Reconciling the Abijah Accounts

Friends,

I am going in a different direction from the norm here, but hopefully it will be a blessing to you.  Something struck me while I was reading 2 Chronicles.  It was an insight that provides an illustration for something that I have come to understand for a while now concerning interpretation…and it is interesting that I would find something of an Old Testament illustration to help provide insight for a New Testament principle.  This is certainly not the first time this has happened.  As I have stated in other places, if I had a dollar for all of the poor exegesis and illustrations using Noah and gopher wood, as well as Uzzah and the ark, to try to justify new covenant authority, I would be further ahead in my retirement account.  That said, the following illustration is actually in context, and concerns two distinct, but related passages. 

What we see in 2 Chronicles 13 is that Abijah becomes king of Judah, following his father, Rehoboam.  In the Chronicles account, Abijah appears to be a man of God who leads the armies of the Lord to victory over the armies of North Israel.  There are twenty-two verses displaying the heroics of what took place under Abijah’s reign.  But, something occurred to me while reading this…there are only four kings of Israel and Judah in the divided kingdom that were considered “good kings” (and all were from Judah, by the way).  They were Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah.  Abijah is not on the list.  This is because we need to go to the Kings’ account concerning Abijah to get the other side of the coin.  The account in 1 Kings 15 is about a third as long as the account in 2 Chronicles.  It is here that we see that he “committed all the sins of his fathers.” There is very little information about Abijah and the war with Israel here…it is pretty succinct, and the basis of the message is – Abijah was a bad guy like his father (and most of those who came after him).

So, the question that comes into focus is – how does one reconcile these two accounts?  Many people would have to deduce that one of the stories is correct, while the other one must be in error, because there could only be one possible explanation that is correct.  Yet, I believe that this is the beauty of both accounts -- they can both be reconciled. Both stories concerning Abijah are true…it is simply that the Chronicler has a different focal point than does the author of 1 Kings.  (It is similar, in some respects, as to what we see with the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Each is accurate, but from the unique perspective of the author…even as to whether there were one or two angels at the open tomb).

One of the difficulties that came as the result of being raised in a church culture and exposed to a model of interpretation where an “either/or” deduction reigned was that it would often pin us into the corner and we would have to take a stand that only one thought could be correct.  And therefore, by the rules of deduction that were in place, the other position, by necessity, would have to be wrong.  So, it could only be gopher wood, and therefore, it could only be Matzos used for the Lord’s Supper (for example). The Chronicler offers a perspective concerning Abijah that is unique in that he is not really as interested in what Abijah is doing, as he is in what God is doing in the situation concerning the war with the kings in the divided kingdom.  It may be true that Judah was “seeking the will of the Lord” in relationship to their battle with Israel, but it would not necessarily mean that Abijah was “a righteous and holy leader for God’s people.”  Abijah himself is not as important in the Chronicles account as much as God is and what He is doing through Abijah in the situation.  It is not the first time that God would have used people with some significant struggles, who would even be at odds with Him…Jacob and Jonah are two others that come to mind.  Besides, if God did not respond to sinful people who sought Him and trusted in Him, we would all be in trouble.  So, Judah has a moment in the sun, where they seek the Lord and He responds by delivering them from a force that was twice their size…once again, a story that is repeated in the Scriptures. It is about what God can and will do with and for His people.

So, what does this mean as it relates to the new covenant?  There are accounts where it seems that there might be discrepancies.  I will offer two thoughts briefly that can be expanded at a later time.  How often a person participates in the Lord’s Supper, for example – was it daily (Acts 2), or was it once per week on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).  The text in 1 Corinthians 11:17ff offers some insight, but it is not definitive as to which is should be.  It is easy to get pushed into an “either/or” scenario, when “both/and” may be quite acceptable, as well as accurate.  Paul spends the better part of the last section of Romans (particularly chapter 14) explaining how these matters can be so…that there can be a church that has members where some are vegetarians and others eat meat, (or where some meet at the building on Sunday evenings and others meet in homes) -- and it all works.  Even more challenging – are the believers in Acts 2 in the same spiritual situation as those in Acts 8 and Acts 10?  It is apparent that all are in good standing with the Lord and the church at that time…but what of today?  Many believers would say – those Christians are not acceptable…I cannot fellowship with them.  Yet, it is hard to see how we could or would not accept what those in the first century church did accept.  Furthermore, how can we “critique beyond a doubt” using “deductive methods” an event that is altogether spiritual and led by the Holy Spirit?  It is not any different today than it was then.  It is important to consider that there is more than one proper perspective that could be available and acceptable to the Lord and His body as it relates to the above matters, as well as many others…some things to study, ponder and consider.

Blessings, Don

Levelling the Working Field

Friends,

The subject of slavery is nearly as old as the story of the Bible itself.  It is during the time of Joseph that God’s people go to Egypt, ultimately to be enslaved by the pharaoh there.  It is not until the Lord raises up Moses that the people are set free in the Exodus, but not without some hardships. The Lord wanted his people to turn to him and to trust him at that time, but they found themselves following after the flesh and their sinful desires. An interesting quote from Pope Benedict XVI states this –“The primary objective, indeed the only end of the liberation from slavery, is worship. And this can only take place according to God’s measure and therefore eludes the rules of the game of political compromise as suggested by Pharaoh. Israel departs, not in order to be a people like all the others; it departs in order to serve God as God wants to be served.” This may be something that the Paul has in mind as he shares concerning slaves and masters in this section of the Ephesian letter.  It is also similar to something he would share with Onesimus and Philemon in his letter to them. This is not a matter that our current culture can relate to directly, but certainly was a critical issue 150 years ago. There were six million slaves in the Roman Empire at the time in which the Ephesian letter was written. Slavery was an accepted institution. And what is interesting is that there is nothing specific condemning slavery in the Bible, but the overall thrust of the NT is against it. Paul’s ministry during his time contributed to the encouragement of freedom and the curtailing of slavery.

How do we take Ephesians 5:6-9 and apply it to us today?  Paul could very well mean “servant” as well as “slave" in section, and can be translated either way depending upon context. The principles that he outlines could just as well apply to Christians in the workplace today. In the context of the passage, some of the tasks assigned to the slaves they detest, but they are to perform them, just as long as they are not disobeying the will of God. The right attitude of heart is essential, especially since an educated, cultured Christian slave might receive even harsher treatment from his master because of his faith. He still does his best, because he serves Christ and not men. Believers shall receive their ultimate reward from Christ and not men. (Colossians 3:13) On the other hand, Christian masters seek the workers welfare and do not threaten them. Jesus brings harmony to the slave/master relationship as he does to the employer/employee relationship, which we will discuss. Not only does the servant work for the master, but the master also works for the servant.

Paul indicates that there is a principle at work in this section that should apply to people today – Christians are to be obedient, as he shares with Onesimus (once he becomes a believer). While it may be true that most people do have masters according to this world, in the sense of being employees…for believers, their true Master is in heaven. The fact that an employer or an employee is a Christian is no excuse for either not to be diligent in their tasks -- there is to be a sense of responsibility. A Christian employee should show proper respect for his/her employer and not seek to take advantage in any way. Employees focus attention and energy on the job at hand and do what they are called to do.  It may not all get done in one day, but there is diligence to do the work.  This is also a good way to witness for Christ. Paul indicates that Christian workers will be rewarded for doing God’s will. A Christian can perform any good work as a ministry to Christ to the glory of God. If an employer expects the workers to do their best for him, he must do his best for them.

The master must serve the Lord from his heart if he wants his servants to do the same. A good leader must not exploit or lord it over workers.  Authoritarian leadership is not Biblical leadership, although many church leaders exercise authoritarian methods. They threaten when things are not done when things are handled as they see fit. Nor should a Christian employer play favorites with those under his authority. Paul shares this message with Timothy (1 Timothy 5:21). Partiality is a fast way to divide followers and lose their confidence. It is an unfortunate matter when an employee says, “My boss is supposed to be a Christian, but one would never know it.”  Paul suggests here, and in Philemon, once again, that Christian masters have (or find) a better way to encourage obedience than threats or manipulation. A good leader still leads by serving.  The Christian example is the shepherd, and this is how we all should function to the best of our ability. Whether we are employees or employers, we must not forget that we are servants first…that we are Christians first.

We are slaves, servants of Christ.  We need to do whatever is required in order to live submissively for Him wherever we are and in whatever we are doing. We need to be fair and consistent in our treatment of others and not exploit them in any way.  It is truly important that we invest our time and energy in being builders and not wreckers. It is important that we have the right hearts as we approach our lives and ministry. We need to have an attitude of submissiveness to Christ whether we are employers or employees. And these principles are not regarding what we do at the workplace, but also in how we approach our work, ministries for the Lord. We may not be being paid for our service to the church, for example, but we have a responsibility to be just as committed to what we do for the Lord and the church (and perhaps even more so, as it bears eternal rewards) as what we would do for our employers. As in all of these things, we need to remember that we are working for the Lord and not for men.  We have an accountability to give to Him.  So, we need to take seriously our responsibilities, whether we are working for our employers or for our greatest employer, the Lord.

Blessings, Don

To Be (Heard) or Not to Be (Heard)...An Investigation of Men and Women's Roles in the Church, Pt. 3

Friends,

It is in relationship to the cultural issues that we come back to the question concerning what role a woman should have in the assembly and church life. Peter, in his first letter, (3:1-7) shares many of the same principles in relationship to submission that Paul shares in 1 Corinthians. Peter indicates that women (wives) should be submissive to their husbands, as Paul has said. Once again, this is not a “forced bondage,” but a willing spirit of the ladies’ behalf to be God’s woman and live lovingly with her husband. And, just as Paul has shared in Ephesians 5, men (husbands) should live in a loving, protective (even “submissive”) relationship with their wives (v.7). Peter wants the woman of God to be “chaste” and have “respectful behavior” and “to be adorned properly.” As I have already indicated earlier, she is also to exercise a “gentle and quiet spirit.” Peter seems to indicate that this attitude is a universal principal, going all the way back to Abraham and Sarah (v.6). So, this is a mindset or attitude that was to be consistent with women everywhere at the time, and there is nothing to indicate that this is a principal that has changed over time.

When we consider Paul’s instructions to Timothy concerning the church in Ephesus (particularly women/wives in 1 Timothy 2), we see a number of things that are consistent with what we already have seen in 1 Corinthians and 1 Peter. At the same time, there are also some significant differences. Once again, the question of women coming to the assembly without appearing immoral is at issue (1 Timothy 2:9). The women at that time needed to be modest with their attire as befitting a person who was godly. There were some women in Ephesus that appear to have a similar mindset as those in Corinth, in that they were not being in subjection to their husbands and this was not acceptable. The women/wives in Ephesus, as at Corinth, had no place to be contradicting the public teaching in an abusive manner, nor should they be arbitrarily teaching (taking over the role of public teaching) in a way that would not be Christ-like. What is interesting to note concerning v.12, is that Paul says a woman should receive teaching literally, “in a respectful manner, with a quiet spirit.” This word aysuchia, is the same word that Peter uses (1 Peter 3:4) and it is a word that describes the practical, spiritual mindset that godly women are to embrace and exercise. It is the spiritual working out of the principle of “keeping silent” that Paul describes earlier in relationship to the Corinthian church. What is fascinating is that Jesus came to set women free from their bondage under the Jewish cultural system. Notice that I said “cultural,” because this is not what God had intended for women, spiritually or even religiously, but the Jews had become so constricting with their laws in so many ways that it became a struggle for women to function at all...much like what we see under Islam in many Middle-eastern countries today. So, for a woman even to be able to receive instruction was a relatively new concept to many of those whom Jesus was speaking, and it carries over to Paul, here. These women, culturally and spiritually, are in a place where they actually are able to receive instruction, but they must not forget that they must continue to behave in a spiritual manner.

The real context of the situation is set in v.13, as Paul indicates that there are some there in Ephesus, as in Corinth, who desire to have their opinions heard and will do whatever it takes in order to accomplish this. Some of these women have been “exercising authority over” some of the men there. The word that Paul uses here is authenteo, “to have authority over” in a way which literally means “to domineer,” and it is used only here in the New Testament. If Paul had wanted to, he very well could have used the word exousia, which is the predominant, typical word for “authority” in the New Testament. The fact that he does not do so, but in fact uses a much stronger word, indicates that he does indeed have a point to make here. And his point fits precisely the context, as I have shared. In my opinion, Paul is not making a negative blanket statement about women teaching in a public or private manner, just that they need to do so in a way that is respectful and with a right (submissive) spirit. We see that when Priscilla and Aquila teach Apollos in order to show him a better way (Acts 18:24-28), that it is apparently Priscilla who is the taking the lead in doing the “teaching.” In fact, Priscilla seems to have been the stronger personality in that relationship, but she obviously seems to have understood the principles of submission concerning which Paul shares here in 1 Timothy as well as 1 Corinthians.

Paul finishes his argument here with an allusion to Adam and Eve. He still wants men and women (husbands and wives) to understand that they each have particular functions...and it must always be so. Paul wants the church, in general, to understand that men are to be the spiritual leaders not only of the church family, but of their own families at home. This has been something of a problem in the current culture in which we live, as we have seen the advent of such Para-church organizations such as Promise Keepers that seeks to help men to re-identify themselves as the spiritual leaders of their families. It is not that Paul is saying that men are to have the only spiritual leadership role at home and in the church, but that they are to have the primary role. Most families could not conceive of mothers not having a significant spiritual role in the training and overall spiritual health of the family. Why should it be any different as it pertains to the body of Christ? Paul is not saying that women “should be seen and not heard” as some have practically interpreted it, but that women should have a prominent role in the life and leadership of the church. He is not overriding the principle of women being involved in the body life of the church, which he has clearly stated, but is dealing with some abnormalities that have arisen – this is clearly indicated in the New Testament context. Men should be the primary spiritual leaders of the church, but this does not mean that ladies are supposed to have some insignificant role or function. It is apparent that Paul desires for women to teach as he describes in Titus 2:3 (and it is “good,” which could be done by example, living a life of service, or didactically, in a classroom setting). It is apparent that some women were intended to be leaders, as we see with Priscilla, some of those who were praying and prophesying in Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:4), Lydia, who was a prominent convert, Philip who had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:8), but perhaps the most prominent “leader” was Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1). This lady played a significant role in helping her home congregation. There have been some who have specifically interpreted the word diakonia to mean “deaconess” in the context. This word needs to be understood in that it can have a general and specific meaning. The word “apostle,” meaning, “one sent out with a message,” works in much the same way, as we know that there were twelve “specific” apostles, like Paul, but also that Barnabas was called “an apostle” in a more general sense (Acts 14:14), as was Junias, a woman, in Romans (16:7). So, Phoebe may or may not have been a deaconess in the specific sense, but that she was certainly a “prominent servant” having helped Paul and others on a number of missions.

We can understand that Paul did have in mind a role for women not only in the culture in which he was living, but also in the church. It was not necessarily a minor role; it could very well be a major role, depending upon the situation and the place. There were obviously some women who were abusing their positions and, as the result, were being admonished by Paul in his direct addresses to at least two churches that they needed to keep a proper spiritual perspective in relationship to modesty, respect and submission.

Note: We need to be able to take a look at the passages that I have mentioned and consider them honestly...free from presuppositions...which is not necessarily an easy thing to do. One of the difficult problems with interpretation is that we were all taught specific things in certain ways, and it is difficult to separate ourselves from this. It is humbling and challenging to come to conclusions that are different than the ones that we have been taught...and I have had this happen for me concerning a number of passages...but this does not mean that we have to disparage either our former educators or our new understanding. In fact, I like to call it growth. :-) We simply need to be thankful that God can help us to see things differently...to gain insights in ways that we may not have understood before and that it is okay. God bless you in your studies.

Blessings, Don

To Be (Heard) or Not to Be (Heard)...An Investigation of Men and Women's Roles in the Church, Pt. 2

Friends,

In 1 Corinthians 11, there is different instruction given in relationship to this issue that we will now explore. Paul picks up the theme of liberty from 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10 and brings the argument into 1 Corinthians 11 and continues with it. Without a doubt, this is a fascinating section to interpret. Sorting out all of these issues and principles in context is a big challenge. He seems to be making a circular argument dealing with issues of culture in Corinth, and at the same time, proclaiming universal principles for all Christians. There are certain situations pertaining to creation revealed in vv.2-3, 8-12, and situations of culture in vv.4-7, 13-16. The primary issue, here, is concerning respect and submission. There were a number of problems with the Corinthian church in relationship to submission. Women in the Greek culture were feeling restricted culturally and religiously, and some of them were rebelling against the customs of the day. They were not submitting to the principles of “freedom in Christ,” concerning which Paul just shared in chapters 8-10, and they, therefore, were not respecting the authority of God. The men and women (or husbands and wives) were not living with respect to one another. Paul begins dealing with the issue and continues his argument in the following chapters, which we have already discussed.

When Paul talks about Christ being the head of every man, there are a couple of different ways that this can be understood. The word “head” can mean either “origin” or “master”. In other words, man has His spiritual origin in Christ, or Christ is the master of man. Either interpretation makes sense, but it only becomes clear when we consider the second part of the statement -- “the head of the woman is man.” I don’t believe that Paul would be talking about the relationship in terms of “order”, that is “man being the master of woman” especially considering his argument from vv.11-12. There are two truths here that are in tension with each other in this passage (v.3 and v.11), but both are true -- woman comes from man, also man and woman cannot be independent from each other. It makes more sense if he is talking about “origin”. Woman has her origin from man, in that the woman, Eve, was formed from the rib of the man, Adam (Genesis 2:18-25). And of course, Christ has His origin in God -- He was with God and He was God at the same time (John 1:1).

Another consideration here is that Paul is also talking about the husband and wife relationship (as we see in chapter 14). The word for man, here, is aner, which can mean either man or husband. The word for woman is gunay, which can mean either woman or wife. As Paul proceeds to make his argument throughout the course of this section, culminating with chapter 14, he seems to be talking in terms of husbands and wives in some contexts (vv.4-7, 13-16), but men and women in others (particularly the “universal” passages, vv.2-3, 8-12).

There were problems with men and women coming into the assembly with the wrong mindset in relationship to how they should be properly covered. It is really easy to miss the main thrust of what Paul is saying here. We must keep in mind that the big issue is respect and authority (v.10) -- not hair. Now while Jewish men would wear a prayer shawl or covering called a tallith, this was not the case with the men in Corinth. It would also appear to be a cultural taboo for men to have long hair (v.14). The men in the Greek culture were to have their heads uncovered when they prayed or prophesied. (Prophesy here could be either “fore-telling” the future or “forth-telling” the message of God -- it doesn’t really matter for the purpose of the argument that Paul is making).

The instruction for the women was just the opposite of that given to the men. They were not to pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered. Even though it is not a part of the argument that Paul is making, it would appear that at this time and in this place that women were indeed praying and prophesying. When we consider that Philip had four daughters who prophesied in the early church (Acts 21:8-9), it is hard to say definitively how and when this took place. As we can see, it was not to be at a time or in a manner that would be disruptive to the assembly, but it is apparent that it was taking place. If this passage is in relationship to an assembly context (11:1-16), which it certainly appears to be, it would help us to further understand the nature of the assembly at Corinth. Now, we must also understand that it is possible that some of this instruction has been modified by the time that Paul writes to Timothy and the church in Ephesus. We will consider this later when we come to Paul’s instruction to Timothy.

The women needed to have their heads covered in order to show respect and submission to the men (i.e. their husbands) and to higher beings as well. It is important to talk about the covering itself since it, historically, has been the subject of some discussion. The KJV has the translation “veil” whereas other of the more prominent translations (NAS, RSV, NIV) have translated it “covering.” The KJV translation was the result of its own cultural bias at the time; the rendering “veil” comes from a 13th century Byzantine manuscript, whereby women in the culture of that time (particularly “Muslim” but not excluding other cultures) wore actual veils. This practice continued through the 17th century during the time that the KJV was translated, and is still true even today in some cultures (once again, predominantly the Muslim religious culture).

During the time of Christ (when the letters to Corinth were written), the covering for women at that time was long hair (v.15). This was particularly so for Greek and Roman women, but not necessarily for Jewish women at that time. Jewish women would wear a long body shawl that would be wrapped around them ornamentally which they would pull up over the heads at the appropriate time and place. The women in the Greek culture were to come to the assembly with their hair up, as in a bun. In this way, they would be living with respect to the men, culturally and religiously. Some rebellious women were coming to the assembly time with their hair down which was a cultural taboo -- this was how the prostitutes of the day wore their hair. It was also ritual practice for many women in non-Christian religious associations, such as those who would be worshippers of Isis, the primary goddess of those living in Corinth. Therefore, proper ladies would not be seen in public with their hair down -- it would be an offense. So, it would appear from all of the information that the “covering” was more of a cultural issue that needed to be respected at the time of the writing of the Corinthian letters.

Any interpretations concerning “veils” or “coverings” applied to other cultures and contexts would be of a personal/communal nature, that is, it would be up to them. But, it is apparent that the cultural issues that the Corinthians, and others at that time, were dealing with were not binding on others. However, the spiritual principles of submission and respect lined out in this passage would still appear to be applicable to all cultures. Men and women must not have a cultural style or demeanor that is “shocking” to those around them. Once again, men and women, husbands and wives must live with respect to one another (see Ephesians 5:21-33).

Blessings, Don