jesus. He denies it--three times before the night is done.

Annas, the high priest's father-in-law, interrogates him. Jesus is mostly silent. Perhaps he turns Jesus over to the guards for the night. They mock and beat him.

Gethsemane

Jesus knows what is coming. They go to the Garden of Gethsemane, a place where Jesus had been meeting with his disciples.

He is troubled. He knows what Judas is doing. He knows they are coming. He knows what is about to transpire.

Pray, he tells Simon, James, and John. You will be tempted to sin. Pray not to give in to temptation. "I will not give in," says Simon.

"Simon, tonight you will deny me thrice."

In his humaness he does not want to die. "Lord, let this cup pass from me if it is at all possible." But he knows. He knows.

Peter is asleep. John is asleep. James is asleep. He is awake.

Let them sleep. The time has come.

The Last Supper

It is now Jewish Friday. The sun has gone down and Jesus eats with his disciples. They are in the upper room of a certain house in the city.

They break bread. Jesus knows what Judas is up to, trying to force his hand, trying to make him reveal who he is to Israel.

"One of you is going to betray me," Jesus says.

"Surely not I," says Judas. Perhaps they have talked. Perhaps Judas has tried to convince Jesus to make his move against the Romans. The action in the temple was a start. Now Jesus must finish the work. Judas is clever. He will force Jesus into it by bringing the Jewish leaders against him. Then God will come and reveal who Jesus is.

Jesus knows that's not how God has it planned. He has already told them--this bread you eat, it is like my body, broken for you.

They eat. Drink up, he says. I will not drink with you again until we drink afresh in the kingdom of God.

It is now after supper. Judas has left.

They drink again. This wine is like my blood. God will make a new covenant with you all through my blood. My life will be like a ransom for God's people. Through my death God's wrath will come to an end.

1 Timothy 2 and Women 3: The Verses Themselves

A Close Reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
So 1 Timothy 2:11-15 appear in the context of a discussion about the honorable conduct of worship. We notice right off the bat that we are in different territory than we were in at Corinth. We hear about past prophecies, but we are now focusing on "depositing" teaching, order, and structure for the future. Paul spends about half of chapter 2 laying down guidelines for the honorable conduct of women/wives in the worship of his day. Gone are discussions of tongues and prophecy. Instead, the focus is on prayer and instruction.

It seems to me that Paul's comments in these verses are meant to present honorable behavior with a view to the husband-wife relationship in particular. These verses are usually discussed in terms of all women and all men, but it is not clear at all to me that this is the best way to read them. The word for "wife" is of course the same as the word for "woman" in general (gyne), and the word for "husband" is also the word for a male (aner). The context must determine whether a marital relationship is in view.

The presumption would of course be that most men and women are married. Therefore, when Paul says "women dress modestly," we might just as well say "wives dressing modestly." This seems to be the way Paul is thinking here. He is not thinking of women as women, as independent beings the way we would think of them. The underlying thought of the passage is that women are wives. Women are individuals who are subject to a husband.

The explicit mention of subjection in 2:11 confirms that wives are primarily in view, for I can think of no biblical passage that speaks of women being subject to men in general. Genesis 3:16 says that as a consequence of her sin, Eve's desire is to her husband, and he will rule over her. Similarly, the Adam-Eve relationship Paul will mention in 2:13-14 is a husband-wife relationship.

2:11-12: "Let a wife learn in quietness in complete subjection, for I do not permit a wife to teach or have authority over a husband, but to be in quietness."

This sentence begins and ends with "in quietness," confirming that this is a unit of thought. Paul thus details what it might mean to learn in quietness and subjection--it means not teach or take authority over your husband. I would not think that this necessarily means absolute silence, but an attitude of submission to his instruction. It would probably imply not questioning what he is teaching or presuming to correct his teaching. Paul no doubt assumes that the husband's instruction is correct instruction, and the assumption seems to be that the man is better equipped to know true teaching from false teaching than the woman is.

I feel like I should stop for just a second to point out how foreign so much of this line of thought is both to our context and to Paul's writings overall. In our context, women are just as likely to know true teaching as their husbands. Indeed, this is the implication of us both equally having the Spirit. Except in 1 Corinthians 14 if original, we have never seen Paul say things quite like this in any of his other writings. His tone and demeanor are different from earlier. Here we find none of the reciprocity of 1 Corinthians 7 or 11, where even when he is chiding women he takes time to point out that "the husband's body belongs to his wife" and "the man comes out of the woman." Something has changed here, and we do the Bible no service to pretend that it hasn't. We want the full witness of Scripture, not just one moment in the symphony of revelation.

Let me say again that we should see the husband-wife relationship in view in these words, because Paul probably doesn't even consider the possibility that a woman would be talking to a man who wasn't her husband. In other words, Paul assumes a woman wouldn't be talking to a man who isn't her husband. But even in the husband-wife relationship she should listen rather than speak.

2:13-15 : "For"
Before looking at these verses specifically, we notice that Paul is about to defend the charge he has just given in 2:11-12. The following verses are thus a defense of why a wife should be in quietness and not teach or exercise authority over her husband.

Defense 1 (2:13): "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."
This is an argument from "birth order." While in our culture we tend to feel all children should be valued equally, ancient culture clearly favored and valued the firstborn over the later born. In general, the firstborn had authority over all the other children. Paul defends the authority of a husband over a wife by pointing out the order of creation.

A couple comments in terms of bridging the gap between then and now. I want to remind you of my sense that the Bible tends to be more "in general, with exceptions" than "absolutely never." We remember that in the case of Jacob and Esau, the Bible sanctions that the younger would rule over the older.

I also note that this comment is in conflict with the spiritual principle of Galatians 3:28: "In Christ there is not 'male and female.'" I mentioned earlier that Paul words this oddly. After saying "neither-nor" twice, he says "not male and female." A plausible explanation is that Paul is alluding to Genesis 1:27, where God makes them "male and female." In other words, Galatians 3:28 pictures the undoing of the male-female distinction made in creation. Thus in heaven we are like the angels, and we neither marry nor are given in marriage.

Defense 2 (2:14-15): "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman--having been deceived--has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with chastity."

These are hard words on more than one level. This seems to be Paul's main argument. Women should not be in the role of teacher because they are easily deceived, like Eve was. The letter's theme of false teaching here comes into view. If the wives teach their husbands, we find ourselves in the same situation that Adam and Eve were in, and we know what happened then. It was not the husband who was deceived by false teaching; it was the wife who led the husband astray.

Notice how easily Paul slips from discussing Eve--"she"--to talking about wives in general--"they." If "in Adam" all die, "in Eve" all women are subjugated to their husbands. The consequences of Eve's sin was 1. increased pain in childbearing and 2. subjugation to the rule of the husband (Gen. 3:16). We see both of these consequences of sin in this passage.

In a sense, Eve is "saved" from her transgression through childbearing. The easy switch from "she" to "they" applies the same to the "Eve's" of Paul's day: wives. They will be saved from the stain of Eve's sin through their childbearing. But even this is conditional on them remaining "in faith and love and holiness with chastity." These attitudes likely relate to being subject to their husbands.

Although I'll deal with the appropriation of these verses at a later time, I can already see a serious problem when it comes to applying these words to today. Paul's argument is primarily based on the consequences of Eve's sin. True, the Lord does not free a woman of painful childbearing when she becomes a Christian. In that sense women continue to experience the consequences of Eve's sin.

On the other hand, the book of Hebrews represents the final word in the Bible on Christ's atonement and probably takes us one step closer to a full understanding than even Paul on this subject. While Paul could offer a sacrifice in the Jerusalem temple even at the end of his ministry (Acts 21:23-26), Hebrews teaches that there can no longer be any sacrificial system now that Christ has died for sins: "With one offering he has forever perfected those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14).

In other words, it is blasphemy to suggest that there are sins for which Christ's death did not atone. The idea that Christian women are still held accountable for the sins of Eve in some way thus contradicts one of the most important truths about Christ's death. If in Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive. If in Eve all women are subjugated to their husbands and have painful childbirth, in Christ there is not male and female and eventually women's bodies will be transformed to be like Christ's glorious body (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21).

Again, our understanding of Scripture is immature if we do not see that some of the arguments biblical authors make have to do with the thinking of their day. Take for example Paul's argument in Galatians that the promise to Abraham was to his seed singular rather than to his seed plural (Gal. 3:16). Paul's point is that the promise of justification only comes through Christ, the singular seed of Abraham. Paul's point is true and inspired. Indeed, I have no problem saying that his argument was inspired.

But Paul was not using the words as they were originally meant, and this argument would not convince any Jew today. Seed here is used collectively, a singular that stands for a plurality. Originally, the promise was indeed about the countless Israelites (plural) who would inherit the promise land. It happened.

My point is that the arguments God might inspire me to use today would not be the same arguments God would inspire someone else to make in a different time and place. The conclusion is the point of the inspiration more than the path to get there.

In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the point is that the women of Paul's churches, and perhaps Ephesus in particular, should not be usurping authority over their husbands. They should be quiet in the worship. I am quite willing to say that this was indeed what God wanted them to do.

However, I am overwhelmingly certain that God does not have this message for His church today. Indeed, I would be so bold as to say that anyone who would apply these verses directly to today is out of the will of God and is "kicking against the goads" (Acts 26:13), "happily fighting against God" (Acts 5:39), with a "zeal without knowledge" (Rom. 10:2).

Examine your heart, anyone who would take this tact, to see if you are in the faith. God takes His women as seriously as He takes His men. And anyone who would put a stumblingblock in front of any of his children..., well Matthew 18 has some rather scary words involving a millstone.

1 Timothy and Women 2: The Broader Context of 1 Timothy

The Place of 1 Timothy 2:12-15 in the Letter
There are two things you should have on your mind after you have finished reading 1 Timothy. The first is false teaching; the second is church order. These two emphases are not unrelated, for sound leadership and orderly structures are some of the best protections against false teaching.

I find the comments directed at Timothy directly in the letter to be very helpful in unfolding the import of this letter:

1 Tim. 1:3: "Just as I urged you to remain in Ephesus when I was going into Macedonia, command certain individuals not to teach false things..."

1 Tim. 1:18: "I am enjoining this command to you [to stop false teaching?], Timothy my child, according to the preceding prophecies about you, so that you might fight the good fight [foretold] in them.

1 Tim. 3:14: "I write these things [about church order] to you hoping to come to you soon. But if I am delayed, I write them so you may know how it is necessary for the house of God to conduct itself, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

1 Tim. 4:6: "If you point out these things to the brothers [about false teaching], you will be a good servant [diakonos] of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and the good teaching that you have followed..."

1 Tim. 6:2: "Teach and urge these things [duties of widows, elders, slaves]..."

1 Tim. 6:11: "But you, O man of God, flee these things [false teaching, love of money]..."

1 Tim. 6:20: "O Timothy, gaurd the deposit [that which Paul is leaving Timothy, particularly in regard to sound teaching]."

A quick glance at these references shows that 1 Timothy looks to a time when Paul will not be there to direct the church at Ephesus, when Timothy will be in charge. Paul is leaving Timothy a "deposit" of sound teaching and practice whereby the church can continue on track "if Paul is delayed." On all reconstructions I know of the time of the letter, it appears that Paul never did return to Ephesus after he wrote these words.

The verses with which we are concerned, 1 Timothy 2:12-15, arguably appear in the middle of a block of teaching about the orderly conduct of the church: 2:1-3:13. This section is immediately preceded by direct comments to Timothy regarding prophecies that apparently foretold that he would fight false teaching one day (1:18-20). Immediately following this section Paul gives the whole purpose of the letter: in case he is delayed, he wants Timothy to know how God's house, the church, should conduct itself.

The section in which these verses appear, therefore, does not directly address false teaching, although it is no doubt a guard against such. Paul presents a picture of the honorable church. False teaching may stand somewhere in the background of what Paul says, but these are general statements about what the ideal church looks like.

So, "first of all," Paul urges that the church of God should pray for secular authorities (2:1-7). Prayer and intercession is something the Ephesian church should do in worship. Then Paul speaks of what men do in worship--they pray with lifted hands rather than raising their hands in anger or arguing (2:8). Paul then says how the women--likely wives are primarily in view--should dress, presumably in worship especially. They should dress modestly and not with great show (2:9-10).

This thought about women continues. Not only should they "adorn" themselves with good deeds (2:10), but women should learn in subjection in quietness (2:11). Again, the worship setting seems primarily in view. It is at this point that the verses in question appear. Paul will not allow wives to teach or exercise authority over their husbands, but to be in quietness (2:12). It is a point of debate whether women in general or wives in particular are in view. But this is a matter for the next entry.

The remainder of the section relates to the appropriate characteristics for overseers and deacons in the church, as well as for their wives (3:1-13).

Our verses thus seem to be about the honorable conduct of wives in the typical church of Paul's day.

Next post, a close reading of these verses in this context.

1 Timothy 2 and Women in Ministry: Introduction

While I won't be presenting on 1 Timothy 2:12-15, a friend of mine encouraged me to go ahead and discuss this second verse on my blog. This will take several entries.

First, while 1 Corinthians 14 clearly cannot prohibit women from prophesying in the Christian assembly (=church), 1 Timothy 2:12 sure sounds like it does:

"To teach, to a women I do not permit, nor to have authority over a man, but to be in quietness."

Let me say up front, however, that if this means a woman cannot prophesy in church, then Paul has contradicted himself. And prophecy involves teaching, since 1 Cor. 14:31 indicates learning as a consequence of prophecy.

How can we harmonize these two comments--or should we? They do not harmonize easily. Let me brainstorm what the possibilities are:

1. Teaching in 1 Timothy is not the same as the kind of teaching that takes place in prophecy.

2. Paul has becomed hardened as time has passed on this issue, perhaps because of abuses he has seen, or perhaps environmental factors are pushing in this direction.

3. Paul is having a moment of hardness on this issue because of things going on at the time, such as things going on at Ephesus, or perhaps environmental issues are pushing in this direction.

4. 1 Timothy is pseudonymous, and the Pauline churches have become hardened over time for whatever reason, or environmental factors have pushed the church in this direction.

5. The scope of 1 Timothy 2 is different from the scope of 1 Corinthians 11. When Paul says he does not allow women to teach or have authority over men, he means "in general." There are of course exceptional women who rise to the fore from time to time.

In my opinion none of these are very pleasing for one reason or another. Number one is the easy answer, but it has all kinds of theological problems. If men and women both have the same spirit (and we now know their minds are both potentially capable of thinking and leadership), then why would we arbitrarily put certain limitations in what God could do through them?

This fact pushes us toward contextual factors: problems within the church or problems outside the church. As far as problems inside the church, we might mention the possibility that wealthy women sometimes served as conduits for false teaching. There is some evidence for this at Ephesus (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:6).

Certainly the culture did not smile on women taking leadership and this factor might have pushed away from the full exercise of the Spirit in the church. 1 Timothy marks a definite move toward institutionalization in its rules about bishops and deacons, and Paul is looking toward a church that does not have him around to give it direction. All these features might contribute toward an explanation of hardness on Paul's part.

This explanation will be more satisfying than the idea that 1 Timothy is pseudonymous, which means that it was written under the authority of Paul's name as a representation of his voice to the church, but some time after he had died. In other words, some individual with authority would have attempted to present Paul's voice to the next generation, what he thought Paul would say (I presume it would be a he). We have many Jewish and non-Jewish examples of these kinds of writings in the ancient world.

The majority of evangelical scholars do not believe there are any writings of this sort in the New Testament. In contrast, the majority of non-evangelical scholars--since they do not find the practice problematic--almost assume without argument that 1 Timothy was not written by Paul. Most evangelical scholars have difficulty concluding that a pseudonymous writing could be anything but a lie: "It says Paul wrote it; Paul must have written it." The possibility is thus eliminated regardless of what evidence there might be.

What we find is that both sides largely have formed their conclusion before they even read the letter. Non-evangelicals presume Paul didn't write it because that's what they've been taught. Evangelicals presume Paul wrote it because he has to have written it.

I will also take the position that Paul wrote 1 Timothy. I do, however, believe it is possible to argue that a pseudonymous writing could be "honest" in that day though we would consider them wrong today. There are some evangelical scholars who argue that pseudonymity need not be lying. For example, the recent NT introduction coauthored by Joel Green of Asbury Seminary, Paul Achtemeier of Union in Virginia, and Marianne Thompson of Fuller argues that it would have been lying for someone not to put Paul's name on a writing if they thought it represented his teaching (I myself find this particular argument somewhat of a stretch). Nevertheless, I personally submit to the broader evangelical judgment that pseudonymous writings cannot be in the New Testament.

Of course whether 1 Timothy was pseudonymous or not, it is in Scripture, and we must take it seriously. God allowed these words to be in His Word, so we must treat them as an authority over us in an appropriate way.

The scope argument seems another viable possibility in interpretation. This is the idea that statements like 1 Timothy 2:12 were never meant to exclude exceptional women who we immediately recognize have God's hand on them. It's the idea that most biblical comments are meant on the level of "in general this, but there are exceptions."

My postings for the next few entries will go like this:
1. Placing 1 Timothy 2:12-15 in the Letter
2. A Close Reading of 1 Timothy 2:12-15
3. Placing 1 Timothy in Time and Place
4. Placing 1 Timothy in Paul's Ministry
5. Appropriating 1 Timothy 2:12-15