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 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:
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:
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:
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:
6 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. 7 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’?” 8 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.” 9 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 -
- 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:
Post a Comment