The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a group that is traditionally known as “Mormonism”. Its members are called “Latter-day Saints” or simply “Mormons”. It was founded in America by Joseph Smith in 1830, who claimed to have seen a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ, who purportedly told him to restore the true Church, because all others had become corrupt.

All Christians of every denomination and church, including Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, have never regarded the Latter-day Saints to be Christian because of key differences in each group’s teaching.

Latter-day Saints believe that:

• Joseph Smith restored the fullness of truth.
• There are many gods and goddesses (potentially millions) who rule other planets.
• God the Father was once a man on another planet who became a God by obeying his god’s teachings.
• Jesus is a created being of the Father who ascended to godhood.
• Jesus and Lucifer (Satan) are brothers. Lucifer and God had different plans of salvation; because Lucifer rejected God’s plan, he rebelled and became evil.
• We can become gods and rule other worlds by taking part in temple marriage (a sacred practice in Latter-day Saint teachings) and obeying the teachings of the Church faithfully.

Christians reject all of the above teachings, and instead teach that:

• Jesus Christ protected his Church from losing the fullness of truth (Matthew 16:18).
• There is only one God who created all things and was never himself created (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 44:6, 8; Revelation 4:11).
• Jesus Christ is not a separate God, but rather one with the Father (John 10:30), the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, a term based on biblical teachings (Matthew 28:19; John 1:1, 14).
• Jesus is not a created being, but the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16–17). Jesus is Lucifer’s Creator, not brother.
• Lucifer never had humanity’s best intentions in heart. From the very beginning he was a murderer and the father of lies (John 8:44).
• No one can become gods or goddesses (Isaiah 44:6, 8). But all people can have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life in Heaven by trusting in Jesus as their only Lord and Saviour as a free gift of God’s grace (Romans 6:23; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8; Colossians 1:13–14).

Ultimately, the Christian verdict is that the Latter-day Saints are not Christian because of these and many other differences in core teachings. To learn more about these profound differences, please see the main article below which explores this question in greater depth from a Christian perspective.

• Is Mormonism Christian? Click here to read more

Related Topics

• Who Is Jesus Christ?
• Was Jesus Created by God?
• What Is a Christian?
• How to Go to Heaven

The post Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Christian? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

The Latter-day Saints (commonly known as “Mormons”) are members of a group called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (or “Mormonism”). It was founded in America by Joseph Smith in 1830.

Christians of all traditions, whether that be Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, have never considered the Latter-day Saints to be Christians for several important reasons. The first main reason would be that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded upon the premise that all Christian churches fell away from the truth in its early years, and that only Joseph Smith has restored it back to its original truth 1,800 years later. This goes against the Lord Jesus’ promise to all Christians that the gates of Hell will not prevail against his Church (Matthew 16:18).

The second main reason would be that the Latter-day Saints’ view of Jesus is a drastic departure from the Christian view of Jesus. Christians see Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity based upon biblical teachings (Matthew 28:19; John 1:1, 14; John 10:30). The Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, not only believe that Jesus was a created being contrary to this, but they even teach that Jesus ascended to godhood as one God among many gods. They teach that each of these gods are from other planets who also ascended to godhood by obeying their gods’ teachings. Latter-day Saints even believe that God the Father was once a man on another planet who became a God in the same way. Hence, Mormonism departs from Christianity’s strict adherence to monotheism—the belief that there is only one God in all existence who created all things (Psalm 90:2; Isaiah 44:6, 8; Revelation 4:11).

Ultimately, the Christian verdict is that the Latter-day Saints are not Christian because of these and many other differences in core teachings. To learn more about these profound differences, please see the main article below which explores this question in greater depth from a Christian perspective.

• Is Mormonism Christian? Click here to read more

Related Topics

• Who Is Jesus Christ?
• Was Jesus Created by God?
• What Is a Christian?
• How to Go to Heaven

The post Are the Latter-day Saints Christian? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

Those who say yes to this question say that the essence of God is neither male nor female. This is correct, because in the book of Genesis, God creates both men and women in his image (Gen 1:27). This means that, mysteriously, God is beyond both maleness and femaleness, just as God is beyond everything else in all of creation. Those who say yes might also say that since God is beyond gender, it is simply a matter of choice whether we call him “Father” or “Mother”, and that calling God “Mother” could allow women to feel more included in church. This is the point of controversy. As with all questions of faith, the question must not be whether or not this is convenient for us, or appealing, but rather “is this true?”

How Jesus Instructs Us to Refer to God

First, let’s turn to our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 4–5), for his guidance on this matter. In the Gospel of Luke, one of Jesus’ disciples asks him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples” (Luke 11:1, ESVUK). This is Jesus’ answer to him:

² … When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. ³ Give us each day our daily bread, ⁴ and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation. (Luke 11:2–4)

Prayer is how we talk to and address God. Jesus teaches us that the proper way to address his heavenly Father is as “Father”. We are to address God as a kind and loving Father who is holy, and who loves us, provides for us, guides us on the right path, and forgives us of our wrongdoings. Some might reply: but doesn’t Scripture also refer to God in motherly ways? Scripture certainly does. For example, Isaiah compares God’s love for Israel to a nursing mother, but says that God’s love is even stronger:

Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. (Isaiah 49:15)

Yet while God does have motherly qualities in this passage and many others, it does not ever call him “Mother”. It’s important to note that if he wanted to, Jesus could have instructed us to call God our Mother, or some other term; but he did not. There is zero evidence to suggest that Jesus did not do so merely because of his cultural situation (since Jesus did many counter-cultural things during his ministry, such as talking with the woman at the well (John 4:27), etc.).

What this means is that it is perfectly fine and biblical to call God Father. It’s how God has revealed himself to humanity and is a command of the Lord Jesus himself. But to call God Mother, one has to go beyond Scripture, and assume that it’s okay—in other words, to rely on human wisdom rather than God’s wisdom. The danger in doing so is that we end up doing what the Pharisees did, which was teaching as doctrines the commandments of humans, at the expense of the commandment of God:

⁶ And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; ⁷ in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ⁸ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

⁹ And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! (Mark 7:6–9)

God’s Name Matters

It is also worth taking into account that in the prayer that Jesus taught us to pray, Jesus tells us to pray that God’s name be “hallowed”, or made holy (Lk 11:2). This means that God’s name is important and that how we use it matters. When commissioning the Eleven apostles for ministry, Jesus revealed to us God’s holy name. This was when he told his disciples to baptise people “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit“:

¹⁹ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. (Matthew 19:19–20)

According to Jesus, the name of God is “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, and this is the name into which we are baptised, and the name by which we receive all the blessings and security of the Christian life (Rm 6:3–5).

Throughout the Bible, the name of God is a significant topic. God blessed the people of Israel by placing his name upon them (Nu 6:27). God’s place of worship was only where he made his name dwell (Deut 12:4–6, 10–11, 21). We are to trust in the name of the Lord (Ps 20:7), call upon the Lord’s name in worship (Ps 116:13, 17), and are promised that those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved (Jl 2:32)—a promise which is repeated in the New Testament, with reference to Jesus (Rm 10:9–12, 13). In fact, the name of the Lord and the Lord himself are one and the same (1Ch 22:7, 10, 19), which means that God is not simply called “Father, Son, and Spirit”, he is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

If we would not change the formula of Baptism, because doing so would render it invalid, why would we treat the way we address or pray to God any differently? If changing the name of God to “Mother” in Baptism would invalidate the Sacrament, then changing the name of God to “Mother” in prayer, or calling him “our Father and Mother”, would also bring many similar problems and uncertainties.

One of the problems it raises is that we are failing to honour God by calling him “Mother”, because he has specifically told us to call him “Father”. Another problem it raises is that we are failing to treat God’s name as holy by doing so. One other problem is that calling God “Mother” cannot be done with a clear conscience, because it is not biblical. So, those who do so will have uncertainties and doubts in their prayers, and St Paul says that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rm 14:23). Of course, if they are prideful, they may not have doubts, yet pride is also a hindrance to prayer (1Pt 5:5–7).

“Father” Is Not a Metaphor

Some might argue by saying that when the Bible calls God “Father”, it’s only doing so “metaphorically”. That is, it’s using symbolic human terms to describe a deeper reality. This means that if the times change, and it becomes more meaningful to call God something else, we could call God “Mother” or “Parent” instead of “Father”, or in addition to Father. The issue with this argument? God has revealed himself to humanity as the Father. It’s a revelation, not a metaphor. From all eternity, God has always been the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, present with the Holy Spirit:

All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, … (2 Corinthians 1:3)

For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. (Matthew 10:20)

… ² the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— ³ that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1–3)

God has revealed himself as Father. It is difficult to maintain that those who speak of him as Mother are still speaking of the same God. Claiming that it’s only a metaphor when the Bible calls God “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, or the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of your Father”, is worse than simply removing or changing a name or title of God. It’s messing with who God actually is.

It denies how Scripture identifies and reveals God, and instead gives us a man-made identification. The disturbing thing is that while this might not in every case be a denial of the Holy Trinity, it undermines one of the central tenants of the Trinity, which is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from all eternity. Thus, by messing with the nature of God, it paves the way for not only undermining, but outright denying the Holy Trinity.

This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22b)

To Which God Are We Praying?

Finally, calling God “Mother”, as well as referring to him in feminine pronouns (she, her, herself), raises the question: to which God is the person actually praying? If a pastor leading a church, for example, stands up at the front and prays a prayer to “our Heavenly Mother”, many of the people in the congregation will wonder, “Hang on a minute … Is this a prayer to the true God, or to some pagan goddess deity?” They will wonder this, because nowhere in the Bible is God called our Heavenly Mother. Furthermore, in biblical times, there were pagan goddesses that the Gentiles and faithless Israelites worshipped, such as the Asherah (1Ki 15:13; 16:33; Jer 44:25–27), yet the faithful of Israel continued to refer to God in masculine terms despite this (Is 63:16; Jer 10:10; Hos 2:16).

So, praying to God as “Mother”, or referring to him as “she”, creates confusion among people, and brings doubts about whether this prayer is really to God, or to a pagan deity. Disturbingly, this means that those who invoke “Heavenly Mother” in prayer could be praying to a demon, and not to the true God, since false “gods” or idols are demons (1Cor 10:19–22). We should not do whatever is right in our own eyes, but only what the Lord commands us.

⁸ “You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes, ⁹ for you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance that the Lord your God is giving you. … ³² “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it. (Deuteronomy 12:8–9, 32)

Conclusion

When we look at the Bible’s teachings, it becomes clear that we do not have the right to call God whatever we want, but rather we are to address him in the way that he has revealed and commanded. So, the Bible’s answer to this question is: no, we cannot call God Mother, because God has instructed us on what we can call him, and “Mother” is not one of them.

Of course, it’s important that Christian women are honoured and that they feel valued in the Christian life and their relationship with God. But the Church can do this by teaching and promoting God’s motherly and feminine qualities, rather than by changing the way it addresses God, and doing so in a way contrary to what he has revealed and commanded. We would do well to heed Paul’s words seriously:

³ For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, ⁴ and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3–4)

See Also

• Is God Our Father?
• Is the Bible Inerrant?
• Should We Ordain Women for Equality?
• What Does It Mean That God Created Humans in His Image and Likeness?

The post Can We Call God Our Mother? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

Universalism is the view which holds that all people will be saved. Although there are some variations in this view (for example, whether or not Hell exists), all universalists hold that even if some people do go to Hell, it will only be temporary, because all people will eventually be saved eternally from sin—whether they died as Christians or non-Christians. The idea of all people being saved is certainly nice, and can be very tempting for Christians to believe—but the question is: is it actually true?

In the Gospel of Luke, someone actually asks the Lord Jesus Christ the question, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” (Luke 13:23, ESVUK). Let’s look at Jesus’ answer:

²⁴ “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. ²⁵ When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us’, then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ ²⁶ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ ²⁷ But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ ²⁸ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out. ²⁹ And people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and recline at table in the kingdom of God. ³⁰ And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.” (Luke 13:24–30)

Let’s summarise what Jesus has just said:

• Jesus likens the kingdom of God (Heaven) to a “narrow door”.
• Many will want to enter but “will not be able”.
• When the Master (Jesus) shuts the door, he will tell those who want to enter, “Depart from me, you workers of evil!”.
• Outside there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.

Jesus’ answer to the question “will those who are saved be few” is fairly simple: many will want to be saved, but few will actually be saved.

“For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” (Luke 13:24)

Jesus teaches the same thing using similar imagery in his sermon on the mount, in which he says: “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13–14).

Jesus’ apostle, St Paul, taught the exact same thing in his first letter to the Church in Corinth. This is when he writes that that the “unrighteous” (i.e. “workers of evil”, as Jesus mentioned) will not inherit the “kingdom of God” (the same expression Jesus used for Heaven):

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9)

Paul’s statement is just as absolute as Jesus’: the unrighteous “will not” inherit the kingdom of God. Both Paul and Jesus provide no exceptions to this whatsoever, which settles the matter: this life is our one chance to repent and believe in Jesus.

Notice that Paul says “Do not be deceived”. In saying this, Paul is warning that we can be tricked into thinking that we will be saved, when actually we are on the road to damnation. The Prophet Solomon uses a similar expression: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death (Proverbs 14:12).

Universalism is a deception. It’s one of the many forms of deception that Paul warns against. Universalism deceives people with the false hope that all people will be saved, and in the process, robs many of eternal life. Universalism does this by promoting the false hope of salvation apart from trusting in Christ alone, even though Jesus and his apostles so clearly teach that there is no hope for salvation apart from trusting in Jesus:

Whoever believes in him 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. (John 3:18)

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 3:36)

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

⁷ … when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels ⁸ in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. ⁹ They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, …. (2 Thessalonians 1:7–10)

Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:12)

Since Universalism denies that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, it actually directs people away from Christ, and abandons people to whatever belief or lifestyle they hold to. By abandoning people in this way, the Universalist worldview destroys the need for faith in Jesus (John 3:18), it destroys the need for repentance (Luke 13:5), it destroys the need for mission work (1 Thessalonians 2:16), and above all, it destroys love, which seeks to snatch people out of the darkness (James 5:19–20; Jude 22–23). The only thing Universalism can offer is destruction, rather than salvation.

Does God Being the Saviour of All People Support Universalism?

Some proponents of Universalism attempt to support their view by quoting 1 Timothy 4:10, which says:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

However, the fact that God is the “Saviour of all people” does not mean that all people will be saved. A simple analogy proves this. Let’s suppose that you’re in a village during a time of war. An enemy drone is about to drop a bomb on your house, but a soldier destroys the drone with a missile before it’s able to do so. In this case, the soldier is your saviour, because he saved you from imminent death—whether you were aware of this or not. Let’s say that the soldier then visits you and warns you that your house is being targeted, and that unless you leave now, you will die. If you choose to stay and end up getting bombed, the soldier is still your saviour, because he rescued you earlier; but you ended up dead because you didn’t trust in him.

The same is true of the Christian faith. God did save the world, when he sent his Son, Jesus, who made amends for all our sins by dying for us on the cross, and so God is truly the Saviour of all people. But Jesus and his apostles warn us that if we reject what Jesus has done for us, we will remain in our sins, by rejecting our once-for-all perfect sin offering (Hebrews 10:10–14). So, if someone dies in their sins, it’s not because God is not their Saviour—it’s because they chose not to trust in him, as Jesus and Paul so clearly say:

I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)

¹ And you were dead in the trespasses and sins ² in which you once walked … ⁸ For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ⁹ not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:1–2, 8–9)

Jesus Christ: Our True and Only Hope

Contrary to the false hope, deception, and uncertainty of Universalism, the Bible gives us true hope and certainty in Jesus Christ. Jesus’ apostle, St John, says:

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. (1 John 5:13)

Through faith in Jesus Christ, Christians can have the assurance and certainty that they will be saved eternally. This is not because of anything they have done or anything that is in them, but through their God-given faith, they have received all the benefits of Jesus’ sinless life, death, and resurrection (Romans 6:3–5; 1 Peter 2:24). After saying that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, St Paul offers the following words of comfort:

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

Paul is saying that till the day we die, it’s never too late to repent, and receive the righteousness that Jesus clothes believers with. In true, biblical Christianity, there is no hope apart from Christ. Our only hope is Jesus. And this is the greatest comfort anyone can receive.

So, repent, and receive Jesus today as your only Saviour and Lord, if you haven’t already done so.

See Also

• What Is Repentance?
• Is Jesus the Only Way to Heaven?
• How to Go to Heaven
• What Is Heaven?

The post Will All People Be Saved? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

Yes, the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is still a human even to this day, and that he will be for all eternity. A couple of decades after the Lord Jesus Christ died, was resurrected, and ascended into Heaven, St Paul still referred to Jesus as a human, when he said:

⁵ For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ⁶ who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. (1 Timothy 2:5–6, ESVUK)

The word for man/men in this passage is literally “human/humans” in the original Greek of the text. Paul is saying that Jesus is “the human” who intercedes for all “humans”. Furthermore, note that Paul uses the present tense for the verb “intercede”, meaning that “the man” Jesus is currently interceding right now. Altogether, according to Paul, it is not a “spirit” who is interceding for us, nor an “angel”, but it is “the man Christ Jesus” who is currently, and will always be, interceding for the human race. It’s as the book of Hebrews says: Jesus’ priesthood for humans will continue forever (Heb 7:23–25), and:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)

Jesus’ humanity and priesthood will never end. Furthermore, Jesus himself prophesied early on in his ministry that after he dies, he would raise up his own body again, according to St John:

¹⁸ So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” ¹⁹ Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” ²⁰ The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” ²¹ But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:18–21, ESVUK)

According to this text, the body that died and was buried in the tomb was raised up again, by none other than Jesus himself. In his resurrection appearances, Jesus had the same human body that he had died in, only now it was also glorified, which was why St Mary Magdalene at first didn’t recognise him (Jn 20:15–16). In fact, Jesus strongly stressed that his human body was the same body that he died in, by showing his disciples the wounds in his hands, feet, and side from his crucifixion, and even inviting his disciples to touch the wounds, so that they knew they were physical wounds:

²⁴ Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵ So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

²⁶ Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. 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 20:24–28)

Some might argue, “But couldn’t Jesus have had a spirit body, that only looked like a human body?” The problem with this is that Jesus denies this pretty much word-for-word:

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39)

The word for “spirit” here is the same word used in reference to the Holy Spirit, and can also refer to ghostly apparitions or good/evil spirits (i.e. angels and demons), depending on the context. The point of Jesus’ words is that non-bodily or non-physical entities do not have flesh and bones, which Jesus does have. Therefore, holding to the myth that Jesus is only a spirit is not an option for true Christians. True Christians will gladly affirm the Bible’s teaching that Jesus is still a human.

It’s also worth noting that in Paul’s epistle to the Colossians, he says about Jesus: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9). For Paul (and all the other New Testament authors), there is no contradiction to the fact that “deity dwells bodily” in Jesus. Jesus’ humanity does not (and never did) cancel out his Godhood or deity. St John affirms that “the Word” (Jesus) “was God” (Jn 1:1) and that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14). Jesus is, and will always be, the God-man.

I Believe in the Resurrection of the Body

In the Third Article of the Apostles’ Creed, Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians around the world confess every Sunday “I believe in … the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting” (Eastern Orthodox Christians also confess this in the Nicene Creed). The good news is that just as Jesus was raised from the dead in the same body in which he died, Christians will also receive their bodies back in the resurrection, just like him. In fact, there will be a bodily resurrection of everyone in the world—both of the wicked and the righteous (Acts 24:14–15), but only those who trust in Jesus will go to the resurrection of life, rather than judgement (John 5:24, 28–29). Just as Jesus’ body was transformed, so too will the bodies of Christian believers:

²⁰ But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹ who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. (Philippians 2:20–21)

In fact, Jesus’ bodily resurrection is a guarantee of our own bodily resurrections. Paul says that Christians will participate in a resurrection just like Jesus’ resurrection in his first letter to the Corinthians, when he says, referring to Christians who have died as “those who have fallen asleep”:

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:20)

In calling Jesus the firstfruits of Christians who will be resurrected, Paul is saying that just as Jesus received back his body, which was then transformed to perfection, we too will receive back our same human bodies, and have them transformed to perfection. We are guaranteed this in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, in which the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3–5).

What Does This Mean for Us?

So, what does it mean for us that God the Son—Jesus Christ—became a human, died and rose again as a human, and will be a human forever?

First, it is God’s loving way of demonstrating that he will always be for humans, not against us. There is probably no greater honour to humanity than that the immortal God, who created us, loved humanity so much that he actually became one of us, and even died as one of us, in order save us—even though we are sinners (Jn 1:1–14; Rm 3:23; Heb 2:14–18)!

Second, it tells us that God, who created human beings in his image (Gen 1:26–27), has said that the body is good! The body is not a hindrance to spirituality, but rather a fundamental and inseparable aspect of who we are, and a blessing of God (1Thes 5:23–24).

Third, it tells us that God highly values our bodies. Some of us might think that our bodies are ugly, or disproportionate, but God loves you just the way you are—and always will (Ps 139:13–14). God wants you to care for your body, and he wants you to believe in Jesus, so that he can make your body his holy temple in which he lives (1Cor 3:16–17). In fact, God loves your body so much that—through faith in Jesus—he will not let it waste away forever, but will one day bring it back to life and to everlasting perfection—as it was intended to be.

Jesus Christ is, and will always be, the God-man. The Eternal Son of God who lives forever to make intercession for us before God the Father in Heaven, with the Holy Spirit.

See Also

• Is Jesus God?
• Does God Love Me?
• What Is the Incarnation of God?
• What Does It Mean That God Created Humans in His Image and Likeness?

The post Is Jesus Still a Human? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

⁷ But as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you—see that you excel in this act of grace also. ⁸ I say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. ⁹ For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. (2 Corinthians 8:7–9, ESVUK)

In this passage of Scripture, the “act of grace” that St Paul is referring to is the “taking part in the relief of the saints” (2Cor 8:4), which was a financial freewill offering given to the churches in Jerusalem that were suffering from poverty (1Cor 16:3). The Gentile churches of Macedonia, in a surprising act of generosity, contributed to this charitable cause, even contributing beyond their means, by their own will (2Cor 8:1–6).

The church in Corinth also expressed a desire to help the church in Jerusalem, and so in this passage of Scripture, Paul is encouraging them to fulfil their desire to help, not beyond their means, but according to what they’re able to give (2Cor 8:8–15). The purpose is so that there may be fairness in the churches, and that if the church in Corinth is ever in trouble financially, the other churches can pitch in and help them in their time of need (2Cor 8:13–15).

The passage that we first read above (2Cor 8:7–9) is the motivation for why the churches in Corinth ought to do this: because the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who sets the example for us to follow (1Pt 2:21), did it. As the one and only Son of God (Jn 3:16), Jesus Christ was rich in every way. Because Jesus created everything, and was never himself created (Jn 1:1–3, Col 1:16–17), everything rightfully belongs to Jesus. He lacks nothing. Yet, in spite of this, Jesus gave up every heavenly comfort to be born in this world into a poor family that could only afford two turtle doves, rather than a lamb, for Mary’s ceremonial purification, according to the Law of Moses (compare Lk 2:24 with Lev 12:6–8). Jesus’ own ministry was wrought with difficulties as well, as Jesus himself said (referring to himself as the Son of Man):

“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Luke 9:58)

Jesus had no permanent home during his three-year ministry. Finally, and most significantly, Jesus gave up immortality, to take our sins upon himself on the cross and die the death we deserved, in spite of his sinlessness (1Pt 2:21–24). This act of grace of Jesus was so that we could be enriched. Jesus became poor so that we might become rich.

When we think of being “rich” nowadays (the word Paul originally used in that passage is from the Greek word plouteó [πλουτέω]), we usually picture stacks of money, private jets, or palaces. But that’s not what the Bible is talking about here. After all, Jesus uses this same word (plouteó) in the parable of the rich fool, which talks about a foolish rich man who tells himself to just relax and enjoy the riches he amassed in life, but then dies suddenly and unexpectedly. The lesson is:

So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich [from plouteó] towards God.” (Luke 12:21)

These are the “riches” that St Paul is talking about. Jesus became poor so that we might be rich towards God. Rich in faith towards him, faith that manifests itself in love. Rich in confidence, but also fearful reverence, towards him. Rich in obedience towards him. In other words, St Paul is talking about spiritual richness. The same kind of spiritual richness that allows even us to give generously (not just our money, but also our time, energy, and possessions), just like the Macedonian and Corinthian Christians.

Our small acts of grace are only possible because of Jesus’ ultimate act of grace. If Jesus had not died for our sins—our wrongdoings—and come back to life on the third day (Ac 2:32), then we would still be dead in our sins (1Cor 15:17). But Jesus has died, he has risen, and he is alive today, seated at the righthand of God the Father almighty. Jesus ascended into Heaven not so that he could get away from the troubles and poverty of the Earth. Far from it. Jesus ascended “in order to fill the whole universe” (Eph 4:10). Jesus fills all things so that just as he poured out his grace for the world on the cross, he could continue giving his grace to more and more people, which he does by the power of the Holy Spirit, who seals Christians for the final day of judgement and redemption (Eph 4:30).

The Lord Jesus Christ keeps on giving generously, even beyond what we sinners deserve. Paul also uses the same word “plouteó” when describing how Jesus gives his riches to those who call on him in faith. He writes:

… ⁹ because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰ For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. ¹¹ For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” ¹² For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches [from plouteó] on all who call on him. ¹³ For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9–13)

When or if we’re successful in life, we tend to think of ourselves as lords, so-to-speak. That is, as people who either rose to the ranks because of our hard work, or who had the privilege of being born in the ranks, and who therefore rightfully deserve the glory. But that’s not true. We’re not lords, but beggars. Beggars who have received all good things from God our Father (Jas 1:17), and who continue to rely on God for all good things in life.

If we were earthly lords (i.e. kings and queens), we would probably keep most, or at least a large portion, of the riches to ourselves. But Jesus isn’t like that. Jesus is a Lord unlike any other human lord, because Jesus does not withhold any of his riches from his followers, but shares all of his riches with those who call on him. Jesus, the Lord of all the universe (Ac 10:36), is the Lord who gave the ultimate act of redemption on the cross for us sinners and the Lord who keeps on giving. The Bible promises that the Lord Jesus bestows his riches—his riches of salvation and eternal life—on all who call on him—all who call on him as their resurrected Lord and Saviour.

If you’re ever finding that you lack meaning in your life; if you’re ever struggling to find hope; if you find yourself wondering how to find joy again, then know this: that Jesus Christ enriches your life in every meaningful way. All the meaning that you might lack; the hope and joy that you might have lost; the enthusiasm that you once might have had for life; all of these you can find in Jesus Christ, your Lord and Saviour, who keeps on giving his riches out of his abundant grace and love. Remember that although Jesus’ poverty led to his death on the cross, after the cross came the joy of his resurrection and ascension.

Jesus promises that we all have our crosses to carry (Mt 16:24), but by the power of the Holy Spirit, he promises to be with us throughout all our trials (Mt 28:20; Jn 16:12–15). So, we need not despair or be worried. Jesus, the Lord who gives, ensures that all our daily needs are met (Mt 6:9, 11). Jesus, the Lord who gives, lives in the hearts of Christian believers (Eph 3:17). Jesus, the Lord who gives, eternally saves all who call on his name (Rm 10:13). Jesus became poor temporarily so that we might be rich eternally; rich towards God, and in the salvation that Jesus has promised to all who believe in him.

Don’t trust in earthly riches that perish. Trust in the eternal spiritual riches of Jesus Christ, who gives out of his grace abundantly to all who believe in him. Then we will truly be enriched by Jesus Christ in every way. And then, by Jesus’ grace, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we’ll be empowered to give our time, energy, and possessions to others, as we are able, to the glory of God the Father.

See Also

• True Blessedness (Luke 11:27–28)
• What Is a Christian?
• Does God Love Me?
• In What Sense Did Jesus Empty Himself? (Philippians 2:7)
• In What Sense Is Jesus the Son of God?

The post The Lord Jesus Christ Enriches Us (2 Corinthians 8:1–15) appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

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.

To answer the question of what the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, it is best to carefully examine the relevant Bible passages. They are given below.

Mark’s Gospel

²² And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “[Jesus] is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” ²³ And [Jesus] called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? ²⁴ If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. ²⁵ And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. ²⁶ And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. ²⁷ But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.

²⁸ “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, ²⁹ but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— ³⁰ for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:22–30, ESVUK)

Matthew’s Gospel

²² Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to [Jesus], and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. ²³ And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” ²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” ²⁵ Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. ²⁶ And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? ²⁷ And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. ²⁹ Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. ³⁰ Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. ³¹ Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:22–32)

Luke’s Gospel

⁸ “And I [Jesus] tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, ⁹ but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. ¹⁰ And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. ¹¹ And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you should defend yourself or what you should say, ¹² for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Luke 12:8–12)

What Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit Is Linked to

First, take note of Mark’s passage. After the Lord Jesus mentions the eternal sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mark says, “for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit” (emphasis added). Mark uses that special word “for” to explain why Jesus warned the people about blaspheming the Holy Spirit: because they were saying that he had an unclean spirit (i.e. a demon). Thus, in Mark, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is related with saying that Jesus performs miracles not by the Holy Spirit (as he does, according to Mt 12:28), but rather by an unclean spirit or a demon.

Second, take note of Matthew’s passage. Matthew says, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven” (Mt 12:30–31). Here, note that Jesus says “Therefore”—or “For this reason”—”I tell you”. This directs our attention to what Jesus just said in the previous sentence: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Mt 12:30). Thus, in Matthew, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is related with not siding with Jesus, thus putting oneself against him, and refusing to gather with him.

Third, take note of Luke’s passage. Observe what comes directly before Jesus’ warning against blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: “And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God, but the one who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God” (Lk 12:8–9). Jesus, by speaking about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit directly after warning his disciples against denying him before people, is linking the two together. Thus, in Luke, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is related with publicly denying Jesus, as opposed to publicly acknowledging him.

It’s important to note that in the above Bible passages, Jesus does not explicitly define blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Rather, he describes what is linked or associated with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To summarise: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is linked with when one says that Jesus performs miracles by the power of Satan, when one doesn’t side with Jesus, thus putting him or herself against Jesus, and refuses to gather with him, and when one publicly denies Jesus.

Have I Committed Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit?

With all this being said, we now get to the question that every Christian asks who has come across this passage: have I committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? A sin so great that it is the only sin that is eternal and that can never be forgiven by God?

The short answer is: no, you have not—at least not as long as you still have time to repent and believe in Jesus. In fact, it’s impossible to commit this sin before the moment we die. The reason why it’s impossible to commit the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit while we still live—and why we can say this with absolute certainty—is because Jesus forgave the Apostle Peter.

Why Jesus Forgiving Peter Is Significant

In the passage from Luke above, Jesus said that whoever publicly denies him will be denied before the angels of God, and he said this just before warning against blaspheming the Holy Spirit. We know from the Bible, however, that while Jesus was unjustly put on trial before his death and crucifixion, Peter denied Jesus three times. We read, in Luke’s Gospel:

⁵⁹ And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with [Jesus], for he too is a Galilean.” ⁶⁰ But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. ⁶¹ And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” ⁶² And he went out and wept bitterly. (Luke 22:59–62)

As we can see from this heart-wrenching account, Peter betrayed his Lord by publicly denying him three times, and felt terrible afterwards. According to Jesus’ earlier saying, a person who denies him publicly will also be denied before the angels of God. However, despite this, after Jesus rose again from the dead, Jesus found Peter and forgave him:

¹⁷ [Jesus] said to [Peter] the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. ¹⁸ Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” ¹⁹ (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.” (John 21:17–19)

What this shows is that even someone who has denied the Lord in his or her lifetime—a sin that is linked with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—can still be forgiven by God. Forgiveness comes when a person repents of their denial and puts their faith in Jesus as their only Saviour, just as Peter did. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that he was even worse than Peter—describing himself as the foremost (or chief) of sinners (1Tim 1:16). But after that, Paul says:

But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. (1 Timothy 1:17)

Paul, who was infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit when he penned (or dictated to a scribe) this letter to his disciple, Timothy, described himself as the chief of sinners. This means that if Paul was forgiven by Jesus, even though he was the worst sinner, you can most definitively be forgiven, since you are not the worst sinner.

So, Then, What Is Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit?

This brings us back to our original question: what, then, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—the one and only sin that can’t be forgiven? In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus links blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with saying that Jesus performs miracles by the power of Satan, not siding with Jesus, thus putting oneself against him, and refusing to gather with him, and publicly denying Jesus. In and of themselves, these do not fully constitute blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. What does ultimately constitute blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is when one does these things without repenting of them.

The best way of explaining this is by looking at the rest of the New Testament. This is because when we encounter difficult passages, like the passages on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, we can often understand them better by looking at easier—and sometimes more numerous—passages which can shed light on them. The sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not mentioned anywhere else in the entire Bible—it’s only found in the three pericopes mentioned at the beginning of this article. However, elsewhere in the New Testament, there is actually one—and only one—other sin that is also said to be unforgiveable, and that is the sin of unbelief till death—the sin of dying in a state of not having believed in Jesus for salvation. This is plainly taught in the following passages (and many more), which, as we can see, are more numerous than the handful of passages on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)

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. (John 3:18)

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 3:36)

⁴⁵ But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. ⁴⁶ And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:45–46)

… when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels ⁸ in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. ⁹ They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, ¹⁰ when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2 Thessalonians 1:7b–10)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)

¹¹ And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. ¹² Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:11–12)

As sinners, we all deserve eternal punishment (Rm 3:23), which is why our only chance of salvation is to accept the free gift of God, which is eternal life in Christ Jesus, while there’s still time to do so (Rm 6:23). It’s too late to repent and believe in Jesus after you die, because: “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement” (Heb 9:27). The reason why unbelief till death is an unforgiveable sin is because unbelief is refusal to accept God’s salvation in Christ Jesus. It is the equivalent of refusing to hang on to the life jacket that God has thrown to us, as we were drowning in the sea of our sins. This life is the one chance to grab hold of it and be saved, but the unbeliever who dies in his or her sins has failed to do so.

So, we have not one, but two unforgiveable sins: unbelief till death, and a mysterious sin called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—or do we? Are these two different sins, or rather the same sin with a different name? When we look at the three passages that mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and examine the three things that are linked with it, all three of them involve disbelieving in Jesus. Attributing Jesus’ miraculous powers to Satan rather than the Holy Spirit, choosing not to side with Jesus and refusing to gather with him, and publicly denying him, are all acts of (profound) unbelief. When looked at in this light, the other New Testament passages which talk about unbelief till death help explain what Jesus meant by blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Namely, they explain that when a person continues to remain in a state of unbelief till the day they die, that is when they have committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—a sin for which they will be eternally guilty and will never receive forgiveness.

Therefore, when we compare Jesus’ teachings on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with what the rest of the New Testament teaches on unbelief till death, it becomes clear that these are not two different things but the same. The eternal sin—blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—is none other than the sin of refusing or failing to believe in Jesus till the day you die. Every other sin can be forgiven, if only one repents of it and turns to the Lord Jesus in faith for forgiveness, by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit (1Jn 1:8–10).

Why Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit Specifically (Rather Than the Son or the Father)?

An interesting question to ponder is why Jesus called the sin of unbelief till death blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, specifically, rather than blasphemy against God the Father, or blasphemy against himself (the Son). After all, technically, to disbelieve till the day you die is also blasphemy against Jesus and the Father. While the Bible doesn’t directly answer this question, we can come to an educated guess based upon biblical evidence as to why unbelief till death is a sin against the Holy Spirit more than anything.

The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity (e.g. Mt 28:19; Ac 5:3–4), whose primary work on the Earth today is not to glorify himself, but to testify and point all people to Jesus (Jn 16:14–15), the Second Person of the Trinity (Jn 1:1, 14; 20:28; Col 2:9). Jesus said:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (John 15:26)

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. ⁸ And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement: ⁹ concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; ¹⁰ concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; ¹¹ concerning judgement, because the ruler of this world is judged.

¹² “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. ¹³ When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. ¹⁴ He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. ¹⁵ All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13–15)

This is similar to when Jesus the Son, during his time on the Earth, lived not to glorify himself, but to glorify his Father in Heaven (Jn 8:49–50), the First Person of the Trinity. Furthermore, we know from the Bible that the Holy Spirit is the one who brings people to faith in Jesus Christ and makes people Christians (1Cor 2:10–14). For this reason, to resist the message of salvation in Jesus (the Gospel), or to speak against it, is to resist and speak against the Holy Spirit, who brings to us the message and testifies to it, and who lives and works within those who proclaim Jesus. This is exactly what we see happening in the following account in the early Church’s history, when the Deacon Stephen said to the unbelieving Jews:

⁵¹ “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. ⁵² Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, ⁵³ you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

⁵⁴ Now when [the Jews] heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at [Stephen]. ⁵⁵ But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ⁵⁶ And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” ⁵⁷ But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. ⁵⁸ Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. ⁵⁹ And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” ⁶⁰ And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:51–60)

Here, we see a stark contrast between Stephen, a Christian Jew, and the unbelieving Jews. Stephen, who testified to Jesus Christ, was full of the Holy Spirit. But the unbelieving Jews, who opposed Stephen’s message about Jesus, resisted the Holy Spirit. This account is a fulfilment of what we saw Jesus say to his disciples earlier, in Luke’s account on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, when he assured them that when they get persecuted, the Holy Spirit will teach them what they ought to say (Lk 12:8–12).

So, in light of the above evidence, it seems that the reason why Jesus calls the eternal sin of unbelief till death blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, rather than blasphemy against the Father or the Son, is because the Holy Spirit is the Evangelist of the Trinity, who works through Christians to testify to Jesus in the world. So, to resist or speak against the Christian Gospel is to resist or speak against the Holy Spirit and his testimony. The Holy Spirit is the truth (1Jn 5:6–8), and those who resist him and his message resist the truth of God in Christ Jesus. Those who do so till the day they die have chosen, by their own fault, to be separated from God eternally. But thanks be to God that he continues to send the Holy Spirit into the world to bring people to faith in Jesus (1Cor 2:10–14), so that all who believe may receive the free gift of eternal life in Jesus our Saviour.

See Also

• Who Is the Holy Spirit?
• Is the Holy Spirit God?
• Is the Holy Spirit a Person or Force?
• Is Jesus the Only Way to Heaven?

The post What Is Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit? appeared first on Redemption of Humanity.

St John the Baptist was given a divine mandate by God to proclaim a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mk 1:4). He was prophesied to do so by the prophets Malachi (Mal 3:1) and Isaiah (Is 40:3), who said, according to the way St Mark quoted them:

“Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, ³ the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” (Mark 1:2–3)

According to these prophecies, John baptised people in order to prepare the way of the Lord. When one examines the Hebrew of the text in Isaiah, one will notice that the word for “Lord” in Isaiah is actually “Yahweh”, God’s personal name. In other words, John is preparing the way for God almighty himself. This is one of the passages which teaches the deity or divinity of Jesus, because the Gospels identify the Lord as Jesus himself, which means that he fulfils a prophecy that was made for God. In the Bible, no human is ever attributed to fulfilling a prophecy that was made for God himself; only Jesus is, because as the Bible teaches, he is God (cf Jn 1:1, 14).

John Baptised to Reveal Jesus

So, what does it mean that John baptised to prepare the way of the Lord? First, John explains, in the book of John chapter 1, that he came baptising in order that Jesus—the one who ranks before him—might be revealed to Israel:

²⁹ The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰ This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’ ³¹ I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” ³² And John bore witness: “I saw the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. ³³ I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ ³⁴ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.” (John 1:29–34)

The time when Jesus was most clearly revealed to Israel by John was when John baptised Jesus. During the baptism of Jesus, Heaven itself was revealed in the sky, the Holy Spirit visibly descended upon him like a dove, and God the Father publicly declared Jesus to be his Son:

⁹ In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. ¹⁰ And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. ¹¹ And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9–11)

This was why John could say to his disciples, “I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God”—because John had heard the Father himself declare it in Jesus’ baptism. Jesus’ position as the Son of God refers to his unique special relationship with the Father, a relationship which the Bible teaches Jesus has had for all eternity (Jn 1:1–18). Aside from the fact that it clearly means he is not the Father, it points to his full equality with the Father (Jn 5:18–23). So, John baptised to publicly reveal Jesus for who he really is: the Son of God.

John Baptised to Prepare People for Jesus

Second, John also baptised to prepare people for the coming of Jesus. As specified earlier, Mark says that his baptism was a baptism of repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, which means that the people who came to John were people who wanted to repent of their sins. They expressed their repentance in confessing their sins before him at his baptism:

⁴ John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. ⁵ And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. (Mark 1:4–5)

Repentance is more than just feeling sorrow or contrition over one’s sins, although that’s part of it. It’s when one turns their entire person or being to God—when we depend on God and trust him above all else. Repentance results in two ways of living. First, forsaking the things that displease God, which is sin (Isaiah 59:2, 15; Col 3:5–10). And second, pursuing, seeking, and loving the things of God (Lk 3:8; Jn 14:15; Col 3:1–4, 12–14). When the people went to be baptised by John, they did so because they wanted to receive forgiveness from God and to live for him, not themselves. By bringing people to repentance, John was preparing the way for Jesus, because a person who truly repents is a person who actively seeks and desires the truth of God, and so they will recognise Jesus as their Lord, the Son of God. This is what Jesus taught, when he said:

¹⁶ My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. ¹⁷ If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. (John 7:16–17)

So, we see from the Bible that John the Baptist came to prepare the way of the Lord by baptising people in the Jordan River. And his purpose for baptising people was to reveal God, as the man Jesus Christ, to Israel, and to prepare the people for Jesus’ coming by bringing them to repentance.

John’s Baptism Points to Jesus as Baptiser

Finally, John’s baptism pointed to a greater baptism. John said, “I have baptized you with water, but he [Jesus] will baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (Mark 1:8). We saw a similar teaching in the reading above from John’s Gospel. John’s baptism points towards the ultimate baptism: Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit. Jesus first baptised his disciples with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples and manifested himself visibly as tongues of fire (Ac 2:1–13). Today, Jesus baptises us with the Holy Spirit when we receive the sacrament of Baptism. Jesus links the outpouring of the Holy Spirit with Christian Baptism, when he declared:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5)

While Jesus can certainly baptise a Christian with the Holy Spirit prior to Christian Baptism (Ac 10:44–48), especially if they died before they could get baptised, the blessing of Baptism is that it assures us that our union with Christ’s saving death and resurrection is as real as the water that we were washed with (Rm 6:3–5). Jesus baptises us with the Holy Spirit so that we can be temples of the Holy Spirit, precious to God (1Cor 3:16–17). He also does so to remind us that just as we have been baptised into God’s holy name (Mt 28:19), God calls us to live a holy life (1Pt 1:15–16). We cannot do this perfectly. But when we turn our entire being to God, seeking not only our salvation from him alone, but also help from him in our sanctification, we know that we will have the requests that we ask for (1Jn 5:14–15), and that he will help us be prepared for his Son’s second coming.

See Also

• What Is Baptism?
• Does Baptism Save?
• In What Sense Is Jesus the Son of God?
• Who Is the Holy Spirit?

The post Why Did John the Baptist Baptise People? 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.