Argument

Atheists often ask Christians questions which go along the lines of: “Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?” or: “Can God create another all-powerful God that could destroy him?” The assumption behind these questions is usually that if God were truly all-powerful, then God could, in fact, create a rock too heavy for himself, and another all-powerful God just like himself that could destroy him. However, if that’s the case, then God would cease to be all-powerful, which would put Christianity in quite the predicament.

Response: A Misuse of Language and Definitions

The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t work, because it proposes a scenario which redefines who God is. To illustrate this point, consider this: it’s just as nonsensical as asking the question, “Can God exist and not exist at the same time?” Of course, the answer is no. It doesn’t make sense to say that God (or anything) can exist and not exist at the same time, because any thing, by definition and necessity, exists, and non-existence is nothing more than the absence of existence. To argue otherwise is to render words meaningless, which makes any further dialogue not only pointless, but impossible.

The fact that God cannot create a rock too heavy for himself to lift, or another God that could destroy him, doesn’t mean that God lacks omnipotence. It means that he actually is omnipotent, and fits the true definition of God. Let’s develop this point further.

God Cannot Contradict Who He Is

The Bible teaches that God is good, not evil (Is 61:8; Jer 9:24). C.S. Lewis, in his book “Mere Christianity”, highlights the point well that evil is not a thing that exists in and of itself, but is rather the absence of good, or the distortion of good. For example, a lie cannot exist without a truth to distort. Another example is that sex in and of itself is good, but when it is abused, for example, in rape, it is evil because it is a distortion of sex. Evil, therefore, cannot exist by itself by definition—it can only exist if there is first something good to remove or distort. This is similar to how coldness cannot exist in and of itself, but can only exist when you remove warmth, or how darkness cannot exist in and of itself, but can only exist when you remove light. In fact, the Bible plainly says:

This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

The Bible here spells it out for us: God is light (good), not darkness (evil). Any darkness in the world, therefore, does not come from God, but is rather a departure from God’s light. Darkness contradicts who God is. Therefore, by definition and necessity, God cannot be both light and darkness: he is only light. Here is another example:

¹⁷ So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, ¹⁸ so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. (Hebrews 6:17–18)

Here, the Bible plainly says that it’s “impossible for God to lie”. Why? Because lying contradicts who God is. God is truth, as Jesus said—who is God in the flesh (Jn 1:1, 14)—”I am the way and the truth and the life …” (Jn 14:6). Therefore, any lie in the world does not come from God, but is rather a departure from God’s truth. We could give more examples, but this should make the point clear: God can do anything, but he cannot contradict who he is—otherwise, he would no longer be God—both by definition and necessity.

How This Applies to the Arguments

So, this brings us back to the above arguments, the first of which is: “Can God create a rock heavier than he can lift?” First, we need to ask: who is God? By definition, God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-present Creator of everything in existence. Because omnipotence (being all-powerful) is part of who God is, by definition, God cannot create a rock heavier than he could lift, because that is a contradiction of who God is: always omnipotent.

‘Ah, Lord GOD! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you. (Jeremiah 32:17)

²⁶ The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: ²⁷ “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me? (Jeremiah 32:26–27)

As for the next question: “Can God create another all-powerful God that could destroy him”? Again, part of the definition of God is that he is not only Light, Love, Truth, and Life, but he is the highest Light, the highest Love, the highest Truth, and the highest Life. In other words, God is the greatest being in existence. If there were a being who were equal with God, then God would cease being the highest being, hence in such a scenario, we no longer have God, by definition. Therefore, this scenario is also impossible, because it is a contradiction of who God is: always the highest being.

You are the LORD, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you. (Nehemiah 9:6)

To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be alike? (God speaking in Isaiah 46:5)

He who comes from above [i.e. Jesus] is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. (John 3:31)

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. (Jesus speaking in John 6:51)

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, the arguments mentioned at the beginning of this argument are false, because they put forth two different scenarios in which the very definition of God can be changed. The problem is, then, that if we entertain these scenarios, we are no longer talking about God, but rather a human invention—a false definition of God that we have made up. To suggest that God can use his omnipotence to undermine his own omnipotence is about as nonsensical as suggesting that God can “exist” and “not exist” at the same time. God cannot contradict who he is. Because the argument proposes a false definition of God, it is not a valid argument to use against Christianity.

The fact that God cannot contradict who he is is good news for us. Because God is good, he will never—and cannot ever—suddenly change his mind and start being evil unexpectedly, but will remain good forever. The Apostle John said, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God:

So we [i.e. Christians, those who believe in Jesus] have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. (1 John 4:16)

God is the essence of love itself, so even the most loving person on Earth (if such a person even existed) couldn’t compare to God’s love, and that will never—and can never—change. Furthermore, because God is the essence of truth itself, he doesn’t take back his promises, but is faithful to fulfil them. God has said, through the Apostle John, that even though humanity sinned against him, he sent his only Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but receive everlasting life with him in Heaven.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

This is a firm promise that God has made which he will never revoke, and he invites you to accept it today. Because God cannot contradict who he is, his love will remain forever with those who believe in Jesus as their only Saviour.

See Also

• Can Atheism Account for Morality?
• Is Atheism Scientific?
• Who Is God?
• Is Jesus God?

The post Is There Anything God Cannot Do? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

One of the central arguments that is brought up in favour of women’s ordination (abbreviated as “WO”) in some Christian denominations concerns the topic of equality. Many proponents argue that to ordain women into the office of pastor is to promote equality, whereas to deny women from this is inequality, hence discrimination and sexism, which is sinful. The two main Bible passages that are brought up in favour of this view is Genesis 1:27—men and women are both made in God’s image—and Galatians 3:28—there is no male and female in Christ Jesus.

They argue that in the beginning, God created Adam and Eve as equals in every way, but that since the Fall of humanity into sin, women have been constantly suppressed by men in each generation and society, who exercised cruel dominance over them. When Christ came, his saving grace and redemption on the cross brought about a new creation, in which, through Baptism, women have been restored back to their rightful place as equals with men in every way. This new creation is more than restoration to the state of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but is rather the incorporation into a new humanity in Christ, in which there are no social distinctions.

Response

The Extent of Equality Needs to Be Defined

The first, and biggest, problem with this argument is the assertion that the question of whether women can be ordained as pastors concerns equality itself. This is because Christians who deny the ordination of women as pastors will argue that they do, in fact, believe that women are equal with men. Because God created both men and women in his image, he bestowed upon them an equal measure of value, dignity, and worth. So, gender equality itself is not the issue here, and never was. The real question is: in what ways are men and women equal? It’s on this specific point where we find disagreement between traditionalists (those who deny WO) and modernists (those who support WO). Thus, the argument concerns not equality itself, but the extent of equality.

A traditionalist will argue that women are equal with, or the same (because equal simply means same), as men in value, but not equal or the same in function. A modernist, on the other hand, will argue that women are equal with or the same as men in absolutely every way, or nearly every way, in both value and function. The question of this debate is where to draw the line of equality: do we draw it at value or function?

The major problem with the modernist position is that it reduces womanhood and manhood down to mere biological differences and nothing more. This is the position of Egalitarianism, which holds that women can do absolutely everything that men can do except when biology prevents it, and is the position of WO proponents. Essentially, according to the modernist position, the only difference between a man and a woman is that women are built to bear children, but men are not. In other words, womanhood is nothing more than an appearance, just like manhood.

To a traditionalist, this is an offensive view of womanhood, because it is far too shallow and simplistic. A traditionalist will argue that womanhood does not just consist of the woman’s body, but also her behaviour, character, roles, and functions. In other words, having a more supportive role is part of a woman’s very soul and essence, just as much as childbearing is. Gender roles and behaviour cannot be dismissed as mere social constructs, because they are part of the essence of womanhood and manhood.

To say otherwise not only harms the true essence of womanhood and manhood, but it could even lead to the false view that a woman is merely a more upgraded man, because she can bear children. Or, to the contrary, it could lead to the equally false view that a man is merely a more upgraded woman, because he can perform more physical tasks due to his greater muscle mass.

All this is to say that for someone to argue for women’s ordination, on the basis of equality, and then claim that their opponents promote inequality, is an abuse of the term equality. It is a misuse, because the term equality is quite broad in scope, but they take a narrow definition of it, and then accuse their opponents of denying equality, even though their opponents are only denying their narrow use of the term. Thus, this argument is actually a logical fallacy of equivocation: using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended.

The Extent of Equality in the Bible: Genesis 1:27 & Galatians 3:28

We have discussed the problems with the Egalitarian/modernist position, in that it reduces womanhood and manhood down to biological differences, as well as the fact that they apply a very narrow definition of the term equality, and use it to their advantage. But this does not, at this stage, prove it’s wrong. We need to look at Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28 first, to see in what ways the Bible teaches that men and women are equal. Is it in value, dignity, and worth? Or is it in absolutely every way? Genesis 1:27 says:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27, ESVUK)

Based upon this passage, we can conclude that men and women are unique in God’s creation, because unlike the animals, or even the angels, they alone are created in God’s image and likeness. Furthermore, we can conclude that since God created both the man and the woman in his image, that he values both equally, and shows no favouritism. But we cannot possibly conclude from this passage that this entails that women can perform absolutely every function that a man can perform, or vice versa. That is a huge case of eisegesis, in which someone reads into a passage something that’s simply not found there.

Some people argue that in the very next verse, because Adam and Eve both share in the leadership over the rest of creation (Gen 1:28), that this means that they share in the exact same functions. But again, that is another huge assumption that is simply not supported by the text, because the passage is about humans in relation to animals, not men in relation to women. It tells us that humanity has leadership over the animals, but does not tell us about leadership amongst humans themselves. In summary, Genesis 1:27 cannot be used to prove that men and women are the same in role and function; but we can reasonably say from this passage that they are the same in value, dignity, and worth.

The second passage, Galatians 3:28, is best understood by reading it in its context. It says:

²⁴ So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, ²⁶ for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:24–29)

To be “one” is to be united. When Paul says that in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female, he is saying this because all Christians are united in their union with Christ, no matter who they are. Our ethnicity, social status, gender, and anything else about us that we have no control over, does not change the fact that if we are baptised and believe in Jesus, then we are equally children of God, equally united with Christ, equally offspring of Abraham, and equally heirs of the promise of eternal life. This is the plain meaning of Paul’s words when we take the context into account. There is no indication, whatsoever, that this indicates that women are absolutely the same as men in role and function.

If one takes verse 28 out of context, and forces a crudely literal interpretation on it, then one might not only conclude that women are the same as men in role because “there is no male and female”. They might also conclude that Jews and Greeks no longer exist, because “There is neither Jew nor Greek”, or that men and women no longer exist, because “there is no male and female”; we’re all “just Christians”. But this then erases the personal identity of each follower of Christ, which the Apostle here is not doing. In summary, Galatians 3:28 cannot be used to prove that women and men are equal in role and function; at most, we can use this passage to show that both men and women are equally heirs of the promise of eternal life through Christ.

The Extent of Equality in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 11:1–16; Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18–25; 4:1; 1 Peter 3:1–7

Since we have shown that the key texts that WO proponents use to claim that women are the same as men in role and function don’t actually teach this, let’s examine if the Bible does, in fact, teach that men and women are different in role and function. St Paul says:

²² Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. ²⁸ In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of his body. ³¹ “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” ³² This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. ³³ However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (Ephesians 5:22–33)

As we can see from this, the Bible says that in marriage, the husband is the head of the wife. This already tells us that in role and function, men and women are not the same. In the family, husbands are supposed to take the leadership role, and wives the supportive role. Furthermore, the Bible says that the woman is to submit to her husband in everything, as the Church submits to Christ, and that the man is to love his wife more than his own life, as Christ loves the Church and gave his life for her. This is a clearly distinct set of instructions for both genders, meaning, again, that men and women are not the same in role and function.

It should be said that when we take this entire passage together, we see that the Christian wife’s submission to her Christian husband is not at all servile, because she is submitting to a man who loves her with Christ’s own self-sacrificial love. A man who leads with Christ’s love will not rule over his wife like a tyrant and a woman who follows with the Church’s respect for Christ will not despise her husband’s authority.

This is how the Apostle Paul paints the picture of a godly, functioning marriage: it is, by nature, complimentary. The husband and wife’s roles are different, but what one role lacks, the other makes up for it; this is the view of Complimentarianism, the view which traditionalists take, which is nothing more than the teaching of Ephesians 5. Paul’s teaching here is actually a reversal of the Fall’s consequences in relations between men and women, in which the wife’s “desire shall be for your husband”, that is, fueled by envy for his position as head, “and he shall rule over you”, that is, harshly like a tyrant (Gen 3:16). Ephesians 5 upholds the distinct roles between male and female, but forbids any abuse of either position. Another similar passage is given below:

¹⁸ Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. ¹⁹ Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. ²⁰ Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. ²¹ Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. ²² Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. ²³ Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, ²⁴ knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. ²⁵ For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. ¹ Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 3:18–25; 4:1)

As we can see here, the Bible gives separate instructions for wives, husbands, children, fathers, slaves, all Christians in general, and masters. A woman’s role in marriage is to submit to her husband and a man’s is to love his wife and not be harsh with her. Because these roles are different, this again shows that women and men are not equal or the same in role or function.

There are other passages which teach that in the New Covenant, men and women are different in function. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul says that the head of a wife is her husband.

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Furthermore, in 1 Peter 3:1–7, the Apostle Peter instructs wives to submit to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, and to adopt a gentle and quiet spirit, which is pleasing to God, while he instructs husbands to live with understanding and honour toward their wives, because they are the physically weaker partners.

¹ Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, ² when they see your respectful and pure conduct. ³ Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewellery, or the clothing you wear— ⁴ but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. ⁵ For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, ⁶ as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

⁷ Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honour to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. (1 Peter 3:1–7)

All this demonstrates that according to the Bible in the New Testament, within the estate of marriage and the household, men and women have their own distinct functions. Therefore, while men and women are equal in value, they are not equal or the same in function. But, as passages like Genesis 1:27 and Galatians 3:28 declare, this difference of roles does not in any way diminish either gender’s value, which are both equal in God’s eyes.

We No Longer Follow the Commandments on Slavery (Or Head Coverings)

Some modernists may reply that we no longer follow the instructions on slaves obeying their masters, because those were specific to first-century Rome that had a system of slavery, which no longer applies to us today. In the same way, they say, we no longer need to obey the instructions on wives submitting to their husbands, because although this was culturally relevant in the first-century, it is not today.

There are some major problems with this argument, though. First, it’s wrong to say that we no longer follow the instructions on slaves obeying their masters, because the central principle behind Paul’s teaching here, namely, that we ought to serve those who are in authority over us with sincerity, applies for all times. It’s true that we no longer have slaves in Western societies, but that does not mean that the commandment now becomes irrelevant, or that we no longer need to follow its central principle. That would be like saying that the Lord Jesus’ command to wash each other’s feet in John 13 is irrelevant, because we usually don’t do that in Western societies. This is wrong, however, because we still ought to follow the central principle of John 13, which is to show each other hospitality.

A similar thing could be said about head coverings for women in 1 Corinthians 11:1–16: there is an eternal principle and a cultural principle. The “symbol of authority” that a woman wears on her head, which was a veil in Paul’s day (1Cor 11:10), may change from one place or era to the next, but the authority that the symbol points to, which is the man as the head of the woman (1Cor 11:3), does not. This is because headship is rooted in the creation of male and female (1Cor 11:7–9), whereas the artificial covering is rooted in human culture. Therefore, it’s wrong to say that we simply cast aside this commandment also, which would be sinful to do. To the contrary, we ought to continue to uphold the central principle behind it, which relates to human behaviour, even if we no longer practise—or have modified—the cultural component, which is the veil that represents it.

Second, this argument is highly misleading because marriage is very different from slavery. So, to use the example of slavery to explain why a passage on marriage is irrelevant or outdated is a huge case of category error. It’s similar to saying that an employee obeying his/her employer is on the same, or similar, level as a slave obeying his/her master, which is just as false and misleading as saying that a wife obeying her husband is on the same, or similar, level as slavery. Clearly, when we are dealing with two separate institutions that are very different in nature, we need to deal with the two on a separate basis, and not on a joint basis.

This is especially evident when we look at the way that Scripture speaks of marriage and slavery respectively. The Lord Jesus and St Paul praise marriage as a sacred institution of God (Eph 5:31–32) and exhort husbands and wives to stay together in this estate (Mt 19:6; 1Cor 7:10–11), whereas with regards to slavery, Paul actually encourages Christians to become free if they can, and leave the estate (1Cor 7:21). Furthermore, Paul also puts “enslavers”—those who kidnap people and sell them into slavery—in a category of evildoers who are: lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinful, unholy, and profane (1Tim 1:9–10).

Third, this argument ignores or fails to acknowledge the fact that while Paul does break down social distinctions between masters and their slaves, he does not do so for marriage. For example, when Paul wrote to a Christian master, Philemon, about his run-away slave, Onesimus, who had converted to Christianity after escaping and meeting Paul in prison, Paul exhorted Philemon to receive him back not as a slave, but as a brother in Christ (Phm 15–16). In regards to marriage, on the other hand, both the Apostles Paul and Peter continue to uphold the social distinctions between husbands and wives in the estate of marriage, but in contrast to the culture, they prevent husbands from misusing their position as the head of the household against their wives and children (Eph 5:22–33; 1Pt 3:1–7).

Baptism into Christ Erases All Social Distinctions

Another argument that some modernists use, which is heavily reliant upon Galatians 3:28, is that Baptism incorporates us into Christ himself (Gal 3:27); it translates us from the old Adam, or old humanity, to the Last Adam, who is Christ, the new humanity (1Cor 15:22, 45). They would then say that this new humanity in Christ has no social distinctions at all.

This argument fails, however, because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. The premise, that Baptism incorporates us into Christ and a new humanity, is correct. The conclusion is not that all social distinctions break down in Christ, but that all are equally valuable in Christ’s eyes and co-heirs of eternal life (Gal 3:28; 1Pt 3:7). All of the above Bible passages that we observed on marriage and the family are given explicitly in the context of New Covenant, Christian marriage (e.g. Eph 5:31–32). That is, they are not describing what the old humanity looks like, but the new humanity in Christ, and they still maintain social distinctions. Thus, to argue that our new humanity in Christ breaks down all social distinctions is nothing more than a manipulation and misuse of terms and definitions.

In summary, the slavery and new humanity arguments are not sufficient to undermine the New Testament passages which uphold the distinctions of function between men and women in the estate of marriage. Ephesians 5:22–33, Colossians 3:18–25; 4:1, 1 Corinthians 11:3, and 1 Peter 3:1–7 demonstrate that according to the Bible in the New Testament, within the estate of marriage and the household, men and women have their own distinct functions. Therefore, while men and women are equal in value, they are not equal or the same in function.

The Implications of The Fact that in the New Covenant, Men and Women are Different in Function

The implications of the fact that men and women have separate and distinct roles and functions under the New Covenant, at least in the realm of marriage and the household, are significant. First of all, it means that Egalitarianism, which teaches that women can do everything that men can do except when biology prevents it, because there are no social distinctions between men and women, is false. Secondly, it means that the equality argument of the modernists, namely, that to deny women the opportunity of being ordained into the pastoral office is inequality, is not necessarily true, since the Bible teaches not an equality of function between men and women, but value.

After all, if men and women are equal in value, but different in function, then traditionalists denying women the chance of becoming pastors may not at all be a case of devaluing women on the basis of gender, but rather upholding her identity as a woman created in the image of God. And if denying women from entry into the pastoral office is, indeed, a case of upholding her identity as a woman, then according to the contrary, allowing her to become a pastor would not only be denigrating her womanhood, but would even be leading her into sin, which is a state of violation against God’s will, which dishonours both her and God. For this reason, if the traditionalist position is true, then it would be the modernists who are actually guilty of sin and sexism against women.

The Argument from 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 3:1–7

But, it could be true (for the sake of argument) that while men and women have distinct roles in the realm of the home and family, that this is not necessarily true in the realm of the Church. However, there are Bible passages which uphold the distinction of functions between men and women for the Church, also. One key example is 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 3:1–7, which says:

¹¹ Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ¹ The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. ² Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (1 Timothy 2:11–15; 3:1–3)

In the Bible, the terms “overseer” (or bishop) and “elder” (or presbyter) are both used interchangeably to refer to the office of pastor (Ac 20:17, 28; Ti 1:5–9; 1Pt 5:1–3). It is significant that Paul places his prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over men in the same section in which he provides qualifications on who can and cannot be a pastor. After all, according to Paul, an overseer must be “able to teach” (1Tim 3:2), since one of their main functions is serving as the spiritual teacher of the congregation, which is manifested in their preaching of the sermon during public worship. Another of their main functions is exercising authority over the congregation, manifested in their leading of public worship, as well as deciding who can or cannot receive Holy Communion.

It is also significant that when Paul gives his qualifications, one of the criteria is that an overseer must be a “husband of one wife”, which is directed specifically towards men, as opposed to simply specifying that an overseer must be “married to one spouse”, the latter of which would have been gender neutral. Paul does the same thing in Titus 1:5–6, in which he writes that an elder must be a “husband of one wife”. Furthermore, Paul says that he wrote all these instructions so that we may know how we ought to behave in the household of God, the Church, which means that Paul is speaking specifically about roles in the realm of the Church here (1Tim 3:14–15). When taken all together, this passage tells us that since women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men, in the direct context on who can and cannot be a pastor, and that a pastor must be able to teach, women, therefore, cannot perform the key functions of a pastor.

Paul’s Comments on Adam and Eve Are Influenced by His Patriarchal Society

A modernist may give some counterarguments to this. They might quote verses 13–14, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” They may then point out that it was wrong for Paul to say that only Eve was deceived, not Adam, because they both ate from the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, and that Paul said this only because he was influenced by his Greco-Roman society, which had suspicions that falsehoods easily ensnare women. Therefore, they say, this command should not be followed today.

There are some major problems with this argument. The first, is that in order to fully embrace this argument as one’s own, they must deny biblical inerrancy—the biblical teaching that the Bible, in its entirety, is the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore free from all error (Jn 10:35; 1Th 2:13; 2Tim 3:16–17; 2Pt 1:19–21; 3:15–17). Of course, from a purely philosophical or secular standpoint, it could indeed be a “valid” argument to say that Paul was not uttering Spirit-inspired words here, but rather his own misplaced, patriarchal opinions. But then, the problem is, if the Bible is not the Word of God, but only contains the Word of God, who gets to decide which parts are the Word, and which parts are not? Evidently, the readers themselves.

At this point, the discussion breaks down, because traditionalists and modernists no longer have the same authority, but two competing authorities. The traditionalists will maintain that Paul’s words here are infallible, because the Bible is the Word of God, but the modernists will simply reply that Paul’s words here are not infallible, because it’s up to the individual or Church to decide what is the Word of God in the Bible and what’s not. Thus, it no longer becomes a discussion on women’s ordination, but rather the authority and status of Scripture itself.

The second major problem with this argument is that it assumes the worst about Paul, rather than the best. Of course, again—from a purely philosophical and secular perspective—one could assume that Paul said these words because he was writing his own biased, patriarchal opinions. However, one could also look at it from a more positive perspective, and give Paul the benefit of the doubt. This would involve considering the fact that perhaps Paul is actually making a perfectly valid and important point here, even if we may not see it at first (which would seem to be the more loving approach, at least to Paul).

When Paul says that Adam was not deceived, but Eve was, he seems to be making a reference to the order of temptation that occurs in Genesis 3, much in the same way that in the previous clause, he references the order of creation. The serpent sinned first by tempting and deceiving Eve; Eve then sinned by heeding the voice of the serpent, eating of the forbidden fruit, and giving some of it to Adam; then, Adam sinned by heeding the voice of Eve, and eating of the fruit (Gen 3:1–6). In light of Paul’s words, it is perfectly valid to believe that while Eve was deceived, or tricked, into eating the fruit, that Adam was not deceived, but nevertheless sinned by going along with Eve’s decision, despite knowing better. This does not necessarily mean that Eve was more at fault; after all, as her husband, it was Adam’s responsibility to protect his wife, which he failed to do here. Both were equally guilty of sinning in the eyes of God.

It’s also important to note that when Paul says that Eve became a “transgressor”, it does not mean that Adam did not become a transgressor; it simply means that Eve was deceived, not Adam, and that through being deceived, Eve became a transgressor. Elsewhere Paul confirms this, calling Adam a transgressor also (Rm 5:14). All this is to say that, sometimes, resolving biblical tensions is simply a matter of looking at things from a different, positive perspective, as opposed to a negative perspective, in which one simply denies biblical inerrancy, and dismisses the author’s words as mere un-inspired opinions.

Today’s Pastors Are Not the Same as the Elders & Overseers in Scripture

Other modernists respond by saying that the office of pastor today is not the same as the office of “overseer” and “elder” that Paul describes in the Pastoral Epistles. This objection is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, according to the Bible, elders/overseers refer to the spiritual leaders of the Church. We see this, for example, in Acts 15:6, where the apostles and elders were gathered together at the Jerusalem Council to discuss and make a spiritual judgement on whether or not keeping the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation. In the same way, pastors/priests of today simply refer to the spiritual leaders of the Church. Whatever name we may give this office, anyone who acts as the spiritual leader of a congregation is acting in the office of elder/overseer that Paul describes in the Pastoral Epistles.

Secondly, significant church confessions confirm the Bible’s teaching that pastors of today are elders/overseers as described in the Bible. For example, in the Book of Concord—the confessions of the Lutheran Church—the Power and Primacy of the Pope says, in paragraphs 60–62:

[In our Confession and the Apology we have in general recounted what we have had to say concerning ecclesiastical power. For] The Gospel assigns to those who preside over churches the command to teach the Gospel to remit sins, to administer the Sacraments and besides jurisdiction, namely, the command to excommunicate those whose crimes are known, and again to absolve those who repent.

And by the confession of all, even of the adversaries, it is clear that this power by divine right is common to all who preside over churches, whether they are called pastors, or elders, or bishops. And accordingly Jerome openly teaches in the apostolic letters that all who preside over churches are both bishops and elders, and cites from Titus 1:5f : For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city [and afterwards calls these persons bishops]. Then he adds: A bishop must be the husband of one wife. (Tr 60–62)^[1]

In addition, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, in paragraphs 1536 and 1575–76:

Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate. (CCC 1536)

Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority. Raised to the Father’s right hand, he has not forsaken his flock but he keeps it under his constant protection through the apostles, and guides it still through these same pastors who continue his work today. Thus, it is Christ whose gift it is that some be apostles, others pastors. He continues to act through the bishops. Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the “gift of the Spirit,” the “apostolic line.” Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders. (CCC 1575–76)^[2]

Moreover, the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer, in the preface to the chapter on “The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, According to the Order of The Church of England”, says:

It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles’ time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ’s Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Which Offices were evermore had in such reverend Estimation, that no man might presume to execute any of them, except he were first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qualities as are requisite for the same; and also by publick Prayer, with Imposition of Hands, were approved and admitted thereunto by lawful Authority. And therefore, to the intent that these Orders may be continued, and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, in the Church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said Functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the Form hereafter following, or hath had Episcopal Consecration, or Ordination.^[3]

Thus, the official position of the Lutheran, Catholic, and Anglican Church is that pastors of today bear the same office of spiritual leadership that Christ himself instituted in the New Testament. More evidence could be cited, but this will suffice. In sum, the Bible teaches that elders/overseers are the Church’s spiritual leaders, and tradition affirms this. Pastors of today are, therefore, elders/overseers, as described by the New Testament.

Paul Was Only Reacting to a Specific Situation

Another argument that a modernist might raise is that Paul forbade women from teaching and exercising authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 only in reaction to a specific incident that occurred in the first century, and that this command was not meant for all times. Therefore, they say, we no longer need to follow it. There is a fatal flaw in this argument, however: there is no evidence to back it up. There is nothing in the text itself which suggests that Paul is reacting to a specific incident here, nor is there any indication of this in any writing of the ancient Church. This is why if a modernist were asked what situation Paul was addressing, they couldn’t give a concrete answer, because the entire argument is built purely upon speculation, rather than facts or evidence.

If a traditionalist were to point this out, a modernist may reply in one of three ways. First, they may say that their speculation is actually supported by biblical themes or teachings. For example, they may say that Paul must have been talking only of a specific situation, because the Bible elevates the status of women. However, the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. After all, as we have already proved with Bible passages on family and the home, women are equal with men in dignity, but different in function. So, Paul and the apostles can teach a difference of functions between men and women, all the while elevating women to an equal value with men in their status as children of God and co-heirs of eternal life. Therefore, Paul’s prohibition on women teaching and exercising authority over men in the Church (and by extension, Jesus’, who made Paul his apostle) can co-exist with the Bible’s elevated status of women.

Second, a modernist may say that it must be true that Paul was only addressing a specific situation, because traditionalists cannot prove that their claim is false. This, however, is an argument from ignorance—a logical fallacy. Of course a traditionalist cannot “prove” that it’s false (because we cannot go back in time and interview Paul)—but so what? This argument is like saying that it must be true that life is only a simulation, because it’s impossible to prove otherwise. Of course it’s impossible to prove otherwise, but that doesn’t make the argument good: it simply makes it meaningless to engage with. Therefore, because this argument lacks any evidence and depth of thought or reason, it can be simply dismissed just as easily, while traditionalists continue to offer evidence against it.

Third, a modernist may say that Paul must have been only addressing a specific situation because the Church was patriarchal, and under the influence of an unjust patriarchy, Paul was overreacting to a specific situation. However, this is nothing more than an appeal to novelty. That is, the argument is a logical fallacy, in which the arguer claims to know better than the people of the past, or would have reacted differently from them, simply because the people of the past weren’t fortunate enough to have been born in this era of supposed enlightenment. However, since we know that Paul actually honoured women by placing them as equals with men as co-heirs of eternal life (Gal 3:28), we know that this argument is false—not to mention that it seems to promote cultural elitism.

The Argument from 1 Corinthians 14:26–40

We have shown that in 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 3:1–7, the Bible teaches that men and women are distinct in function not only in the home, but also in the Church. It’s also worth examining one more passage which is crucial in this study, which is 1 Corinthians 14:26–40. This one is slightly more lengthy, but it’s worth getting the full context:

²⁶ What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. ²⁷ If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. ²⁸ But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. ²⁹ Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. ³⁰ If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. ³¹ For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, ³² and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. ³³ For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, ³⁴ the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. ³⁵ If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

³⁶ Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. ³⁸ If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. ³⁹ So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. ⁴⁰ But all things should be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:26–40)

As we can see from the phrase, “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (1Cor 14:26), Paul is talking about public Church worship. So, again, this teaching falls within the realm of the Church. We also see from verses 26b, 33, and 40, that Paul’s main desire in this passage is that Church worship should be done decently and in order. Paul’s divine instructions here show how this is done. Furthermore, Paul’s instructions here seem to be addressed to church leaders (elders/overseers/pastors), which will be explained in a minute.

The hymn is rather self-explanatory, and refers to the songs that the congregation sings to worship God. The lesson refers to the Bible readings (1Tim 4:13). The revelation refers to the sermons that the elder/overseer/pastor preaches (2Tim 4:2). The liturgy of today has retained the hymn, lesson, and revelation, but usually doesn’t include the tongue or interpretation. This is because these spiritual gifts are considerably rare nowadays, so the Church has adapted accordingly. When giving the sermon or revelation, the elders could prophesy (or teach) one after the other. Two or three could speak per service, and the other prophets/elders weighed what was said (1Cor 14:29). The tongue and interpretation refer to elders with the gift of tongues speaking to the congregation in an unknown language, while elders with the gift of interpretation interpreted these words. Two or three could speak in tongues per service, so long as there was someone present to interpret them (1Cor 14:27–28).

There are two primary reasons why Paul appears to be referring to church leaders in this chapter. First, Paul’s emphasis on order in the Church (1Cor 14:40) makes it highly unlikely that just anyone could get up and prophesy/speak in tongues/interpret. The pastoral office that was established by Christ was already being used by the Church as early as the book of Acts, and it was the elders’/overseers’ responsibility to teach the congregation (Ac 14:23; 1Tim 4:11–16). Second, the Bible speaks of two different types of prophets. The first, refers to a person with the gift of prophesying into the future, that is, predicting future events (Ac 11:27–28). The second, refers to a person with the gift of prophesying for the present, by being able to expound the Word of God, which Paul clearly refers to here, since in this chapter he describes prophecy in terms that are explicitly connected with teaching the congregation (1Cor 14:3, 6, 24–25; cf. Ac 14:21–22; 1Tim 4:13; 2Tim 4:2).

Paul then says that in all the churches (assemblies/congregations) of the saints, the women should keep silent, and not speak but rather be in submission (1Cor 14:34). This does not seem to refer to absolute silence, but rather overall quietness. Verse 28 indicates this, since if no interpreter was present, an elder with the gift of tongues must keep silent (the same Greek word), but could still “speak to himself and to God” (1Cor 14:28). Paul says that this is a teaching of God’s Law (1Cor 14:34), so the charge for women to keep quiet is a divine command, and any violation of it is therefore shameful (1Cor 14:35b). Paul proceeds to defend this teaching, saying that it is a command of the Lord (1Cor 14:37)—a reiteration of the fact that it is from God’s Law (1Cor 14:34). Altogether, because God mandates that women keep quiet, rather than speak or teach, and be in submission, rather than authority, during public Church worship, this means that women cannot legitimately fulfil the office of pastor.

“As In All the Churches of the Saints” Could Be Connected to “For God Is Not a God of Confusion But of Peace”

One objection that a modernist might make to this is that linguistically, the phrase “As in all the churches of the saints” could immediately follow “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace”, so that the phrase instead reads as, “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women should keep silent in the churches.” They say, therefore, that Paul’s command is not directed to all churches, just the church in Corinth.

While it’s true that the passage could be translated that way, the conclusion is not necessarily true. Even if the phrase were connected to God being a God of peace, the fact remains that Paul still says that “The women should keep silent in the churches.” Paul does not need to specify that this is for “all the churches of the saints” in order for his command to be timeless. After all, Paul does not provide this designation elsewhere for certain commandments in the letter, such as his commands on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, but these are still timeless (1Cor 7:10–15).

In addition, it’s significant that Paul says that the women are to keep silent in “the churches” plural (see also 1Cor 11:16), in contrast with how he begins the letter, addressing it to “the church” singular “of God that is in Corinth” (1Cor 1:1), indicating that its scope is wider than just the church in Corinth. Moreover, when Paul is only addressing specific congregations, he specifies what region they belong to, such as the “churches of Asia” (1Cor 16:19) or the “churches of Galatia” (1Cor 16:1). Paul does not do so for this passage, which again, indicates that it’s not just for the church in Corinth. Regardless of this, the fact that Paul gives us this command means that we ought to follow it, just as we ought to follow all the commandments of the Bible. Finally, this argument does not negate the fact that Paul attributes this teaching to the Law of God (1Cor 14:34), and all Christians are bound to follow God’s Law. This again gives further evidence that he’s not simply addressing the congregation in Corinth.

The Command for Women’s Silence Was Added in Later by a Scribe (Or Was Only Circumstantial)

Another argument that modernists might use is that while all ancient Bible manuscripts, without any exception, contain verses 34–35, in which Paul commands women to be silent, a small minority of them (about half the amount of the Western witnesses—one of the three major manuscript traditions) place these verses at the end of the pericope, after verse 40, where he says, “But all things should be done decently and in order.” They say that this difference in placement indicates that these verses were not originally part of Paul’s letter, but were added in later by a scribe.

Some will cite supporting evidence for this aimed at showing the apparent “contradictions” between Paul’s command for women’s silence here, and his earlier permissions for women. For example, Paul teaches the interdependence of all Christians in regards to spiritual gifts (1Cor 12), allows women to pray and prophesy (1Cor 11:4–5), and appeals authoritatively to the “Law”, which is different from his usual use of it to introduce a specific text or illustrate, rather than prescribe (e.g. 1Cor 9:8; 14:21). They say that these apparent contradictions, along with their different placement in certain manuscripts, indicate that a scribe wrote this command later on, rather than Paul.

Let’s discuss each point one by one. The claim that because there is a difference in placement of verses 34–35 in a minority of manuscripts indicates that they were added in later, is a weak argument. This is because it’s nothing more than speculation. It is, of course, interesting to think about why a minority of manuscripts place them at the end, while the vast majority put them in the middle. Some scholars speculate that Paul himself wrote verses 34–35 as an insertion, to save space on the manuscript, which would explain why the early scribes regarded it as authentic if it really were a marginal gloss. If the location of the insertion could not be determined for whatever reason (e.g. the ink was blurred), then the scribes could put it at the end of the subject, which would be after verse 40, as seen in the Western witnesses.^[4],[5]

In short, there could be many other reasons for why or how this happened and we will probably never know for sure. But to single out one conclusion that explicitly attacks the authenticity of the biblical text and disregard all other possibilities, purely on the basis of speculation, is both dishonest and disingenuous. It also ignores the fact that regardless of where the verses are placed, every ancient manuscript contains them nevertheless, which is already powerful evidence that they’re authentic. In light of this, the validity of their argument hinges entirely on the supporting evidence that they cite, which we will now address. Keep in mind that these arguments could also be used by modernists to support the claim that this passage was only circumstantial.

Men and Women Both Have Spiritual Gifts

First, Paul does indeed teach that the Holy Spirit provides each member of the Church, both men and women, with spiritual gifts in chapter 12 (1Cor 12:7–11). But Paul’s charge for women to keep silent during public worship does not contradict the fact that women can, and do, have spiritual gifts. Public worship is only one aspect of the Christian life among many; and even if women cannot specifically teach or exercise authority over men during the liturgy, they still have roles available to them during the liturgy, like Bible reading, singing, and praying.

Outside of public worship, women have many more roles available to them within or outside of the Church. In addition, the office of pastor is only one vocation among many for Christians—an office which the majority of Christians do not hold anyway. Paul is not denying women from their use of spiritual gifts in the Christian life; he is only giving a specific divine command on gender roles within the liturgy.

Women Can Pray and Prophesy

Second, Paul’s charge for women to keep silent during public worship does not contradict his allowance for them to pray or prophesy. As noted earlier, Paul’s command for women is not for absolute silence, but rather overall quietness, and a role of submission, rather than leadership. In addition, Paul’s comments on men and women praying and prophesying in chapter 11 are not specified to be in the context of public church worship (1Cor 11:1–5), unlike the next section that he introduces on Holy Communion (1Cor 11:17–22), or in this section in discussion (1Cor 14:26). This indicates that in 1 Corinthians 11:1–5, Paul likely has private acts in mind, or just the Christian life in general, as opposed to public worship specifically.

Christian women can exercise the gift of prophecy in many different ways. They can do so as mothers instructing their children in the faith, as laywomen giving devotions, as speakers at conferences, as evangelists, missionaries, Sunday school teachers, school or university teachers, and in some cases, seminary teachers. The one and only instance in which women cannot prophesy this way is during public Church worship (1Cor 14:26; 34–35; 1Tim 2:11–15).

Paul’s Use of the Law Here Is Different

The third point, that Paul’s use of the Law here is different from other places in the letter, is false. In 1 Corinthians 9:7–10, Paul appeals to the authority of the Law to teach that pastors who labour in preaching the Word should receive payment for their work. In 1 Corinthians 14:21–22, Paul appeals to the authority of the Law to teach that tongues are a sign for unbelievers, but prophecy for believers. Elsewhere, Paul uses the word “Scripture(s)” synonymously with the Law, to which he also appeals as a source of authority (Rm 10:11; 1Cor 15:3–4; 1Tim 5:18). In the same way, Paul appeals to the authority of the Law in 1 Corinthians 14:34 to explain why women should be quiet during public church worship.

There is nothing at all in the text to suggest that this command was only circumstantial. To the contrary, the fact that Paul calls it God’s Law means that it is timeless (1Cor 14:34). As we said earlier, the circumstantial argument—that it’s true because it cannot be “proven” false—is a meaningless claim with no thought or reason behind it, much like the claim that life is only a simulation. Therefore, traditionalists can simply dismiss it, while continuing to offer evidence to the contrary. In the above points, we have shown that there is no evidence to support the claim that verses 34–35 were added in later by a scribe. Therefore, there is no real reason why we should think it was. To the contrary, the fact that it’s in all ancient manuscripts, indicates that it’s genuine.

Conclusion

In this article, we have proved: that modernists who use the “equality argument” employ a very narrow definition of the term equality, despite its wider scope; that the Bible teaches that men and women are equal in value, but not function, which is clearly seen in the realms of the home and the Church; and that the central arguments that modernists raise against traditionalists are false. 1 Timothy 2:11–15; 3:1–7 and 1 Corinthians 14:26–40 do not allow for women to fulfill the office of pastor, and all the objections to this cannot survive against critical examination.

Hence, it is not inequality for traditionalists to deny a woman ordination into the pastoral office, contrary to what they are often accused of. It is actually an act of love, because they are obeying the Word of Christ, honouring her womanhood, and properly guiding her. To the contrary, it is sinful and sexist for modernists to encourage a woman to become ordained as a pastor, because they are disobeying the Word of Christ, dishonouring her womanhood, and leading her into violating God’s will, hence sin.

Women play a central role in the Church and their gifts should never be neglected. Sadly, it does happen sometimes that Christian women are under-utilised in the Church. But the solution is not to get women into doing something against God’s will, but rather encouraging them to use their gifts in biblical ways. Ultimately, this article was written for the sake of the truth, which is in the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Jn 8:31–32; 14:6; 18:37; Eph 4:21), and to protect women from all the unbiblical voices of society that would get them to sin and undermine who they are in Christ, under the pretence of “equality”.

See Also

• Did Jesus Support Women’s Ordination in the Gospels?
• Is Women’s Ordination Biblical?
• Is the Bible Inerrant?
• What Does It Mean That God Created Humans in His Image and Likeness?

Footnotes

1. Book of Concord, “The Power and Primacy of the Pope,” ed. Paul T. McCain et al., Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921), accessed August 25, 2023, https://bookofconcord.org/power-and-primacy/.
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, “ARTICLE 6: THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS,” 2nd ed. English Translation, accessed August 25, 2023, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm.
3. The Book of Common Prayer, “Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,” accessed August 25, 2023, https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-and-manner-making-ordaining.
4. “Examining the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35…,” Help Me With Bible Study, accessed August 17, 2023, http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/11Church/PublicExaminingAuthenticity1CorLowerCriticism.aspx.
5. Wallace, Daniel B., “The Textual Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35,” Bible.org, accessed August 17, 2023, https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-corinthians-1434-35.

Bibliography

Book of Concord. “The Power and Primacy of the Pope.” Edited and translated by Paul T. McCain et al. Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church: German-Latin-English. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Accessed August 25, 2023. https://bookofconcord.org/power-and-primacy/.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. “ARTICLE 6: THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS.” 2nd ed. English Translation. Accessed August 17, 2023. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a6.htm.

“Examining the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35….” Help Me With Bible Study. Accessed August 17, 2023. http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/11Church/PublicExaminingAuthenticity1CorLowerCriticism.aspx.

The Book of Common Prayer. “Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” Accessed August 25, 2023. https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/form-and-manner-making-ordaining.

Wallace, Daniel B. “The Textual Problem of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.” Bible.org. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-corinthians-1434-35.

The post Should We Ordain Women for Equality? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

The Prophet Isaiah made the following prophecy concerning Jesus: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Is 9:6, ESVUK). Some people assume that in calling Jesus the “Everlasting Father”, this means he must be God the Father. This is not true.

First, notice that Isaiah says: “his name shall be called…”. In other words, Isaiah is giving a list of names, or titles, which Jesus possesses. The fact that Jesus shares the same name or title as the Father, however, does not in any way mean that he and the Father are the same person; two different people can share the same name. For example, King Nebuchadnezzar shares the title “king of kings” (Ezek 26:7; Dan 2:37) with God the Father (1Tim 6:15), but no one would conclude that he and God the Father are the same person.

In addition, the counterargument could be made that nowhere in the Bible is the Father called the “Prince of Peace”—Jesus is the only person in the entire Bible who possesses this name/title. This indicates that he is, indeed, a different person from the Father, who shares some names with him, but also possesses different names. For example, Jesus is called “the Word” (Jn 1:1, 14; Rev 19:13), “the Son of God” (Ac 9:20), “the Father’s Son” (2Jn 1:3), “Immanuel” (Mat 1:22–23), and even the name “Jesus” itself (Mat 1:21), unlike the Father. Furthermore, a wholistic reading of the book of Isaiah proves that Jesus and the Father are not the same person. Later on, Isaiah records the following prophecy in which the Messiah (Jesus) says:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; … (Isaiah 61:1)

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus confirms that he fulfills this prophecy (Lk 4:17–21). This clearly differentiates “God”, the “Spirit” and the “Anointed One” (Jesus) as three different persons. This is in perfect harmony with Isaiah 9:6, which teaches that Jesus is called “Everlasting Father”, but not God the Father.

Finally, the entire Bible contradicts the belief that Jesus is the Father. In the Gospel of John, Jesus identifies himself and his Father as “two people”, not one person, when he said: “In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. ¹⁸ I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me” (Jn 8:17–18). Furthermore, in Jesus’ baptism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were each present simultaneously, rather than in one mode at a time:

… when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, ²² and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. (Luke 16:21–22)

The Bible teaches that Jesus is God (Jn 1:1; 20:28), the eternal Creator of all things (Jn 1:2–3; Col 1:16–17). But Jesus is the Son, not the Father (1Jn 4:14; 5:11–12). The Son and the Father “are one” in being (Jn 10:30), not person (Jn 10:28–29). This is how Jesus can be “with God” and “God” at the same time (Jn 1:1). The true monotheistic God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—three Persons united in the one undivided being—the God into whose name Christians are baptised (Mat 28:19), just as Christ’s Church has constantly taught for the past 2,000 years.

See Also

• Is Jesus God?
• What Is the Trinity?
• Does the Bible Teach the Holy Trinity?
• In What Sense Is Jesus the Son of God?

The post If Jesus Is the “Everlasting Father”, Does This Mean He Is God the Father? (Isaiah 9:6) appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

St John the Evangelist wrote at the beginning of his Gospel, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1:18, RSV; see also 1 Jn 4:12). Some people have erroneously taken this passage to mean that since Jesus was seen by people, he can’t be God. But such an understanding completely misses the point that John is making.

The main emphasis of the passage is not on the fact that no one has ever seen God, but rather, on the fact that the only Son, Jesus Christ, has made God known. The theme of God being formerly not fully known but now fully revealed in Jesus Christ is a key theme in John’s writings. Jesus said, “And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen” (Jn 5:37), “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father” (Jn 6:46). Then, half-way through the Gospel, we see this incredible Bible passage:

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” ⁹ Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰ Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. (John 14:8–10)

This passage is where John’s key theme of Jesus revealing God is most fully developed. John went from saying that Jesus makes the unseen God known and that he alone has seen God—extraordinary claims in and of themselves—to saying that now one sees God by seeing Jesus. If Jesus only represented God, one would not see God by seeing him; for this to be true, he must be the very embodiment of God. John lays out this very teaching in the introduction, when teaching that Jesus, the Word who was with God, is the incarnation of God (which refutes both Modalism and Unitarianism¹):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … ¹⁴ And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. (John 1:1, 14)

The image of the invisible God of the Old Testament has now become visible as the man Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Col 1:15), in whom “the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9). Though God was not fully known, Jesus, the incarnation of God, has now “made him known” (Jn 1:18) by coming down to us from Heaven (Jn 6:38), for no one can make God known in the most full, true sense, except for God himself. And Jesus himself declared that only he can reveal God fully, in his words, “no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mat 11:27b). We come to know God on Jesus’ terms, not our own, because Jesus is God. John 1:18 teaches that Jesus is God, just as Christ’s Church has constantly taught for the past 2,000 years.

Notes

1. Modalism is a heresy that Christ’s Church condemned, which teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three Persons in one God, as the Trinity teaches, but rather three modes which the one person of God manifests himself in at different times. Jesus’ Baptism is a biblical text which powerfully refutes this unchristian teaching (Mat 3:16–17). Unitarianism is also a heresy that Christ’s Church condemned, which teaches that the Father alone is God, and that the Son and Holy Spirit are inferior created beings. John 1:1–3, 14, 20:28 and Hebrews 9:14 are biblical texts which also refute this heresy.

See Also

• Is Jesus God?
• Is the Holy Spirit God?
• Does the Bible Teach the Holy Trinity?
• In What Sense Is Jesus the Son of God?

The post If “No One Has Ever Seen God”, How Can Jesus Be God? (John 1:18) appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

The Bible’s Answer

The Bible teaches that the only way a person will be saved from their sins and go to Heaven is if they believe in the biblical Jesus Christ (Ac 16:30–31; 4:11–12; Jn 14:6), which is synonymous with believing in the gospel (Eph 1:13; 1Pt 1:23–25). Those who do not believe in Jesus will go to Hell when they die, as divine retribution for sinning (Mt 25:46; Jn 3:18; Heb 9:27). This can be summed up in the following Bible passages:

Whoever believes in [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. … Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:18, 36, ESVUK)

And [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15–16)

Bible passages like the ones above have caused some people to question whether or not God will apply the same criteria for eternal life to those who have never heard of Jesus. They may ask questions like: if they die in unbelief, will God judge them the same way as any other unbeliever who has heard the gospel, but refused to believe in it? Would God automatically grant them a free pass into Heaven, because they had no chance to believe? Or, would God judge them by their works, and allow the good people to go to Heaven?

As a matter of fact, the answer to all of the above questions is: no. The Bible does not offer us any exceptions to the rule; every person must believe in Jesus to be saved, regardless of where they live, or what their personal circumstances are. Naturally, this includes people in lands where the gospel has yet to be proclaimed. However, we cannot end the conversation there, because the Bible has more to say regarding this topic. There are also some assumptions that people often make when bringing up this topic which must be addressed from a biblical perspective.

No One Is Righteous

A mistake people often make when asking what happens to those who have never heard of Jesus, is that they assume people can be “good”. When most secular people refer to “good” people, they mean law-abiding citizens who try hard to be nice people. Such people may be good from a human perspective, but from God’s objective perspective, no one (except for Jesus Christ) is truly good. St Paul wrote:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. (Romans 3:9–12)

Not only is the human race unrighteous in God’s eyes, but we even do no good; we are altogether evil. The reason why we are all evil is because we have all sinned (Rm 3:23). This means we have broken God’s commandments—his holy law (1Jn 3:4). Even pagans in non-Christian lands know about God’s law, because he has written it on each person’s heart from birth, and their conscience condemns them when they break it (Rm 2:15–16).

Because of our natural knowledge between right and wrong, we are all—even those who have never heard of Christ—aware of our shortcomings. Because of this, all people, both in Christian lands and pagan lands that have never heard of Jesus, deserve God’s eternal punishment. All people stand guilty before God, so no one will be saved by their good works (Gal 2:16). The amazing thing is that God chooses to save some people, rather than none at all (Ps 8:3–5).

God Does Reveal Himself to Everyone

Another mistake people often make when asking this question, is they think that God is incapable of revealing himself in his own way, such as in dreams or visions, to people in lands where the gospel is absent. By assuming this, they are putting limits on God’s power, even though Jesus said “with God all things are possible” (Mt 19:26). In fact, the Apostle Paul wrote that God does reveal himself to all people—even those who have never heard of Christ—in creation. He said:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23)

In this passage, Paul was clearly referring to Gentile pagans who had never been in contact with God’s Old Testament Christians before, the Israelites. Yet, Paul still accused them of suppressing the truth by their “ungodliness and unrighteousness”. Why? Because God’s “eternal power and divine nature” can be seen in his creation, and so they all “knew God”. Even still, they chose to reject him, and worshipped their own images of animals that they themselves had created, instead. The exact same thing can be said of people in non-Christians countries where the gospel is absent today.

If they die as unbelievers and, consequently, end up in Hell, it is because they wilfully chose to reject God, whom they perceived in creation, and worshipped their own idols instead. However, if they choose to seek God in creation, then God will reveal to them what they need to know to be saved (cf. Ac 17:26–27 with Jer 29:13). God could do this through a dream or vision, or by sending them a Christian who tells them the gospel (see Ac 10:1–8, 44). This is why Paul wrote about the necessity of mission work (Rm 10:14–15).

Furthermore, Jesus clearly said that God the Father gives the Holy Spirit (who gives us faith in Christ [1Cor 12:3]) to all who ask him (Lk 11:13). The problem is not that people do not have evidence for God; the problem is that people’s hearts are evil (Mk 7:21–23; Jn 2:24–25), and so by nature, they prefer to stay in the darkness, rather than follow where the evidence naturally leads, which is the light of Christ (Jn 3:19–20). God wants all people to be saved (1Tim 2:3–4), but not all people want to be saved.

God Judges Righteously

Yet another mistake people often make when asking this question, is they assume that God is “not fair”, usually in reference to his judgement. Yet, in the above sections we have established that all people are sinners and without excuse for their disbelief, so God could not possibly be “unfair” for giving sinners the punishment they deserve. However, it should be mentioned that God, being the just Judge that he is (Gen 18:25), does not punish every sinner the same way. Jesus said:

Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming’, and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:42–48)

Our Lord Jesus clearly said that people who know the will of God, but fail to uphold it, will be punished more than those who do not know God’s will, but who sin anyway. This should make every person reading this article fearful; for such people are, in all likelihood, in a position where they have access to the Internet, access to hundreds of biblical resources, and access to the Bible, God’s Word, and thus can indeed know the will of God.

Thus, rather than worrying about those who have (supposedly) “never heard” of Jesus, people asking this question and reading this article should worry about themselves first, and prioritise putting their own lives in order. God is just (Is 30:18); he will ensure that people in non-Christian lands receive enough revelation of himself to believe, and will judge them fairly, according to what they have access to. If they die in unbelief, they will go to Hell, but will not be punished to the same degree as a person who lived in a Christian land and had many opportunities to believe in Jesus, but died in unbelief.

Conclusion

In this article, we have looked at what happens to those who have never heard of Jesus and died as unbelievers. We established that the Bible teaches that whoever believes in Jesus will be saved from their sins, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. This applies to all people, whether they live in Christian lands, or pagan lands. We then looked at some assumptions people make when asking this question.

No person is truly good, because all have sinned, and all are aware of this, because God gave us a conscience. All people can perceive God in creation, and he reveals himself to those who seek him, so there is no excuse for unbelief. Moreover, God judges those who know (or have access to) his divine will more strictly than those who do not have access to the Bible, so he is just. Rather than worry about those who have (supposedly) never heard of Jesus, we should first worry about our own salvation.

To learn about the the good news of salvation (gospel) concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, please read the below article.

• What Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

See Also

• What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus?
• Is Jesus the Only Way to Heaven?
• Are We Saved by Our Good Works?
• Can Atheism Account for Morality?

The post What Happens to Those Who Have Never Heard of Jesus? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

Introduction

Before we answer this question, let us first define what “atheism”, “science”, and “scientific” mean. The Cambridge dictionary defines atheism as “the belief that God does not exist.” It defines science as “the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.” It defines scientific as “relating to science, or using the organized methods of science.” From this information, we can conclude that atheism is not scientific.

The Scope of Science

Why is this the case? As we have seen above, science is the “study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world.” It develops theories based upon watching, measuring, and doing experiments on material things. It does not develop theories on the immaterial, spiritual world, which deals with things like God, angels, Heaven, etc. This is outside the scope of science and falls into the realm of philosophy and religion. For example, scientists cannot watch, measure, or experiment on God, as they would with chemicals in a test tube. God transcends everything in creation and is, therefore, in the spiritual, immaterial realm. The Bible says:

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! (1 Kings 8:27, ESVUK)

Because of this, science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence, which means that any statement on God or the spiritual world is not a scientific statement—“using the organized methods of science”—but a philosophical or religious one. Therefore, atheism—“the belief that God does not exist”—is not scientific, but rather philosophical and religious. Atheism is, in fact, a belief system or a worldview, just like theism.

Atheism Is a Belief System or Worldview

In the same way that theists understand and make sense of the world around them based upon their belief that God created all things, atheists also understand and make sense of the world around them based upon their belief that there is no God (or gods) and that life came from something else. Both require faith in something you cannot see or experience firsthand (for no one was there when the world came into being).

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1–3)

Although atheists claim that theists cannot prove God’s existence (since “proof” for an atheist is always either “seeing” or “hearing” God), atheists themselves cannot support their disbelief in God with proof. Because atheism is a “disbelief” in God’s existence—or, as some atheists would say, a “lack of belief” (American Atheists n.d.), which are just two sides of the same coin¹—this means that the most an atheist can do is criticise theists’ claims and arguments for God’s existence, but theists will always offer counter-arguments in response.

Notice that, as a religious/philosophical belief system, atheism is only capable of attempting to tear down theism and is incapable of building anything up in its place. Rather than offer anything of value, atheism attempts to replace God, the being of greatest value who gives every human value, with nothing. After all, “a lack of belief” in something (the “a” in “atheism”) is, quite literally, nothing—and, therefore, it is nothing of any significance, meaning, or worth.

The Core Question

At the end of the day, the whole theism–atheism debate comes down to this one point: did all things come from nothing or a creator? There is no third option in this equation: either all things had a cause or they did not. Atheists say all things came from nothing (the necessary conclusion for rejecting a creator); Christians say all things came from a creator whom they call Jesus Christ, who is God. Christians consider the atheistic belief that all things came from nothing to be irrational and not in agreement with the scientific principle of causality. Christians also believe that, without God, life itself would be unsustainable, for the Lord Jesus Christ, who created all things, also holds all things together:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:16­­–17)

Notes

1. The claim that atheists merely “lack belief” in God, rather than disbelieve in him, is nothing more than an attempt at escaping from the inevitable choice we must all make: either God exists or he does not. There is no third option in this. If you do not believe God exists, then you disbelieve in him (unless you simply are not sure, in which case you are not an atheist). It is impossible for a functioning human being to “not have a belief” or a “thought” about everything the mind encounters; otherwise, you are quite literally an inanimate object or in a coma.

Reference List

American Atheists n.d., What is Atheism?, viewed 7 December 2020, https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

The post Is Atheism Scientific? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

Overview and Context

The Bible quote in question comes from Mark 10:17–22, and is part of Jesus’ dialogue with a rich young man about how to receive eternal life. The rich man was not a believer in Jesus and thought that it was possible to get to Heaven by doing good works. To correct this belief, Jesus told him that no one is good but God alone in order to change his focus from him and his own goodness, which leads to death and condemnation, to God and his goodness, which leads to grace and eternal life. To properly understand what Jesus said, let’s read the passage in its context.

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour your father and mother.’” 20 And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” 21 And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (Mark 10:17–22, ESVUK) (For parallels in Matthew and Luke, see Matthew 19:16–30 and Luke 18:18–30)

“Why Do You Call Me Good?”—A Response to the Man’s Disbelief

The rich man had just asked Jesus “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life”? What we see here is that he was focused on himself and trusting in his own works for eternal life. His idea of salvation was that it had to be merited by his own righteousness, as opposed to it being a free gift of God received by grace (Romans 6:23). It was this works-based righteousness of his, this idea that we can somehow be “good” enough for God, that Jesus wanted to correct.

In response, Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” As evidenced by the rich man turning down Jesus’ invitation to follow him in verse 22, it is clear that the rich man was not a believer in him in the first place. When Jesus asked him “Why do you call me good?” he was asking him in the context of his unbelief. In other words, he was essentially saying “Why do you call me good if you do not believe in me?” Of course, if Jesus were not who he claimed to be, then he couldn’t have been good, because not only would he have been a sinner like us, but he’d also have been a liar for claiming to be the Christ.

Shifting the Focus from Self-righteousness to God’s Righteousness

The very next part of Jesus’ quote here is the key to understanding the text as a whole. “No one is good except God alone.” By saying this, Jesus was shifting the rich man’s focus from his own righteousness, his own goodness, to God’s righteousness and goodness. It is not enough to try and uphold God’s Law as best as possible, because as the ultimate good being, God’s standards are perfection (Matthew 5:48), and if we fall short of that standard by any amount, then we are sinful law-breakers worthy of eternal punishment (James 2:10). Because all people have sinned, there is indeed no one who is truly good except God alone (See also Matthew 7:11; Romans 3:10–12, 23). Because of this, relying on our own goodness will always fail us; instead, we have to rely entirely on God’s goodness, who freely provides grace to the repentant heart.

But because the rich man had asked Jesus how he could get to heaven by what he did, Jesus answered honestly: “You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour your father and mother.’” The simple answer is that you can indeed get to heaven by works of the Law, but only if you uphold the Law perfectly, that is to say, only if you’re truly good.

Jesus’ Invitation to the Rich Man Rejected

But the rich man was still self-righteous. He said “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” Now, when we take into account the fact that you can actually commit sins like murder and adultery in your heart, according to Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21–22, 27–28), then it’s obvious that this rich man had not truly kept the Law. But notice Jesus’ response to him: “And Jesus, looking at him, loved him”. Jesus did not sharply rebuke him for this, or get angry at him, but rather he treated him with love and compassion. Then Jesus answered: “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

By saying this, Jesus had targeted the rich man’s greatest weakness, his wealth, to show him that he had not actually kept the Law and that it was far more demanding than he realised. In fact, he had failed to keep the most important commandment of them all: to love God with all your heart (Mark 12:28–31), because he valued his wealth more than God. After convicting the rich man of his sins, Jesus then invited him to follow him. Sadly, however, “Disheartened by the saying, [the rich man] went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.” He chose his riches over Jesus.

Jesus Proved That He Is Good, and Therefore, He Is God

The essence of what Jesus was saying here is that to have eternal life we must be his followers, that is, his disciples, and trust in him alone. Jesus is the only way to salvation and all other ways, including the love of money and our own good works, lead to destruction (Proverbs 14:12; Matthew 7:13–14; John 14:6). He is the only good person who perfectly fulfilled God’s Law on our behalf (Hebrews 4:15), and who paid our ultimate punishment for sinning in our place (1 Peter 2:24), so there is nothing that we can do to earn eternal life, because Jesus has already done it all for us (Galatians 2:21). It is by God’s grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus’ perfect righteousness alone that we are saved (1 Corinthians 1:30–31; Ephesians 2:8–9). Christians do good works in response to Jesus’ love, out of gratitude towards him, not to earn or merit salvation (1 John 4:19; John 14:15).

Jesus said “follow me” not only because he is the only way to salvation, but also because he is the perfect standard of teaching and practice for us to follow. What we see from this is that following Jesus is true goodness, because he perfectly upheld the Law, and if anyone were to follow him perfectly (impossible though it may be), they too would be truly good like he is. In this way, Jesus himself claimed to be good, the only good human to have ever lived. When we come to terms with the fundamental truth that Jesus is good and that God alone is good, then we realise that this passage doesn’t deny Jesus’ deity, but rather points to it. Jesus is God because he is good. And because Jesus is good, we will be saved if we believe in him.

The post Why Did Jesus Say “No One Is Good but God Alone” If He Is God? (Mark 10:18) appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

The Bible’s Answer

Introduction

While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32–36, ESVUK)

This passage is a common Scripture in the Bible that opponents of Christianity often cite to support their view that God is not just in the Old Testament and that it contradicts the Christian view of him. Others, who may not necessarily be opponents to Christianity, may simply be troubled by this passage, as it may contradict what they once thought about God’s nature. Why would God, who is loving and merciful (Psalm 145:8), command the Israelites to stone a man to death for simply gathering sticks on the Sabbath day? Isn’t that a little excessive?

Context of the Passage

While it’s understandable to think that way at first glance, we need to take the context into account to truly understand the passage. Immediately before this passage, God gave the children of Israel commandments concerning unintentional and intentional sins (Numbers 15:22–31). If the people as a whole, along with any foreigners dwelling with them, sinned unintentionally or by mistake, then they could present the priest the required offerings for sin, and he would make atonement for all the people, and God would forgive them (Numbers 15:22–26). If just one person, including foreigners, sinned unintentionally, they could likewise present the required offering to the priest for forgiveness (Numbers 15:27–29). However, if a person sinned intentionally or knowingly, they were to be cut off from the people:

But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him. (Numbers 15:30–31)

While unintentional sins could be atoned for, intentional sins could not. After the man in the passage of interest was caught breaking God’s Law by working during the Sabbath day, Moses, Aaron, and the Israelites did not immediately put him to death, but rather showed obedience to God by waiting for his instruction on what should be done to him. Since the man had committed this sin immediately after God had just warned his people about the consequences for sinning intentionally, God deemed him worthy of being put to death, since such an act showed contempt for his Word and was blasphemous. In addition, we know from God’s decision that he hadn’t just sinned unintentionally, since if he really did he could have made an offering for atonement. God’s judgement here served as a warning to all the people so that they would not show contempt to his commandments.

God Gave His People Fair Warning

Furthermore, God repeatedly stated the importance of upholding the Sabbath to his people, as well as the punishment for doing any work on it.

You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15 For six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. (Exodus 31:14–15)

For six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. (Exodus 35:2)

God had given his people fair warning that breaking the Sabbath incurred the death penalty, and the man who broke the Sabbath did so immediately after God had just warned his people about sinning intentionally. Such an act was blasphemous and showed contempt for his Word and Law, and that was why God put him to death, and was just for doing so.

Conclusion

What a blessing it is that even though we ourselves deserve to die and pay for our sins for all eternity, Jesus Christ took all the sins of the world upon himself and died in our place on the cross, so that everyone who believes in him as their only Saviour who rose again from the dead on the third day receives the forgiveness of sins and eternal life with him (John 1:29; 1 John 5:11–13).

The post Why Did God Put a Man to Death for Gathering Sticks on the Sabbath Day? (Numbers 15:32–36) appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

Atheism on Morality

The answer to this question is no, atheism cannot account for morality. Because atheism is the belief that God (or any deity) does not exist, there is no objective moral standard which atheists can hold to. The closest thing an atheist can come to is a set of subjective standards, that is, standards which are held to be “good” only according to a certain group’s or individual’s opinion. In other words, what one atheist believes to be morally indecent, could actually be considered decent to another atheist, because it all depends on their thoughts and feelings alone.

In addition, an atheist’s moral values or beliefs might change over time, depending on their life experiences. This means that in atheism, nothing is inherently good or evil, because everything in this universe, according to them, purely originated from physical matter and chemical reactions—things which cannot account for morality in any way. According to atheists, we have simply been conditioned to call certain things “good” or “evil” due to things like evolution, the culture we were brought up in, religious traditions, and because making that distinction helps communities survive.

Christianity on Morality

Christianity, however, provides us with objective moral standards—standards which are universally true for all people and all times, because God himself is the standard. Unlike in atheism, in Christianity we can know for sure what good and evil are by looking at God’s nature, which is revealed in his Word, the Bible. God himself is the essence of goodness (1 John 1:5; 4:8, 16), so whatever is in accordance with God’s nature is good, and whatever deviates from his nature is evil (1 John 3:7–8). For example, God forbids murder, stealing, coveting, and worshipping other so-called gods in his Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1, 13, 15, 17), which means that these actions violate God’s inherently good nature and will, and are therefore evil.

Because God himself is the absolute moral standard, there is no dispute or uncertainty in this matter. Thus, in matters that God’s Word clearly deals with, one Christian’s moral values will not differ from another’s. In addition, because God is unchanging (Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6), a Christian’s moral values will never change over time or depend on the society in which they live, because they will always be based upon God’s forever unchanging Word (Isaiah 40:8), not on anything else.

Without God, Nothing Is Truly “Good” or “Evil”

So, why is this important? It is important because if there is no objective standard that governs between right and wrong, then it is impossible to distinguish between good and evil, since there is nothing objective or absolute by which that distinction can even be made. In other words, for atheists, the line between good and evil is non-existent, which means that “good” is ultimately whatever they like, and “evil” whatever they do not like.

From an atheistic perspective it is impossible to call ruthless dictators such as Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong evil, because atheists can only point to a subjective standard for that (What they like and do not like). Stalin and Zedong could have just as easily pointed to another subjective standard, claiming that everything they did was for the “good” of their countries’ futures, so all their actions were “justified”. As we can see, two conflicting subjective opinions are meaningless, because they prove nothing. From a Christian perspective, however, Christians can know for certain that Stalin and Zedong were evil men, because God has declared murder to be a sin, and they both murdered millions of people.

Without God, It Is Okay to Arbitrarily Change Moral Standards

Furthermore, if there is no objective standard that governs between right and wrong, then it is perfectly permissible for an atheist to conveniently switch moral standards or values at any time, depending on the situation. After all, if atheists want to prolong their lives for as long as possible, because in their opinion they only live once, what guiding principle is there to stop them from stealing from a shop, or robbing their neighbour’s house during a crisis? Because Christians have God as their absolute moral standard, on the other hand, they cannot conveniently switch between different standards in different circumstances, because God always stays the same.

Without God, There Is No Final Justice

The other problem, is that in atheism, there is no moral accountability. The closest thing atheists have to that is the law of whichever country they live in, but even that is not perfect, and cannot punish all criminals or lawbreakers—not to mention the fact that there are some laws in most countries which are not fair or just. Because there is no moral accountability in atheism, it is perfectly permissible for atheists to adopt the mentality: “it is not a crime unless you are caught”. In an atheistic worldview, many people have gotten away with doing evil deeds, and died unpunished.

For Christians, however, the: “it is not a crime unless you are caught” mentality is completely impermissible, because they know that God sees and hears whatever we do in secret; in our thoughts, words, and deeds (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Psalm 94:3–11, 23). They also know that no one goes unpunished, because God holds all people accountable for how they lived after they die, and punishes all evildoers accordingly (John 5:28–29; Revelation 22:12).

Conclusion

In the words of the famous Russian Christian author, Fyodor Dostoyevsky: “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” This is truly correct according to an atheistic worldview. Therefore, it should be obvious by now that the atheistic worldview is highly problematic, in that it fails completely to account for morality—at least for objective, absolute morality, which is the only kind of morality that matters. (Everything else is just mere opinions.)

In light of this, Redemption of Humanity would like to invite all atheists to at least consider the possibility of God’s existence—the Almighty being who is the standard for all morality. Read what the Bible has to say about good and evil. Consider what the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ, who is God in flesh, and how he dealt with sin and evil through his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. At least being open to God’s existence is much more honest than the atheistic worldview which completely denies it.

The post Can Atheism Account for Morality? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

One God and One Lord

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence”, and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:4–6, ESVUK)

Non-Christian Arian religions (which follow Arius’ heresy that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God) try and use this passage of Scripture in order to support their belief that Jesus is not God. However, the fact that it says “there is one God, the Father” does not mean that the Father is the only person who is God, and that Jesus is not one with him in nature and essence. Let’s take note of what the passage says further on, “and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Following that same logic, wouldn’t this also mean that Jesus is the only person who is the Lord, and not the Father? Yet the Bible calls the Father Lord: “At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,” (Matthew 11:25; see also Psalm 35:23).

Paul Distinguishes Between the Persons of the Trinity

By applying the term “God” to the Father, and “Lord” to Jesus, the passage is just telling us the normative ways by which we identify and address the different persons of the Trinity. The Father is normally addressed as God, and he is distinguished in personhood from the Son who is normally addressed as the Lord. We can see this throughout the whole Bible: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” (2 Corinthians 1:2). “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all,” (2 Corinthians 13:14). “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him,” (Colossians 3:17).

Jesus Is Called God

In the same way that we cannot ignore the passages in which the Father is called Lord, we also cannot ignore the passages in which Jesus is called God. John 20:28 teaches that Jesus is God: “Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:26–28).

Paul Teaches That Jesus Is the Creator of All Things

One final point of notice is verse 6, where it says “God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist” and “Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” What this tells us is that both the Father and Jesus Christ is the eternal Creator God of the Old Testament, they continue to sustain our lives, and they created everything from nothing. In this section, the Bible attributes the divine act of creation, and the divine attribute of sovereignty, to both the Father and the Son. Far from being a proof-text against the deity of Christ, this passage is actually proof for it.

The post Does 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 Teach That Jesus Is Not God? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.