Monday, May 4, 2015

The Hermeneutics of Deception


14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:14-17
           
            The Hermeneutics of Unbelief gives birth to a son.  And his son’s name is the Hermeneutics of Deception.  Unbelief makes life difficult to bear.  The imprint of the image of God in humanity cannot be denied.  The spirit of man continues to search for God.  John Calvin called that tendency as the seed of religion.  Cornelius Van Til called it as
the sense of divinity or sensus divinitatis.  The move toward unbelief doesn’t match the core human construct.  Tension arises within.  A mega disequilibrium has started to shake the spirit of man.  The mechanism of life preservation kicks in.  And the soul of man is frantically searching for equilibrium.  Man can only live so long in the state of disequilibrium.  They can’t continue to tolerate disequilibrium.  How much more with mega disequilibrium that they are experiencing at the dawn of unbelief.  So in order to survive, in order to stay “sane,” man needs to quickly find equilibrium.  The process of re-equilibrium starts almost instantly to preserve the unity of all the aspects of what makes them human.  There are only two possible ways for finding equilibrium.

The first is to come back to term with the original equilibrium state man has in the beginning as created by God in the original design.  And this original equilibrium is “to believe.”  Faith is at the center of this original equilibrium.  To acquire faith back is required in order to get back to the original equilibrium.  The problem with this option is that once faith is abandoned, man can never get it back with their own strength.  Tracing back the winding road of unbelief doesn’t lead them back to their original position.  At this state all they can find is unbelief, which sits as king right at the epicenter of the mega disequilibrium they are in.  That leaves them with one last option, which is to harmonize their sensus divinitatis with their unbelief.  Now, it is important to emphasize here that their unbelief remains.  It is the center of their depravity.  It is the command center of all their thoughts, feelings, actions, etc.  The corruption is massive.  Calvin called it total depravity.  So, the only thing left to be compromised is the sensus divinitatis.  It is corrupted too.  But its desire to find the object of faith cannot be ignored.  It is driving man mad, that they are ready to just grab about anything in order to satisfy its unquenchable thirst.  It is like an addiction.  A desire goes awry.  When one is addicted to alcohol, and is unable to find any other drinkable alcoholic beverages, they would insanely grab anything that has alcohol content in it in order to satisfy their unquenchable crave.  Never mind if it is gasoline.  Never mind if it is mouthwash.  In order to get to term with drinking harmful liquid, they have to convince their mind that it is okay or that it is better to take the harmful liquid than to deal with the mad craving.  In other words, they need to deceive themselves.  They need to alter themselves, even the thing that must not be altered.  They need to accommodate themselves for the sake of their unbelief.  But they won’t end up with the true equilibrium.  They will only end up with false equilibrium.  Thus the hermeneutics of deception.

Hermeneutics of Deception is the deceitful reading of the revelations of God.  Hermeneutics of Deception is the deceitful interpretation of God’s revelations.  When Eve looked at the fruits of tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she had to convince herself that God’s interpretation was wrong.  She had to convince herself that God might be wrong.  In other words, she got to deceive herself, knowing full well that she had no way to disprove God’s interpretation and thus had no basis for considering his words as false and therefore should not have boldness to ignore his command, by altering her own self.  Adam did the same thing, though he was not a part of the conversation between Eve and the serpent, because he too ate the fruit.  They altered their very core – the command center of their being, which was supposed to be governed by faith in God in complete obedience – into the establishment of their own autonomy apart from God, which was not warranted in their constitution as imago dei.  By doing so, they rebelled against God.  By doing so, they considered God to be a deceiver.  But deep down they knew that they were the deceiver.  They had followed the way of the devil.  They manipulated their own mind in order to find that false equilibrium.  They deceived themselves in order to accommodate their irreversible unbelief that they just acquired.  They had to think that the fruit was harmless.  They had to think that the fruit would not cause their death.  They had to think that the fruit would only bring wisdom.  They had to think that the fruit was the gate toward becoming the Supreme Being, like God.  But all those thoughts were mere imagination.  They were not founded on reality.  They couldn’t prove it.  They couldn’t even find a reliable source to witness to that.  All they got was the lowly serpent – the devil himself – contradicting the word of God – God who they knew was their creator and the only reliable and good source of truth.  The absurdity of their attempt to convince themselves with lies was unbeatable under heaven.  They exchanged their faith in God with the faith in their own crooked faculty and the false hope that the devil’s words would prove true.  The hermeneutics of deception had taken over their system.  And ever since humanity is always under the spell of the hermeneutics of deception.

This hermeneutics of deception is particularly and extremely harmful when applied to the reading and interpretation of God’s special revelation – the Scripture.  God’s word that is supposed to shed light to the path of man’s life, if read using the hermeneutics of deception will only darken the way.  It leads man deeper into death and destruction.  The trend in Biblical interpretation even today has been corrupted by the hermeneutics of deception.  Many theologians believe that Genesis 1-11 cannot be historical.  Their hermeneutics of unbelief must find equilibrium.  And since they won’t find true equilibrium within their unbelief, and since they won’t let go of their unbelief, then the only thing they can do is to adopt the hermeneutics of deception.  And hermeneutics of deception leads them to arrive at the false equilibrium.  If Genesis 1-11 is taken as historical, then it becomes proof of their unbelief.  But repentance is not in their vocabulary, so to preserve their unbelief, they have to convince themselves that Genesis 1-11 cannot be historical.  But in order to do so, they need great help from outside.  They need ground, as shaky as it is, in order to give them the illusion of conviction, for their reasoning to reject Genesis 1-11 as historical.  And evolution has provided them with the alternative that the formation of the universe can’t be as described and told by the Creator in Genesis 1-11.  But in their reluctance to toss away the Bible altogether, they then have to strive to harmonize the theory of evolution with the Genesis account of creation.  Instead of criticizing the evolution theory based on the eternal word of God, they alter the interpretation of God’s special revelation based on the relative observation and interpretation of man on general revelation.  There they find the false equilibrium.  This is their “gasoline” and “mouthwash” to satisfy their depraved and desperate craving for alcohol, because they can’t find the proper alcoholic beverages.  Anything will do for them, as long as it satisfies their crooked desire.  This illustration is not meant to speak about the sin of alcoholism.  For the sin of alcoholism in itself is devastating even if the alcoholic finds proper alcoholic beverages but fail to drink in moderation.

Educationally speaking, as found by Jean Piaget – known as the father of cognitive development theory, children in their development cannot right away jump into the formal operation stage – that is the abstract way of thinking.  Instead, children must properly develop their cognitive ability through concrete mode of thinking.  Children must learn to recognize their own self in concrete sense, how they relate to the concrete world outside of themselves, and the various concrete objects they encounter in their life, before they learn to formulate abstract understanding of things.  Now, as the Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16b-17, therefore God is educating man through his word.  And it is no coincidence that God designs the curriculum of man’s education through the Scripture starting from Genesis.  For sure, God doesn’t need for Piaget to tell him that the start of man’s education cannot jump right away to the abstract mode.  He knows that man needs to start with concrete things.  And Genesis is a concrete historical account of the beginning of the history of humanity and the whole world and their relation to God.  Genesis is not abstract.  It is concrete.  The creation account is also a concrete account.  Understanding where the world comes from is important for the development of man.  Understanding where man comes from is key to further development of our self.  The two understanding prepares man to the next stage of their development.  Just like when a child is born into a family.  The child encounters concrete objects and matters.  The home the child is in provides concrete experience with things outside the child’s self.  The child learns to recognize the organization of objects in the house.  The child learns to know that the father and the mother are the “creator” of the environment of the home.  The child also learns that the father and mother are where he/she comes from.  The child learns that the father and mother provide for anything the child needs, be it food, clothing, shelter, even toys, and so on.  The child also learns the rule of the house, starting from the simplest.  The father and mother give the child one rule at a time, not to do a certain thing.  For example, at one point the parents tell the child: “Don’t touch mommy’s vase.”  When the child breaks the command and touches mom’s vase and thus the vase falls and is shattered, the child learns quickly that the breaking of the parents’ command has a negative implication.  This concrete educational experience starts the child’s course of development.  In the same way, God, even before Piaget found the most famous cognitive development model, had begun the education of Adam and Eve through concrete matters and objects and teachings.  For the curriculum to accomplish its goal, it cannot start with abstract ideas.  The creation account in Genesis is not something abstract, like many have claimed today, and it is not a myth either, which is still abstraction in nature, like many “atheist Christians” would argue, for in itself it is a concrete matter.  Adam and Eve accepted God’s creation as is.  It was concrete experience for them.  They needed such concrete experience for their development.  The interaction with God was concrete.  The interaction with self was concrete.  The interaction with nature was concrete.  The command was concrete and had a concrete implication.  The interaction Adam had with Eve was also concrete.  They were not abstraction.  Even the interaction Eve had with the serpent was concrete.  It was not abstraction.  Then the transgression was also concrete.  The punishments too were concrete.  The continued fallout through Cain was also concrete.  Then Noah’s experience too was concrete.  All the destruction of the world by water was not an abstraction.  The building of the tower of Babel too was concrete.  The calling and journey of Abraham and Sarah were concrete too.  And the concrete historical account in Genesis continued until the end of the book of Genesis – the death of Joseph bin Jacob (Israel).  But the unbelieving theologians devise an elaborated deception for the purpose of harmonizing the bible with the obscure scientific theories that cannot be proven.  Since their framework is the hermeneutics of unbelief, they can’t accept the Scripture as is, but since their constitution demands them to believe, they then are absorbed into the state of disequilibrium, and must then find equilibrium without true faith.  The only way they can do it is by compromising the Scripture.  So the reliable interpretation of God is then exchanged by the deceptive interpretation of the fallen man.  This results in altering the historicity of Genesis 1-11.  Their only way to attain equilibrium is by taking Genesis 1-11 as non-historical, whereby myth fits like a glove.

Now, the hermeneutics of deception continues to govern many Christians today.  I will discuss two other examples here to enlighten us of the danger of this hermeneutics of deception.  One is the hot topic today in North America, which is the topic of homosexual practice.  And the other one is the topic of the women in office, the topic that has plagued and divided churches in the 20th and 21st centuries.  There are many other topics that can be discussed here, but these two must be addressed as they are among the biggest topics in our time today especially at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century.  My treatment of the topic of homosexuality has been discussed elsewhere in my other articles.  But the focus here is on the hermeneutics.

Now, before we proceed further, it is worth quoting here two very important passages of Scripture that will guide our path as we stand firm on the truth that the Scripture is the word of God.  Its hermeneutics is founded upon these two extremely important passages that have become the anchor of the Doctrine of Scripture.  The first is our head text above, 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The truth of the nature of Scripture as breathed out by God must take root in our heart and mind.  Even though there is no doubt that humans wrote the 66 books of the Bible, the main author of the Bible is God himself.  Every single iota in the Scripture, in its original, is without fault.  This understanding leads to the formulation of the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture.  It relies heavily on the nature of God, which is without fault.  We can find no error in God.  God made use of the human author’s understanding, skills, contexts, cultures, and so on, to bring about his perfect, precise, and accurate message.  More accurately, in his sovereignty and supreme wisdom God raised those human authors, prepared them, and equipped them for exactly such kind of work that they had to do.  God raised Moses for the writing of the Pentateuch.  God raised Isaiah to write the 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah.  God raised all other prophets of old to write his words.  God raised Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to write the four gospels.  God raised Paul to write epistles to the churches.  All of those were God’s doing.  God did not depend on the humans.  God made them exactly for such purpose.  And because of that, all the human author’s errors did not make it into the Scripture.  And this is attested by the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:19-21:

19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

No human interpretation contributed into the Scripture.  The Scripture was produced by the will of God himself.  Yes man spoke and wrote the prophecies as commanded by God, but it was all God doing.  This didn’t negate human consciousness.  The human authors of the Scripture were not robots.  This is not the so called “mechanical inspiration of scripture.”  God did not force feed the human authors.  They wrote the word of God in their freedom.  But their freedom was under God’s sovereignty and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  It is not like they refused to write but yet God coerced them to write against their own will.  No!  They voluntarily obeyed God.  And they became God’s instruments to write his word.  But none of the human will entered into the Scripture as if the word in the Scripture was owned ultimately by Moses, or Isaiah, or Matthew, or Paul, etc.  God raised them all for his purpose.  The same way God raised Pharaoh to serve his purpose that he might display his glory.  The difference is that Pharaoh was against God, whereas the prophets and apostles were obedient to God.  But even the ones against God could not escape God’s sovereign and creative plan.  The interpretation of reality as written in the Scripture belongs to God himself.  This becomes the basis for the doctrine of scripture.  This is what I would call as the Hermeneutics of Truth.  The TRUTH himself interprets reality.  The principle that we then derive from this is that Scripture interprets Scripture.  God’s interpretation of reality is the truth.  R.C. Sproul once mentioned that truth is God’s interpretation of reality.  God’s interpretation is never wrong.  So the hermeneutics that is only appropriate to treat the word of God is the Hermeneutics of Truth, not the Hermeneutics of Deception.  Pseudo-theologians in their delusional mind might strongly argue that the scripture is just human words, that God is not really speaking his word through the Scripture, which is the Hermeneutics of Unbelief in essence, and that is the foundation of the Hermeneutics of Deception.  By doing so they contradicted the very word of God in 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 1.  Hence they are not servants of God.  The doubt and the deception of the serpent in Genesis 3 is the precursor of the Hermeneutics of Unbelief and Deception.  And the devil started all that by saying: “Did God actually say, …?  With that he gave birth to the Hermeneutics of Unbelief and Deception.  But our hermeneutics is the Hermeneutics of Faith and Truth.  We trust God.  And God is the source of all truth.

With these two most fundamental passages that built the doctrine of scripture, we may proceed to deal with the two issues I mentioned above.  The topic of homosexuality is the first one to deal with.  One of the main arguments to promote biblical homosexualism is by arguing that the Scripture is bound by its context when it was written.  Their argument then goes on to say that the Scripture is neither relevant nor applicable to our 21st century living arrangement.  But they too cannot just toss the entire bible away, because they still need some kind of guidance.  But the problem is that they become selective.  They only pick those teachings that suit their desire, satisfy their “itching ears,” and comfort their wayward sinful tendency.  So they compartmentalize the scripture by assigning this to no longer relevant category and that to eternal value.  For example, these people lift up on high the notion that God is love, and merciful, and gracious.  Nothing else matters.  Their goal by elevating only the notion of God’s love, mercy, and grace is to soothe their own brokenness and to protect their own sinful assets.  For they want to gain heaven even though they don’t want to live out the expression of the true faith in Jesus Christ through their life of thankfulness.  All they want is to live their sinful life as long as they live and hide behind God’s love-mercy-grace so they may avoid the punishment of hell.  With this twisted understanding and reading of God’s word, they then continue to plunder human dignity and nature and even the redeemed status of God’s people by exploiting God’s word using the hermeneutics of deception.

This is a very serious deception.  This deception is capitulated in the word of Dr. Amy Plantinga Paw when she spoke in promotion of homosexual marriage, as reported in the Banner November 2014 issue by Kristin Schmitt:

Pauw referenced Romans 1:24-27, where Paul wrote about homosexual acts as contrary to nature, and challenged her audience to also remember what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:14: “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.” She cited it as an example that context is important to the interpretation of Scripture, and that ideas written then do not necessarily equate to the human experience now.[1]

Paw wrote under the spell of the hermeneutics of deception, and then spread lies to her audience.  She thought that the Scripture was just man’s words.  Obviously, for her, the Scripture was never the eternal word of God.  For if she believed that the Scripture was the eternal word of God, then she would also believe that it applies to every generation they way it was written.  But no she did not believe so.  For her, Paul only wrote Romans 1:24-27 for his audience at that time.  For her, Romans 1:24-27 is no longer applicable today.  The US Supreme court’s decision on June 2013 changed all that.  The US Supreme court is way more superior than the word of God, and even than God himself as supposedly the supreme interpreter of reality.  The wave of culture in the 21st century is bigger than God’s eternal word.  So even the eternal word of God in Romans 1:24-27 must bow down to it, such is Paw’s unspoken assumptions.  You know, the funny thing is, if God really thinks that what Paul wrote was only applicable to his time, then why on earth did God not include there the obvious instruction saying that such statement is only applicable up until the year 2013?  If it is so important that the context must be read the way Paw suggested, then why on earth God moved Paul to write it as if it is eternally applicable?  Does it then make God a liar?  Or is it that Paw is a liar?

            Paw’s treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:14 is also based on the hermeneutics of deception.  Her challenge is an empty challenge.  Because the text cannot be treated at the same level as Romans 1:24-27.  1 Corinthians 11:14 does not speak at all about sin or perversion that results in death.  It speaks about shame.  It is something of way lesser value than sin and the punishment of death.  The consequence of wearing long hair for man is disgrace, not death.  So Paul was right, because he was guided by the Holy Spirit, to write that nature does teach us that a man with long hair is a disgrace.  And when a human being committed sexual act with other of the same sex, then he/she acts contrary to nature, and for sure acts contrary to God’s command, which will result in death.  This truth is governed in two set of passages of Scripture according to the Hermeneutics of Truth.  The first one is in Genesis 1 and 2.  The second one is in Leviticus 18 and 20.  Genesis 1:27 records:

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 2:21-25 records:

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The Hebrews heard these passages to them, and the meaning was plain and clear.  Husband and wife can only mean man and woman.  Marriage is originally designed by God for 1 man and 1 woman, as affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:3-9.  In marriage there is sexual activity, following God’s ordination which is meant for the expression of love between husband and wife, and also for procreation as stipulated in God’s command in Genesis 1:28.  In greater detail God governs the sexual act humans may or may not do in Leviticus 18 and 20.  And more specifically about homosexual sex activity in Leviticus 18:22 that says:

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

And in Leviticus 20:13 that says:

13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:24-27 reinforces these two set of passages.  According to the nature of man, as created by God in Genesis 1 and 2, homosexual sex activity is against nature.  And such homosexual sex act is punishable by death as commanded by God in Leviticus 18 and 20.

            Paw cannot or is not warranted or even must not in any sense of healthy hermeneutics bypass the discipline of interpreting the Scripture properly and then come up with a challenge to then conclude that Romans 1:24-27 “do not necessarily equate to the human experience now,” as Paw stated in her speech at Calvin CRC.  Her hermeneutics is deceptive.  And to add to her credence she had to bring in extra biblical support which relied heavily on human fleeting and relative experience in the temporal space and time.  Besides, she was badly mistaken.  Human experience, in essence, did not differ today or two thousand years ago or even four thousand years ago.  Just like what Solomon said in Ecclesiastes 1:9:

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

And he repeated this idea three more times in Ecclesiastes 2:12, 3:15, and 6:10.  Homosexual sex act is not something new.  It is not something that the 21st century man starts experiencing as a novelty.  It has been around ever since the fall.  That is why God gave his law to govern man’s sexual activity.  It’s not new during Paul’s time.  It has been around even before Paul was born.  But God’s word stands forever.  Homosexual tendency and sex act is always and will continue to be a perversion, a sin, contrary to nature – the original design of man.  So, Romans 1:24-27 as is preserving and perpetuating God’s law in Leviticus 18 and 20, and stands on the truth of God’s original design for man, equates to the human experience ever since the fall until the end of time.  God’s principles will remain forever for eternity.  Romans 1:24-27 is way weightier than 1 Corinthians 11:14.  Paw’s treatment of the bible is unbiblical and very humanistic.  She is perpetuating the serpent’s injection of doubt and in a way saying of Romans 1:24-27: “Did God really say, …?  As in the serpent’s mind, as well as in Paw’s, God did not really say what he said.  So they employed the same hermeneutics of deception.  They started by convincing themselves that God did not really say what he said.  Then they attempted to convince others that God did not really say what he said.  First they proclaimed that God is a liar.  And second they deceived themselves into thinking that God actually said something else.  Such is the nature of the hermeneutics of deception.

            Now, the second topic is women in office.  This issue has split churches.  Many theologians scramble to figure out the main issue.  The prevailing argument is that it is not a salvation issue, therefore not too important, and thus differences in opinions must be tolerated.  So many people adopt the schizophrenic approach to allow within one body two contradictory interpretations to live side by side in harmony.  One front says that women must not be allowed, according to the regular ordination, to hold office of leading and teaching in the church.  The other front argues that women must be allowed, according to the regular ordination, to hold office of leading and teaching in the church.  First of all, the prevailing argument doesn’t work right from the start.  It violates the law of non-contradiction.  How can an object both cold and hot at the same time?  If it is cold then it cannot hot.  If it is hot then it cannot be cold.  1+1=2 cannot be true and false at the same time.  Either 1+1=2 is true or false.  It cannot be both true and false.  “1+1=2 is true” cannot coexist with “1+1=2 is false.”  One cannot say that “1+1=2 is true” is true and at the same time say that “1+1=2 is false” is true.  They cannot be both true.  They can be both false.  They can be one is true and the other is false.  But there is no way that the two contradictory statements can be both true.  No.  Right from the bet, the prevailing argument is deceptive.  It is the postmodern philosophy of relativism.  For postmodernism truth is relative.  It is only true in the eye of the one who perceives.  For them there is no absolute truth.  The problem with it is that their statement that truth is relative is in itself must be absolute for their framework to prevail.  But by doing so they contradict themselves.  This is the strangest thing about postmodernism.  What is stranger than that is the people who embrace such philosophy.  They think they can function better by adopting such view, but in reality they are living a schizophrenic life.  But stunningly they call it harmony.

            Now, the argument for women in office suggests that the context of Paul’s regular requirement for elders and deacons to be bound contextually to Paul’s time and not applicable for today’s situation.  Let us take a look at the passages of Scripture that govern the requirements of elders and also deacons.  First, let us look at 1 Timothy 3:2:

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, …

And in verse 12 Paul writes:

12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, …

Similarly, Paul also gave instruction to Titus for the qualification of elders, Titus 1:6:

if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, …

Clearly what is instructed is that ordinarily men are to become elders and deacons, not women.  In addition, Paul argues in 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This passage in particular is not something that one can ignore, because the argument is based upon the truth recorded in the book of Genesis.  This is a theological argument.  This is not a cultural or contextual argument, as some people would like to.  True that the word “woman” is “γυνή” which can be translated into two different meanings: woman or wife.  So we can legitimately based on the Greek grammar read it:

11 Let a wife learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a wife to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the wife was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

This reading gives suggestion that what Paul writes only applies to wives and not to unmarried women including widows.  But even with this reading, this doesn’t mean that then all women may enter into the office of leading and teaching according to the regular ordination.  At least, only unmarried women then can be allowed, according to this argument.  But those who argue for women in office obviously do not stop here.  Because their goal is not just allowing unmarried women, but all women.

            So they proceed to twisting Paul’s elders’ and deacons’ qualifications to speak only within the patriarchal context.  So they argue that the language of the Bible is a non gender inclusive language.  It is a language bound within the context of male superiority.  And for them, since the modern era has brought forth the notion of gender equality, thus the language of the bible must be corrected.  For they thought that their modern culture is far more superior than whatever it is projected in the Bible.  And this is reflected in the newer Bible English translations that change most male reference into gender inclusive language.  And so, to read 1 Timothy 3:2&12 and Titus 1:6 on the requirement of elders and deacons, they argue that in this modern era it must be read to be “a married person of one partner.”  For them no longer “the husband of one wife” has any gender meaning and weight.  It merely suggests monogamy.  And with the dawn of biblical homosexualism, it can then easily be read to even allow practicing homosexuals to hold office of leading and teaching in the church.  So they change even the precise language choice of the Scripture in order to suit their desire.  This deception is dangerous and destructive.

            But they are not satisfied yet, so they move on to bring in more biblical supports.  The way they do it is by listing all the women leaders in the Bible, beginning from Deborah, Esther, and so forth, up until Phoebe whom Paul called in Romans 16:1 as “διάκονον” or a deaconess (if leaning toward “title” interpretation) or a servant (if leaning toward plain interpretation of the word), and even to the “elect lady” whom John called in 2 John 1 as “Ὁ πρεσβύτερος” or the elder.  Listing the women leaders proves to be quite effective to win the argument for women in office.  This argument then renders Paul’s qualification of elders and deacons and his specific instruction for “γυνή” to be bound within the limit of Paul’s cultural context.  But these people forget that the rise of women leaders do not fall under the category of regular or ordinary situation.  In the case of Deborah for example, in Judges 4 God gave order to Barak to take down Sisera.  But Barak was reluctant.  He wanted confirmation that Deborah would go with him to do God’s command.  So in the end the glory of taking down Sisera went to a woman.  Judges 4:6-9 records:

She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?” Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” And she said, “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.”

For sure the glory went to Jael the wife of Heber, because she was the one who killed Sisera, the commander of the army of Jabin king of Canaan.  The name Barak is always overshadowed by Deborah due to his hesitation to follow God’s command.  This shows that when men, who ordinarily are the leaders, are not up to the task given them by God, then God raised women to be in charge.  But that is not the regular way.  That is for extraordinary situation.

            The other extraordinary situation was when Haman plotted to destroy the Jews.  Since the situation was extraordinary and no man could work effectively in the kingdom of Persia, God raised Esther to preserve the life of the Jews.  When the apostles were still in their mellow, unbelieving, and fearful state after the crucifixion of Jesus, God had to use women to carry his message to his apostles.  But such is extraordinary circumstance.  We don’t know why Phoebe became a deaconess (if reading according to the title interpretation) or the “elect lady” became an elder, but we know that it might very well be that they rose to the occasion due to extraordinary circumstance.  One of the principles of hermeneutics is that the clearer scriptural teachings shed light to the unclear ones.  Because it is clear from Scripture that the norm for the “office” of God’s church is for men to take the role as leaders.  We may read from the Law of Moses until the end of the book of Revelation and find that God gives men the prominence in the leadership role.  This doesn’t mean that woman is not equal to man.  They are equal in their worth and value as human beings.

This truth goes back to Genesis 1 and 2.  But the same chapters of Genesis also speak of the leadership role man has over woman, just like Paul argues in 1 Timothy 2.  This theological argument can’t be dismissed or ignored.  Even with an argument that says that gender inequality happened after the fall, which therefore sets the argument that for the redeemed gender inequality does not apply anymore.  Because Paul makes the argument even based on the state before the fall, that Adam is formed first then Eve later.  Now, when Paul instructs for “γυνή” not to be allowed to teach and have authority over “ἀνδρός” or a man or a husband, he in no way speaks of the worth and value of woman or wife.  He speaks of the leadership role, which is ordinarily given to man or husband.  Now, it is also to be understood, in my reflection of this Greek words and the meaning of Paul’s statements here, that it would be awkward for it to mean only wife and husband.  For if the application is only for wife and husband, then an unmarried woman may then teach and have authority over a man.  And let’s hypothetically think about an imaginary situation where the woman fiancée is at the position of an elder and the man fiancée is just a regular member.  So the woman has authority over her fiancée.  Then when the two are married while she is still an elder, what will happen?  The woman must suddenly resign from her ordination as elder just because she is now a married woman?  The second awkward scenario is say there is an unmarried woman elder in the ordinary circumstance.  It then means that all the married men who are not elders are under the authority of an unmarried woman.  How is it then in accordance with Paul’s statement that he would not allow a “γυνή” to teach and exercise authority over “ἀνδρός”?  Does it mean that unmarried women have a greater status than married women?  How can that be?  For Paul also argues that “14 and Adam was not deceived, but the wife was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.  Childbearing, which assumes that the woman must be married in the first place, is the “healing/salvation” as she continues “in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.  Saved from what?  From making the wrong decision like Eve did in Genesis 3.  From bypassing Adam’s authority over her.  So in this case, Paul nullifies the idea that unmarried women are better than married ones.  So, reading that passage to be applicable only to wife and husband would lead to inconsistency and trouble of biblical interpretation.  It is therefore more sound to understand that passage to mean woman and man.

So, if we follow the Hermeneutics of Truth, we cannot easily dismiss that what is written through Paul on the women in office issue is culturally bound to the context 2000 years ago.  Hermeneutics of Deception loves to confuse people on what is relevant and what is not.  According to the Hermeneutics of Truth, we also cannot harmonize two contradictory conclusions and live happily ever after together.  Arguments for and arguments against women in office are contradictory in nature.  They are irreconcilable.  Adopting the “both and” model is succumbing to the postmodern philosophy.  Hermeneutics of Deception feed on this relative truth model.  Clearly, on the topic of women in office, God has made his order that in ordinary circumstance men are to teach and exercise authority over women, so elders are deacons are ordinarily men, not women.  There are extraordinary circumstances which would require extraordinary measure, a time when a Deborah or an Esther or a Phoebe or the elect lady to be raised to the occasion.  But it is not the common regulation.  Therefore, according to the Scriptural interpretation, when the situation cannot be proven to be extraordinary, then women must not be ordained as elders or deacons.  To ordain women as elders and deacons in ordinary time would violate God’s order as taught by his apostle Paul.

Our lengthy discussion here leads us to an inevitable action, that is to rid ourselves of the Hermeneutics of Deception.  It is born out of the Hermeneutics of Unbelief.  It will only lead us to further destruction of our faith and Christian life.  Adopting Hermeneutics of Deception will create a bigger gap between us and the truth and between us and God.  Eve and Adam followed the Hermeneutics of Deception and down they went to the drain.  Expelled from the Garden of Eden living a life of brokenness for the rest of their life.  Hermeneutics of Deception leads us into more deceptions, until we won’t recognize anymore what is truth.  Pontius Pilate when face to face with Jesus, the TRUTH himself, ignorantly and scornfully asked: “What is truth? Ravi Zacharias called Pilate’s conduct as the greatest crime ever committed at that time.  Indeed, that was the greatest scandal a judge may commit.  So get rid of the Hermeneutics of Deception.  We, instead, must embrace the Hermeneutics of Truth, which is born out of the Hermeneutics of Faith.  We can only arrive at truth through the path of faith.  Believing God’s word is the requirement for us to understand the truth.  Then and only then the truth will set us free.  This is what is recorded by John in John 8:32:

31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

Faith is the requirement for truth.  God is the source of truth.  Jesus is the TRUTH himself.  Believing in Jesus, believing in God, abiding in his word, then we will know the truth.  Only through this then we may arrive at the state of true equilibrium.  Only through this then we may be restored to the right balance and harmony.  The process of true re-equilibrium is through the Hermeneutics of Truth.  This is the path of the Hermeneutics of Truth.  We have no use of the Hermeneutics of Deception.
- The Business of Christian Education CII -


[1] Taken on May 4 2015, from: http://www.thebanner.org/news/2014/09/grand-rapids-event-advocates-full-participation-of-practicing-gay-church-members

No comments: