Psalm 54:4
I hadn’t been water-skiing in 15 years, but when friends offered to take my son-in-law Todd and me out on the lake last summer, how could I say no? It seemed like a good idea until I watched Todd have trouble getting upright on his skis. He had done a lot of skiing, but as he tried to get up on one ski, he kept falling. So when it came to my turn, I didn’t have a lot of confidence.
Fortunately, my friend who is a competitive skier stayed with me in the water and coached me about what to do. She said, “Let the boat pull you up,” and “Be strong!” These seemingly contradictory statements made all the difference. I did both—I trusted the boat to do its job, and I hung on with all my strength. The first time the boat took off, I got up and enjoyed a great ride around the lake.
When life has you down—whether through sorrow that seems too hard to bear or circumstances that make each day a morning-to-night grind—my friend’s advice can help. First, let God pull you up by His power (Ps. 54:1-4). Then, hold on to His hand. Cling to Him and “be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might” (Eph. 6:10).
Trust His power and hold on. He will give you the strength to keep from falling (Isa. 40:31).
James 1:17
At a wedding I attended, the bride’s grandfather quoted from memory a moving selection of Scripture about the relationship of husband and wife. Then a friend of the couple read “Sonnet 116” by William Shakespeare. The minister conducting the ceremony used a phrase from that sonnet to illustrate the kind of love that should characterize a Christian marriage: “Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds.” The poet is saying that true love does not change with circumstances.
The minister noted the many changes this couple would experience during their life together, including health and the inevitable effects of age. Then he challenged them to cultivate the true biblical love that neither falters nor fails in spite of the alterations that would surely come their way.
As I witnessed the joy and excitement of this young couple, a verse came to mind from James: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning” (1:17). God never changes, and neither does His love for us. We are recipients of a perfect love from our heavenly Father, who has loved us “with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3).
We are called to accept His unfailing love, to allow it to shape our lives, and to extend it to others.
The Father and the Son
No one would have been surprised had this saying appeared somewhere in the Gospel of John. The language is characteristically Johannine; the saying has been called "an aerolite from the Johannine heaven" or "a boulder from the Johannine moraine." For all its Johannine appearance, it does not come in the Gospel of John but in the non-Mark material common to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, drawn (it is widely supposed) from the Q collection of sayings of Jesus, which may have been in circulation not long after A.D. 50. The nearest thing to it in the Synoptic Gospels is the utterance of the risen Christ at the end of Matthew's Gospel: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Mt 28:18).
In both Matthew and Luke (and therefore presumably also in the source on which they drew), the saying follows on immediately from words in which Jesus thanks God that things hidden from the wise and understanding have been revealed to "babes"--that is, apparently, to the disciples. The one who has revealed those things is Jesus himself; indeed, he is not only the revealer of truth; he is the Son who reveals the Father. In this context the "all things" that have been delivered to him by the Father would naturally be understood to refer to the content of his teaching or revelation. But the content of this teaching or revelation is not an abstract body of divinity; it is personal, it is God the Father himself. Jesus claims a unique personal knowledge of God, and this personal knowledge he undertakes to impart to others. Unless it is imparted by him, it is inaccessible. He is the one who at his baptism heard the Father acclaim him as his Son, his beloved, his chosen one (Mk 1:11). He enjoys a special relation and fellowship with the Father, but that relation and fellowship is open to those who learn from him. As he calls God "Abba, Father," they may know him and call him by the same name. All the other gifts which the Father has to bestow on his children come with this personal knowledge, which is mediated by Jesus.
Matthew and Luke give the saying two different literary contexts; if we look for a historical context, we might think of some occasion when the disciples showed that they had grasped the heart of his teaching to which the minds of others remained closed, as at Caesarea Philippi.
There is nothing hard in this except to those who cannot accept the claim to uniqueness, the "scandal of particularity," implicit in the gospel. But to those who accept the presuppositions current in a plural society this can be hard enough.
But what of the statement that "no one knows the Son except the Father"? One line of traditional interpretation takes this to mean that the union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Son of God is a mystery known only to the Father. But it is anachronistic to impart later christological teaching into the context of Jesus' ministry. More probably the two clauses "no one knows the Son except the Father" and "no one knows the Father except the Son" constitute a fuller way of saying "no one except the Father and the Son know each other." It has been suggested, indeed, that there is an argument from the general to the particular here--that a saying to the effect that "only a father and a son know each other" (and therefore only the son can reveal the father) is applied to the special relation of Jesus and God: "only the Father and the Son know each other" (and therefore only the Son can reveal the Father). Whatever substance there may be in this suggestion, it is clear that a reciprocity of personal knowledge between the Son of God and his Father is affirmed. As none but the Father knows the Son, so none but the Son knows the Father, but the Son shares this knowledge with those whom he chooses, and in the present context that means his disciples.
There is a fascinating collection of variant readings in the textual transmission of this saying; they bear witness to difficulties which early scribes and editors found in it. The only variation at which we need to look is that between Matthew's wording and Luke's: whereas Matthew says "knows the Son . . . knows the Father," Luke says "knows who the Son is . . . or who the Father is." Luke's wording might appear to weaken the emphasis on direct personal knowledge expressed by Matthew's wording, but this was probably not Luke's intention. If consideration be given to the Semitic construction behind the Greek of the two Gospels, Matthew's wording can claim to be closer to what Jesus actually said.
Habakkuk 2:1
Waiting is hard for me. I want answers now. Postponements perplex me; deferrals daunt me. I’m baffled by God’s delays, wondering why and when. “How long, O Lord?”
The prophet Habakkuk wanted answers as well, but God chose to take His time. “I will stand my watch . . . to see what [God] will say to me,” Habakkuk wrote (2:1). “The vision is yet for an appointed time,” God replied. “Wait for it; because it will surely come” (v.3).
Faith never gives up. It knows that despite appearances, all is well. It can wait without signs or significant indications that God is at work, because it is sure of Him. “Each delay is perfectly fine, for we are within the safe hands of God,” said Madame Guyon (1648–1717).
We too must learn to view each delay as if it were “perfectly fine.” Postponements are reasons to pray rather than grow anxious, impatient, and annoyed. They’re opportunities for God to build those imperishable but hard-to-acquire qualities of humility, patience, serenity, and strength. God never says, “Wait awhile,” unless He is planning to do something in our situation—or in us. He waits to be gracious.
So take heart! If God’s answer tarries, “Wait for it; because it will surely come.”
Bodily Resurrection?
One point on which everyone can agree is that Job expected to "see God," for he made the point three times. Nor did Job expect this visual experience to occur to a disembodied shade or ghost. His references to his skin, flesh and eyes make that abundantly plain. He even used the emphatic pronoun I three times in Job 19:27. It is clear that he expected personally to see God. But when?
Job was willing to stake his reputation on a future vindication of a permanent written record of his claims that he was innocent. Job wanted that record chiseled onto the hardest rock and then filled in with lead to lessen the chance that time or defacers would blot out the text.
One thing was sure, Job "knew that his Redeemer lives." The one who would stand up to defend Job was called his go'el, his "kinsman-redeemer" or "vindicator." This kinsman-redeemer basically functioned as the avenger of the blood of someone unjustly killed (2 Sam 14:11). He had the right to preempt all others in redeeming property left by a kinsman (Ruth 4:4-6). He also recovered stolen items (Num 5:8) or vindicated the rights of the oppressed (Prov 23:10-11). He was one who redeemed, delivered and liberated.
In the Psalms, God was cast into this role of kinsman-redeemer (see Ps 19:14). God was that vindicator or redeemer for Job as well.
But when did Job hope to be cleared by God--before or after death? Apparently, as Job debated with his friends, he progressively lost hope in being cleared in this life (Job 17:1, 11-16). But vindication would come one day. Hence the need for a written testimony of his complaint. Job believed that even if a person were cut down in life just as a tree was, the tree and the person would share the same hope--that a "shoot" would sprout out of the stump (Job 14:14). Even though it might take time (see "after" in Job 19:25-26), he hoped in the end for God's vindication.
In what state would Job be when that took place? Would he have a body or only a spirit, or would he be merely a memory? Job believed he would have a body, for only from inside that body (Job 19:26) and with his own eyes (Job 19:27) would he see God. He made the point that the experience would have a direct impact on his own eyeballs, and not on someone else's eyes. Thus Job was expecting a resurrection of his body! It was this which lay at the heart of his hope in God and in his vindication.
If some complain, as they surely will, that this is too advanced a doctrine for such primitive times (probably patriarchal), I would respond that long before this, Enoch had been bodily translated into heaven (Gen 5:24). The fact that this mortal body could inhabit immortal realms should have settled the abstract question forever. Indeed, the whole economy of Egypt was tied to the expectation that bodily resurrection was not only possible but also probable. That expectation had functioned a full millennium and a half before Abraham went down into Egypt. Thus our modern complaints about bodily resurrections say more about modern problems than about ancient culture.
Psalm 47:2
It's an often-used word, and we hear it in the most unusual contexts. It's the word awesome.
My 9-year-old grandson Josh and I were playing with a radio-controlled racecar set on the living room floor. Several times he would say, "Awesome!"
On another occasion, as my wife and I were leaving a restaurant, the manager, who was standing by the door, asked, "How was everything, folks?" "Fine," I replied. "Awesome!" he said.
These two occasions set me to thinking: While it's fun to play with my grandson and to enjoy a meal at a restaurant, are these experiences really awesome? So I consulted Mr. Webster's unabridged dictionary. The primary definition lists awesome as "deeply reverent," "dreadful," "awful." I remembered the time that I stood on the south rim of the Grand Canyon. That was truly an awesome experience.
Then I thought of a more awe-inspiring reality still. It's knowing the Creator and Sustainer of the entire universe. No wonder the psalmist wrote, “The LORD Most High is awesome” (Ps. 47:2).
The next time we hear the word awesome, may it remind us of our great God, who truly is awesome!
2 Timothy 2:25
Pachyderm pedicures are not a luxury, they're a necessity. According to an article in The Kansas City Star, if elephants in captivity don't get regular foot care, they are prone to infections that can be fatal. But clipping the toenails of an animal that can weigh as much as 6 tons can be risky business. So one man had an idea. He developed an "elephant flipper" that allows keepers to restrain an elephant and safely turn it on its side. The device stands 12 feet high, weighs more than 15 tons, and costs $100,000. Several zoos have purchased this helpful contraption.
Caring for people can also be risky. Paul described what it takes to help those who, in perilous times, have wandered from the path of truth. He offers no ingenious device for helping those who are a danger to themselves and others (2 Tim. 2:23,25). Instead, he reminds us that when it comes to caring for the minds and hearts of others, we can't rely on human ingenuity and muscle. What we really need is the wisdom of God. Without being quarrelsome or arrogant, the Lord's servant must use gentleness and patience (v.24).
A blend of truth and grace in the presence of danger is more than self-protection. It illustrates for others the heart of the One we are urging them to embrace. Use caution and grace when straightening out someone who has strayed.
Psalm 42:8
In his riveting and unsettling book Night, Elie Wiesel describes his boyhood experiences as one of the countless victims of the Holocaust. Ripped from his home and separated from everyone in his family except his father (who would die in the death camps), Wiesel suffered a dark night of the soul such as few will experience. It challenged his views and beliefs about God. His innocence and faith became sacrifices on the altar of man's evil and sin's darkness.
David experienced his own dark night of the soul, which many scholars believe motivated his writing of Psalm 42. Harried and hounded, probably as he was pursued by his rebellious son Absalom (2 Sam. 16–18), David echoed the pain and fear that can be felt in the isolation of night. It's the place where darkness grips us and forces us to consider the anguish of our heart and ask hard questions of God. The psalmist lamented God’s seeming absence, yet in it all he found a night song (v.8) that gave him peace and confidence for the difficulties ahead.
When we struggle in the night, we can be confident that God is at work in the darkness. We can say with the psalmist, “Hope in God; for I shall yet praise Him, the help of my countenance and my God” (v.11).
Train a Child
Readers often assume this verse is a promise given to all godly parents: Raise your children as moral, God-fearing believers, and they will turn out all right in the end. But what about children raised in just such Christian homes who appear to abandon their faith or lapse into immorality?
To answer this extremely important question it is best to start with an analysis of the text itself. The verb translated "train" means to dedicate something or someone for the service of God. The verb is found in Deuteronomy 20:5 and in the parallel passages on the temple dedication in 1 Kings 8:63 and 2 Chronicles 7:5. In its noun form it is the name of the Jewish feast of Hanukkah.
The resulting range of meanings for this act of dedication includes: to prepare a child for service, to dedicate a child to God or to train a child for adulthood. Parents are urged to dedicate and begin training each child as an act of dedication to the living God.
But interpretation problems emerge as soon as we look for an antecedent for the pronoun in the phrase "according to his way," translated above as "in the way he should go." Literally, the phrase is "according to the mouth of," which has led some to suggest "in accordance with the training he received at his `beginning.' "
However, the use of the word mouth for this concept instead of the word beginning would be strange indeed. Or it could be rendered more generally as "after the measure of, conformably to" or "according to his way."
What is the "way"? It could mean the way that the child ought to go according to God's law; the proper way in light of God's revelation. It could also mean the way best fitting the child's own personality and particular traits.
Which is correct? There is no doubt that the first presents the highest standard and more traditional meaning. However, it has the least support from the Hebrew idiom and seems to be a cryptic way of stating what other proverbial expressions would have done much more explicitly.
Therefore we conclude that this enigmatic phrase means that instruction ought to be conformed to the nature of the youth. It ought to regulate itself according to the stage of life, evidence of God's unique calling of the child and the manner of life for which God is singling out that child. This does not give the child carte blanche to pick and choose what he or she wishes to learn. It does, however, recognize that the training children receive must be as unique as the number of children God has given to us.
The result will be, as the second line of the proverb underscores, that even "when he gets old he will not turn from it." The "from it" refers to the training of youth which was conformed to God's work in the child's very nature and being. This training was so imbued, inbred and accustomed that it became almost second nature.
As with many other moral proverbs of this sort, the question often comes from a distraught parent: "Does this proverb have any exceptions to it, or will it always work out that if we train our children as this verse advises, we can be sure they won't turn from the Lord?"
No, this verse is no more an ironclad guarantee than is any other proverb. Like many other universal or indefinite moral prescriptions (proverbs), it tells us only what generally takes place, without implying there are no exceptions to the rule. The statement is called a proverb, not a promise. Many godly parents have raised their children in ways that were genuinely considerate of the children's own individuality and the high calling of God, yet the children have become rebellious and wicked.
There is, however, the general principle which sets the standard for the majority. This principle urges parents to give special and detailed care in the awesome task of rearing children so that the children may continue in that path long after the lessons have ceased.
Be doers of the Word, and not hearers only. —James 1:22
When Megan was in third grade, she kept coming home from school without her winter gloves. It drove her mom crazy because she had to keep buying new ones, which the family couldn't afford. One day Mom got angry and said, “Megan, you've got to be more responsible. This can't go on!”
Megan began to cry. Through her tears she told her mom that as long as she kept getting new gloves, she could give hers away to kids who didn't have any.
Now at age 18, Megan's hobbies include volunteering in the community and mentoring inner-city kids. Referring to her desire to help people, she said that it “felt like that was the kind of thing I was supposed to be doing.”
As Christians, we too are to have a heart of giving. James tells us to listen to the Word and do what it says (1:22-23). But he doesn't stop with just telling us to obey. He gives us specific instructions about what we must do. Then he gives us a practical way we can give of ourselves: “Visit orphans and widows in their trouble” (v.27).
Ask God for a heart like Megan's. Out of love for God, obey what He tells you to do. It's what we're "supposed to be doing." You can give without loving, but you can't love without giving.
Remain in Slavery?
Well, the difficulty with which 1 Corinthians 7:17 and 20 present us arises primarily from the surrounding verses in the paragraph (1 Cor 7:17-24). In 1 Corinthians 7:21 the situation chosen as an illustration is that of slavery. In 1 Corinthians 7:17 the various situations in which persons found themselves when they were called to faith in Christ are understood as assigned or apportioned by the Lord, and they are told to remain in those situations. That instruction is given further weight in the sentence "This is the rule I lay down in all the churches" (1 Cor 7:17).
In light of these statements, Paul has often been charged not only with failure to condemn the evil system of slavery, but indeed with abetting the status quo. These charges can be demonstrated to be invalid when the paragraph which contains this text is seen within the total context of 1 Corinthians 7 and in light of the historical situation as Paul perceived it.
In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul is dealing with questions about marriage, the appropriate place for sexual expression, the issue of divorce and remarriage, all in response to a pervasive view in the church which rejected or demeaned the physical dimension of male-female relationships. In the immediately preceding paragraph (1 Cor 7:12-16), Paul's counsel to believers who are married to unbelievers is twofold: (1) If the unbelieving partner is willing to remain in the marriage, the believer should not divorce (and thus reject) the unbelieving partner; for that person's willingness to live with the believer may open him or her to the sanctifying power of God's grace through the believing partner (1 Cor 7:12-14). (2) If the unbeliever does not want to remain in the union, he or she should be released from the marriage. Though the partner may be sanctified through the life and witness of the believer, there is no certainty, especially when the unbeliever desires separation (1 Cor 7:15-16).
Having recognized the possibility, and perhaps desirability, of this exception to his general counsel against divorce, Paul reaffirms what he considers to be the norm ("the rule I lay down in all the churches"): that one should remain in the life situation the Lord has assigned and in which one has been called to faith (1 Cor 7:17). In light of exceptions to general norms throughout this chapter, it is probably unwise to take the phrase "the place in life that the Lord has assigned" too literally and legalistically, as if each person's social or economic or marital status had been predetermined by God. Rather, Paul's view seems to be similar to the one Jesus takes with regard to the situation of the blind man in John 9. His disciples inquire after causes: Is the man blind because he sinned or because his parents sinned (Jn 9:2)? Jesus' response is essentially that the man's blindness is, within the overall purposes of God, an occasion for the work of God to be displayed (Jn 9:3).
For Paul, the life situations in which persons are encountered by God's grace and come to faith are situations which, in God's providence, can be transformed and through which the gospel can influence others (such as unbelieving partners).
The principle "remain in the situation" is now given broader application to human realities and situations beyond marriage. The one addressed first is that of Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 7:18-19). The outward circumstances, Paul argues, are of little or no significance ("Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing"). They neither add to nor detract from one's calling into a relationship with God, and therefore one's status as Jew or Gentile should not be altered. (It should be noted here that under the pressure of Hellenization, some Jews in the Greek world sought to undo their circumcision [1 Maccabees 1:15]. And we know from both Acts and Galatians that Jewish Christians called for the circumcision of Gentile Christians.)
Once again, it is clear that the general norm, "remain in the situation," is not an absolute law. Thus we read in Acts 16:3 that Paul, in light of missionary needs and strategy, had Timothy circumcised even though Timothy was already a believer. Paul's practice in this case would be a direct violation of the rule which he laid down for all the churches (1 Cor 7:17-18), but only if that rule had been intended as an absolute.
Paul now repeats the rule "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him" (1 Cor 7:20), and applies it to yet another situation, namely, that of the slave. Paul does not simply grab a hypothetical situation, for the early church drew a significant number of persons from the lower strata of society (see 1 Cor 1:26-27). So Paul addresses individuals in the congregation who were of the large class of slaves existing throughout the ancient world: "Were you a slave when you were called?" (that is, when you became a Christian). The next words, "Do not let it trouble you," affirm that the authenticity of the person's new life and new status as the Lord's "freedman" (1 Cor 7:21-22) cannot be demeaned and devalued by external circumstances such as social status.
As in the previous applications of the norm ("remain in the situation"), Paul immediately allows for a breaking of the norm; indeed, he seems to encourage it: "although if you can gain your freedom, do so" (1 Cor 7:21; note the RSV rendering: "avail yourself of the opportunity"). As footnotes in some contemporary translations indicate (TEV, RSV), it is possible to translate the Greek of verse 21 as "make use of your present condition instead," meaning that the slave should not take advantage of this opportunity, but rather live as a transformed person within the context of continuing slavery. Some scholars support this rendering, since it would clearly illustrate the norm laid down in the previous verse. However, we have already noted that Paul provides contingencies for much of his instruction in chapter 7, and there is no good reason to doubt that Paul supported the various means for emancipation of individual slaves that were available in the Greco-Roman world.
And yet, Paul's emphasis in the entire chapter, as in the present passage, is his conviction that the most critical issue in human life and relations and institutions is the transformation of persons' lives by God's calling. External circumstances can neither take away from, nor add to, this reality. The instruction to remain in the situation in which one is called to faith (which Paul repeats several more times, in 1 Cor 7:24, 26, 40, and for which he also grants contingencies, in 1 Cor 7:28, 36, 38) can be understood as a missiological principle. To remain in the various situations addressed by Paul provides opportunity for unhindered devotion and service to the Lord (1 Cor 7:32-35), or transforming witness toward an unbelieving marriage partner (1 Cor 7:12-16), or a new way of being present in the context of slavery as one who is free in Christ (1 Cor 7:22-23).
The transforming possibilities of this latter situation are hinted at elsewhere in Paul's writings. Masters who have become believers are called on to deal with their slaves in kindness and to remember that the Master who is over them both sees both as equals (Eph 6:9). The seeds of the liberating gospel are gently sown into the tough soil of slavery. They bore fruit in the lives of Onesimus, the runaway slave, and Philemon, his master. The slave returns to the master, no longer slave but "brother in the Lord" (Philem 15-16).
Note too that the three relational spheres which Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7--male-female, Jew-Gentile (Greek), slave-free--are brought together in that high-water mark of Paul's understanding of the transforming reality of being in Christ: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). As a rabbi, Paul had given thanks daily, as part of the eighteen benedictions to God, that he had not been born as a Gentile, a slave or a woman. It was his experience of Christ that led him to recognize that these distinctions of superior and inferior were abolished in the new order of things inaugurated in Christ. Surely in this vision the seeds were sown for the ultimate destruction of slavery and all other forms of bondage.
Finally, Paul's understanding of the historical situation in which he and the church found themselves provides another key for his instruction that believers should remain where they are. He, together with most other Christians, was convinced that the eschaton, the climax of God's redemptive intervention, was very near. Statements in 1 Cor 7:26 ("because of the present crisis") and 1 Cor 7:29 ("the time is short") underline that conviction. This belief created a tremendous missionary urgency. The good news had to get out so that as many as possible could yet be saved (see 1 Cor 10:33). This expectation of the imminent end was surely an important factor for the Pauline norm "remain where you are."
Anger Management
Orlando, Florida, is home to several large theme parks that draw thousands of vacationing families each year. But last year, a health magazine labeled Orlando as the “Angriest City in America." They based that title on things like violent assaults, road rage, and the percentage of men who had high blood pressure.
King Nebuchadnezzar, “in rage and fury," commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego be brought before him because they would not worship the gold image he had set up (Dan. 3:13). When he didn't get his way, he was “full of fury, and the expression on his face changed” toward the three men (v.19).
All of us struggle with anger. But anger is not always wrong. “Be angry, and do not sin” (Eph. 4:26). We should get angry when we see injustice in our world. But most often our anger, like Nebuchadnezzar's, comes from a far less noble place—our own self-interest and pride. If our temper gets the best of us, we can lose control of what we say and do. Paul challenged us, “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself” (Phil. 2:3).
When we begin to put others first, we may find we've taken a first step toward managing our anger. When a person's temper gets the best of him, it often reveals the worst of him.
Who Are the Spirits in Prison?
Hi, well the passage is speaking to Christians faced with the possibility of persecution. Peter is giving the example of Christ, who was also persecuted. This fact is important, for the Christians he is addressing are being encouraged to identify with the experience of Christ. Jesus also suffered. In fact, he was "put to death in the body" (NIV) or "in the flesh" (RSV), but "made alive by the Spirit" or "in the spirit." While admittedly difficult, it appears that two different spheres of life are being described. In the human sphere of life ("the flesh"--the NIV translation is unfortunate in that it does not make this clear) Jesus was put to death. As far as the world was concerned, he was dead forever, executed as a criminal. Yet the church knew that on Easter he came alive, not in the merely human sphere, but in the spiritual sphere. So his body was raised, but it was not raised as only a natural human body (as was Lazarus's body), but as an immortal body. Therefore we find stories about the risen Christ being able to do things that he could not do before his death, such as appear and disappear and enter locked rooms.
It was in this spiritual sphere of life (a better translation than the NIV's "through whom" would be the NRSV's "in which") that Jesus went to the "spirits in prison." We learn in the next verse that these spirits "disobeyed in the days of Noah." Who, then, could they be? There are two possibilities. In the days of Noah the earth was full of violence because people were very wicked (see Gen 6:3-6, 11). These people all died in the flood. Could they be these spirits? When we look at the use of the term spirit in the New Testament, we notice that it is almost never used of dead people. When it is used of dead people, it is always qualified in some way to make it clear that it is people who are being written about (for example, Heb 12:23). Normally dead human beings are referred to as "souls." Since there is nothing in this passage to make it clear that it is human beings who are being written about, it is unlikely that these are dead people.
The other possibility is that they are the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2, or perhaps their offspring. The term "sons of God" refers to spiritual beings from the divine council. The New Testament refers to them as angels who "abandoned their own home" (Jude 6) or who "sinned" (2 Pet 2:4). Here, then, we have truly rebellious, disobedient spirits. Furthermore, there is a long tradition, both in the New Testament and in other Jewish writings, that these fallen angels were kept in a prison (see 1 Enoch 10-16; 21 for a discussion of the punishment of these "Watchers," as he calls them). This, then, appears to be the mostly likely identification of these "spirits in prison." Not only are we talking about beings usually referred to as "spirits," but we are also talking about beings who were known to Jews as being in a "prison."
Was Jesus proclaiming the gospel to these "spirits"? Was he giving them a "second chance"? The term for "preach" is normally used in the New Testament for preaching the gospel, but it can also mean to "announce" or "proclaim" (Lk 12:3; Rom 2:21; Rev 5:2). Therefore it does not necessarily mean to proclaim the gospel. Are there other passages in Jewish or Christian literature in which something is proclaimed or preached to these spirits? Again we turn back to 1 Enoch (which was known to the early church, for it is cited in Jude) and discover that Enoch proclaims to these spirits their doom.
Does such an interpretation fit this passage? The passage ends on a note of triumph with the submission of all "angels, authorities and powers" to the exalted Jesus. While the New Testament does not speak anywhere of preaching the gospel to spirits, it does speak of the victory of Christ over the spiritual world (for example, 2 Cor 2:14; Eph 6:11-12; Col 2:15; Rev 12:7-11). Thus a reference in this passage to the proclamation of that victory fits right in with the tone of both the passage and the New Testament in general.
We can now summarize what the passage is saying. The Christians in Asia Minor were facing persecution and possible martyrdom. Peter calls them to look at the example of Jesus. He was, from the human point of view, killed. Yet, in fact, he rose, not simply to renewed natural life, but to transformed life in the spiritual world, and in that world he proclaimed his victory to the fallen angels who were disobedient in Noah's day. This may have been during his ascension, for while this text does not tell us where this prison was, some Jews located it in the "second heaven" and thus on the way between earth and the heaven where God dwells. Whatever the case, in the end of this section in 1 Peter Christ is in heaven with all spiritual beings subject to him.
Peter's point is that Christians through baptism have identified with Christ and so will be saved in the final judgment and share his triumph. They too will live with Christ in exaltation, no matter how human beings persecute or condemn them. As for their persecutors, unless they repent, what hope do they have, living as they do in the purely human sphere? Christ triumphed over his foes and proclaimed his victory. The Christians in Asia Minor (and today) will do the same if they remain faithful to this Christ.
A God Who Relents?
So sharp is the contrast between what God had said would happen to Nineveh and what actually took place that we are left to wonder whether divine words are always fulfilled or whether God is presented in the Old Testament as a rather fickle person. Even though from the start Jonah had suspected, because of God's gracious character, that he would not carry out his threats against Nineveh, we are still left in doubt over God's ability to predict the future or his constancy of character.
Some have attempted to rescue the situation by distinguishing between God's secret will and his declared will. The former, so this line of argumentation goes, is his real intention, which remains fixed and unchangeable, while the latter varies depending on conditions. But this representation of God's will does not accord with Scripture elsewhere, for it still conveys the appearance of insincerity on the part of God--as if God were deceptive, representing his thoughts differently from what they really were, and representing future events differently from what he knew would eventually happen!
The language of this verse, which represents our Lord as "relent[ing]" or "repent[ing]," is undoubtedly an anthropomorphism--a depiction of God in human terms. Certainly the infinite, eternal God can be known to us only through human imagery, and thus he is represented as thinking and acting in a human manner. Without anthropomorphisms, we could never speak positively of God; to try would be to entangle ourselves in deism, which makes God so transcendent that he is never identified with us in our world. When we rush to get rid of the human forms in our talk about God, we sink into meaningless blandness.
Nevertheless, when it comes to the eternal principles of righteousness, Scripture is just as insistent about the impossibility of change in God. Consider, for example, the declaration made to Balaam: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind" (Num 23:19). Similarly in 1 Samuel 15:29 Samuel informs Saul, "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
The descriptions of God that have to do with his inherent and immutable righteousness allow no room for change in the character of deity or in his external administrations. His righteousness calls for consistency and unchangeableness.
But such representations argue nothing against the possibility, or even the moral necessity, of a change in God's carrying out of his declarations in cases where the people against whom the judgment was issued have changed, so that the grounds for the threatened judgment have disappeared. For God not to change in such cases would go against his essential quality of justice and his responsiveness to any change that he had planned to bring about.
If this is the case, some wonder why the announcement made by Jonah took such an absolute form: "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned" (Jon 3:4). Why not plainly include "if the people do not repent"?
This objection assumes that the form given to the message was not the best suited to elicit the desired result. Actually, as the record shows, this message indeed awakened the proper response, and so the people were spared. As delivered, it was a proper account of how God felt and the danger to which Nineveh was exposed.
Of course God's warnings always carried with them the reverse side of the coin, the promises. This element of alternatives within one prophecy can be seen best in Jeremiah 18:9-11 and Ezekiel 18:24 (see, too, Rom 11:22). The good things promised in these prophecies cannot be attributed to any works righteousness or to any merited favor, but are always found in connection with the principles of holiness and obedience to God's Word.
Does this imply that all the predictions from the prophets' lips were operating under this same rule, that nothing was absolute or certain in the revealed predictive realm? Far from it! There are portions that may be regarded in the strictest sense as absolute, because their fulfillment depended on nothing but the faithfulness and power of God. Such were the declarations of Daniel about the four successive world empires. All the statements about the appearance of Christ, in his first and second advents, are included here, along with predictions about the progress of the kingdom of God and promises connected with our salvation.
But when the prophecy depicts judgment or promises good things to come, the prophetic word is not the first and determining element; it is secondary and dependent on the spiritual response of those to whom the words are delivered.
God changed, but his character and nature as the altogether true and righteous One has never changed. As a living person, he changed only in response to a required change in the Ninevites to whom Jonah's word was delivered. Thus he exhibits no fickleness or instability. He remains the unchanging God who will withdraw his threatened judgment as soon as the human responses justify his doing so.
My Heart Condemns Me
Do you sometimes feel guilty and unworthy because of something you did years ago? You have confessed it and asked God to forgive you, but the memory of it still haunts you.
I empathize with you. Feelings of guilt still sweep over me when I recall how I failed an elderly, childless woman while I was training for the ministry. She was a regular customer in a store where I worked part-time. After a while, I became a friend and spiritual counselor to her and her husband. I even conducted his funeral.
When I moved to a nearby town to become a student pastor, I lost touch with her. I intended to contact her but kept procrastinating. One day I saw her obituary notice. I was overwhelmed with grief and confessed my sin to God.
More than 30 years after Paul’s conversion, he referred to the time when he had been “a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man” (1 Tim. 1:13). He even called himself the “chief” of sinners (v.15). Yet he repeatedly exulted in the certainty that he was a forgiven sinner.
God, who is greater than our heart and knows us thoroughly (1 John 3:20), has forgiven us for the sins we’ve confessed (1:9). We can believe Him! Confession to God always brings His cleansing.
Is it possible to see God?
Hmmm, is it possible to see God? Well, on the one hand some texts indicate that God was seen. Genesis 32:30 says, "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, `It is because I saw God face to face.' " Exodus 24:9-10 likewise teaches that "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel . . . saw the God of Israel." Exodus 33:11 strikes another intimate note: "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." Judges 13:22 states that Manoah said to his wife, "We are doomed to die! . . . We have seen God!" Again, in Isaiah 6:1, "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted." Finally, Daniel 7:9 affirms, "As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire." All these texts appear to claim that at times God can be seen and was seen.
However, there are other passages that appear to argue that it is impossible to see God. Foremost among them is Exodus 33:20. Likewise, Deuteronomy 4:15 warns, "You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire." Even more to the point is John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." And again in John 5:37, "You have never heard his voice nor seen his form." Indeed, God is described in 1 Timothy 1:17 as "the King eternal, immortal, invisible," the one "whom no one has seen or can see" (1 Tim 6:16).
To resolve this dilemma, note first that some of these sightings are visions, such as the cases of Isaiah and Daniel. In others the terms for sight stress the directness of access. For instance, in Exodus 24:9-11, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders eat and drink in God's presence, but they describe only his feet and what he stood on. They were apparently not permitted to look on God's face. In another instance, Jacob's access to God is described as being "face to face," similar to Moses' later friendship with God. (The difference may arise from the way the term face of God was used in various contexts. In one, it expressed familiarity beyond previous visions or divine appearances; in others, it referred to knowledge of God which exceeds our abilities and hopes.) Others, such as Manoah and his wife, experienced a christophany or a theophany, which means an appearance of Christ or God through a vision or a preincarnate appearance.
What Moses requests in Exodus 33:18, "Now show me your glory," was more than the Lord would grant for Moses' own good. Even so, God allowed his "goodness" to pass in front of Moses and proclaimed his "name" in Moses' presence.
Thus, instead of showing Moses his person or describing his appearance, the Lord gave Moses a description of who he is. The "name" of God included his nature, character (Ps 20:1; Lk 24:47; Jn 1:12), doctrine (Ps 22:22; Jn 17:6, 26) and standards for living righteously (Mic 4:5). Romans 9:15 quotes Exodus 33:19 and applies it to God's sovereignty.
After God proclaims his name and sovereignty, he promises Moses a look at certain of his divine aspects. What these aspects were is still debated--needlessly, when one considers the range of meaning for the word back or the context in which it is used.
God placed Moses in a cleft in the rock, apparently a cavelike crevice, and he then caused his glory to pass by. The glory of God refers first and foremost to the sheer weight of the reality of his presence. The presence of God would come near Moses in spatial terms.
But Moses would not be able to endure the spectacular purity, luminosity and reality of staring at the raw glory of God himself. Instead, God would protect Moses from accidental (and apparently fatal) sight of that glory. Therefore, in a striking anthropomorphism (a description of the reality of God in terms or analogies understandable to mortals), God would protect Moses from the full effects of looking directly at the glory of God by placing his hand over Moses' face until all his glory had passed by.
That this is a figure of speech is clear from the double effect of God passing by while simultaneously protecting Moses with the divine "hand." Only after his glory, or presence, had passed by would God remove his gracious, protecting "hand." Then Moses would view what God had permitted.
But what was left for Moses to see? The translators say God's "back." But since God is spirit (Is 31:3; Jn 4:24) and formless, what would this refer to? The word back can as easily be rendered the "aftereffects" of the glory that had passed by.
This would fit the context as well as the range of meanings for the Hebrew word used. Moses did not see the glory of God directly, but once it had gone past, God did allow him to view the results, the afterglow, that his presence had produced.
Who Is the Israel of God?
Galatians 6:16 is part of Paul's benediction with which he closes the letter. Who is included among "the Israel of God"? What is "this rule"? The answer to the last question emerges quite naturally from the context. Based on differing understandings of both the structure of the sentence and Paul's terminology, opinions vary widely concerning the answer to the first.
Let us begin with the context. Paul has argued throughout this letter that God's way of salvation consists of his grace, offered in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through which persons are freed from the bondage of sin and legalistic religion. This redemptive work of God in Christ is appropriated in the response and life of faith. That thesis is worked out over against what can be called a Judaizing faction among the Galatian Christians who believed and taught that right standing before God (that is, justification) is achieved, for Jews and Gentiles alike, only through adherence to the ritual of circumcision (and other parts of the ceremonial-ritual law).
This discussion is brought to a conclusion in the verses immediately preceding our saying (Gal 6:12-15). Those who insist on circumcision (which for Paul is here shorthand for religion under the law) are really seeking to establish an external measuring stick for human achievement before God on the basis of which one can boast (Gal 6:12-13). But, counters Paul, the only ground for "boasting" is outside us, namely, the cross of Christ (Gal 6:14).
In such a case, boasting really becomes the praise of God for his unspeakable gift! That leads Paul to the sum of the matter: "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation" (Gal 6:15). That is, in the new creation inaugurated in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal 3:28; see also 2 Cor 5:17). Neither the practice of external ritual or ceremony nor its absence is a basis for redemptive relationship with God. The only basis is the new creature, established by grace and through faith. That is the "rule" (or principle) to which Paul refers in this saying.
An understanding of the structure of the sentence, as well as the unique term "the Israel of God," is our second order of business. Notice first that the sentence punctuations in our English version, as well as in the Greek texts behind them, are the work of interpretation. Thus there are often a number of ways in which the text can be punctuated. And how one punctuates can determine the meaning or nuances of a text. In Galatians 6:16 there are basically two options, and slight variations within each of these:
1. The text used in this book (NIV), as well as most other modern English versions, places the essential comma between two sentence parts: one contains the words "peace" and "mercy," the other contains the term "the Israel of God." This reading, based on the punctuation of the commonly accepted Greek text, can be understood in at least two ways: (a) The benediction "peace and mercy" is pronounced on one group. "All who follow this rule," in part one of the sentence, are identified as "the Israel of God" in the second part of the sentence. Such a meaning is implied in the NIV reading of "even to the Israel of God," and the RSV's "upon the Israel of God." (b) The benediction is pronounced on two groups, those "who follow this rule" and the Israel of God. However, the term "Israel of God" is seen as a comprehensive term, including those in Galatia "who follow this rule." Among modern versions, the TEV ("may peace and mercy be with them--with them and with all of God's people") and NEB ("and upon the whole Israel of God") support this understanding of the text.
2. Some commentators punctuate the Greek text differently. It is grammatically possible to place the decisive comma so that the terms "peace" and "mercy" are separated as belonging to two distinct parts of the sentence. In that case it would read: "Peace to all who follow this rule, as well as [or, `and'] mercy upon the Israel of God." On this reading, the benediction is divided and addresses two very distinct groups. "Peace" is pronounced upon believers in Christ ("those who follow this rule"); "mercy" is pronounced upon Israelites who are not yet, but may become, participants in the redeemed community of God's people.
The first option assumes that the term "Israel of God" is used by Paul for all those who are "in Christ," whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Since Paul uses the term only here, and it is found nowhere else in the entire New Testament, the use of it as synonymous with "Christian" must be derived from the broader Pauline context.
As in Galatians, so in Romans Paul argues that righteousness (right standing before God) comes by faith, not by works of the law. In Romans 4 he shows that way to have been God's way from the start. Proof is given in the example of Abraham, who believed God and thus came into right relationship with him before the external sign of circumcision was given (Rom 4:9-11). From this Paul draws the conclusion that Abraham "is the father of all who believe," both the uncircumcised (that is, Gentile believers, Rom 4:11) and the circumcised (that is, Jewish believers, Rom 4:12). Since Abraham (the father of historical Israel) is also the father of all who believe, the designation of this company as the "Israel of God" would surely be appropriate (see also Rom 9:6-8).
Further support for such a correlation comes from Philippians, where Paul pointedly calls all those who put their faith in Christ Jesus "the circumcision," in contrast to those "who put [their] confidence in the flesh" (Phil 3:3), that is, who depend on their circumcision (Phil 3:4-6). In Galatians, too, "those who believe" are called "children of Abraham" (Gal 3:7), including Gentiles who respond in faith (Gal 3:8). This strand in Paul's thought is brought to a focal point in Galatians 3:26-29. Addressing the company of believers, consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers, Paul says to them, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). This designation is grounded in the Old Testament, where Israelites are called "sons of the living God" (Hos 1:10) or, collectively, "Son [of God]" (Hos 11:1). Here emerges the equation: Israel son/sons of God believers in Christ. Paul concludes the thought by affirming that those who are in Christ, both Jew and Gentile, are Abraham's offspring (Gal 3:27-29).
It would be difficult to deny that the designation of the Christian fellowship as "Israel of God" could have emerged out of Paul's thought-development. Thus there is a high degree of probability in this line of interpretation. Yet the second option outlined--which assigns to the term "Israel of God" a more limited scope--has merit and should be given serious consideration.
In addition to seeing Abraham as "the father of all who believe" (Rom 4:11), Paul distinguished two groups within historic Israel. In Romans 2:28-29, he argues that there are two kinds of Jews: those who meet only the external requirements (circumcision and physical descent) and those who, in addition, are authentic Jews inwardly, whose circumcision is not only external but also of the heart, worked "by the Spirit." To this idea of a "true" Israel within the historical, physical Israel may be assigned Paul's concept of the "remnant," which he explores in Romans 11. By God's grace, there are those within Israel who, like Paul, will yet respond in faith to God's work in Christ (Rom 11:1, 5). Is it possible, in light of this distinction between the whole people and the remnant, that Paul coined the term "Israel of God" to distinguish the remnant from simply "Israel"? If so, this text would receive a unique meaning. Paul's benediction of "peace" would be addressing "those who follow the rule," that is, those who already belong to Christ. The benediction of "mercy" would be addressed to the faithful remnant within Israel, all those who had not yet grasped God's revelation in Jesus the Christ, but who by God's mercy would yet come to faith.
A final support for such an interpretation comes from the fact that the normal Pauline sequence in benediction and greetings is "grace and peace" (or "mercy and peace"), while here it is "peace and mercy." Since, according to Paul, God's mercy is that which leads to the condition of peace (with God, self and others), logical consistency would assign "peace" to those who are already in Christ, and "mercy" to those who are "not yet." That is plausible, with the reservation that greetings and benedictions are not always or necessarily logical formulations.
Whichever interpretation is accepted, one fact is clear; namely, Paul's overall view saw the church, the fellowship of God's people, as a new covenant community in which Jew and Greek, Israelite and Gentile, become one new peo- ple. And this people is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham at the beginning of redemptive history: "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:3; Gal 3:29).
Is faith a work?
Our salvation depends solely upon Jesus Christ. He is our substitute, taking sin’s penalty (2 Corinthians 5:21); He is our Savior from sin (John 1:29); He is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). The work necessary to provide salvation was fully accomplished by Jesus Himself, who lived a perfect life, took God’s judgment for sin, and rose again from the dead (Hebrews 10:12).
The Bible is quite clear that our own works do not help merit salvation. “Not by works of righteousness which we have done” (Titus 3:5). “Not of works” (Ephesians 2:9). “There is none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10). This means that offering sacrifices, keeping the commandments, going to church, being baptized, and other good deeds are incapable of saving anyone. No matter how “good” we are, we can never measure up to God’s standard of holiness (Romans 3:23; Matthew 19:17; Isaiah 64:6).
The Bible is just as clear that salvation is conditional; God does not save everyone. The one condition for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ. Nearly 200 times in the New Testament, faith (or belief) is declared to be the sole condition for salvation (John 1:12; Acts 16:31).
One day, some people asked Jesus what they could do to please God: “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” Jesus immediately points them to faith: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent” (John 6:28-29). So, the question is about God’s requirements (plural), and Jesus’ answer is, “God’s requirement (singular) is that you BELIEVE Me.”
Grace is God’s giving us something we cannot earn or deserve. According to Romans 11:6, “work” of any kind destroys grace—the idea is that a worker earns payment, while the recipient of grace simply receives it, unearned. Since salvation is all of grace, it cannot be earned. Faith, therefore, is a non-work. Faith cannot truly be considered a “work,” or else it would destroy grace. (See also Romans 4—Abraham’s salvation was dependent on faith in God, as opposed to any work he performed.)
Suppose a unknown benefactor—someone with whom I had no previous dealings whatsoever—sent me a check for $1,000,000. The money is mine if I want it, but I still must endorse the check. In no way can signing my name be considered earning the million dollars—the endorsement is a non-work. I can never boast about becoming a millionaire through sheer effort or my own business savvy. No, the million dollars was simply a gift, and signing my name was the only way to receive it. Similarly, exercising faith is only the way to receive the generous gift of God, and faith cannot be considered a work worthy of the gift.
True faith cannot be considered a work because true faith involves a cessation of our works in the flesh. True faith has as its object Jesus and His work on our behalf. See Matthew 11:28-29 and Hebrews 4:10.
To take this a step further, true faith cannot be considered a work because even faith is a gift from God, not something we produce on our own. “For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that [faith] not of yourselves: it [faith] is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). “No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him” (John 6:44). Praise the Lord for His power to save and for His grace to make salvation a reality!
God Has Bound All to Disobedience?
If God has bound all human beings to disobedience (or, as the RSV translates, "consigned all men to disobedience"), where does human responsibility lie? How can God hold us responsible for disobedience when he caused it? The text seems clearly to indicate that the disobedience of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 11:30-31) is in some sense the activity of God so that his mercy can be demonstrated. An analogy will highlight the "hardness" of this text. In order to demonstrate my heroic nature, I push a nonswimmer into a swift current. As he is about to drown, I jump in and save him. Is such a view of God's ways a valid understanding of Paul's words?
An answer to this problem depends largely on the meaning of the Greek word rendered "bound over to disobedience" and our understanding of Paul's general view of God's relation to human sinfulness or disobedience.
That the Greek word used by Paul is open to a range of meanings and nuances is clear from the following list of a representative sample of English versions:
NIV: has bound over to disobedience
ASV: has shut up unto disobedience
KJV: hath concluded them in unbelief
NEB: making all prisoners to disobedience
Berkeley: confined under the power of disobedience
JB: imprisoned in their own disobedience
TEV: has made prisoners to disobedience
The Greek word reflected in these translations is synkleio. In the Greek-English Lexicon by Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich, both literal and figurative meanings are given. The literal meaning of the verb is "close up together," "hem in," "enclose." That meaning is clearly present in Luke 5:6, where a catch of fish is "enclosed" in a net. The figurative meaning is given as "confine, imprison," and illustrated from Romans 11:32. The word's possible meanings in this text are then given as "he has imprisoned them all in disobedience," that is, put them under compulsion to be disobedient or given them over to disobedience." The sense of "compulsion" by God is reflected strongly in the renderings of TEV, ASV and NEB. The alternative meaning, "given them over," is reflected in the translation of the JB.
In the New Testament, apart from its literal use in Luke 5:6 and here in 11:32, synkleio is used in only one other Pauline text, Galatians 3:22-23. Here Paul affirms that "Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin." That statement of bondage to sin is paralleled by the statement that "we were held prisoners by the law." The meaning of synkleio in this text is certainly that of confinement (or restraint, as in RSV). Yet God is not seen as determining that bondage in any direct way. The meaning seems to be that Scripture shows--by virtue of the history of human disobedience since the Fall--that all are in the grip of sin. The reference to confinement under the law in Galatians 3:23 must be interpreted in light of Galatians 3:24-25, where the function of the law is put in very positive terms: it is the custodial caretaker, leading us to Christ. What is confirmed in this passage's use of synkleio is the reality of bondage to sin or disobedience, as expressed in Romans 11:32. But the possibility of God as determiner of human disobedience does not seem to be in view.
Help for grasping Paul's meaning may be found in the Old Testament as well as in Romans 1. The Hebrew Scriptures had been translated into Greek in the centuries before Jesus' coming, and Paul made frequent use of this translation when he cited, or referred to, those Scriptures.
The Hebrew word sagar, which means "to deliver up," "to surrender," "to give over," is translated in the Greek Old Testament by two different words. In Psalm 31:8 and 78:50 the translators used synkleio. In Psalm 78:48 and Deuteronomy 32:30, the same Hebrew word was represented by the Greek paradidomi.
It is clear from this and many other examples which could be given that for the Greek translators these Greek words were both valid equivalents for the Hebrew sagar, if not synonymous. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states that synkleio, as a translation of sagar, means "to deliver up" or "to surrender," and that it is parallel to paradidomi.
It is this latter word which Paul uses in Romans 1:24, 26, 28. In Romans 1:18-32, as in Romans 11:32, Paul stresses the pervasiveness and depth of human sin. Its origin is the human refusal to acknowledge God as God (Rom 1:18-23). Paul then goes on to show that in the context of this rejection of God, human life deteriorates and degenerates (Rom 1:24-32). This depiction of human sinfulness is accompanied by the threefold refrain "therefore, God gave them over to" (RSV "gave them up"). The meaning is clearly that God allowed his creation to sink into the quicksand of its own disobedience. He neither forced its obedience nor determined its disobedience.
Thus Paul's use of the word synkleio in Romans 11:32 can best be understood in keeping with its usage in the Greek Old Testament where, in translation of the Hebrew sagar, it means "to deliver up," "to surrender." This sense of the term is confirmed, as we have seen, by the use of the parallel word in Romans 1:24-28. The meaning of Romans 12:32 would then be "God has given up all people to their disobedience." What we have here then is an expression of God's permissive will. By permitting the creation to become absorbed in and by its sinfulness, God has acted in such a way that the result is their bondage in disobedience. It is from that bondage that God in his grace brings liberation.
Easier for a Camel?
In all three Synoptic Gospels this saying follows the incident of the rich man who was anxious to know how to inherit eternal life--and, in the idiom of the Gospels, inheriting eternal life is synonymous with entering the kingdom of God. His record in keeping the commandments was unimpeachable--he assured Jesus that he had kept them all ever since he came to years of discretion, and Jesus said nothing to suggest that his claim was exaggerated. But, to test the strength of his commitment, Jesus bade him sell his property and distribute the proceeds among the poor. "And," he said, "you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me" (RSV). At that the rich man's face fell: this sacrifice was more than he was prepared to make. The incident brings out the real nature of the discipleship to which Jesus called people.
Then, to illustrate "how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God" he used this striking figure of speech. His hearers recognized it immediately to be a hard saying. It is not merely difficult, it is impossible for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God, just as it is not merely difficult but impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle--even a needle of the largest size. The listeners were dismayed: "Who then can be saved?" they asked. ("Being saved" in the Gospels is a further synonym for entering the kingdom of God and inheriting eternal life.) The disciples themselves were not affluent. Peter spoke for the others when he said, "We have left everything to follow you" (Mk 10:28). But they had not realized, perhaps, just how stringent the terms of entry into the kingdom were--and are.
Not only those who heard the words when they were first spoken, but many others since have found the saying to be a hard one. Attempts have been made to soften it somewhat. The eye of a needle, we are sometimes assured, is a metaphor; the reference is to a small opening giving independent access or egress through a much larger city gate. Visitors are sometimes shown such a small entrance in one of the city gates of Jerusalem or another Eastern city and are told that this is what Jesus had in mind. If a man approaches the city gate on camelback when it is closed, he can dismount and get through the small entrance on foot, but there is no way for a camel to do so, especially if it is loaded; it must wait for the main gate to be opened to let it through. Even if a small camel, unloaded, tried to get through the small entrance, it would be in danger of sticking halfway. It is ordinarily impossible for a camel to get through such a narrow opening, but not so ludicrously impossible as for anyone to try to get it through the eye of a needle. But this charming explanation is of relatively recent date; there is no evidence that such a subsidiary entrance was called the eye of a needle in biblical times.
Others point out that there is a Greek word (kamilos) meaning "cable" very similar in appearance and sound to the word (kamelos) meaning "camel." In fact the word meaning "cable" appears in a few late witnesses to the Gospel text. Their reading is reflected in a version of the English New Testament entitled The Book of Books, issued in 1938 to mark the quartercentenary of Henry VIII's injunction requiring a copy of the English Bible to be placed in every parish church in England: "It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." The editors of The Book of Books did not commit themselves to the view that the word meaning "rope" or "cable" stood in the original text; they simply remarked that while the familiar form with "camel" would "doubtless be preferred by Eastern readers," their own chosen reading "makes a more vivid appeal to the West." This is doubtful. In any case, the substitution of "cable" or "rope" for "camel" should probably be recognized as "an attempt to soften the rigor of the statement." "To contrast the largest beast of burden known in Palestine with the smallest of artificial apertures is quite in the manner of Christ's proverbial sayings." In Jewish rabbinical literature an elephant passing through the eye of a needle is a figure of speech for sheer impossibility.
No doubt Jesus was using the language of hyperbole, as when he spoke of the man with a whole plank sticking out of his eye offering to remove the splinter or speck of sawdust from his neighbor's eye (Mt 7:3-5; Lk 6:41). But the language of hyperbole was intended to drive the lesson home: it is impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God--humanly impossible, Jesus concedes, for God, with whom nothing is impossible, can even save a rich man. But if so, then the rich man's heart must be changed, by having its attachment to material riches replaced by attachment to the true riches, "treasure in heaven."
It is not easy for anyone to enter the kingdom of God--"the gate is narrow and the way is hard" (Mt 7:14 RSV)--but it is most difficult of all for the rich. Jesus' absolute statement in Mark 10:24, "how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" has been expanded in later witnesses to the text so as to read: "how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!" This could be another attempt to soften the hardness of his words, making it possible for a reader to comfort himself with the thought "I have riches, indeed, but I do not trust in them: I am all right." But, according to Jesus' teaching, it was very difficult for people who had riches not to trust in them. They would show whether they trusted in riches or not by their readiness to part with them. But the inserted words "for those who trust in riches" are not so wide of the mark. What was it about riches that made Jesus regard them as an obstacle to entrance into the kingdom? Simply the fact that those who had them relied on them, like the rich farmer in the parable (Lk 12:16-21), who encouraged himself with the thought of the great wealth which he had stored up for a long time to come, or his counterpart today whose investments are bringing in a comfortable, inflation-proof income.
There is probably no saying of Jesus which is harder in the Western mind today than the saying about the camel and the needle's eye, none which carries with it such a strong temptation to tone it down.
Luke 18:39
I wish this business of rejecting the ones who are different was just a chicken thing. Unfortunately, it’s very much a people thing, too. In fact, in your personal world—at work, at school, in your community—I’m sure there’s someone who is feeling rejected because they’re perceived to be “different.” Most of the time, they feel like “the outsider.” If you belong to Jesus Christ, your mission is to do what our friend does with those spotted chicks—to give life to someone who’s being rejected because they’re different. Why? Because that’s how your Master lived His life, and you’re supposed to be following Him.
Listen, for example, to our word for today from the Word of God beginning in Luke 18:39. A blind beggar named Bartimaeus hears that Jesus is passing his way, and he begins to yell loudly for Jesus to show him mercy, which is more than anyone else did for this man who lived on the margins. They saw the nuisance; Jesus saw the need. It says, “Those who led the way rebuked him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ Jesus stopped and ordered the man brought to Him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, ‘What do you want Me to do for you?’ ‘Lord, I want to see,’ he replied.” And with a touch from Jesus, He did.
This is so typical of the way Jesus operated wherever He went. He walked past the cheering crowd to find the one who needed Him most—usually someone that everyone else treated like an outsider. Whether it was blind Bartimaeus, the hated tax collector Zacchaeus, or a sinful woman nobody else wanted to be seen with, Jesus was always there for the outsider. Are you? To Jesus, and hopefully to those of us who follow Him, the outsiders are the VIPs!
There’s someone who’s feeling like the outsider right now where you work, where you go to school, in your town, maybe in your church, maybe even in your own family. I’m praying that the Lord will literally bring that person, or those persons, to your mind right now because He wants you to be His arms to go and bring that person in from the lonely margins that people have sentenced them to. Remember, the One you serve looks on the heart, not on the outward appearance (I Samuel 16:7).
And if you’ve been the outsider, you of all people should want to dedicate yourself to making sure no one else has that awful feeling. You can begin to heal some of your own pain by finding some people who need your attention because they are all around you.
Slowly but surely, a cruel, selfish world is emotionally pecking to death some people who are within your reach, and it’s breaking your Savior’s heart. Will you open your arms to them so they can taste the love of the Savior who doesn’t consider anyone an outsider? After all, when Jesus was here, He was the outsider.
Thirty Pieces of Silver--A Confused Prophecy?
Zechariah's prophetic parable followed his prophecy of the Good Shepherd's relations to the flock. In Zechariah 11:11 the people reacted to Zechariah's breaking his staff. They realized that God was annulling the covenant of protection over them. Some terrible acts of judgment were ahead!
In Zechariah 11:12 the prophet requested payment for his services and for alerting the people. He posed his request delicately, assuming that they might not wish to pay him because they had treated their Shepherd so contemptibly. In effect, he said, "If you don't care to pay me, fine; don't bother!" However, the people did not realize that Zechariah's abrupt termination of his pastoral role reflected more their own abandonment of their Shepherd than his choice to end his service.
Their reply insulted him and the cause he represented. They paid him thirty pieces of silver, the same price fetched by a slave gored by an ox (Ex 21:32). Zechariah, here impersonating the Messiah, was then advised to take this most "handsome" (surely said in irony and sarcasm) price and cast it to the potter in the house of the Lord. The expression "to cast it to the potter" usually was an idiomatic proverb approximately meaning "Throw it to the dogs" or "Get rid of it." But its connection with the house of the Lord makes that solution unlikely. Moreover, it is doubtful that the potter would have been in the house of the Lord. Rather, this phrase could be a cryptic description of his casting the money into the temple where it was taken up and used to purchase a field of the potter, since tainted money was unwelcome in the temple (Deut 23:18).
But what of Matthew's use of this acted-out parable? Matthew probably attributed the text to Jeremiah because Jeremiah, in many Hebrew manuscripts, headed up the collection of the prophets and his name was used to designate all in the collection. Our book titles with their chapter and verse divisions are a fairly recent innovation. Also Matthew may have attributed this quotation to Jeremiah because this text was paired with Jeremiah 18:1-4, 32:6-9. Thus he cited the name of the better-known and more prominent prophet. In fact, in not one of the four other places where the New Testament quotes from Zechariah does it mention his name (Mt 21:4-5; 26:31; Jn 12:14; 19:37).
On the second problem, Matthew's use of this text, we counter by arguing that the New Testament citings of the Old very much agree with the meaning found in the Old Testament. Judas did receive thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus of Nazareth. Because these wages represented blood money, with stricken conscience Judas took the money and threw it into the temple. However, because this money was unfit for temple service, it was used to buy a potter's field as a burial place for strangers (Mt 27:6-10).
Certainly these actions follow the pattern set by the prophet, even though there are a few slight differences, such as "I threw" being rendered in the Gospel as "and they used them" (Mt 27:10), and "I took the thirty pieces of silver" becoming "they took the thirty silver coins" (Mt 27:9), and "at which they priced me" becoming "the price set on him by the people of Israel" (Mt 27:9). But these changes are required by the position of the narrator, his use of his own tenses and the place where he introduced this text into his story.
Zechariah, we may conclude, accurately saw the tragic events connected with the betrayal of our Lord and warned Judah long before the events took place. What a fantastic prophecy!
Is God the Author of Evil?
Hi Sebastian, thank you for your very good question? You asked:" Is God the author of evil?" Well, the assertion in this passage is so bold that Marcion, an early Christian heretic, used this text to prove that the God of the Old Testament was a different being from the God of the New. Thus the nature of this hard saying is simply this: Is God the author of evil?
Numerous texts flatly declare that God is not, and could not be, the author of evil. For example, Deuteronomy 32:4 declares that "his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. [He is] a faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." Similarly, Psalm 5:4 notes, "You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil." If we read the Bible in its total canonical setting, it would seem that God is without evil or any pretense of evil.
The text in question refers to physical evil. As does Lamentations 3:38, it contrasts prosperity and adversity. Thus the good is physical goodness and happiness, while the evil is physical distress, misfortune, calamity and natural evil, such as storms, earthquakes and other disasters.
Even though much of the physical evil often comes through the hand of wicked men and women, ultimately God permits it. Thus, according to the Hebrew way of speaking, which ignores secondary causation in a way Western thought would never do, whatever God permits may be directly attributed to him, often without noting that secondary and sinful parties were the immediate causes of the disaster.
The evil spoken of in this text and similar passages (such as Jer 18:11; Lam 3:38 and Amos 3:6) refers to natural evil and not moral evil. Natural evil is seen in a volcanic eruption, plague, earthquake and destructive fire. It is God who must allow (and that is the proper term) these calamities to come. But, one could ask, isn't a God who allows natural disasters thereby morally evil?
To pose the question in this manner is to ask for the origins of evil. Christianity has more than answered the problem of the presence of evil (for that is the whole message of the cross) and the problem of the outcome of evil (for Christ's resurrection demonstrates that God can beat out even the last enemy and greatest evil, death itself). But Christianity's most difficult question is the origin of evil. Why did God ever allow "that stuff" in the first place?
Augustine taught that evil is not a substance. It is, as it were, a byproduct of our freedom, and especially of our sin. The effects of that sin did not fall solely on the world of humans. Its debilitating effects hit the whole natural world as well. Nevertheless, it is not as if God can do nothing or that he is just as surprised as we are by natural evil. Any disaster must fall within the sovereign will of God, even though God is not the sponsor or author of that evil. When we attempt to harmonize these statements we begin to invade the realms of divine mystery.
What we can be sure of, however, is the fact that God is never, ever, the originator and author of evil. It would be contrary to his whole nature and being as consistently revealed in Scripture.
Hebrews 10:23
Branches are built to be attached, and they start dying when they’re not. Actually, believers in Jesus Christ are built to be attached to His Body which He called the Church. And when they’re not, they start dying.
It could be that a storm came along and you ended up disconnected from the life of the church, and you haven’t really reconnected. Our word for today from the Word of God explains the importance that Jesus places on our staying connected to our spiritual family. In Hebrews 10, beginning with verse 23, He calls us to “hold unswervingly to the hope we profess.” In other words, to take no detours spiritually.
Apparently, He doesn’t want us to try that while being spiritual “Lone Rangers.” He says, “Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds.” In a church family, there’s accountability to other believers, not just each of us doing what we feel is right. We see the ways others are loving; the way others are serving Jesus and it “spurs us on “ to do the same thing.
So, as the passage continues, “Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.” In other words, the closer we get to Jesus coming back, the more important it is that we stick together, partly because it’s going to get harder and harder to know and do the right thing. We can help each other with that.
Obviously, God intended for following Jesus to be a team sport. But maybe you’ve distanced yourself from the team and you’re trying to make it a solo sport. It doesn’t work that way. Jesus set up His church as the place where you can worship Him with your spiritual family, where you can serve Him, where you participate in the spiritual obediences like communion and baptism, where you hook up with people you need and with people who need you.
Maybe you’ve been hurt by fellow believers, you’re disillusioned, maybe even embittered. But you can’t just stay there. You may find a different body of believers to be a part of, but not being a part of one is just not an option for a disciple who claims to be following Christ. If your eyes have been on people, or on your wounds, on the things that are wrong with a church, well then, you will tend to directly disobey our Lord and “give up the habit of meeting together.”
The church isn’t perfect because it’s full of spiritual caterpillars who, just like you and me, are half caterpillar and on their way to becoming butterflies. But the church is what Jesus has chosen to work through on earth. He has said, “I will build My church.” You can’t remain a disconnected branch, no matter how bad the storm was. The church of Jesus is your spiritual home on earth. If you’ve been away, it’s time to come home.
Women to Keep Silence?
Hi Roxie, thanks for posting your question on my site. You asked:" Why were women have to keep silence in 1 Corinthians 14:33-34.
Well, Several acute problems are raised by 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 for the Bible reader who seeks to be a faithful interpreter of the whole counsel of God revealed in Scripture as well as an obedient follower of Christ.
First, a series of questions is forced on us by the text itself and the verses which follow: Does the New Testament as a whole show that women were routinely excluded from verbal participation in Christian worship? Why are they not allowed to speak? Which "Law" is referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:34? How are "submission" and "silence" related?
A second series of questions is raised by the relation between this hard saying and the immediate and wider biblical context. How can Paul say earlier in this epistle that women are to have a head covering on while praying and proclaiming the gospel (1 Cor 11:3-16) and now in the same letter forbid verbal participation? Further, how are we to take the apparent discrepancy between this blanket prohibition and the fact that there are numerous examples of women's active participation in the worship life of early Christianity?
The text we are looking at is located at the conclusion of a lengthy section (1 Cor 11--14) in which Paul deals with problem situations in the context of worship. He has dealt with proper decorum of men and women while praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:2-16); with irregularities at the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34); and finally with the nature, function, use and abuse of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12--14), with special consideration of the ecstatic phenomenon "speaking in tongues" and "prophecy" (1 Cor 14:1-25).
It is apparent in the immediately surrounding context (1 Cor 14:26-40) of this saying that the elevation and glorification of ecstatic, unintelligible utterance by some faction in the congregation created disorder and confusion in worship (see comment on 1 Cor 14:5). Thus in addressing those who speak in tongues (1 Cor 14:27-28), he calls for order: they should speak "one at a time." The utterances should be interpreted (1 Cor 14:27), since without interpretation it would confound the hearers and cause them to wonder whether there is madness here (1 Cor 14:23). Without an interpreter, "the speaker should keep quiet in the church" (1 Cor 14:28). In addressing those who have the gift for prophetic proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 14:29-33), the concern for order in worship is also evident. Their speaking is to be "in turn," that is, not all at the same time. The purpose of all verbal communication is "the strengthening of the church" (1 Cor 14:26) through the instruction and encouragement of everyone (1 Cor 14:31). That purpose, as Paul sees it, can only be accomplished when there is order in worship, "for God is not a God of disorder, but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33; see also 1 Cor 14:40).
All of the above shows that Paul is dealing with abuses and actions in worship which disrupt God's purposes and which therefore need correction. Within such a setting, the text seems clearly to belong to the category of "corrective texts" whose purpose is focused toward a local situation. Paul's word that "women should remain silent in the churches" would therefore seem, at least primarily, to have authoritative import ("What I am writing to you is the Lord's command," 1 Cor 14:37) for the particular situation in Corinth (as well as similar situations; for example, the one addressed in 1 Tim 2:11-12). One must be careful therefore not to immediately jump to the conclusion that Paul's injunction has implications for all women in all churches.
Support for restraint in this area comes from both other things Paul writes and practices in the early churches which show that women's vocal participation in worship and in other instructional or leadership roles was accepted and affirmed. Paul himself acknowledges in this same letter the validity and appropriateness of women as full participants in public prayer and the proclamation of the gospel (1 Cor 11:5, 13). What he finds invalid and unacceptable is that they engage in this activity without a head covering, since that rejection of cultural/religious custom creates a potential stumbling block. Paul even affirms in that context that "the churches of God" recognize no other practice (1 Cor 11:16), namely, the appropriateness of a head covering for women who are praying and prophesying in the church.
If Paul believed that women should be silent in the churches in a comprehensive, universal sense, he would not have spent so much time instructing women what to do with their heads; he would have simply forbidden their practice of praying and prophesying in the assembled congregation.
Paul's larger view--which acknowledged and validated the vocal participation of women in the churches--is supported in other New Testament writings. Thus the proclamation of the "wonders of God" (namely, his redemptive work in and through Jesus of Nazareth--Acts 2:11, 22-36) is interpreted in Peter's Pentecost sermon as the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel 2:28-29 that in the last days, under the inspiration of God's outpoured Spirit, "your sons and daughters will prophesy. . . . Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy" (Acts 2:17-18, emphasis mine). In keeping with this prophetic word and the commencement of its fulfillment at Pentecost, Luke mentions matter-of-factly that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in the prophetic ministry of the good news (Acts 21:8-9).
In light of this evidence that women in the early churches were moved by the Spirit to engage in ministries of the Word side by side with men, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand Paul's injunction as a categorical imperative intended for all churches in all places in all times. Rather, the injunction must be understood within its own context as addressing a problem in Corinth which needed correcting.
We have already seen above that the particular problem was disorder and confusion in public worship. This situation was apparently caused by the inappropriate expression of both the gift of prophecy and speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:26-31). It is thus probable that the admonition to silence is in some way related to women's participation in the inappropriate use of these gifts. It is possible that women in the Corinthian congregation, due to the liberating experience of the gospel from all sorts of cultural and religious bondage, may have been at the forefront of noninterpreted, unintelligible utterance (glossolalia) and enthusiastic prophetic proclamation which did not yield the "congregational floor" to others. Some may have continued to speak at the same time another was prophesying, creating noisy confusion in which no one could be "instructed and encouraged."
That such a connection existed between the women who are asked to be silent and the disorderly expression of tongues and prophetic speech receives support from two sets of parallel phrases in these texts. In addressing those speaking in tongues without the benefit of interpretation, Paul says, "The speaker should keep quiet in the church" (1 Cor 14:28). Then, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, he uses the same words: "the women should keep quiet in the churches." The NIV variation in translation does not reflect the fact that the Greek verb (sigao) is the same in both.
Second, in addressing the issues of disorderly prophetic speaking (1 Cor 14:29-32), Paul again urges silence on some so that others can speak. The NIV's "the first speaker should stop" (1 Cor 14:30) again does not reflect the fact that the verb sigao ("remain silent") is also used here. But more important, in calling on the prophets in the congregation to recognize that they are mutually accountable to each other, Paul says, "The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets" (1 Cor 14:32). The Greek word rendered "subject to the control of" is hypotasso. That is the same word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where he follows the admonition to silence (according to the NIV) with the words "[they] must be in submission." In other words, prophets must be in submission to other prophets (and thus to each other) in the church.
If, as seems likely, women were prominently in that group of prophets who were disposed to be "disorderly," Paul may be addressing them specifically with regard to this matter of submission to other prophets for the sake of order and peace (1 Cor 14:32-33). These parallelisms in the imperatives to "keep quiet" and "to be in submission" strongly suggest that the problem of disorderly participation in prophetic proclamation and tongues was particularly prominent among women believers in Corinth, and that it is with respect to this context that Paul's admonitions must be understood.
A final problem needs brief attention. What is the "Law" on which the injunction to submit is based (1 Cor 14:34)? Assuming that the submission envisioned is to the men/husbands in the congregation, some have sought Old Testament texts to ground such an injunction. The most common text cited from "the Law" is Genesis 3:16. Two factors militate against it. Wherever Paul deals with the relation between men and women, he never appeals to this passage. Further, it is clear from the context of Genesis 2--3 that 3:16, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you," does not announce God's created design for "male leadership" but is the statement of a cursed existence because of sin. Surely Paul knew that Christ's redemptive work freed human beings from the curse of Eden.
Others see in Paul's term ("as the Law says") a reference to both Jewish and Gentile norms which restricted women's public participation, and these restrictions existed within the context of male-dominant cultures. Yet Paul uses the word "be submissive" without saying "to whom." Thus the assumption that it is to men/husbands may not be warranted. It is more likely that he is referring back to the statement that "prophets are to be submissive to (other) prophets" (see 1 Cor 14:32). The question "Submissive to whom or what?" would then have an answer in the immediate context: either to other prophets or to the principle of order which has its origin in God (1 Cor 14:33).
Paul's operative principle for congregational life and worship is constant. Whatever hinders the movement of the gospel, causes confusion rather than growth, offends rather than encourages or strengthens, builds up the self at the expense of others--all this is contrary to God's intention. And insofar as the women in Corinth and elsewhere in the young churches used their gifts contrary to God's intention, the injunction to silence is an appropriate, authoritative word. The principle which underlies the injunction is authoritative for both men and women in all churches.
