I recently posted a blog about a situation I was dealing with and my frustration with God. My truck died and was going to cost about $3500 for the mechanic to replace the engine. I did not and still do not have the money to fix my truck but had a friend who read the post and has been an answer to prayer. I was asking God to provide a way for me to get to work and back until I was able to have my truck fixed and God has shown His provision in answering my prayer.
My friend recently had to leave the country due to unexpected circumstances. They read my post and have generously offered to let me use their vehicle in the states until my truck gets fixed. It immediately reminded me of Philippians 2:3-4 which talks about looking out for the interests of others and not only our own circumstances. My friend is having a very hard time dealing with the fact they had to leave the U.S. without any say in the matter and the chance of them coming back is going to take a long time for paperwork to be processed. Regardless of how hard they seem to have it they have modeled this concept in Philippians. They are not just looking out for their own interests but also of others. They could have been so fixated on how bad their circumstance is that they overlooked the need of someone else.
When this person contacted me I was floored at seeing God provide, but even more so by the fact that they overlooked how bad things were for them. If only we could see more of this in the church today. Not that it is not happening today, but what if it was more evident, especially in the dire times that we seem to be in economically? One thing that has spoken to me is that God’s provision is not limited to border lines or continents but extends and reaches beyond what we could think. God has answered my prayer and provided for me from a place I never even thought of looking. How often do we look at what is in front of our and question whether God is there? Things seem dim and no hope can be seen, but God has shown His power to be able to break racial and continental barriers before. Why can’t He still do it today? My challenge in all of this is this. Where and to who are you looking to provide for your needs? Are you fixated on your own circumstances and not looking out for others when you can provide what they need. My friend has really been a blessing to me and it was not because they wanted to be put on display so they could be seen as a great person, but because they were doing what the Bible tells us to do.
Who is in your life that needs help and you can help them? Are you willing to look past your circumstance and help them without reciprocation?
Thanks friend (who will remain anonymous) for being an answer to prayer! Will you be the answer to someone else’s need? I hope I can say yes when the time comes and look past how bad I think I may have it to be a blessing to someone else and be what God has called the church to be.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Women Leaders Or Not? Part 2
Jeanene Reese says that there is a partnership between men and women in ministry and when you look at this from a historical perspective you will begin to see and understand that God intended for men and women to work together. You see this from the very outset of creation when both male and female were created in the image of God. Adam had no participation or knowledge of the creation of Eve. He was asleep when God formed her from one of his ribs and when he saw her he was amazed, not by the differences but the likeness that was so striking (Reese 106-107). He wasn’t a overbearing domineer who commanded her to be in submission to him, as if to say “Well I was here first so you have to obey me.” It was a partnership that they shared together. This theme can be seen in the Old and New Testament. Deborah was a key figure in Judges and played a role that would have been equivalent to an elder. But more importantly when you look to the New Testament which is closer to the context which we are dealing with you see many women serving in different capacities of leadership.
In almost every aspect it can be seen that a woman has served in that particular type of leadership baring that of elder/overseer (Ibid 107). In Luke 8:1-3 Mary, Joanna, and Susanna are seen with Jesus and the disciples providing for their needs. Tabitha who was called a disciple was doing all kinds of good works and fell sick and died. The people were so distraught that Peter resurrects her from the dead so she can continue her good works (Acts 9:36-41). In Acts 46:14-15, 40; Lydia was worshipping on the Sabbath and after she heard the gospel her entire household was baptized, which she was the head of. Priscilla and Aquila correct Apollos false teaching and are with Paul as co-leaders (Acts 18:24-28; Rom. 16:3, 4; 1 Cor. 16:19). Philip an evangelist had 4 unmarried daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). Phoebe is a deaconess in Romans 16:1 and Paul admonishes her for the work and in verse 7 Junia is considered outstanding among the apostles (Ibid 113).
This evidence of women serving and being commended by Paul certainly has some very significant meaning. It is not so clear after all that women are not to be serving in the capacity of authority. If that is the case then Paul seems to be contradicting himself if we are to believe that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is the final authority on women in leadership. If you are to take Timothy by itself you will win the argument. But when you look to scripture as a whole you will find it very difficult to say that this one passage and the 2 others that allude to this concept of exempting women from leadership are the final authority. If that is the case you will see a contradiction in God’s word. Therefore, careful exegesis and hermeneutics are required to find out what Paul is hinting at in this passage. With that said, we turn to a literary analysis of the passage.
Because the Bible is so dense and complex it is natural that certain passages seem to keep coming about for reevaluation and since this seems to be one of the most important topics for today it almost appears as if this text “has in a way chosen us instead of vice versa (Pierce 344).” There is definitely something going on here and because this text keeps surfacing it seems that we are missing something. There are three traditional interpretations of this passage. 1) You read it literally and apply it to all women and therefore ordination of women is excluded. 2) You say this doesn’t apply to us today because it carries no authority. In other words, Paul didn’t write such a thing. 3) Paul was only referring to women in the first century. It was a cultural issue. The major problem that comes about when interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is placing it next to Colossians 3:11; Eph. 2:14; 5:21; 1 Cor. 11:11-12; Gal. 3:18; which seem to contradict what Paul was saying (Spencer 315).
Within reading this in its literary context it is important to note several things. First, Paul is not simply addressing woman because they are women. Second, we must understand that as readers of this letter we are analyzing the interaction of the author with receivers of the letter. We are working with one side of the dialogue and must infer from the one side what inspired the writer to say what he said. Third, it requires a “Hermeneutic of hearing that encourages a careful listening to the text (Heidebrecht 171-173).” What the writer says and how he says it are huge keys to proper interpretation.
So what are the possibilities of Paul calling women to be silent in Ephesus, because he is clearly not making this as a blanket statement to all the churches? Spencer points out that in 2 Timothy 3:5b-7 the Greek word used is for “weak women” who were deceived and who listened to the wrong persons. It is possible that because of the false teaching some of the women had believed it and were now propagating it; indicating what Paul was trying to do away with in his first letter to Timothy. Thus Paul is telling the women to stop teaching because what they are teaching is false because they were deceived by the false teachers. This would also add emphasis to Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve serving as a reminder of how Eve was deceived and brought Adam into sin through her deception (216).
The entire context of this particular letter has to deal with Timothy correcting the false teaching. Paul begins the letter by informing us of what the false teaching was 1 Tim 1:3; 6:3. The people were proclaiming a different gospel. He then alludes to the fact that this false teaching is going on inside the church and people are being led away (1 Tim 1:4-6; 4:1; 6:21, 2). This false teaching was also causing division among the church. This false teaching was meaningless talk (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4). Finally the false teaching looks to have been influencing entire households (Titus 1:11) (Heidebrecht 173-174). We can get a pretty good picture of what the scene looked like. And with the freedom that women now have we can see how easily things could have gotten out of hand. The church is just beginning to grow and develop and you have pagans coming from cults where they exercised authority and are now trying to exercise that same authority in the church. What Paul may have specifically been trying to combat is women aggressively trying to take the leadership from the already established leaders of the church. Women were frequently associated with the worshiping within the fertility cult in which they were extremely dominant. So as they enter into the church they very well may have been trying to gain power in the ranks of the church (Pierce 353). In the pagan worship of the fertility god you had to engage in sexual intercourse and the women played the dominant role of whether that happened. Either you did what they said to have sex with them or they denied you the privilege excluding you from worship. With that type of power the new female converts may have been trying to exercise the same dominance but under false teaching because of what they heard from the false teachers that Paul is having Timothy address. That is why Paul excluded then from teaching. Not because they were female but because they were deceived by false teaching.
When you compare this with Gal. 3:18 you see Paul doing something radical, but this is not a universal timeless truth that was being communicated. It was to address a particular phenomenon that was taking place in Ephesus. The temporary aspect can be illustrated by turning to 1 Cor. 11:2-16; where women had to wear coverings and men’s hair lengths were addressed. We do not demand that women today wear head coverings and pull out rulers to check men’s hair length. So why must we also enforce the timeless aspect on the women in Ephesus (Pierce 347)? There is clearly a particular phenomenon taking place and special action needed to be taken to correct the problem. But that does not mean that we must enforce those same rules today.
What Paul seems to be hinting at with the use of Adam and Eve is not so much a reminder of what happened back in Genesis, but is illustrating what was happening in Ephesus with language borrowed from the fall (Perriman 140). He saw something happening and it reminded him of the fall because it was the exact same thing that was happening in Ephesus. Women were being deceived and were deceiving men. So at this point Paul used his best judgment on how to combat the situation and the best option was to silence the women until they could learn the true doctrine. This is why Paul worded the statement by saying “I am not allowing/permitting” not “I will not let or never allow (Spencer 219).”
Some say this passage has nothing to do with men and women but is actually speaking of the husband and wife (Hugenberger 342). This passage has nothing to do with the church and leadership but is dealing with wives being submitted to their husbands. Fee argues that “the ‘full’ probably has a larger front in view which includes younger widows going from house to house saying things they ought not to (Fee 72).” So it is not very promising that this has the marital relationship in view.
It is my argument that we cannot be as dogmatic as we have been for the past two millennia. There is good Biblical support and evidence to prove that women have been in places of leadership and to put a dogmatic “no” based on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is an interpretive fallacy. We must realize that culture and time have changed and there were certain things that needed to be done within the early church that do not necessarily apply today. Is that to say that scripture changes? No. It is to say that time changes and we live in a different day and age when things that were applicable several thousand years ago are not going to fit comfortably in society today. Is that to say that if the Bible is not comfortable to us we change it or conform it so it is? No. It is to say that we need to read, analyze, use proper hermeneutics and exegesis and see what truths are timeless and which ones are not.
We do not conform the Bible to our world and life. The Bible conforms us to it. As time changes so will some of the application. The truth will remain the same but the application will be different. There are a lot of Biblical passages that need to be revisited and looked at through the lens of 2009. To me personally it appears that this traditional understanding seems to sound like the man is losing something if the female is given any right in leadership. It appears as if pride is a big issue and we need to humble ourselves and reevaluate where we stand on certain doctrines. Are we imposing doctrines of man on people or doctrines of God? That is where I think we need to start the investigation. What are your motives and presuppositions that you use to interpret scripture? Because if you do it for any other reason than for God to illuminate you to His truth in scripture, then you will find it to say anything you want it too. You will be the best eisegete ever. J.I. Packer said that “The burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women in the office of teaching and ruling within congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than those who challenge it (Pierce 353).” I think they need a lot of evidence to put on the table if we are to exclude females from leadership.
My opinion after much research is that there is something to say about man being created before woman, but do we exclude them from a lead position? I still do not know. Something inside me says no from my personal experience and what scripture teaches. It must be my fundamentalist upbringing, but I am wrestling with it. Do they have the right to be in a position of authority Yes. Can they speak in a public worship setting? Yes. Does that mean they stay in the nursery? No! I strongly encourage women to get up and speak in a public worship setting. One of the professors at my school who is a woman spoke in chapel and her message about parenting absolutely rocked my world. We need to give women who show themselves approved just as much right to speak to the church as the men who do the same.
1. Bible. NIV.
2. Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook Of Theology. Moody Publishing, 2008.
3. Fee, Gordon D. 1 And 2 Timothy, Titus. Peabody, MA: Hendriksen Publishers, 1984.
4. Greene Oliver B. The epistles of Paul the apostle to Timothy and Titus. Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour Inc., 1964.
5. Heidebrecht, Doug “Reading 1 Timothy 2:12-15 In Its Literary Context.” Biblical Schloarship 33 no 2 (2004): 171-184.
6. Hendriksen, William. The exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957.
7. Hugenberger, Gordon P. “Women In church Office: Hermeneutics Or Exegesis? A survey of approaches To 1 Timothy 2:8-15.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society. 35 no 3 (1992): 341-360.
8. Kent Jr., Homer a. The Pastoral Epistles Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
9. Liddon, H. P. St. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.
10. McGee J. Vernon. I & II Timothy Titus Philemon. La Verne, CA: El Camino Press, 1978.
11. Perriman, Andrew C. “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning Of Authenteo In 1 Timothy 2:12.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 no 1 (1993): 129-142.
12. Pierce, Ronald W. “Evangelicals And Gender Roles In The 1990s: 1 Timothy 2:8-15: A Test Case.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 no 3 (1993): 343-355.
13. Reese, Jeanene P. “Co-workers In The Lord: A Biblical Theology Of Partnership” Restoration Quarterly. 45 no 1-2 (2003) 106-114.
14. Spencer, Dina Besancon “Eve At Ephesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 17 no 4 (1974): 215-222.
15. Trentham, Charles a. Studies in Timothy. Nashville, TN: Convention press, 1959.
In almost every aspect it can be seen that a woman has served in that particular type of leadership baring that of elder/overseer (Ibid 107). In Luke 8:1-3 Mary, Joanna, and Susanna are seen with Jesus and the disciples providing for their needs. Tabitha who was called a disciple was doing all kinds of good works and fell sick and died. The people were so distraught that Peter resurrects her from the dead so she can continue her good works (Acts 9:36-41). In Acts 46:14-15, 40; Lydia was worshipping on the Sabbath and after she heard the gospel her entire household was baptized, which she was the head of. Priscilla and Aquila correct Apollos false teaching and are with Paul as co-leaders (Acts 18:24-28; Rom. 16:3, 4; 1 Cor. 16:19). Philip an evangelist had 4 unmarried daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). Phoebe is a deaconess in Romans 16:1 and Paul admonishes her for the work and in verse 7 Junia is considered outstanding among the apostles (Ibid 113).
This evidence of women serving and being commended by Paul certainly has some very significant meaning. It is not so clear after all that women are not to be serving in the capacity of authority. If that is the case then Paul seems to be contradicting himself if we are to believe that 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is the final authority on women in leadership. If you are to take Timothy by itself you will win the argument. But when you look to scripture as a whole you will find it very difficult to say that this one passage and the 2 others that allude to this concept of exempting women from leadership are the final authority. If that is the case you will see a contradiction in God’s word. Therefore, careful exegesis and hermeneutics are required to find out what Paul is hinting at in this passage. With that said, we turn to a literary analysis of the passage.
Because the Bible is so dense and complex it is natural that certain passages seem to keep coming about for reevaluation and since this seems to be one of the most important topics for today it almost appears as if this text “has in a way chosen us instead of vice versa (Pierce 344).” There is definitely something going on here and because this text keeps surfacing it seems that we are missing something. There are three traditional interpretations of this passage. 1) You read it literally and apply it to all women and therefore ordination of women is excluded. 2) You say this doesn’t apply to us today because it carries no authority. In other words, Paul didn’t write such a thing. 3) Paul was only referring to women in the first century. It was a cultural issue. The major problem that comes about when interpreting 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is placing it next to Colossians 3:11; Eph. 2:14; 5:21; 1 Cor. 11:11-12; Gal. 3:18; which seem to contradict what Paul was saying (Spencer 315).
Within reading this in its literary context it is important to note several things. First, Paul is not simply addressing woman because they are women. Second, we must understand that as readers of this letter we are analyzing the interaction of the author with receivers of the letter. We are working with one side of the dialogue and must infer from the one side what inspired the writer to say what he said. Third, it requires a “Hermeneutic of hearing that encourages a careful listening to the text (Heidebrecht 171-173).” What the writer says and how he says it are huge keys to proper interpretation.
So what are the possibilities of Paul calling women to be silent in Ephesus, because he is clearly not making this as a blanket statement to all the churches? Spencer points out that in 2 Timothy 3:5b-7 the Greek word used is for “weak women” who were deceived and who listened to the wrong persons. It is possible that because of the false teaching some of the women had believed it and were now propagating it; indicating what Paul was trying to do away with in his first letter to Timothy. Thus Paul is telling the women to stop teaching because what they are teaching is false because they were deceived by the false teachers. This would also add emphasis to Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve serving as a reminder of how Eve was deceived and brought Adam into sin through her deception (216).
The entire context of this particular letter has to deal with Timothy correcting the false teaching. Paul begins the letter by informing us of what the false teaching was 1 Tim 1:3; 6:3. The people were proclaiming a different gospel. He then alludes to the fact that this false teaching is going on inside the church and people are being led away (1 Tim 1:4-6; 4:1; 6:21, 2). This false teaching was also causing division among the church. This false teaching was meaningless talk (1 Tim. 1:6; 6:4). Finally the false teaching looks to have been influencing entire households (Titus 1:11) (Heidebrecht 173-174). We can get a pretty good picture of what the scene looked like. And with the freedom that women now have we can see how easily things could have gotten out of hand. The church is just beginning to grow and develop and you have pagans coming from cults where they exercised authority and are now trying to exercise that same authority in the church. What Paul may have specifically been trying to combat is women aggressively trying to take the leadership from the already established leaders of the church. Women were frequently associated with the worshiping within the fertility cult in which they were extremely dominant. So as they enter into the church they very well may have been trying to gain power in the ranks of the church (Pierce 353). In the pagan worship of the fertility god you had to engage in sexual intercourse and the women played the dominant role of whether that happened. Either you did what they said to have sex with them or they denied you the privilege excluding you from worship. With that type of power the new female converts may have been trying to exercise the same dominance but under false teaching because of what they heard from the false teachers that Paul is having Timothy address. That is why Paul excluded then from teaching. Not because they were female but because they were deceived by false teaching.
When you compare this with Gal. 3:18 you see Paul doing something radical, but this is not a universal timeless truth that was being communicated. It was to address a particular phenomenon that was taking place in Ephesus. The temporary aspect can be illustrated by turning to 1 Cor. 11:2-16; where women had to wear coverings and men’s hair lengths were addressed. We do not demand that women today wear head coverings and pull out rulers to check men’s hair length. So why must we also enforce the timeless aspect on the women in Ephesus (Pierce 347)? There is clearly a particular phenomenon taking place and special action needed to be taken to correct the problem. But that does not mean that we must enforce those same rules today.
What Paul seems to be hinting at with the use of Adam and Eve is not so much a reminder of what happened back in Genesis, but is illustrating what was happening in Ephesus with language borrowed from the fall (Perriman 140). He saw something happening and it reminded him of the fall because it was the exact same thing that was happening in Ephesus. Women were being deceived and were deceiving men. So at this point Paul used his best judgment on how to combat the situation and the best option was to silence the women until they could learn the true doctrine. This is why Paul worded the statement by saying “I am not allowing/permitting” not “I will not let or never allow (Spencer 219).”
Some say this passage has nothing to do with men and women but is actually speaking of the husband and wife (Hugenberger 342). This passage has nothing to do with the church and leadership but is dealing with wives being submitted to their husbands. Fee argues that “the ‘full’ probably has a larger front in view which includes younger widows going from house to house saying things they ought not to (Fee 72).” So it is not very promising that this has the marital relationship in view.
It is my argument that we cannot be as dogmatic as we have been for the past two millennia. There is good Biblical support and evidence to prove that women have been in places of leadership and to put a dogmatic “no” based on 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is an interpretive fallacy. We must realize that culture and time have changed and there were certain things that needed to be done within the early church that do not necessarily apply today. Is that to say that scripture changes? No. It is to say that time changes and we live in a different day and age when things that were applicable several thousand years ago are not going to fit comfortably in society today. Is that to say that if the Bible is not comfortable to us we change it or conform it so it is? No. It is to say that we need to read, analyze, use proper hermeneutics and exegesis and see what truths are timeless and which ones are not.
We do not conform the Bible to our world and life. The Bible conforms us to it. As time changes so will some of the application. The truth will remain the same but the application will be different. There are a lot of Biblical passages that need to be revisited and looked at through the lens of 2009. To me personally it appears that this traditional understanding seems to sound like the man is losing something if the female is given any right in leadership. It appears as if pride is a big issue and we need to humble ourselves and reevaluate where we stand on certain doctrines. Are we imposing doctrines of man on people or doctrines of God? That is where I think we need to start the investigation. What are your motives and presuppositions that you use to interpret scripture? Because if you do it for any other reason than for God to illuminate you to His truth in scripture, then you will find it to say anything you want it too. You will be the best eisegete ever. J.I. Packer said that “The burden of proof regarding the exclusion of women in the office of teaching and ruling within congregation now lies on those who maintain the exclusion rather than those who challenge it (Pierce 353).” I think they need a lot of evidence to put on the table if we are to exclude females from leadership.
My opinion after much research is that there is something to say about man being created before woman, but do we exclude them from a lead position? I still do not know. Something inside me says no from my personal experience and what scripture teaches. It must be my fundamentalist upbringing, but I am wrestling with it. Do they have the right to be in a position of authority Yes. Can they speak in a public worship setting? Yes. Does that mean they stay in the nursery? No! I strongly encourage women to get up and speak in a public worship setting. One of the professors at my school who is a woman spoke in chapel and her message about parenting absolutely rocked my world. We need to give women who show themselves approved just as much right to speak to the church as the men who do the same.
1. Bible. NIV.
2. Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook Of Theology. Moody Publishing, 2008.
3. Fee, Gordon D. 1 And 2 Timothy, Titus. Peabody, MA: Hendriksen Publishers, 1984.
4. Greene Oliver B. The epistles of Paul the apostle to Timothy and Titus. Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour Inc., 1964.
5. Heidebrecht, Doug “Reading 1 Timothy 2:12-15 In Its Literary Context.” Biblical Schloarship 33 no 2 (2004): 171-184.
6. Hendriksen, William. The exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1957.
7. Hugenberger, Gordon P. “Women In church Office: Hermeneutics Or Exegesis? A survey of approaches To 1 Timothy 2:8-15.” Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society. 35 no 3 (1992): 341-360.
8. Kent Jr., Homer a. The Pastoral Epistles Studies in I and II Timothy and Titus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1958.
9. Liddon, H. P. St. Paul’s first Epistle to Timothy. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.
10. McGee J. Vernon. I & II Timothy Titus Philemon. La Verne, CA: El Camino Press, 1978.
11. Perriman, Andrew C. “What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn’t Do: The Meaning Of Authenteo In 1 Timothy 2:12.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 no 1 (1993): 129-142.
12. Pierce, Ronald W. “Evangelicals And Gender Roles In The 1990s: 1 Timothy 2:8-15: A Test Case.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 no 3 (1993): 343-355.
13. Reese, Jeanene P. “Co-workers In The Lord: A Biblical Theology Of Partnership” Restoration Quarterly. 45 no 1-2 (2003) 106-114.
14. Spencer, Dina Besancon “Eve At Ephesus.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 17 no 4 (1974): 215-222.
15. Trentham, Charles a. Studies in Timothy. Nashville, TN: Convention press, 1959.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Interpretation
After much consideration after my last post on whether women should be leaders in the church and from what God has been speaking to me I feel it necessary to say a few things before I post the other side. I have also got some very interesting emails from people on this topic.
1. I know this is a very controversial topic and the reason I talk about it is to not prove anyone wrong or me being right. It is simply me researching this on my own time trying to understand a very controversial topic in scripture.
2. If you are offended by what scripture teaches then you need to check your heart.
3. You must understand the context of what was going on culturally to be able to have an accurate understanding of what Paul and the writers of the Bible are trying to say.
4. Research does not mean a literal interpretation.
5. Paul and other writers use some very foundational Old Testament passages to affirm their argument.
6. I do not intend to argue with people on what scripture teaches, but to list the facts.
7. If you cannot handle the facts of context then you need to re-think what the author meant…. (might not want to do that)
8. (almost feels like I am making a top 10 list)
9. (last one cause I do not want to make a top 10 list) Is a literal interpretation the best method all the time?
The reason I throw all these things at out is because one of the things I have learned from my professors at Trinity College of Florida is that if you want to learn the most then you have to ask questions. If you cannot respond then it means that you have not thought through it all the way. These questions are to help you think your way through the process of drawing a final conclusion of what scripture teaches with the help of the Holy Spirit as you listen to Him and He guides you through scripture. My prayer is this “May God open our eyes and ears to see and hear what he has to say to you through His word. God have mercy on us and grant us Your wisdom. Speak to us now. Amen”
1. I know this is a very controversial topic and the reason I talk about it is to not prove anyone wrong or me being right. It is simply me researching this on my own time trying to understand a very controversial topic in scripture.
2. If you are offended by what scripture teaches then you need to check your heart.
3. You must understand the context of what was going on culturally to be able to have an accurate understanding of what Paul and the writers of the Bible are trying to say.
4. Research does not mean a literal interpretation.
5. Paul and other writers use some very foundational Old Testament passages to affirm their argument.
6. I do not intend to argue with people on what scripture teaches, but to list the facts.
7. If you cannot handle the facts of context then you need to re-think what the author meant…. (might not want to do that)
8. (almost feels like I am making a top 10 list)
9. (last one cause I do not want to make a top 10 list) Is a literal interpretation the best method all the time?
The reason I throw all these things at out is because one of the things I have learned from my professors at Trinity College of Florida is that if you want to learn the most then you have to ask questions. If you cannot respond then it means that you have not thought through it all the way. These questions are to help you think your way through the process of drawing a final conclusion of what scripture teaches with the help of the Holy Spirit as you listen to Him and He guides you through scripture. My prayer is this “May God open our eyes and ears to see and hear what he has to say to you through His word. God have mercy on us and grant us Your wisdom. Speak to us now. Amen”
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Women Leaders Or Not?
Whether women should be able to be a leader in the church has been something of controversy over a long period of time. After much consideration and research I will post both sides of the argument as this is a huge debate.
My final opinion will be drawn at the end.
1 Timothy 2:12-15 it is hard passage to draw a conclusion on because it is hard to understand what exactly Paul is trying to communicate. There are a number of interpretations and because of the difficulty in understanding the passage I find it very hard to be as dogmatic as the traditionalist are in their interpretation. After further investigation in the passage I find myself agreeing with Ronald Pierce who says that he “experienced a significant change of mind (344)” when he completed his study on the text. The traditionalist or conservative say that with absolute certainty we know what Paul is telling us in the text. But how can we be so certain with such an obscure passage? This new perspective will investigate both sides of the argument excluding and permitting women to teach in the public worship setting. We begin with the exclusion.
From the text itself it is easy to deduce what Paul meant when he referred to the creation account. Women are to play the role of the learner and not the teacher. This is the problem in Ephesus and is why Paul returns to the first instance of when a woman tried to teach a man (Trentham 34). According to Trentham and others like Moo, Mcgee, and Greene it is perfectly clear that what Paul is trying to communicate is a subordination of the sexes. Man is superior to woman. The reason for this instruction from Paul was to show that Adam was formed first and then Eve which shows man as being dominant over woman (Liddon 18). This is what God had intended by creating man first and then woman. The woman is to be subordinate to the man because he not only came first, but because she was created from him.
Therefore, when it comes to the public assembly as Paul is referring to in 1 Timothy it is the man who is to teach not the woman. She is to remain subordinate to him because of her mistake in trying to teach man from the beginning and leading him into sin. Greene says that it is the man’s job to lead in public prayer and speak and the woman is to sit in silence and accept the doctrine being taught. The office of a teacher was that of an authoritative office. These teachers are exercising their God-given authority to proclaim the truth of the gospel message (Acts 13:1; Eph 4:1). But this public proclamation was denied to women (Kent 113). Women are forbidden to teach in any public gathering and are to learn in quiet submission. 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 clearly states that women are not allowed to speak in a public setting. They are to learn from their husband in the home if they wish to learn anything (Greene 95).
The man has a God-given authority to lead and the woman is not to try and take that away from him. It may sound like these are harsh words but they are actually very comforting. They refer to letting a woman be a woman. Let her be what she was created to be. Don’t let her try to be something she is not. Don’t let her dwell in a place that she should not. “Let a fish not live on land. Let a bird not dwell under water. Let not a woman yearn to exercise authority over a man by lecturing in public worship.” For her own sake and the sake of the congregation let not a woman mingle with that which is forbidden (Hendricksen 108). Why let women try to be or do something that they were not created for? It would be like trying to glue something together with Vaseline. They are completely incompatible. The comfort in these terms is being used in a way in which she will be fruitful.
Women find their satisfaction and joy in life when they devote themselves to what they were created for. So what were they created for? They were created to be housewives and give birth and raise children. When God leads a woman to be a housewife she will find no greater joy than fulfilling the work she was called to especially not endeavoring to become a leader within the church (Trentham 35). Tradition has it that aside from the charge in Deut. 31:12 for women to learn, they were not allowed to study the Torah. The reason behind this was that women were viewed to not be as intellectually capable of learning and they were not expected to be able to learn because they were to be a housewife. Rabbi Hisda interprets the book of Turubin from the Talmud as saying “This teaches that the Holy one, blessed be He, built Eve in the shape of a storehouse (Spencer 217).” As a framer makes a storehouse narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, so also did God do with Eve. He made the womb of a woman wide so as to be the storehouse of the embryo. The woman is so clearly described as a housewife that even her body was built in such a way as to make that possible. Because of this it was natural to see that it is the job of the man to study and learn and not the woman (Ibid 218).
However, this does not completely eliminate women from all teaching and learning in every aspect. If there were no godly women in the churches then most churches would be forced to close their doors. Obviously the woman plays a very important role in the rearing of their children and it would be travesty to say they could not teach their children. In this context these verses refer to a woman usurping their authority over men (Greene 93). No where does it say that a woman is not allowed to teach Sunday school or a small group Bible study. Nor does this forbid women in the mission fields so long as they are not the representative authority figure. Women are fully capable of teaching as long as they are not the ultimate authority figure. Paul gives two reasons why. Man was created first and the chronological implications of this are clear. The other is in the fact that it was Eve who was deceived not Adam (Kent 114-115). There are several places one can turn and see that God uses a woman to teach and they are commanded to teach certain people. Acts 18:22 shows a husband and wife in private correcting Apollos in his false teaching (Greene 100). It was not just the man but also the woman who was participating in the correcting. But this was not in a public worship setting. It was in the privacy of the home. That is the integral point of the passage in Timothy. It is dealing with the corporate public worship setting not the privacy of the home or a small group setting.
Every woman has the right to be in the mission field, teach Sunday school, small group Bible studies as long as they are not taking the authority of the man in charge and going over his head. The woman has certain liberties but they are in no capacity to demand the right to fill an office of authority. There are no grounds for a woman to say they have scriptural support for taking a role in leadership in the public worship. No where does it even allude to this in the Bible (Greene 94-95). “No woman has the right to stand up in the public assembly and argue with the pastor, the deacons, or those who are in the seat of authority (Ibid).” She is to sit in quiet submission learning; not trying to take man’s God-given authority. This is the God ordained and instituted hierarchal chain of command.
But is that the true meaning of this text? Is it really so clear in its meaning? Can you boldly say that this is absolutely the meaning Paul intended when he wrote this letter? This is one of the toughest passages to interpret and yet so many say that “it simply means this.” I beg to differ. I don’t see this as being a simple passage to interpret. It is one of the hardest if not the hardest aside from eschatological prophecy. There are several other alternatives to understanding this passage and the danger of following one of those interpretations is being categorized as a complementarian or an egalitarian. The complementarian says that in the eyes of God women are equal to men and hold just as much importance in the family as in the church. The egalitarian says that women are equal to men in all aspects regardless of redemptive status (Enns 624). I consider myself a fundamentalist but with new insight on a very difficult passage to interpret.
The otherside will be posted later. I will also post the bibliography at the end of the second post for both arguments.
My final opinion will be drawn at the end.
1 Timothy 2:12-15 it is hard passage to draw a conclusion on because it is hard to understand what exactly Paul is trying to communicate. There are a number of interpretations and because of the difficulty in understanding the passage I find it very hard to be as dogmatic as the traditionalist are in their interpretation. After further investigation in the passage I find myself agreeing with Ronald Pierce who says that he “experienced a significant change of mind (344)” when he completed his study on the text. The traditionalist or conservative say that with absolute certainty we know what Paul is telling us in the text. But how can we be so certain with such an obscure passage? This new perspective will investigate both sides of the argument excluding and permitting women to teach in the public worship setting. We begin with the exclusion.
From the text itself it is easy to deduce what Paul meant when he referred to the creation account. Women are to play the role of the learner and not the teacher. This is the problem in Ephesus and is why Paul returns to the first instance of when a woman tried to teach a man (Trentham 34). According to Trentham and others like Moo, Mcgee, and Greene it is perfectly clear that what Paul is trying to communicate is a subordination of the sexes. Man is superior to woman. The reason for this instruction from Paul was to show that Adam was formed first and then Eve which shows man as being dominant over woman (Liddon 18). This is what God had intended by creating man first and then woman. The woman is to be subordinate to the man because he not only came first, but because she was created from him.
Therefore, when it comes to the public assembly as Paul is referring to in 1 Timothy it is the man who is to teach not the woman. She is to remain subordinate to him because of her mistake in trying to teach man from the beginning and leading him into sin. Greene says that it is the man’s job to lead in public prayer and speak and the woman is to sit in silence and accept the doctrine being taught. The office of a teacher was that of an authoritative office. These teachers are exercising their God-given authority to proclaim the truth of the gospel message (Acts 13:1; Eph 4:1). But this public proclamation was denied to women (Kent 113). Women are forbidden to teach in any public gathering and are to learn in quiet submission. 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 clearly states that women are not allowed to speak in a public setting. They are to learn from their husband in the home if they wish to learn anything (Greene 95).
The man has a God-given authority to lead and the woman is not to try and take that away from him. It may sound like these are harsh words but they are actually very comforting. They refer to letting a woman be a woman. Let her be what she was created to be. Don’t let her try to be something she is not. Don’t let her dwell in a place that she should not. “Let a fish not live on land. Let a bird not dwell under water. Let not a woman yearn to exercise authority over a man by lecturing in public worship.” For her own sake and the sake of the congregation let not a woman mingle with that which is forbidden (Hendricksen 108). Why let women try to be or do something that they were not created for? It would be like trying to glue something together with Vaseline. They are completely incompatible. The comfort in these terms is being used in a way in which she will be fruitful.
Women find their satisfaction and joy in life when they devote themselves to what they were created for. So what were they created for? They were created to be housewives and give birth and raise children. When God leads a woman to be a housewife she will find no greater joy than fulfilling the work she was called to especially not endeavoring to become a leader within the church (Trentham 35). Tradition has it that aside from the charge in Deut. 31:12 for women to learn, they were not allowed to study the Torah. The reason behind this was that women were viewed to not be as intellectually capable of learning and they were not expected to be able to learn because they were to be a housewife. Rabbi Hisda interprets the book of Turubin from the Talmud as saying “This teaches that the Holy one, blessed be He, built Eve in the shape of a storehouse (Spencer 217).” As a framer makes a storehouse narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, so also did God do with Eve. He made the womb of a woman wide so as to be the storehouse of the embryo. The woman is so clearly described as a housewife that even her body was built in such a way as to make that possible. Because of this it was natural to see that it is the job of the man to study and learn and not the woman (Ibid 218).
However, this does not completely eliminate women from all teaching and learning in every aspect. If there were no godly women in the churches then most churches would be forced to close their doors. Obviously the woman plays a very important role in the rearing of their children and it would be travesty to say they could not teach their children. In this context these verses refer to a woman usurping their authority over men (Greene 93). No where does it say that a woman is not allowed to teach Sunday school or a small group Bible study. Nor does this forbid women in the mission fields so long as they are not the representative authority figure. Women are fully capable of teaching as long as they are not the ultimate authority figure. Paul gives two reasons why. Man was created first and the chronological implications of this are clear. The other is in the fact that it was Eve who was deceived not Adam (Kent 114-115). There are several places one can turn and see that God uses a woman to teach and they are commanded to teach certain people. Acts 18:22 shows a husband and wife in private correcting Apollos in his false teaching (Greene 100). It was not just the man but also the woman who was participating in the correcting. But this was not in a public worship setting. It was in the privacy of the home. That is the integral point of the passage in Timothy. It is dealing with the corporate public worship setting not the privacy of the home or a small group setting.
Every woman has the right to be in the mission field, teach Sunday school, small group Bible studies as long as they are not taking the authority of the man in charge and going over his head. The woman has certain liberties but they are in no capacity to demand the right to fill an office of authority. There are no grounds for a woman to say they have scriptural support for taking a role in leadership in the public worship. No where does it even allude to this in the Bible (Greene 94-95). “No woman has the right to stand up in the public assembly and argue with the pastor, the deacons, or those who are in the seat of authority (Ibid).” She is to sit in quiet submission learning; not trying to take man’s God-given authority. This is the God ordained and instituted hierarchal chain of command.
But is that the true meaning of this text? Is it really so clear in its meaning? Can you boldly say that this is absolutely the meaning Paul intended when he wrote this letter? This is one of the toughest passages to interpret and yet so many say that “it simply means this.” I beg to differ. I don’t see this as being a simple passage to interpret. It is one of the hardest if not the hardest aside from eschatological prophecy. There are several other alternatives to understanding this passage and the danger of following one of those interpretations is being categorized as a complementarian or an egalitarian. The complementarian says that in the eyes of God women are equal to men and hold just as much importance in the family as in the church. The egalitarian says that women are equal to men in all aspects regardless of redemptive status (Enns 624). I consider myself a fundamentalist but with new insight on a very difficult passage to interpret.
The otherside will be posted later. I will also post the bibliography at the end of the second post for both arguments.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Asking Or Demanding?
The story of Job is becoming all too familiar and I feel like I am in danger of encountering the same experience with God. Job had everything going for Him and then had it all taken and cried out to God as to why all this happened. God’s response happens in chapter 38 and as I read through this again in my circumstances I hear God asking me the same questions.
I recently had to shut down my painting business because of economic depression. I have a job now which I am thankful for, but it barely lets me get by. I will not get into a huge sob story of how bad I think I have it right now but will cap things off with this. Last night on my way home my truck died. This morning at the shop they told me that my head gasket had blown and would need a new engine. I don’t know why all these things are piling up on me right now and I am asking God all kinds of questions and all I can hear is His response to Job.
“The Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind and said ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man and I will ask you, and you instruct me! Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have any understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know…”
We can come to God and cry out to Him in tough times in our life and there is nothing wrong with that. The book of Psalms is an interaction between David and God with Him crying out to Him in dire circumstances. The problem is in how we cry out to Him. Job was crying out demanding answers for why he was going through his situation as if God owed him an explanation. God doesn’t owe us an explanation for what we go through. The pressure of life can become a heavy burden that we can try and carry on our own, but the promise that Jesus offers to us can relieve of this burden. He says to “Come to me all you are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest” Matt. 11:28.
I will say with all honesty and humility that I feel weary and heavy laden. My prayer is this. “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me for thinking you owe me an explanation for things that happen in life. God would you please give me and all those who are overwhelmed rest. We don’t need answers to why things are the way they are, but would you come through in such a way that You would be put on display and Your power would be made known. Amen.”
I recently had to shut down my painting business because of economic depression. I have a job now which I am thankful for, but it barely lets me get by. I will not get into a huge sob story of how bad I think I have it right now but will cap things off with this. Last night on my way home my truck died. This morning at the shop they told me that my head gasket had blown and would need a new engine. I don’t know why all these things are piling up on me right now and I am asking God all kinds of questions and all I can hear is His response to Job.
“The Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind and said ‘Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man and I will ask you, and you instruct me! Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have any understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know…”
We can come to God and cry out to Him in tough times in our life and there is nothing wrong with that. The book of Psalms is an interaction between David and God with Him crying out to Him in dire circumstances. The problem is in how we cry out to Him. Job was crying out demanding answers for why he was going through his situation as if God owed him an explanation. God doesn’t owe us an explanation for what we go through. The pressure of life can become a heavy burden that we can try and carry on our own, but the promise that Jesus offers to us can relieve of this burden. He says to “Come to me all you are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest” Matt. 11:28.
I will say with all honesty and humility that I feel weary and heavy laden. My prayer is this. “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me for thinking you owe me an explanation for things that happen in life. God would you please give me and all those who are overwhelmed rest. We don’t need answers to why things are the way they are, but would you come through in such a way that You would be put on display and Your power would be made known. Amen.”
Saturday, August 22, 2009
The Time Is Now
After Israel had been released from the Babylonian captivity they were instructed to rebuild the Temple. This account can be found in the book of Ezra 1-5 and Haggai 1-2. The problem is that the people did not rebuild the temple, but instead used the materials that had been given to them from the Babylonian king Cyrus to build very nice houses. Haggai who is a prophet at this time speaks out under God's direction and says something that shocks me to the very core. Haggai 1:2 “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘This people says’, ‘the time has not yet come, even the time for the house of the Lord to be built.” God had given Israel instructions and the people ignored them looking out for their own interests and instead of God calling them “my people” He calls them “this people.” There is a severe disconnect between God and His people, so much so, that they are no longer “my” people. It is one thing to claim to be God’s people and it is another thing to actually be it. God’s people follow and do what He tells them to do. When you do not do what God has called you to do you fall out of the “my” people category and into “this” people.
The call that God has given us today and that we need to be doing is found in Matt. 28:18-20. Unfortunately I do not think we are living up to this right now and it scares me because I fear that God may be calling the church today “this” people and not “my” people. We have moved away from what God has called us to do and are doing what is more convenient and easy. Jesus picked a few guys and poured into them for about 3 years knowing that He could not be here forever and someone would have to take His place. The same thing needs to be happening in the church today. Jesus said “follow Me” in other words do the things that I do, yet we are not doing what Jesus did. Albeit we are doing some of the things Jesus did, but we are not following through with all that He did. We are doing the easy stuff and leaving out the making disciples of His command. He says that “All authority has been given to Him… Go,” which means that He is sending us with the same authority that He Himself possesses. Sadly I do not see this happening. The question then is this. Are you part of the “my” people or “this.” Haggai 1:2 “this people says the time has not yet come.” However, Jesus said John 5:25 “a time is coming and the time is now.” I think I will get on board with the time is now. I don’t want to be “this” people.
The call that God has given us today and that we need to be doing is found in Matt. 28:18-20. Unfortunately I do not think we are living up to this right now and it scares me because I fear that God may be calling the church today “this” people and not “my” people. We have moved away from what God has called us to do and are doing what is more convenient and easy. Jesus picked a few guys and poured into them for about 3 years knowing that He could not be here forever and someone would have to take His place. The same thing needs to be happening in the church today. Jesus said “follow Me” in other words do the things that I do, yet we are not doing what Jesus did. Albeit we are doing some of the things Jesus did, but we are not following through with all that He did. We are doing the easy stuff and leaving out the making disciples of His command. He says that “All authority has been given to Him… Go,” which means that He is sending us with the same authority that He Himself possesses. Sadly I do not see this happening. The question then is this. Are you part of the “my” people or “this.” Haggai 1:2 “this people says the time has not yet come.” However, Jesus said John 5:25 “a time is coming and the time is now.” I think I will get on board with the time is now. I don’t want to be “this” people.
Monday, August 17, 2009
"Jesus Wept" (Updated)
When I hear people talk about this passage I hear things like “look Jesus was showing that He was just like us and is sad to lose a friend. See even Jesus was human, he cried, He experiences human emotions and can relate to us.” but is that really what these 2 words contain? While you could draw simple conclusions like this I believe there is much more going on here that is never talked about. In John 11 there is a story of a man that was a good friend of Jesus and died. But before Lazarus died his sisters sent a messenger to Jesus telling him to come because Lazarus was sick. Interestingly enough Jesus does not come right away to help His friend but waits a couple of days resulting in Lazarus’ death. Jesus arrives on the scene after Lazarus had been in the grave for a couple of days and the reaction of the people is what brings about the shortest verse in the bible that everyone likes to quote. But what does this simply mean that Jesus wept? Was it tears of sorrow for a lost friend or tears of indignation toward people and the condition that sin has brought about in their lives?
From the very outset Jesus says that this will not end in death. So what is the problem with the people and their view of Jesus? Some key things to note about what Jesus has already said about Himself. John 10:10; 28 “a thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came so they may have life and have it abundantly. And I will give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one can snatch them out of my hand.” John 8:12 “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.” There are also many other passages that affirm Jesus’ dominion over life and death. While these passages speak of a spiritual reality the same implication can be brought into the physical. If someone is capable of sealing someone’s spiritual destiny how much more can he do so over the physical? John 1:1-3 the Word/Jesus was with God in the beginning. All things came into being through Him/Jesus. Apart from Him/Jesus nothing came into being that has come into being. Jesus is the creator and sustainer of all physical and spiritual realities. Even after all that Jesus had said about Himself the closest people to Him could not fully understand it. This does not make them bad people, but shows that sin plays a very manipulative role in our understanding of God.
The problem here is that they do not truly believe that Jesus is and can do what He claims to be and do. You can see this in Jesus’ interaction with Martha. She was looking merely at the spiritual and not the temporal condition of her brother. When Mary met with Jesus she had the same response of her sister “if only you had been here, my brother would not have died.” This family that summoned Jesus was not an acquaintance. They were very close friends it says “the one you love is sick.” With that type of intimacy their unbelief of Him being Lord over all life and death brings Him to tears. Not tears of sorrow but indignation. Jesus becomes angry when He sees all of the people mourning over the death of Lazarus. Jesus is filled with indignation toward sin and its outcome. This anger moves Jesus to shed tears over the people who did not grasp who He was. The resurrection of Life was in front of them and they did not believe. Imagine that you are Jesus and you claim to be the Son of God giver and taker of life. You have performed all the miracles He had up till this time and has told you this sickness will not end in death. Then, you encounter some of your closest friends and they say if only you had been here earlier you could have done something. As if the creator and sustainer of all had missed His opportunity to perform a mighty work. Sort of like a paramedic who arrives after the body has been deceased for an hour. Oh, if only you had gotten here earlier. The fact that Satan can manipulate us and sin has played such a rampant role in keeping us from God insights anger in Jesus over the control sin has in our lives to the point of Him shedding tears.
One of the things this story brings out is that weeping, suffering, and death are presented as facts of life. But there are other facts than these. Jesus is hope in the presence of death and a hope that continues after the death of those we care about. This is why Jesus wept. The people did not have any hope. They thought all was lost when the only hope they had to live for was right in front of their eyes. The people didn’t get it completely wrong. The people had it right by referencing the healing of the blind man and Jesus being able to heal Lazarus. But the fact that they made this statement shows they were puzzled and confused by the situation. The fact that they questioned this shows their unbelief in what Jesus is capable of.
Jesus is the light of the world and no one comes to the Father but though Him. How often do we make Jesus weep still today? If the light of the world has been given to us and we do not take it into the darkness I believe it grieves Jesus to the point of tears not out of sorrow because people are dying, but out of anger because we have the hope of the world and we are not doing anything about it. This is an emergency because Christ is coming again and if we do not bring His light into dark places they face the same condition as Lazarus except they will be spiritually dead, separated from God for eternity. If we know this fact and do nothing about it I believe that Jesus weeps. The problem today is the same as then. The light of the world has made Himself known and people still do not believe. If we are selfish enough to do nothing about it I believe it frustrates our Lord because essentially we are doing what Jonah did. Not wanting to share the Good News of Christ because we know God is gracious and will have mercy on them. When we do this I believe Jesus weeps. There is hope in this world and that hope is in Christ. Let us be the ambassadors that He has called us to be and let Him respond with well done my good and faithful servant and not in tears!
From the very outset Jesus says that this will not end in death. So what is the problem with the people and their view of Jesus? Some key things to note about what Jesus has already said about Himself. John 10:10; 28 “a thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came so they may have life and have it abundantly. And I will give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one can snatch them out of my hand.” John 8:12 “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.” There are also many other passages that affirm Jesus’ dominion over life and death. While these passages speak of a spiritual reality the same implication can be brought into the physical. If someone is capable of sealing someone’s spiritual destiny how much more can he do so over the physical? John 1:1-3 the Word/Jesus was with God in the beginning. All things came into being through Him/Jesus. Apart from Him/Jesus nothing came into being that has come into being. Jesus is the creator and sustainer of all physical and spiritual realities. Even after all that Jesus had said about Himself the closest people to Him could not fully understand it. This does not make them bad people, but shows that sin plays a very manipulative role in our understanding of God.
The problem here is that they do not truly believe that Jesus is and can do what He claims to be and do. You can see this in Jesus’ interaction with Martha. She was looking merely at the spiritual and not the temporal condition of her brother. When Mary met with Jesus she had the same response of her sister “if only you had been here, my brother would not have died.” This family that summoned Jesus was not an acquaintance. They were very close friends it says “the one you love is sick.” With that type of intimacy their unbelief of Him being Lord over all life and death brings Him to tears. Not tears of sorrow but indignation. Jesus becomes angry when He sees all of the people mourning over the death of Lazarus. Jesus is filled with indignation toward sin and its outcome. This anger moves Jesus to shed tears over the people who did not grasp who He was. The resurrection of Life was in front of them and they did not believe. Imagine that you are Jesus and you claim to be the Son of God giver and taker of life. You have performed all the miracles He had up till this time and has told you this sickness will not end in death. Then, you encounter some of your closest friends and they say if only you had been here earlier you could have done something. As if the creator and sustainer of all had missed His opportunity to perform a mighty work. Sort of like a paramedic who arrives after the body has been deceased for an hour. Oh, if only you had gotten here earlier. The fact that Satan can manipulate us and sin has played such a rampant role in keeping us from God insights anger in Jesus over the control sin has in our lives to the point of Him shedding tears.
One of the things this story brings out is that weeping, suffering, and death are presented as facts of life. But there are other facts than these. Jesus is hope in the presence of death and a hope that continues after the death of those we care about. This is why Jesus wept. The people did not have any hope. They thought all was lost when the only hope they had to live for was right in front of their eyes. The people didn’t get it completely wrong. The people had it right by referencing the healing of the blind man and Jesus being able to heal Lazarus. But the fact that they made this statement shows they were puzzled and confused by the situation. The fact that they questioned this shows their unbelief in what Jesus is capable of.
Jesus is the light of the world and no one comes to the Father but though Him. How often do we make Jesus weep still today? If the light of the world has been given to us and we do not take it into the darkness I believe it grieves Jesus to the point of tears not out of sorrow because people are dying, but out of anger because we have the hope of the world and we are not doing anything about it. This is an emergency because Christ is coming again and if we do not bring His light into dark places they face the same condition as Lazarus except they will be spiritually dead, separated from God for eternity. If we know this fact and do nothing about it I believe that Jesus weeps. The problem today is the same as then. The light of the world has made Himself known and people still do not believe. If we are selfish enough to do nothing about it I believe it frustrates our Lord because essentially we are doing what Jonah did. Not wanting to share the Good News of Christ because we know God is gracious and will have mercy on them. When we do this I believe Jesus weeps. There is hope in this world and that hope is in Christ. Let us be the ambassadors that He has called us to be and let Him respond with well done my good and faithful servant and not in tears!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
