| << | Contents | >> |
Freedom in God's Divine Order for Women
<page 21>Our understanding of Scripture depends to a great extent on how we view the Bible. Is the Bible written by men alone, inspired by God but effected by men’s weaknesses, or is it truly the word of God? What methods do we use to interpret it? How do we measure its truths? Before we look at the exceptions people take to the theology presented in Chapter One, I will try to answer these and other related questions in this chapter by considering the following:
The Nature of the Bible – Inerrant and Eternal or the words and ideas of men.
Justifications for Altering the Bible – Four approaches used to challenge the interpretation of Scriptures that relate to a woman’s place in the church and in the home will be discussed in this chapter. Each of these methods uses either reinterpretation of passages or retranslation of words to alter the historical understanding of church leadership and the part that women should play in the life of the church.
The Bible is either the inerrant Word of God or the errant word of man. If it is the Word of God, then it was written by an infallible God through fallible men living in a fallible society. It then was translated by fallible people, preserved by fallible people, and read and interpreted by fallible people to bring infallible eternal truth to all people of all cultures and generations. This is only possible because God has watched over His word in its writing and preserved it down through the centuries (see 1 Peter 1:24-25).
If it is not inerrant, then it is the word of man, and account must be made of the weakness of both men and culture. Those who believe it was only conceptually inspired usually end up viewing it as mostly the word of man. They slowly whittle away at Scriptures until eventually everything is “up for grabs.” This process has been the history of the liberal church. I won’t address this approach because it calls into question the very nature of the Bible as the word of God and opens the Bible<page 22> to interpretations that can be made to support whatever men want it to say.
In his second epistle Peter speaks of the divine inspiration of Scripture and warns against human interpretations:
...knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Moses, Ezekiel, John, Paul, and all the other Bible authors were writing to the society of their day. However, God was writing to all generations. One approach of liberal theologians in changing Scripture has been to base rewording on the idea that the writers were speaking only to the society of their day. They believe that passages should make complete sense to the people of that time. They ignore the eternal nature of the Scriptures. Many passages could be changed with this approach. But the truths in Scripture were written for all eras, for all cultures.
Another critical way of viewing Scripture is through today’s society. Some people try to adjust Scripture so that it is more in tune with contemporary ideas and morals. The first three of the following six passages speak to the eternal nature of the Bible and demonstrate that words can be written in one age for people in another far distant age. These verses caution against trying to rewrite the Bible to meet changing cultures. The fifth Scripture shows that, even in Bible days, men began distorting Scripture. The sixth one warns against adding to what is written:
Whatever things were written before were written for our learning.
All these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition (or instruction), on whom the ends of the ages have come.
“But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.”
Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you,<page 23> searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
…our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.
In writing about his perils in Psalm 22, David ended up also describing the crucifixion of Jesus in detail. This method of execution did not exist in David’s time. I am sure those for whom he was writing (maybe even David himself) didn’t understand the prophetic nature of the Psalm. They might even have scratched their heads when they read it. God had a reason beyond David’s time for what was written. I wonder what would happen to the prophetic nature of Psalm 22 if we applied “secular alternatives to word translation” to the Hebrew words in this Psalm? It might make it more understandable for David’s day; but would it be changed enough to mask the detailed description of the crucifixion so that no one down through the ages would see it? One of the significant prophecies about Jesus could have been lost with this approach.
We can be deceived if we try to use culture to seek another interpretation of a Bible passage that doesn’t make sense to us. This is especially true if we examine the worst aspects of a culture and then read the passage in the “light of that darkness.” People over the centuries have criticized Christianity and the Bible because of what has been done in the name of the Church. “Christians” involved in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi Germany’s extermination of Jews, and Ireland’s religious wars are examples. Many people were involved because of hatred, prejudice, personal gain, or revenge. Others used Scriptures to justify their own brutality. Some probably thought they<page 24> were right. Their justifications do not make their actions right; nor do they make errant the Scriptures they used to justify their sins.
In the 19th and 20th century many “Christians” were convinced that black people were inferior to white people, partly through supposed cultural characteristics of Biblical times and an erroneous interpretation of “the mark of Cain.” They believed that blacks should be treated as second class citizens. They then distorted Scripture to justify their discrimination, which in many cases included murder. Much of this was still being done after the end of slavery in our country.
Men, including religious leaders, have dominated women in many cultures. Some have tried to justify their actions by Scripture. All were wrong. We can use these terrible events to judge a culture. We must not use them to judge God or His word. Jesus found many things wrong in the culture of His day. He strongly criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees. He called them a brood of vipers, hypocrites, and blind guides because their hearts were evil. But He did not negate the Old Testament commands that they used to support their actions. He probably would have said the same kind of things to “the radical rabbis” (one author’s wording) who have severely subjugated women over the centuries. He also would speak this way to men in many churches over the years who had hardhearted views on women. It was their distorted views, not the Scriptures themselves, that resulted in the domination of women by some men. Because of all this, I find it difficult to accept the use of men’s sins as a reason to consider changing God’s word. Reevaluation of our interpretations can be good and at times needed. However, we must be very careful not to approach such reevaluations with an agenda other than finding the truth.
Satan loves to distort God’s word and undermine our faith. He seeks to infect us with the spirit of the world. Today’s culture is permeated by spirits of compromise, false tolerance that validates every form of perversion, self-love, unforgiveness, immorality, homosexuality, and radical feminism. All of these are pervasive in today’s society, have crept into the church, and begun to influence the interpretation of Scripture. Some churches have even justified the ordination of active homosexuals as pastors. This is as wrong as ordaining active adulterers or bigamists. It is interesting to note that the PCUSA in June 2001 voted to remove chastity in singleness and fidelity in marriage as well as active homosexuality from the requirements for pastors (see page 39). With these changes in place, no one could say that active homosexuality is a sin just like premarital sex and adultery. If that was their<page 25> goal, what a devious, ungodly way to sanction homosexuality, compounding this heresy by eliminating heterosexual sins.
In my observations of some liberal churches over the last 50 years, their compromise of Scripture began simply. It started with viewing many of the stories in both Old Testament and New Testament as myths and then allowing selective exceptions to Scripture. It progressed to accepting unbiblical divorce, to actively supporting abortion on demand and euthanasia, and finally to accepting and encouraging homosexuality and then the ordination of active homosexuals.
The HGC method (Historical, Grammatical, and Contextual) of Scriptural analysis can be an important tool in developing sound theology. It can also be an instrument of distortion if it is abused. Two parts of the HGC method, grammar and context, are internal to the Bible. History, on the other hand, involves not only the historical references found in Scripture, but also secular history. Understanding of some portions of Scripture can be enhanced by a knowledge of the historical context in which Scripture was written, or the historical conditions addressed by Scripture (this can be especially true for the prophetic books of the Old Testament).
Grammar is the systematic structure of words through which ideas are expressed. Proper grammar can be as important to understanding what is written as the individual words themselves. Some egalitarian writers misuse grammar to change the meanings of words and the application of Scriptures to fit their bias. We consider some of this activity in Chapters Four and Five.
Contextual study involves the interpretation of a Scripture of interest by considering the passages surrounding it and the relationship of the particular passage to the overarching themes of Scripture. Proper understanding of context can help establish the appropriate meaning of words and can indicate any limitations of the passage. Some writers use Scriptures to support ideas and concepts that are outside the contextual meaning of the passage. They then use this often erroneous base to reinterpret other Scriptures. Some writers use of Galatians 3:28 is a case in point that is addressed in Chapter Four.
Sometimes we need a systematic theological approach to the Bible to understand the meaning of a particular Scripture passage. However, some people use this procedure to violate the context of a passage and arrive at wrong conclusions regarding its meaning.<page 26>
The proper understanding of a passage can be significantly distorted if either its grammatical structure or its context are not carefully considered.
Along with grammar and context, history is also an important consideration. In examining ways that people apply recorded history to the analysis of Scripture, it is obvious that some do not believe that God can speak eternal truth through the veil of a nation’s written history. Although they may believe that God inspired the Bible, they assume that national and personal prejudices and other historic mind sets of the writers are reflected in the Scriptures. In some ways the effect of this approach is not too much different from that of skeptics who believe that the Bible was written by fallible men without the involvement of God. Examination of Scripture from either of these perspectives will eventually lead to error, especially when it is used to prove a point for which a person has an emotional bias. It can be too easy to apply history selectively, searching only for evidence that supports desired conclusions. This approach seems to be prevalent in egalitarian writing. Some of these authors place historic documents on a par with the Bible. But recorded secular history was written by men who were influenced in their writing by their personal histories, with all of their biases and possibly satanic influences. Even more importantly, most, if not all, of secular history was written without God’s voice in the writing.
Having said all this, does history have a place in helping us understand Scripture? Yes. Awareness of the culture, politics, and economics of Biblical times can help in understanding why God acted as He did toward Israel and other nations in both the Old and New Testament eras. It can give insight into motivations by revealing some of the pressures in people’s lives that influenced their decisions and actions. It can add depth to our appreciation of the daily life experiences of the people of the Bible. For instance, understanding how a shepherd functioned in Biblical times can give good insight into the 23rd Psalm and reveal God more clearly as our Shepherd. A proper understanding of history can also help avoid the misinterpretation of difficult passages in the Old Testament prophetic books. For instance, the historic background for Joel was a horrible locust plague that God released against Judah because of the leadership of Athaliah and their worship of Baal. Failing to take this into account has produced some strange teachings about the army of the Lord running on the walls (which in Joel was first a great cloud of locusts, followed later by the Assyrian army). Someone wrote a praise song misapplying Joel 2:7ff to the church.<page 27>
A study of history can also reveal where the church has erred through incorrect or incomplete doctrine. One of the most noted church errors is seen in the theological debate over Galileo’s support of Copernicus. Copernicus stated that the earth revolved around the sun. The church erroneously believed that the Bible teaches the opposite. The church leaders bitterly opposed Galileo’s support of Copernicus on theological grounds. They warned him to abandon the theory, tried him, forced him to recant, and finally sentenced him to prison. We now know that Copernicus and Galileo were right and that they did not disagree with the Bible.
The following quote speaks to why much care must be taken in using any solely intellectual method to evaluate Scripture without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. “Anybody can understand that the Bible is the last book in the world to be studied as a mere classic by mere human scholarship without any regard to the spirit of sympathy and reverence on the part of the student. The Bible, as has been said, has no revelation to make to unbiblical minds. It does not even follow that because a man is a philological expert he is able to understand the integrity or credibility of a passage of Holy Scripture any more than the beauty and spirit of it. The qualification for the perception of Biblical truth is neither philosophic nor philological knowledge, but spiritual insight. The primary qualification of the musician is that he be musical; of the artist, that he have the spirit of art. So the merely technical and mechanical and scientific mind is disqualified for the recognition of the spiritual and infinite. Any thoughtful man must honestly admit that the Bible is to be treated as unique in literature, and, therefore, that the ordinary rules of critical interpretation must fail to interpret it aright.”[17]
We must be humble and open to adjustment in our approach to theology. Only God’s comprehension of reality, represented by the Bible, is perfect. One reason we have so many denominational divisions in Christianity is because of our incomplete and deficient theological concepts which too many of us pridefully defend as though they were perfect and complete. Our security should not be in how comprehensive we think our theology is. It should be in God Himself!
Changes in the Bible made by man have brought major distortions to God’s word. Jehovah’s Witnesses changed many passages to agree with a new theology that their founder(s) created. As I understand it, the men who did the retranslation were not linguists nor phi<page 28>lologists. They knew what they wanted the Bible to say. They wanted it to say that Jesus is not God; He was only a god. They probably considered that their concepts were revelations from God. With confidence in their “revelations,” they selectively changed the English translation of the Greek manuscripts and produced a “bible” to agree with their theology. They did this, often within the range of possible meanings of the original words. In some cases revisions were made by changing the punctuation of the accepted versions of the Bible to alter its meaning. It can be easy to present a seemingly logical, sincere, and nearly convincing argument using these approaches. However, these changes leave gaping holes in their theology of who Jesus is. The Mormons took another approach for their new theology. They “changed” the Bible by adding the Books of Mormon and relegating the Scripture to a secondary place. It is then easy to read whatever one wants into God’s word.
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was prepared by translators made up of linguists and Bible scholars from liberal denominations both here and abroad. It was copyrighted in 1989 by The National Council of Churches. (Some of the churches represented were already ordaining women as pastors and probably had a desire to see all women “freed” in this way.) One of the purposes for the new translation was to correct what some people saw as sexism in the Scriptures. In the words of the preface to the NRSV[18], “...many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text.” During this revision there was increased feminist activism in the liberal church (I was a member in a Methodist church at that time). Some of those involved in the translation of the NRSV wanted to “liberate” women by demasculinizing all references to God, regardless of whether or not the original Greek or Hebrew was masculine. Fortunately, this never happened. The editors, however, did examine all references to God that were gender neutral in the original languages but had previously been translated masculine. They made them gender neutral. The gender changes of this type that I reviewed are reasonably acceptable. I looked at the critical “woman be quiet” and “headship” passages in 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 and 1 Timothy 2 in the NRSV to see if anything was changed. I found no changes. Considering their goal, their egalitarian leanings, and their expert knowledge of languages, it is noteworthy that they didn’t pick up at least some of the supposed “errors” in translation addressed by Trombley and other authors (see the next two chapters). The NRSV didn’t even footnote critical passages about a<page 29> woman’s place in the church to offer alternate translations (cf., 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2). However, they did make an interesting change in 1 Timothy.
Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once...
They then footnoted “married only once” with, “Gk – the husband of one wife.” Here an attempt may have been made to demasculinize the function of bishop or overseer when the original language was unquestionably masculine. At least they acknowledged the accurate translation in a footnote.
The new NIV (TNIV) does take the next step in demasculinizing many passages that unquestionably were masculine by making them neutral. The verse below is an example. This change removes the possibility of recognizing that the verse could be speaking of Jesus, who is the Son of Man (for more on the TNIV changes see The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Fall 2002, which categorizes more than 900 purposeful inaccuracies in translation to avoid masculine meaning or nuance):
“What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor.”
(Hebrews 2:6-7 NIV)
“What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You made them a little lower than the angels; You crowned them with glory and honor.”
(Hebrews 2:6-7 TNIV)
I have observed and read of occasions when men have tried to twist Scriptures to fit their personal theologies or to pacify people in the church or society. Some of these follow.
In the 70’s I heard a pastor in our Methodist Church say from the pulpit on Mother’s Day that Paul had problems with women, and that we shouldn’t take his epistles too seriously. He laughed all through his reading of 1 Timothy 2:10-13 and said that Paul probably refuted these statements in later letters that have been lost. The pastor apparently believed that women should be allowed to be in authority over men in the church. His denomination ordains women. About the same time, a young woman from his church returned from Drew Seminary to give her first sermon. It dealt with things that she had learned in Sunday school that she now knew from seminary were “myths” in the Old and New Testaments (e.g., the flood of Noah’s day, the dividing of the<page 30> Red Sea, the wilderness miracles, the virgin birth, Jesus’ healings, etc.).
More than 25 years ago I learned from a good friend of a statement made by an Episcopal bishop. He had told a large college assembly that “the only reason that the prohibition of sex outside of marriage is in the Bible is that the means for preventing pregnancy and controlling venereal diseases were not available in Biblical times. The prohibition doesn’t apply anymore since we now can do both.” This statement was made before A.I.D.S. became a problem and abortion was legalized. This is another case of a church leader compromising God’s word. Isn’t it likely that his attitude encouraged promiscuity? I don’t know if his purpose was to make the Episcopal church more attractive to young people or just to “tickle people’s ears.” Whatever the reason, compromising God’s word is never the right answer to anything.
Again, I was told by a pastor that an official in the national headquarters of his church (the American Baptist Church) had declared that homosexuality is acceptable. The beginning of his “revelation” may have been a study of homosexual twins that supposedly demonstrated that homosexuality is genetic. (The study has since been shown to be biased and in error.)[19] This man reinterpreted the Bible on this subject because he now “knew” that some people are naturally homosexual. I assume he played with variations in the word meanings. He probably even looked at the cultural usage of words in Biblical times. He was able to convince himself and some others that his conclusions were valid. He believed that homosexuals were “at last free from centuries of bondage and brutality, from chafing under the charge that their lifestyle is perverted and sinful and that they were lesser people because of it.” The Biblical prohibition of homosexuality, he then concluded, must be only for heterosexual people. For them homosexuality is unnatural. The prohibition obviously couldn’t apply to homosexuals. He further concluded, that Sodom must have been condemned for inhospitality not homosexuality. Again we find Scripture compromised. While it is laudable to seek to correct the practice of persecution of homosexuals, behavioral adjustments will only be brought by changing people’s hearts, not by changing God’s word. (For more detail on this aberration, see “Homosexuality: Alternate Lifestyle or Sin?”). [20]
I read in the April 2001 issue of World magazine that there is a concerted effort by a group of men to persuade Bible publishers to change the translation of the Greek word ioudaioi (NT:2453) from “Jew” to “Jewish leader” in passages (cf., John 10:31, 19:12), or to<page 31> “our people” in other passages (cf., John 18:31) to reduce the supposed anti-Semitism in Scripture. This is only one of a number of attempts to make the Bible politically correct.
Thomas Jefferson made his own bible. He wanted a single document that presented the moral doctrines of Jesus, which were “purer and more perfect than those of the most correct philosophers.” His motives seem laudable. But in what light did his bible present Jesus? Did it represent the Bible as the Word of God? In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush from Washington on April 21, 1803[21], Thomas Jefferson wrote that Jesus ascribed “to himself every human excellence,” but “never claimed any other” (that is, Jesus was only a man). His overall view of the Bible, except for some of the words of Jesus, was negative. His attitudes are clearly captured in a letter he wrote to William Short from Monticello on April 13, 1820[22]: “I find many passages (in the Bible) of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and again, of others, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.” To construct his bible he cut out passages with which he agreed and pasted them in a loose leaf notebook. He discarded what he didn’t like, including everything written by Paul. He considered Paul to be the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.” In fact, He retained only the words of Jesus, which he considered “the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man.” Even then he omitted any words of Jesus with which he did not agree, especially those relating to His miracles, His deity, and His resurrection. He apparently considered them “falsifications of His doctrines.” That is really changing the Bible to agree with one’s theology!
Dr. Borland[23] states that a Christian feminist claims her first principle of Bible interpretation is “suspicion rather than acceptance of biblical authority.” Dr. Ortlund[24] reveals a more extreme approach in a quote from a non-evangelical feminist: “Feminist theology must create a new textual base, a new canon…Feminist theology cannot be done from the existing base of the Christian Bible.” Imagine what has been or will be done to the Bible by these women!
I recognize that radical feminism has infiltrated some churches. I pray that their influence will not be successful in bringing into Christian colleges the kinds of humanities courses they have foisted on secular colleges. The September 8, 2001 issue of World Magazine identifies the following as examples of the offerings of some secular colleges: “Fetishism,” “Queer Theory,” and “Third Wave Feminism<page 32> and Girl Culture.” In addition, the State University of New York at New Paltz held seminars and workshops a few years ago on lesbian sexual practices.
A theology that goes far beyond the above approaches of interpretation is a movement in evangelical circles called postconservatism. It was identified in 1997 by Milliard Erickson[25]. It is a theological method that views culture as a source of theology and embraces such concepts as:
broadening the source of theology to include culture and experience;
rejecting prepositional inerrancy in favor of narrative theology;
propounding an “open view” of God to replace both classical Arminian and Reformed theology;
advancing an “optimistic” view of salvation outside of explicit faith in Christ through general revelation and other religions;
and rejecting any epistemological certainties (ways of knowing) based on universal or absolute truth.”[26]
These concepts are part of the mix of feminist theologies through which many people are now viewing the Scriptures. It obviously rejects the inerrancy of the Bible and salvation by faith in Jesus alone. With theologies like this, the Bible can be interpreted to say anything one wants it to say. Careful examination of some of the feminist writers’ ideas will reveal the effects of postconservatism in their literature.
The extremes to which one can go is exemplified by the book, A New Christianity for a New World by Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. According to World Magazine, this “man of God’s” book “denies the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Jesus, the existence of a personal God, and every tenet of historical Christianity that he can think of. These notions, he says, are not relevant to our culture today. …Extramarital sex and homosexuality are culturally acceptable now, so the church, if it is going to continue to exist, had better change its tune.
“In his book, Bishop Spong essentially proposes ‘a new Christianity.’ This new faith, he writes, must be able to ‘incorporate all of real<page 33>ity. It must allow God and Satan to come together in each of us…It must unite Christ with Antichrist, Jesus with Judas, male with female, heterosexual with homosexual.’” [27]
One “church” seems to have put some of John Spong’s ideas into practice. This new “church” called Agape International Spiritual Center in suburban Los Angeles has about 7000 members. They “intermix Christian praise song and “Oms” of Eastern meditation. In their obligatory bookstore, the Bible shares space with books by gurus, self-proclaimed goddesses, and mystical psychologists.” Its pastor refers to their “church” as “‘new thought’ combined with ancient wisdom.” It is “based on the premise that all of the world’s religions must be combined into one.” Quoting columnist Thomas Friedman writing for Agape International Spiritual Center, World writes that “World War II and the Cold war were fought to defeat secular totalitarianism. This new world war is against religious totalitarianism.” He is further to have said that “the war must be fought not just on the battlefield but in the houses of worship. It is urgent that the different religions reinterpret their traditions to embrace modernity and pluralism and to create space for secular alternative faith.”[28]
We won’t be addressing any further the people who have deserted the Bible. They have lost the right to constructively evaluate the word of God.
Back to “Christian” egalitarians. Are those who seem to be holding to the Bible as God’s word and yet propose that women should be part of the government of the church trying to force Scripture to fit a theology? Judge for yourself as we look at exceptions people take to current translations of the Bible. In examining this, we will see that some people consider the translation of Greek and Hebrew words, not only from a predetermined theology, but from a perspective colored by their personal backgrounds and a mind set that ties personal role with personal worth. Although sincere, they end up doing exactly what they claim Bible translators have done in the past. They let their biases and humanistic philosophies flavor their translation. We will look at examples of the role of personal perspective, as well as those of culture, history, and predetermined theologies, in changing Scripture in the next chapter.
See Appendix V: Trajectory Hermeneutics: Valid Theory or Deception?
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0066 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page