Insights from Man and Woman, One in Christ: Part 7
Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters, chapter 16 titled “1 Timothy 2:8-15: Introduction: The Ephesian Church Situation Addressed in 1 Timothy” begins discussions over the most crucial passage on women leadership in the Church. Payne shines a spotlight on authorship, historical situation, and the cultural background of Ephesus where Timothy was a pastor.
An analysis of 1 Tim shows that “Paul’s primary purpose in writing this first letter was to advise Timothy how to overcome false teaching.” This false teaching, contends Payne, was such a concern to Paul “that nearly every verse in this letter relates to it.” 1 Tim 1:3-11 “identifies five aspects of the false teaching: myths and endless genealogies, controversies, causing people to leave the faith, meaningless talk, and inappropriate application of the law.” 1 Tim 2 expresses “Paul’s desire for quietness and peace…in contrast to the contentiousness of the false teachers;” 1 Tim 3:15 “identifies the basis of Paul’s concern as with ‘the truth,’ which in context is opposed to the false teaching;” 1 Tim 4:1-5 “describes the false teaching as ‘doctrines of demons;’” 1 Tim 5 “deals with two key problem groups affected by the false teaching: some younger widows…and their ‘captors,’ the straying elders whom Timothy is to ‘rebuke publicly;’” and 1 Tim 6:3-10 “further describes the false teachers and urges Timothy to guard against them.”
Clearly false teaching is in the forefront of Paul’s mind when writing to Timothy about the Ephesian church (see also 2 Tim 2:16-17). Paul is not, says Payne, merely providing a manual for church order, but writing a specific charge to Timothy advising him to guard against false teaching.
How do women factor into this discussion about false teaching? [Read on...]
Another [The] Shack Attack!
I’m reposting this since there is a resurgence of interests in and reading of The Shack.
Since reviewing The Shack, I had a chance to discuss the book with my dear friend and intellectual mentor, Louis McBride. Recently, he was one of the panelists leading a discussion for Baker Book House in Grand Rapids, MI, with more than 100 people in attendance. Please don’t miss his notes and take the time to carefully and thoughtfully go through them. Not only will you learn a great deal about the book (if you’ve not read it) and come to appreciate the deluge of concerns that surround this best seller, you also will grow in your understanding of classic Christian beliefs and doctrine on the Trinity, God’s love, and much more. Louis’ keen insights and carefully crafted response make this one of the best reviews on the Internet! Download it now!
Earth-centered Spirituality and the Air Force Academy
The institution where I spent 18 of my 20 years while in the Air Force is now host to a new kind of worship opportunity. What do you think? Should Christians in the military defend and protect all religious liberties? What exactly does “tolerance” mean and how far should it go?
“Every service member is charged with defending freedom for all Americans, and that includes freedom to practice our religion of choice or, for that matter, not to practice any faith at all,” said Chaplain (Lt. Col.) William Ziegler, Cadet Wing chaplain. “Being in the military isn’t just a job — it’s a calling. We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and that means we’ve all sworn to protect one another’s religious liberties.
See the full story here.
Embrace the Cross
I’m almost always a wee bit surprised when I see someone wearing a cross as an instrument of adornment. Once, about 30 years ago now, a friend and I wandered into a store where the clerk was wearing a cross around her neck and my friend asked “Do you wear that cross because you believe Christianity or because it’s just a nice piece of jewelery?” The clerk, after composing herself from blushing, said something like “I dunno.”
In the first-century the cross was a symbol of shame, punishment, torture, and execution. It certainly was not a means of “dressing up” nor a means to enhance one’s appearance. No one in Christ’s day would think of polishing up a cross with precious stones and selling it. Only after Christ was crucified did Christians begin to see it as an instrument of pride since it pointed to the Savior crucified.
Is the symbol of the cross a viable means of illustrating our commitment to Christ? One of my favorite songs, as sung by Steve Green, is “Embrace the Cross” found here. The lyrics are worthy of deep reflection.
I am crucified with Christ
Therefore I no longer live
Jesus Christ now lives in me (Repeat)
Embrace the cross
Where Jesus suffered
Though it will cost
All you claim as yours
Your sacrifice will seem small
Beside the treasure
Eternity can’t measure
What Jesus holds in store
Embrace the love
The cross requires
Cling to the one
Whose heart knew every pain
Receive from Jesus
Fountains of compassion
Only He can fashion
Your heart to move as His
Oh, wondrous cross our desires rest in you
Lord Jesus make us bolder
To face with courage the shame and disgrace
You bore upon Your shoulder
Embrace the life
That comes from dying
Come trace the steps
The Savior walked for you
An empty tomb
Concludes Golgotha’s sorrow
Endure then till tomorrow
Your cross of suffering
Embrace the cross
Embrace the cross
The cross of Jesus
Insights from Man and Woman, One in Christ: Part 6
The last half of Philip B. Payne’s book Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters begins an exegesis of Paul’s later writings in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy and deals with some of the most contentious passages dividing the Church over the role of women in the Church and the world.
Chapter 15 “Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19: Husband-Wife Relationships” focuses upon the text of Ephesians, though Payne shows that the parallel expressions in both of these passages indicate they are addressing the same issues. Thus, whatever bears upon the one passage must bear upon the other. Payne chooses to deal primarily with the longer passage of Ephesians.
After noting differences between family life in Paul’s day with that of contemporary culture, Payne opines “While Paul’s wording was framed in order to speak to people in his own social structure, one must not assume that he intended to make those social structures normative for all societies. If Paul were writing today, he would probably give different commands to uphold the same principles.” As I understand and have experienced, what traditional Christianity has done is make normative what was not intended, thus missing the principles that Paul was actually getting at in the text. This is a very insightful hermeneutical principle: [Read on...]
Insights from Man and Woman, One in Christ: Part 5
This post wraps up Part 1 of Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Part 2 begins an exegesis of Paul’s later writings in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy. I’m anxious to get there and find out how, if at all, Paul’s thoughts have developed from his counsel to the Galatians and Corinthians as covered in Part 1.
Without question, this chapter entitled “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Did Paul Forbid Women to Speak in Church?” was the most weighty in technical details surrounding the text (The weight was exponentially increased for those of us who read all the footnotes!). I’ve some exposure to textual criticism but have not been trained formerly in it. Nevertheless, though the pages turned much slower for me, it was worth the effort since I learned a great deal about this important question.
Payne begins by noting that the “widely varying interpretations face three key issues: textual, exegetical, and systematic.” The central textual issue is [Read on...]
Forgive, but….
Is God obligated, even when forgiveness is granted, to remove the consequences of sin? Put differently, is it wrong for God to continue imposing consequences for an offense though forgiveness may be granted? What do you think?
Consider Numbers 14. The people of Israel have just been freed from slavery in Egypt and on their way to the promised land. Despite all the miracles God has performed on their behalf, Israel is shaken into fear and unbelief when they learn the indigenous people of the promised land are mightier than they. Rather than trust the Lord, Israel “raised their voices and wept aloud” crying “Why is the LORD bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?”
In a word, they failed to trust God. Were it not for Moses’ intercession asking God to forgive their rebellion for His name’s sake, God would have destroyed them for their unbelief. Instead, the Lord replied:
“I have forgiven them, as you asked. Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the LORD fills the whole earth, not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times–not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it.
Thus began a 40-year trek south into the wilderness instead of an 11-day migration to the promised land. As I recently read in a note my daughter sent to me, God as the faithful One not only keeps his promises but carries out his threats.
Consider this fictitious scenario. A teenager breaks into your home and steals your stereo. You later learn the thief is a believer whose faith has shipwrecked so you confront them demanding they repent, ask for forgiveness, and return your possessions. They in fact do so. You grant forgiveness (according to Luke 17:3, for instance). Are you obligated to invite that person into your home? Would you feel safe in doing so?
What do you think?
The Cognitive Costs of Vice
In a former post I highlighted the priority of beliefs over behavior saying “it is the content in our minds that drives the change of our hearts.” While I believe this is true, Jim Spiegel has a different twist with his entry “Belief, Doubt, and Behavior (Part Two)”. He writes:
“Immoral indulgences disrupt cognition so that it cannot function properly, thus clouding judgment and skewing perceptions.”
I commend Jim’s piece to you as it deserves a careful and reflective read.
Insights from Man and Woman, One in Christ: Part 4
This continues the series on Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. While I can only briefly highlight key points from chapters 6-13, readers are highly encouraged to spend time with this masterpiece. (Note: Those who choose to ignore the footnotes do so to their loss. Payne has painstakingly annotated all of his sources and provided considerable comments showing where some have either misrepresented or under-represented the data to support their alternative interpretations.)
Chapter 6 “1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Introduction” outlines the task of demonstrating “a coherent interpretation of this passage that presents Paul’s argument as proceeding logically, that remains faithful to the vocabulary and structure of the passage and Paul’s related teaching elsewhere, and that fits the cultural situation of Corinth in the first century.” Payne shows in subsequent chapters that [Read on...]
House Churches?
Ben Witherington has a fascinating post (with revealing shots) of a third-century house church.
Some of the distinguishing characteristics he gleans from this pre-Constantinian archaeological dig are:
- Baptisms were not always by immersion, even when immersion was easily accessible. Likewise, the baptistry was not a focal point in the main worship space.
- Believers were distinguished by groups of leaders and followers.
- Similarly, “Christianity had never known a period where its leadership structure was not hierarchical to some degree.”
- Early Christians were not against a dedicated space for worship, albeit many/most were on the grounds of a wealthy person’s home.
- No requirement for pure acappella music existed.
- Only a small number of people were involved (50-70).
- “They were not opposed to artistic representations of their God or their saints, or their Biblical heroes, or their martyrs. They believed art could be used in worship and honor God.”
- In many respects, Christian worship followed synagogue structure.
What can we take from this and apply to our churches?
What does not apply to our churches?
