How to read the Bible: Week 3

Good morning, what a blessing it is to be in God’s house! I pray all are well. Today we are continuing our series: How To Read the Bible. This is a teaching series, all about the interpretive journey of hermenuetics. This can be a complicated series, as we are not only learning how to properly interpret God’s word, but we are using a very difficult passage of scripture to walk through the journey of Interpretation. Typically, the only way you would learn this stuff, is if you were attending seminary to get a degree to become a pastor, and even then, you would not take this class until your 3rd year…in fact, it is literally a level 300 course. 100 being for freshman…math 101, English 101…the basic, freshman level stuff, then you go to the sophomore level classes, those are the 200 level, then in your 3rd year you do 300 level classes. If you were attending Evangel University, the class that future pastors take to learn this exact stuff is called BIBA 306 Biblical Interpretation. I tell you that, because if you are struggling to understand, don’t feel bad. I am doing my best to explain, but some of these things are complicated concepts. If you want to learn more about hermenutics, I can recommend the textbook that every student, that is looking for a degree in the field of theology will read.

Now, perhaps you’ve thought to yourself…or maybe you haven't....all of this stuff is great, but how in the world would I find all of this information on my own? Well, that is a great question. On the last week of this series, on the handouts, I will be listing what I feel is the number one place that anyone can go to access a huge library of commentaries, Bible dictionaries, lexicons, Bible Atlases, etc…all for a very, very low price.

So far, I think you all are hanging in with me pretty well…which is good. If I didn’t think you all could handle it, I would have not tried to teach it. So, let’s go ahead and pray.

PRAY!

Quick recap

Hermeneutics: The art or science of biblical interpretation

How we view God, the gospel, and other people is determined by the way we interpret scripture.

Consistency is key to accurate biblical interpretation

Context determines meaning

Hermeneutics: The principles we use in order to perform a proper exegesis or explanation of scripture.

Interpretive Steps:

Step 1: Grasp the text in their town.

What did the text mean to the original audience?

Step 2: Measure the width of the river to cross.

What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?

Step 3: Cross the principlizing bridge.

What is the theological principle in this text?

Step 4: Consult the biblical map.

How does our theological principle fit with the rest of the Bible?

Step 5: Grasp the text in our town.

How should individual Christians today live out the theological principles?

This week, we are going to cover both steps 2 and 3 in our interpretive journey. I’m combining them for the sake of time, as I do not want to drag this on forever. As a result, we won’t be quite as exhaustive as were were in step 1, where we looked at what the passages meant to the biblical audience…but, we will still cover quite a bit. Then, next week we will concentrate on step 4, where we will take the principle that we discover today and compare that to the biblical map…then, for week 5, I will take all of the information we have gathered in steps 1-4 and preach a regular message on the text we’ve been studying…after all, step 5 is how we should apply the universal theological principle we have discovered in the previous steps…So, that’s what the remainder of the series will look like.

Last thing…why didn’t I just skip the middleman and just preach a regular sermon on 1 Timothy 2: 8-15? Well, because it is such a controversial passage and there are so many differing opinions on the matter, I did not want to just tell you how I interpret the passages…I wanted to show you how I come to my conclusions and teach you the proper steps of how to interpret scripture on your own…not that I expect everyone to do that…but you can be confident that I am doing my best to rightly divide God’s word…not that I’m perfect…far from it.....but my heart desires nothing more than to represent God’s word as faithfully as possible..

Let’s go ahead and dive in to our passage this morning, then I will set up step 2 for us.

STEP 2: Step 2: Measure the width of the river to cross.

What are the differences between the biblical audience and us?

Now that we’ve stared our journey and have looked at the biblical audience, now, before we can go any further, we come to a flowing river…well, before we cross that river, we must first determine how deep and wide the river is. In other words, after examining the text and the original audience, we must look at the differences between them and us. As mentioned above, the Christian today is separated from the biblical audience by differences in culture, language, situation, time, and often covenant. These differences form a river that hinders us from moving straight from meaning in their context to meaning in ours. The width of the river, however, varies from passage to passage. The width of the river represents the differences between us and the people to whom the letter was written. Sometimes it is extremely wide, requiring a long, substantial bridge for crossing. Other times, however, it is a narrow creek that we can easily hop over. It is obviously important to know just how wide the river is before we start trying to construct a principlizing bridge across it. For example, in 1 Cor. 8, Paul talks about eating meat sacrificed to idols…in order to understand that and how that applies to us today…that would be considered a pretty wide river. However, in 1 Cor. 6, Paul talks about fleeing sexual immorality…that would be a rather narrow river, as fleeing sexual immorality still speaks to our modern day issues with sin.

In Step 2 we will take a good hard look at the river and determine just how wide it is for 1 Timothy 2: 8-15 . In this step you look for significant differences between our situation today and the situation of the biblical audience.

Let’s go ahead and read our passage:

1 Timothy 2:8–15

“Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

In week 1, we covered the historical and literary (genre) context of what society was like back then. During step 1, we determined what these passages would have meant to the biblical audience…in short…both the women and men of the church would have understood why Paul was giving these instructions…especially given the general lack of education of women, the general disposition of society that day and age, and the fact that Paul was trying to differentiate the young Christian church from the radical cult, made up of women, that worshiped the goddess Artemis. So, with that in mind, now we move on to step 2 where we discuss the differences between the biblical audience and us.

Now, it’s important to note that we are still not interpreting the passages or applying them to our modern day.

Differences in Culture and the church

We briefly discussed what the Roman views of were. Roman society, in general operated within a very, very rigid household code that was first introduced by the famous philosopher Aristotle. This household code worked like this:

Each family was viewed as a microcosm of empire. The husband was viewed as a king or emperor, who ruled on behalf of those under him. The ranking was very clear: The husband was the leader and everyone else…wife, children and slaves were the followers. The way a husband ruled over his house determined his social status. He thus viewed it as better for everyone if he wielded the power on everyone’s behalf no different than how the emperor ruled over Rome.

Household codes by pagan authors, such as Aristotle and Xenophon, were written in order to uphold the rights of the powerful and to keep the less powerful in their place, in order to ensure social stability. These structures of authority had nothing to do with the Bible and even predate the earliest known copies of the Torah.

When we view Paul’s writing, especially as it relates to family, we would have to be blind to not see a similar sentiment. It only makes sense, as Paul was a Roman citizen. This is where we see most of the criticism these days. As our understanding of the secular Roman Household code has increased, people who are so inclined point to scripture as a means of simply maintain the status quo for the powerful people…namely, men and more namely, white men.

Here is the problem with that. Although we do see some similarities, the underlying premise may be the same, but the purpose behind Paul’s instructions were completely different. Paul was not at all concerned about power structures. So, even though critics often point out the similarity between the secular household code of Rome and that of Scripture, it’s not hard to see that Paul had a completely new idea. I’ll give you an example that shows this is true.

Who did Paul say was the ultimate head of every household?

1 Corinthians 11:3

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”

Additionally, Paul also encouraged mutual submission between the husband and the wife.

Ephesians 5:21

“and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”

You see, according to the very strict Roman household code, there was only one unquestioned leader, who ruled those under him. Paul is saying that the ruler of the house is Christ…not the man. Now, I’m not suggesting that Paul did not see or encourage wives to submit to their husbands, he did so very clearly. However, this takes on a different tone with Paul, as he also encouraged mutual submission.

This would have been absolutely unheard of in a Roman home. Not only that, Paul also encouraged the fair treatment of children and slaves. In Rome, the husband could do whatever he saw fit to the rest of his family. That is not what we see with Paul. These were new ideas and they stand in contrast to the Roman code for households. When we read Paul’s instructions through a 21st century lens, we are unable to see all of the nuance behind the various instructions. Unfortunately, I’ve met more than one person who gets angry when you present these details. Why? Because context sometimes shed unwelcome light on our presuppositions or our biases. It’s more comforting to just read the Bible without having to think about the context in which it was written.

So, one of the main differences between us and the Roman culture is: that

we do not live under the Roman household code.

We live under the Biblical model of Christ being the ultimate head of the home. We do not live under the notion that the man of the house can treat his family however he wants. Again, this was something Paul advocated for.

A few other differences are:

Men are not the only ones who hold positions of authority

Women are allowed to learn

It was thought that the more educated a woman, the more pretentious she will become,which would lead to difficulties. Moreover, a high intellect was often seen to be related to sexual promiscuity; which was certainly undesirable.

Women are now allowed to read

Women can receive an education

Women can choose who they want to marry

Fathers could decide for their daughters to divorce their husbands. After the divorce, the daughter would re-enter under the guardianship of her father, just like she was before getting married.

Women can work outside the home

Women can now hold citizenship on their own

It was essential to be recognized as a full citizen of the Roman Empire because, through this status, one could benefit directly from the laws aimed to protect Roman citizens. Because women were citizens through their male relations, they were only able to access the legal benefits of citizenship only with the help of a man; thus making Roman women dependent on the men from their immediate and extended family for all legal matters.

For churches, not including any of the things Paul mentions, like head coverings and such…or ministry positions like pastors, there is one major difference between how the 21st century church operates vs the early church:

In churches, Women and men are no longer segregated

lastly, and also of great importance in this case, the women of Ephesus, both inside and outside of the church were being influenced by a radical cult that worshiped Artemis. Now, some might say that radical feminism has taken its place. While I can understand that, what was going on in Ephesus and Corinth was somewhat irregular, even for that time. If you noticed, I did not include it in the overall cultural differences, for that very reason, but the vast majority of women in today churches are not influenced by such things…so, that would be considered a difference between the modern church and the church in Ephesians. Just like some men are drawn to the more radical elements of society, some women are as well. The difference now is that women are not educated and way more sophisticated. Back then, before they could read or even learn, the ladies were more susceptible to influence.

So, those are just some of the differences between the biblical audience that Paul was addressing vs the typical audience that reads his letters today. The river between the original biblical audience and the 21st century church, in this case, especially given the nature of 1 Tim. 2 is very, very wide indeed.

Now let’s move on and start the next step in our interpretive journey.

STEP 3 & 4 Cross the Principlizing bridge and Consult the biblical map

What is the universal theological principle in this text/Does it line up with the rest of scripture.

OK, step 3 is when we begin to take the information that we have gathered from steps 1 and 2 and try to find the universal principle. Step 3 is often the most challenging step, while step 4, where we take our principle and compare it to the rest of scripture is the one most often skipped. When discovering the universal theological principle we must keep a few things in mind:

The principle should be reflected in the text.

It should be timeless and not tied to a specific situation

It should not be culturally bound

It should correspond to the teaching of the rest of Scripture

It should be relevant to both the biblical and contemporary audience.

When looking through our passages, we must determine what Paul is trying to communicate, not just to the church in Ephesus, but also to you and I today. For this, we will focus on the last couple of verses, as that is what all of the hubbub is about.

If you recall, starting inverse 8, up until vs. 11, are all things that we’ve heard from Paul before, then, starting in verse 12, we see something new.

1 Timothy 2:12–15

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

The main question that we are seeking to answer in this step is:

Are the instructions given in these passages specific to the church in Ephesus or Are these instructions universal theological principles for all time and for all people?

That is the main question that we must seek to answer, in order to come to a conclusion for step 3. Was it Paul’s intention to draw a hard line in the sand, where no matter the circumstance, a woman is never allowed to either teach or have any authority over a man, within a church setting; or, was Paul dealing with a very specific issue in Ephesus which needed some correction?

How do we determine which answer is the most likely. I say most likely because we do not have the benefit of being able to ask Paul what his intention was. Our goal is to come up with the most reasonable conclusion, given all of the information we’ve gained…and the most reasonable in light of the character of Christ, the entire arc of scripture, and the freedom that Christ bought for us on the Cross. Here is something to keep in mind that perhaps you’ve never thought of:

Universal theological principles are always moral in nature, not only that, but they are deal breakers, as far as our salvation is concerned.

These type of principles are things like the ten commandments…the reason they are still considered universal principles is because of they are related to morality. Salvation by grace is a universal theological principle. The bar is set very, very high when it comes to claiming that something is a universal principle. In addition to all of that, if we want to claim that Paul issued a universal command, we must be willing to admit that it is unlike any other universal principle, as it divides the body of Christ, not based on righteousness or fruit, but on an immutable characteristic…namely gender.

All of that to say, and I believe all of that is true…but, that does not take away what Paul said, right? So, despite the fact that I can make an impassioned plea for what I think is right, if it does not provably line up with scripture, then what I said is nothing more than a nice speech. So, let’s take a look and see if indeed we can determine if Paul intended to convey a universal command.

Since we are combining steps 3 and 4, which is a common thing to do, let’s take a look at the other passages, written by Paul, where he is giving instructions to women.

Titus 2:3–9

“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us. Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,”

1 Corinthians 14:34–39

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.”

1 Corinthians 11:2–16

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

For today, we are going to wrap up. I do not want to overload you with too much information in one week. Plus, I realize that this is a heavy topic.

So, with the passages I just read, if we are of the mind where what Paul said in 1st Timothy 2 is a universal command for all times, then we must also take his other instructions to women in the same manner. It’s at this point where, if a person has an inconsistent hermenueitc…or an inconsistent way of interpreting scripture. Over the years, even the most hard core complementarian has softened their stance on about 80% of what I just read, including the parts about a woman having to be silent in the church. The argument is that everything I just read about either covering your head or not covering your head, the part about having to wait until you get home to ask your husband, even though as we see in 1 Cor. 14, that these commands are also rooted in the order of creation. In fact, they have even, somehow, managed to take the word silence and redefine it in such a way that means “minding your own business.” The claim is that the head covering stuff, for both men and women is merely cultural and has nothing to do with us today…the same goes for waiting to get home to ask your husband questions. In all of Paul’s instructions to women, only 1 instruction has been kept as being meant totally literal and a universal principle. I won’t even get into Paul commanding churches to not forbid a persons ability to speak in tongues. Also, notice that in none of these does repeat the instruction he gave to Timothy…nevertheless, these have been deemed either cultural or have been watered down very heavily.

So, then, how are we to understand Paul’s instructions? It’s clear that Paul gives many instructions to these churches…however, we only see certain instructions in Corinthians and Timothy. The one in Titus is dealing with older women and doesn’t mention being silent at all. We are going to leave it here for this week. Next week, we will finish up steps 3 and 4. I will explain what I believe Paul was intending to teach the Church with these passages; also, we will look at the overall arc of scripture and determine if it is reasonable to believe that Paul intended his instructions to be universal.

Give me 5 minutes, then we will be done. As I said, this is a heavy topic that can bring out some pretty heavy emotions. To close today I want to very briefly look at something I read a few moments ago:

1 Cor. 11: 11-12

However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Earlier, when I was talking about the Roman household code, I mentioned that Paul’s design for the family broke from that of Rome in 1 really big way. Instead of a human being the ruler or king, Paul said that Christ now takes that place. Then, in the passage I just read, Paul says that neither man or woman is independent of each other…the man is dependent on the man and the man on the woman....and that all things are dependent on the Lord. Am I arguing like some, that there is absolutely no difference in the role between husband and wife…no, not at all. God designed each differently, according to the other’s needs…God designed it where the only way that life can begin is if a man and woman join together. Just as Jesus taught in His earthly ministry that the law is more about the condition of our hearts, rather than the letter of the law, I believe, that the mutual dependence that Paul is speaking about is a matter of the heart. If Paul intended the biblical model of the home to be the same as the Roman model, he would not have put Christ as the ruler. He would not have encouraged mutual dependence and mutual submission…along side the more traditional roles. Just like that, how we operate as a body of believers is also very similar…Christ as the head.

My challenge for you all this week, whether you are married or not, Christ should still be the ruler of your home. Spend time praying about what that is supposed to look like…meditate on what Paul meant by saying that Christ is the one who now takes the ultimate place of leadership. What does it look like for us, as subordinates to Him to fully submit to his kingship?

Let’s Pray.