Even the Simpsons can’t avoid the temptation to make fun of Christians when it comes to the end times.  One of my favorite episodes is called “Left Below”, and it parodies the attempt to predict the return of Jesus Christ.  Of course, since it is the Simpsons, there are highly sacrilegious parts, but I feel we need to watch it so we understand how we are often perceived.  If we can’t take the humor, then it will be even more difficult to read about real life tradgedies that occur because of Christians’ views on the end times.  Cult suicides, the events in Waco, Texas, and all the Y2K hysteria should wake us up to the fact that we simply can’t avoid this topic in our Bible studies.

Where do we start with this enormous issue?  Oddly enough, we need to start with some Bible nerd territory:  dealing with fulfillments of predictive prophecy (doesn’t that sound exciting???).  The fact is that most of the Bible’s predictions have already been fulfilled in history.  Many were centered either on Israel in Old Testament times (judgment, return) or were about Jesus 1st coming and the church.  The few remaining predictions are the ones in question (Jesus 2nd coming, final judgment, etc…).  If we could nail down how we deal with these and choose fulfillments, it should guide us in our quest to understand the end times, and to know if we are in them or not.  Sounds easy, right?  Wrong!

There are two main ways that predictions are fulfilled: 1) literal- the prophecy is fulfilled in the exact, literal way that we would expect by reading the passage in a straight forward way.  For example, in Micah 5:2, God says that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.  Lo and behold, in Matthew 2:5-6, we are told that is exactly what happens.  Most people today assume that this is how all prophecies are fulfilled as it fits well with our Western, scientific minds.  The problem is that sometimes prophecies are fulfilled in another fashion:  2) figurative (sometimes called spiritual)- the prophecy is fulfilled in a way that we wouldn’t have expected because it is predicted in a figurative fashion.  For example, in Amos 9:11-12, God says that the booth of David (Jerusalem) will be restored, the walls repaired, and that they will possess the remnant of Edom.  We would think that this was fulfilled in the physical return of the Jews in 538 B.C.  However, James quotes this passage in Acts 15:16-17 and says it has a figurative fulfillment in the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church.  Wow!

How do we know when a prediction will have a literal fulfillment and when a prediction will have a figurative fulfillment?  Unless the New Testament quotes it and gives the fulfillment, we can’t be 100 % sure.  The Bible creates this situation, not Bible scholars.  Two quick things to remember: first, saying that it has a figurative fulfillment doesn’t mean that there isn’t something that literally happens.  It means you have to look below the figurative symbol or imagery used, to find the literal event underneath (like the Amos passage which predicted a literal event in Gentiles becoming part of God’s people).  Second, the sound, conservative rule of Biblical prophecy is to not use the concept of double or multiple fulfillments.  It may seem attractive to say a prediction has both literal and figurative fulfillments, but it is a slippery slope.  Once you have double fulfillments, why not three or four or fifteen?  The best guideline is to use the New Testament as the authority and example that there are only single fulfillments.

What does any of this have to do with the end times?  I am glad you asked (or actually I asked for you).  People who only think that the predictions still left to be fulfilled will be fulfilled literally are those we call futurists (also known as premillennial dispensationalists).  This is a predominant view in the evangelical church and is the theology behind the popular Left Behind book and movie series.  People who think that most of the predictions still left to be fulfilled will be fulfilled in a figurative way are known as either historicists or symbolic view (also known as amillenialists or idealists).  Amillenialism was the predominant view in most of church history, and is still the view in many mainstream denominations.  There are a multitude of end times views out there to be sure, but a key decision that determines where you will end up is this decision about literal or figurative fulfillments.  If you believe that all the end times events will happen literally, you place a big emphasis on the modern nation of Israel, events in the Middle East, and future war with the Anti-Christ.  If you believe that all end times events will happen figuratively, you generally believe that when Jesus returns, He will judge all evil doers, reward the righteous, and there are not as many world events that will happen that would tell us that we are definitely in the end times.

In the next few posts, we will look at some key passages like Revelation 20, discuss the main views and their implications, and try to come to a conclusion about what we can really know about the end times.  In the midst of this, we need to have the words of Revelation 22:20 firmly in our minds, “He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!”  Jesus’ return is a good thing!  It is something that we as Christians look forward to, and have no fear about.  Often the end times can turn into a thing of fear for believers, and that should never be.  If Satan can’t turn it into an argument, he is quite happy to turn it into something we fear and dread.  I say, Come Lord Jesus!

The look on the guy’s face was deadly serious as he told me that if you can’t speak in tongues, then you don’t really have the Holy Spirit.  At the time I thought the guy needed a big neon sign on his head that read “Heretic”, and of course I mean that in a loving, non judgmental way.  Other people have been made to feel that they aren’t spiritual if they can’t speak in tongues.  As we finish this series of posts, we need to lay some of these issues at rest.  We will do that by looking at a few passages in Acts, and then discussing what is meant by a prayer language.

We already looked at Acts 2, where the first sign after the coming of the Holy Spirit was the gift of tongues.  Then, after you read Acts 8 and 19, I can understand why you might have more questions about the Holy Spirit and tongues.  In both chapters, we find that there are believers who haven’t “received the Holy Spirit”.  In Acts 8:12 due to Philip’s evangelism, many of the Samaritans, ” believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.”  Then Peter and John come and pray for them so “that they might receive the Holy Spirit”.

In Acts 19:2, Paul discovers disciples whom he asks, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”   After receiving, they speak in tongues and prophesy.  If you only had these passages, you might conclude that you get the Holy Spirit as a post salvation experience, and it is evidenced by tongues.  However, we must use the didactic (direct) teaching of the New Testament to interpret narrative.  Romans 8:9 and Titus 3:5 make it clear that you have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit upon salvation.  It doesn’t come later; no Holy Spirit, and you are not a Christian!  What we must do is to define “receiving” (Greek word here is lambano which means take, receive, or claim) according to the context of Acts and the rest of the New Testament.

“Receiving” the Holy Spirit is not about getting the Holy Spirit’s indwelling as we have already clearly established.  Within the context, it seems more like the manifestation of gifts, not just tongues but also prophecy.  We can’t limit it to these two gifts either since it is a narrative and doesn’t give all examples.  Like the Ephesian disciples, many new Christians don’t know about or desire the gifts of the Spirit.  As they hear about them and want to be prayed over, they “receive” the gifts (as the Spirit decides and allots).  Therefore, speaking in tongues is not a proof of salvation, but a gift some receive when prayed over for manifestations of the Spirit.

Even though Paul was trying to bring the use of tongues under guidelines in the Corinthian’s church, he says something interesting in 1 Corinthians 14:18-19, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.”  This has led many to interpret that Paul speaks in tongues outside of church, most likely at home in his personal prayer and worship of God.  They label this “prayer language” to distinguish it from the sign tongues we already looked at.  If this is the case, Paul doesn’t directly mention it anywhere else in his letters.  Some point to Ephesians 6:18 “pray in the Spirit” and Romans 8:26-27 “Spirit intercedes for us” to be this tongues prayer language.  Although this is possible, it is difficult to obtain any real detail here.

I hope that you will be challenged by all these Scriptures to really think through God’s purpose with tongues.  We don’t want to over glorify it like the Corinthians, however, we don’t want to “quench the Spirit” with doubt, fear, or skepticism.  In church, we have Paul’s clear guidelines so that tongues are used to build up others.  At home, we have the freedom to pray and ask God about tongues as a prayer language.  I can tell you what I know for sure.  There is no chance that we can reach full potential in carrying out the Great Commission without the power of the Holy Spirit.  That is enough motivation for me to push through any uncomfortable feelings or church arguments.  Next up, we move to Top Real Bible Question #2, “Are we in the end times?”.

God occasionally does stuff that we just can’t explain.  That’s the whole point of a miracle or what we call a sign.  We aren’t supposed to be able to give a rational explanation or figure it out.  If we could, then it wouldn’t be a sign or miracle, right?  It is given to build faith, illuminate, and draw people to Himself.  Part of me still feels completely unable to grasp what happened one time at a worship service at a missions campus that I worked at.  A young man from Canada was worshipping God along with everyone else.  Then suddenly, he starts speaking in tongues, except many around him felt the language sounded familiar.  You can imagine the shock when a man from South Korea standing near him realized that the Canadian was speaking Korean fluently.  The Canadian did not know (still doesn’t know) Korean, nor has he ever even BEEN to South Korea.  It was in the most simple terms, a sign from God.

I bring up this story for two reasons  First, we need to remember that though we might personally find tongues “weird”, the weird comes from it being supernatural.  People from the Western world are always complaining that they never see miracles or signs, but then they want to have nothing to do with tongues.  Second, this story highlights how tongues were first used when they manifested in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost.  We call these “sign” tongues to differentiate them from “prayer” tongues (often called a prayer language) which we will discuss later.  Sign tongues are the ones that Paul has in mind when he quotes from Isaiah 28 and talks about what tongues were meant for in the corporate worship service.

The prediction in Isaiah 28 is quite amazing when you step back and look at it.  God is in the midst of condemning the nation of Israel for it’s sin and pride, predicting the judgment of Assyria that is soon coming.  Israel has refused to learn from God, and rejected the instruction through the prophets.  At face value, verse 11 would seem like God is saying that because they wouldn’t listen to him, soon they will be listen to a foreign tongue as they will be stripped out of the land and sent away into exile.  However, Paul under the inspiration of the Spirit, says the true fulfillment of this verse is in the church age, as God uses the gift of tongues to speak to people, including the Jews.  The “strange lips” and “foreign tongue” wasn’t from the Gentiles to the Jews, it was from God’s people to the unbelievers (including Jews).

That is what happens in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit first empowers the disciples to fulfill the Great Commission.  The religious and political leaders of the Jews had, as a majority, rejected Jesus and the disciples are hiding and waiting.  During Pentecost, thousands of Jews are pouring into Jerusalem from the Diaspora, most of who speak a foreign language (other than Hebrew or Aramaic).  Though most had rejected the Gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew, God isn’t finished with these people.  He gives the disciples the gift of tongues, and thus fulfills Isaiah’s prediction to speak to them through a “foreign tongue”.  The end result and goal of sign tongues is clear in Acts 2:41, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”

Here, the disciples were speaking real languages, and no one needed interpretation as they were from that foreign nation.  In Corinthians 12 – 14, we must leave open the possibility that sign tongues may also be what we might call a “heavenly language”, meaning sounds that aren’t representative of an actual language.  No matter whether this is the case or not, Paul’s point is that there must be interpretation in the service (people could be speaking some actual remote language, but again, if no one in the church understands and can interpret, there is no point for it in the worship service).

I love that Acts includes the interpretation of what the disciples were actually saying in tongues.  “both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”  How cool is that!  As they worshipped God, the Spirit spoke through them an actual language, and in that language they spoke out the mighty works of God.  I don’t know about you, but I would love to see 3,000 people get saved at every open air meeting we have.  God and the disciples weren’t trying to just impress people, the disciples weren’t merely seeking an experience with God, the goal here was more people in heaven.  Peter was ready with a whole evangelistic sermon packed with Old Testament quotes as soon as the gift of tongues stopped.  Are we ready?  is that message in our hearts and minds?  are we open to the power of God?

I wish I could say that my wife’s first encounter with speaking in tongues was as enjoyable as mine.  She was at a Christian meeting where the speaker was teaching on the spiritual gifts.  At the end of the talk, the speaker asked for everyone who hadn’t spoken in tongues to raise their hands.  My wife wasn’t reared in a Christian home, and the church she attended wasn’t charismatic at all.  After raising her hand, she was told along with everyone else who hadn’t experienced tongues to come to the front of the room.  Then the speaker had everyone who had spoken in tongues surround them.  Trapped, and feeling more uncomfortable with every second, it could only get worse.  The speaker said that they would pray for them until they spoke in tongues.  No one was ever asked if they wanted to be prayed for.  When the prayer started, my wife felt nothing but fear and anger.  Eventually, she just muttered something that sounded like tongues so she could escape.  From that moment on, she has found it difficult to be open to the gift of tongues.

Unfortunately, I have heard many people’s stories that sound like my wife’s.  In some churches today, if you haven’t spoken in tongues, then you are told that you haven’t “received” the Holy Spirit.  Some go so far as to say that if you haven’t spoken in tongues, then you aren’t a Christian at all!  Is there a secondary experience to salvation where the Holy Spirit releases gifts like tongues?  is that what Paul means by “baptism of the Holy Spirit”?  are you a lesser Christian if you haven’t experienced it?  As we continue with this study, these are questions you need to be asking yourself.

Picking back up in 1 Corinthians, Paul is going to say in chapter 14 what the purpose of tongues is, and why he prefers prophecy in a corporate church service.  Verses 4 and 5 give his main thought, “The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.”  Paul’s point isn’t that prophecy is a sign that someone is more “special” or “higher”, it has to do with the effect on others.  Paul made it clear in chapter 12, that the point of the gifts in a worship service is to help and build up OTHER people, not ourselves.  Therefore, if you speak in tongues and others can’t understand you, only you are built up (unless there is translation).

What seems to be happening in Corinth is that they have reverted to pagan practices.  Speaking in tongues is well documented in Asian and Greek religion of this time.  People would “channel” the spirits or spirit of the god and speak in that heavenly language.  It was typically done in a ecstatic state and would be accompanied by loud music, dancing, and alcohol.  Women were especially known to be mediums for tongues in paganism.  It would appear that a Corinthian worship service is full of people that are praying or shouting out in tongues at the same time, with each individual showing everyone how spiritual they are and only building up themselves.  We need to keep this in mind for worship services today.  Paul’s command about tongues in public is clear in verses 27-28, “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.”

It is not that Paul is discouraging the use of tongues, but he is limiting it in a PUBLIC service.  Paul is not talking about someone sitting at their own seat, quietly talking to themselves either.  He is talking about someone standing up and loudly speaking in tongues to the whole congregation.  Some separate this use of tongues from a private, prayer language.  We will get to that in the next post, so be patient.  Why have tongues at all in a public service then?  Paul answers this by quoting Isaiah 28:11 , “In the Law it is written,“By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.”  When someone speaks in tongues, it serves as a supernatural sign that pulls the unbelievers in as it did in Acts 2.  Once pulled in however, if it isn’t a real language (again like in Acts 2) or there is no interpretation, it doesn’t finish the sign with the evangelistic message that the unbeliever can understand.

Paul is not anti-tongues as he concludes in verses 38-39, “So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But all things should be done decently and in order.” Paul IS against self-centered Christianity and out of control, experientially motivated worship times.  That doesn’t mean he is against people displaying emotion through dance and music (which is often loud), but he questions those who only are at corporate worship times to help themselves feel better.  He encourages them to strive after the spiritual gifts, but simply remember that the gifts are given to bless others.  What about using tongues for your prayer language?  Coming up next!

There were only a few people left there around the altar late that Wednesday night.  I had recently returned from a missions trip, and had gone to church to see everyone and be refreshed.  I almost ran up the aisle at the end of the service when my pastor opened up the altar for prayer.  I felt like I had so much in my heart from all the experiences of the missions trip, that I was bursting with faith and joy.  I almost didn’t realize that the pastor had made his way finally to me, and began to pray in the Spirit.  Some place in my mind, I was thinking that words weren’t enough to express how I was feeling, when suddenly I started speaking in tongues!  When Paul talks about “praising God with my spirit”, he wasn’t kidding.  Oh, if the whole issue of tongues could be as happy and as simple as my first experience.

Unfortunately, tongues has become a disputed topic in the church, even proving to be the stuff of church splits and divisions.  Let’s face it, tongues are weird.  By weird, I mean “not normal”, “not easily explained”, and “an unusual experience” (have you noticed that I tend to use parenthesis all the time in my posts??? It is like that annoying person who always does quotation marks with their fingers while they are talking…)  For our western scientific minds, tongues seem like a relic of ancient times akin to putting paint on your face and dancing around.  For Asian and African minds, tongues seem like just another part of the supernatural experience in Christianity.  In the next few posts, we will look at what the Bible has to say about tongues, mainly in the teaching of 1 Corinthians and the stories of Acts.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul has to deal with a fascination and over-emphasis on tongues in the Corinthian church.  They have lost the true reason for tongues, and seem to have fallen back into pagan mindsets about it.  The Corinthians are open and desire the spiritual gifts, which is a good thing, and Paul commends them early in the book- 1:4-7 (one of the few things he does commend them in!).   However, in chapters 12 – 14, Paul has to address how out of control and selfish their worship services have become.  After dealing with the gifts of the Spirit in chapter 12, love in chapter 13, Paul can finally zero in on tongues in chapter 14.  Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t do much definition of tongues in chapter 12.  He merely says in verse 10, that some are given “various kinds of tongues”. Not only does Paul not define tongues, he mentions there are “various kinds” and doesn’t say what those kinds are.  Thanks a lot Paul!

What Paul does say of significance is what gifts like tongues are for.  In verse 7, he says, “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”  That means that tongues are given (at least these kinds) for the common good, which means for everyone else, not just ourselves.  Many often have the view that tongues are just a blessing for ourselves, and never consider how they can be used to bless others like the gifts in the list (like healing, prophecy, etc..).  The second thing Paul says is in verse 11, “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.”  We don’t earn tongues like a scout merit badge, we don’t get them as a bonus when we hit 10 years as a Christian, it is the Spirit who gives them out individually as HE wills.

Instead of giving us more detail on tongues, Paul then launches into a huge comparison of the church to a body.  His point couldn’t be more clear; God is desiring unity in the body, and each individual has beautiful gifts that make the whole body work.  No one’s spiritual gifts are “better” than someone else’s, tongues or no tongues. If the point weren’t clear enough, he talks about love for a whole chapter.  Especially relevant for our study is 13:1, “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”  Wow! He doesn’t say what the “tongues of angels” are, but he slams the self-centered attitude of the Corinthians with how they are using tongues.  Without love, this gift might as well be the clanging of a cymbal.  Not very helpful.  Try comforting someone in pain by banging a cymbal in their ear.

In the next post, we will look at the contrast between tongues and prophecy made in chapter 14, as well as see that Isaiah the prophet predicted the gift of tongues.  For those of you who almost didn’t read this post because tongues are for snake handling TV evangelists, I hope you will be challenged to be honest with the Scriptures instead of swayed by what you may have seen in your life.  For those of you who were so excited about this post that you praised God by praying in tongues, thank you, and don’t be shy to ask God for prophetic words or visions for me while you are at it.  Just kidding…sort of.

It is always easier to discuss something in writing or discussion, than to actually work those things out in real life.  Doctrine and theology can be like that.  It is one thing for me to write all these posts on marriage, and quite another for my wife and I to figure out how that looks practically.  My wife is a beautiful, intelligent, and compassionate woman who I am blessed to call my beloved.  That doesn’t mean that we haven’t had our share of “discussions” over the years on marriage, and had to pray and process how to exemplify Christ in our marriage (or at least how not to kill each other…)

In discussing the “source” and “authority” views, it may be helpful to you to know that the two main views on women in ministry and authority in marriage are called the complementarian view and the egalitarian view.  Complementarians are those who hold that women were created to “compliment” their husbands in the marriage going back to the Genesis passage describing Eve as Adam’s “helper”.  This isn’t a slave like role at all, but a beautiful picture to them of how God created the genders to work together to full potential as a couple and family.  Egalitarians believe in mutual submission in marriage, and see marriage as a mirror of the body of Christ in that there is complete equality through our identity in Christ and intended purposes.  Wonderful men and women in Christ are on both sides of this argument, and both have published well thought out defenses of their views.

Let us address the various ways to explain the guidelines of Paul concerning headship and submission.  1) Paul commands them in 5:21 to “submit to one another”, and he does this to establish that all relationships should be mutual submission.  Even if we say that the command toward mutual submission is the over-arching command, we would still be left with having to explain the command to “submit” and the definition of headship.  This view would need to be combined with one of the below in my opinion to be a comprehensive view.

2) Paul is merely addressing what each one struggles with (women with submitting and men with love) but both are applicable for husband and wife (both need to love and submit).  I will agree that there is truth in the studies showing that men often struggle to be loving and to express that love openly to their wives, while women struggle in the area of control and coming to agreement.  Of course, both husband and wife need to show love and respect to one another, and are not exempt.  This still doesn’t address the meaning of headship, nor does it do away with passages like 1 Peter 3:1 that include submission but not in the Ephesians 5 formula.

3) This was a temporal command (not timeless) based on the culture of their day and was intended to be phased out as they understood their identity in Christ (just like Paul never says “Don’t have slaves” in the New Testament).  There are definitely examples of temporal commands in the Bible.  The passage looked at for headship in 1 Corinthians 11 has one included in the command for women to cover their heads while praying or prophesying in church.  Only a minority of Christians believe that is timeless, while most hold it to be temporal due to issues in Greco Roman culture.  I agree that this can be a slipperly slope as a method of application, but we can’t dismiss it all together due to the fact that there are solid examples like slavery.  I believe that if you apply Paul’s commands in Philemon, you don’t have slavery (viewing the slave as his brother), so he lays the foundation for the eradication of slavery within the church.  The argument against this would be that it is linked with headship, and headship of Jesus to the church has not, and never will change.

4) Paul is establishing roles within marriage with the wife “submitting” to her husband’s authority.  We will address this more later, but some feel that the issue of submission and headship should only be applied within marriage no matter our conclusion.   This belief focuses on the fact that Paul is only addressing marriage and never meant for this to be applied to the discussion on women in ministry or women in leadership.  The context of the passages begs for the translation of the Greek into “husband/wife” and not the other option of “man/woman” in a more general sense.

As regards the question on women in leadership, the two main views on headship in marriage affect how they answer this question.  The complementarian view states that if there is authority of the husband in marriage, then that carries over into the decision on women in leadership in the church.  For example, if the husband has the role of authority at home in marriage, how could his wife be the pastor of his church?  How could she be his authority at church and he be her authority at home at the same time?  Due to this conundrum, complementarians do not support women pastors, and have differing views on women being in any place of authority.  Some feel that as long as a man is the “head” or top leader in the church, women can assume places of leadership under them (for example as a youth pastor, children’s minister, or even elder).  Others feel that any position which would give a woman authority over a man in church (like a music minister for example) would not be Biblical.

Those that hold the egalitarian view of headship in marriage, in general are supportive of women in church leadership positions.  There are no roles in the church which are reserved for male or female specifically, but men and women are equally capable of fulfilling any job.  They view Paul’s command in 1 Timothy about women not being in authority as only applicable to the church of Ephesus at the that time, in the same way the command about women not teaching was not his universal rule.

In the end, both husband and wife are challenged by the comparison of their relationship to Jesus and the church.  Can any of us say that we have attained the level of love and sacrifice that Jesus has?  I can honestly say that I have a LOOOOOOONG way to go before I can say that I love my wife in the SAME way that Jesus loves the church, much less saying that I even love my wife as much as I “love myself”.  In the end, both authority and relationships are completely different in Christ than they are out in the world.  If we could as husbands and wives focus on that example of Christ and His humility (Philippians 2:5-8), I believe a lot of these arguments would fade away.

I am not writing these series of posts in a vacuum.  I don’t even own a vacuum.  What I mean is that I have been married for 17 years and would really like for my “head” to stay attached to my body and don’t enjoy sleeping outdoors.  In other words, my wife can and will be reading everything that I am saying about marriage and headship.  She could even post her own comments about me, but thank goodness I can just not approve them and then no one will ever see them.  Not that I would ever do that, and of course my wife and I agree on everything in life, like for example the beauty of country music.

There are several other passages of Paul in which he uses the concept of headship, but none give us more fits than 1 Corinthians 11.  In a digression on woman’s head coverings in church, Paul gives such wonderful zingers such as 11:10, “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”  Umm, thanks for that Paul… In addition to comparing Jesus and the church to husband and wife in Ephesians, Paul also compares Jesus’ relationship to God with the husband and wife relationship.  11:3 says, “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.” Not only does headship apply to Jesus and the church, but also Jesus and God!

With our two main options for the figurative meaning of “headship”, we must apply both to these comparisons to see if they fit contextually.  Is Jesus in authority over the church?  Yes, of course.  Is Jesus the source of encouragement and nourishing of the church?  Again, yes.  Is God in authority over Jesus?  Not so easy an answer, but you can read my post on subordination in the Trinity and see that my answer is that at the very least we have incarnational subordination of Jesus under God’s authority.  Is God the source of encouragement for Jesus?  Yes, we know that there is perfect unity of thought and love within the Father/Son relationship.  I want to repeat here however, that just because Jesus is under the Father’s authority, it does not carry any connotation that the Father is better or more valuable than the Son.  It is simply a differentiation of the roles that they have.  God never abuses (or abused) that authority, and they still worked in perfect unity together as evidenced in Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel of John 5:18-47.

Paul does use “headship” in talking of Jesus in several passages that do not pertain to husband/wife relationships.  Our next goal is to decide whether these uses seem to denote “authority” or “source”.  In Ephesians 1:22-23, Paul says, “And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”  When you look at the preceding verses, it would appear that Paul is talking about the authority of Christ.  In Colossians 1:18 and 2:10, both uses of headship  mean authority.  However, in Colossians 2:19, Paul says, “and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.”  Paul uses “head” here to talk about the life that flows from Jesus to the believers, and in Ephesians 4:15 it also seems to carry the “source” aspect.

Since the uses for “head” to mean “source” and “authority” are both used by the same author in the same books, I find it hard to conclude that he means one to the exclusion of the other.  Rather, it is more logical to conclude, that Paul uses “headship” to mean BOTH “source” and “authority”.  Jesus is both the source of nourishing for the church, but He is also the authority over the church.  If we combine this with our study on the guidance for wives to submit to their husbands, it becomes more difficult to remove the sense of authority of the husband in marriage.  Though this same concept of headship is not used by other authors of the New Testament, we can observe that the use of “head” in Revelation carries the meaning of authority in describing the various characters.  Also, Peter echoes Paul’s words on wives being subject to their husbands in 1 Peter 3:1.

The discussion is not over though, we have not analyzed the options I gave in discussing how to apply Paul’s commands on submission (progressive revelation or mutual submission).  They would apply in the same way to the concept of headship.  In the next post, we will discuss these, and also talk about how the conclusions impact people’s views on women in leadership.  Let us not forget how far the church has come in the treatment of women, and we need to continue to pray and labor to see these freedoms come to those women still in bondage and suffering in their cultures.  I know that many of us have these images in our minds as we discuss marriage and headship, and no matter our views, we should be united in the humane treatment of all genders.

I can’t think of many things more personal than digging into people’s relationship with their husband or wife.  Seriously, people have very strong views on how marriage should work, and there is a truckload of emotion due to past experiences both good and bad.  Everybody asking this question ultimately has to say who they think is the boss and calls the shots.  We can make it sound more deep and thought provoking, but that is the bottom line.  Even people who say, “no one is the boss”, are still saying that there are two co-bosses (that sounded much better in my head before I wrote it down).  From Promise Keepers to stay at home dads, from women’s lib’ers to the Amish, you have to admit that the church has been all over the board on this one.

In the next few posts, we will attempt to look at the key Scriptures involved in this discussion, and see that it is intertwined into the discussion about female pastors and women in authority that we left unanswered from the 1 Timothy 2 passage.  I am going to begin with the New Testament and work backwards on this one, and Ephesians 5:22-33 has to be one of the most debated New Testament passages on marriage.  Paul begins by addressing the wives first in 22-24, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”

In this passage, Paul compares the relationship of husband and wife to the relationship between Jesus and the church.  In doing so, he creates a new term to describe this called “headship”.  In the Greek, the word for head is the same one (kephale) that is used for people’s literal heads, but here it is clearly taking on a figurative meaning.  The million dollar question is, “What is the figurative meaning of headship?”  There are two main views in the church on the figurative meaning:  1) authority:  in the same way we can say that a leader is the “head” of a group, this view maintains that the husband has been given the role of authority in the marriage; 2)source: in the same way that we can say a lake or underground water supply is the “source” of a river, this view sees headship as the responsibility of the husband to provide encouragement, nourishing, and care for the wife, and has nothing to do with authority.

Paul gives this same advice to married couples in his letter to the Colossian church in Colossians 3:18-19, “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.”  Before even dealing with the concept of headship, we need to observe that in both passages Paul starts with the command for “wives, submit to your husbands”.  He never gives this command for husbands to submit to wives, so the term “submit” must be defined.  You can do a fancy Greek word study and come up with the astounding conclusion that “submit” means to “submit”  Mind blowing, I know.  To submit is to voluntarily place yourself under the authority of another,  and was originally used in Greek as a military term of placement under a leader.  Often, this word is translated as “be subject” and has connotations of “yield, subordinate, and arrange under” (the Greek word is actually in 5:21 of Ephesians for submit).

No matter what we say about “headship” in our next post, there is still going to be this command about submission.  I have heard the following thoughts on this: 1) Paul commands them in 5:21 to “submit to one another”, and he does this to establish that all relationships should be mutual submission; 2) Paul is merely addressing what each one struggles with (women with submitting and men with love) but both are applicable for husband and wife (both need to love and submit).  3) this was a temporal command (not timeless) based on the culture of their day and was intended to be phased out as they understood their identity in Christ (just like Paul never says “Don’t have slaves” in the New Testament); and finally 4) Paul is establishing roles within marriage with the wife “submitting” to her husband’s authority.

I have to be honest here and say that the fourth option seems the most straight forward and requires the least amount of “explanation”, but that doesn’t mean that it is the correct option.  Once we cover headship next, we must bring these two concepts together, and see how they fit together contextually.  Ultimately we are all submitted to God and under His “headship”, but we shouldn’t use that as a cheesy way to get out of addressing the practical question of roles within marriage.  Until I start having babies, God has clearly made man and woman different and has different roles for each.  Whether that involves authority or not remains to be firmly established as we continue.  Would it be really tasteless of me now to insert a husband/wife joke here?  On second thought…

If we only had 1 Timothy and not Paul’s letters or Acts, we would have a very different view of whether women should be teachers or not.  As you read 1 Timothy, Paul doesn’t mix his words or seem unclear when he talks about women not teaching or having authority.  I have heard some fancy explanations to try to take the force of the words away, but to be honest, they are pretty lame.  You have to stretch and contort so much to explain it away, that Ockham’s razor cuts you to pieces.  Luckily, Paul wrote quite a few other letters, and we know more about his life from Acts.

To answer the question on women teachers, we must begin by looking at these other passages first.  Did Paul have female coworkers in missions?  Absolutely. In Romans 16:1-2, Paul introduces the Romans to a woman named Phoebe, as she is likely the one who carried the letter from Paul to Rome.  Once there, Paul urges them to “welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well”.  In verse 1, he calls her a “deaconess”, although a few male dominated translations try to just use the Greek definition of the title and call her merely a “servant”.  This sounds like more than just a dish washer or letter carrier, but a coworker of Paul’s who was active in ministry. A few verses down in 16:3, Paul greets “Prisca and Aquila” (known elsewhere as Priscilla) and says “all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks for them”.  In Acts 18:26, BOTH Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos aside and TEACH him more about Christianity.

We haven’t even exhausted the examples of Romans yet as in verse 7, Paul mentions “Adronicus and Junia” and then seems to imply they are both known as “apostles” (wording is unclear, but their ministry is not).  I think you get the point of where I am going, that Paul’s letters and Acts show women in ministry and teaching, even though this was unheard of in Judaism, and rare outside of goddess worship among the Gentiles.  True, many of the women he mentions are married, and some might argue they are doing ministry under the covering of their husbands, but that doesn’t explain Phoebe, Euodia and Syntyche (Philip. 4:2), or Nympha (Col. 4:15).  We have no listing of their husband’s names or whether they even had one.  Whatever we say about 1 Timothy, it must fit with all these other examples somehow.

The easiest way to bring these passage in line with Paul’s other writings is to say that Paul’s rule on women not teaching was only for this specific church that Timothy was working at (there may have been other churches he gave this rule to, but this is the only one we know about).  Why would Paul do that to this one church?  Timothy was over the church of Ephesus when Paul writes to him (1 Timothy 1:3).  The main divinity of the city was the goddess of fertility and love known as Artemis (a mother earth goddess).  Women were the primary ones working as priestesses in this temple, and their beliefs about religion and women were skewed because of this.  Women were seen as a way to connect to the gods through having sex with them or hearing them speak in tongues while in an ecstatic state.  Therefore, women were the source of revelation and knowledge from the goddess.  Recall also that women were not educated, and we begin to understand why Paul is barring them from teaching at this point.

He does start the process of moving them away from this by allowing them to “learn at home”, studying the Scriptures to erase these wrong concepts of their place in religion.  This background also explains why Paul bring up the story of the Fall.  Women and the mother earth goddess are NOT the sources of all wisdom and spiritual revelation.  Paul reminds them that the true story of the Fall began with Eve listening to the serpent and then attempting to persuade Adam to eat.  This is NOT absolving Adam of guilt, as Romans 5 uses Adam, not Eve, as the one to contrast with Jesus.  BOTH are guilty, but Paul had to correct the notion that women were the to “righteous” ones who gave out knowledge.  The ugly truth is that Eve craved knowledge for herself and ate of the fruit, as did Adam. (a Gnostic writing has been discovered dating to the 2nd century in which Eve is described as the hero who gave Adam knowledge and freed him from the ignorance of the creator God)

In verse 15, when Paul says that women are “saved through childbirth”, we again interpret the difficult passage with other clear ones.  Paul maintains that we are all saved by FAITH alone (Galatians 3:26-29) and you don’t have to have faith and crank out a baby just because you are female.  Paul instead is continuing with the story of the Fall and God’s redemptive plan in Genesis 3:15, as the “offspring” of the woman will “crush the head of the serpent”.  In Galatians 3:16, Paul explains that the offspring is Jesus, and that means His death crushed the serpent (Satan, sin, and death).

Where does this leave us with the authority issue then?  Are there other passages where Paul allows a woman to have authority over a man?  what about women pastors?  I think we have had enough excitement for one post.  I also can’t really answer that question without answering the next Top Real Bible Question:  is there headship in marriage?  what is headship anyway???

You just have to love Paul sometimes.  In the middle of a letter to Timothy, he just lays down a seriously difficult passage to interpret.  It isn’t even the main point of that part of the letter.  He wants to give Timothy qualifications for church leaders, and so he begins to describe the type of man Timothy should be looking for.  As almost an aside, he says, “By the way, I don’t allow women to teach or have authority over men.” (Sean Ellis paraphrase version)  As if that weren’t enough fun, he throws in “Adam was not deceived but Eve was”.  What??!!  That’s right, for Top Real Bible Questions, we have two doozies:  should  women be allowed to teach in the church, followed up by headship in marriage.

I would rather talk about Israel, end times, or perhaps gnaw my hand off to escape a bear trap rather than address women’s issues on a public blog.  However, these are top issues, so to avoid them would only be preparing me to run for president of the United States (I can explain that later).  As always, I will try to present main views and at least expose you to key Scriptures used to support them.  Let me say this first though, that throughout church history, the treatment of women has been overall a seriously poor example of the life and teachings of Jesus.  Many of the advances and revolutionary ideas put forth by Jesus and carried out by the early church, were reversed by church leaders (aka men) over the following centuries.  Only in modern times have we seen the reversal of this in western culture, and hopefully a global trend toward equal rights and treatment for all women.  In other words, I know I am not speaking into a vacuum, but there is much emotion attached to these issues.

What we must be careful of is not swinging to far to the other side of the issue because of this pathetic past.  It isn’t that I am looking for “balance” in women’s issues, but rather for Biblical truth.  There such a thing as radical feminism, that shouldn’t be a shock to you, and it isn’t always Biblically based.  In trying to correct the doctrine of the church, some denominations have overshot the Biblical foundations all the way to stating that there are absolutely no difference in the way God has made man and woman (physiology excluded obviously!).

We will start by looking at 1 Timothy 2:8-15, where Paul begins by encouraging men to pray and for women to be modest and focused on good works instead of good looks.  So far, we are with Paul.  Then, Paul says in verse 11, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness.”  All the men said, “Amen”, until their wives or girlfriends slapped them in the head, and then they said, “Uh, hey Paul, what do you mean by that?”  To us in modern times, we debate on the “how” women are to learn, “quietly with all submissiveness” and miss the cultural context.  In New Testament times, most women weren’t educated.  Men saw that as a waste of time and effort.  Women were to produce children, care for children, or worse were seen as merely possessions to show off or have sex with.  This was not just the view in Gentile culture, but in Jewish culture as well.

A famous Rabbinical quote of this time is a prayer that Jewish men would say each morning.  “Thank you God that I am not a dog, a Gentile, or a woman.”  As to educating woman in the Torah, another Rabbi stated, “Better that the law be burned than to be taught to a woman.”  Romans and Greeks weren’t any different in their mindset.  Socrates stated that women were halfway between men and animals.   Lucius Valerius said, “Why should men grudge women their ornaments and dress? Women cannot hold positions of office or priesthood, or gain triumphs; they have no public occupations. What can they do but devote their time to adornment and dress?”  From this understanding, Paul’s view was radical, and the part of his sentence they would have been stuck on was “Let a woman learn”, not the “how” part.  Paul is bringing the revolution of the Gospel into their views on educating women AT ALL.

This is a classic example of the power of historical background in understanding Scripture.  What could be seen as offensive by women in modern times, was seen as a huge blessing and revolution to women in Paul’s day.  By adding “quietly in submission”, I believe Paul was encouraging women not to “go crazy” with their new freedoms, but to use them within their marital relationship as set forth in other passages (which we will look at in the headship posts).  You can imagine that with increased freedom, Christian women could be tempted to go in the direction that we saw in the 1970’s radical feminism, which part of eventually brought harm into marriage and the family structure.

In our next post, we will get into the meat of the passage and deal with Paul’s statement on teaching, authority, and his interesting take on the Fall.  Our first Biblical principle is now clear, women have the right and should be educated in Christianity, immediately creating a contrast with Islam and other religions.  Maybe I should stop here where I am relatively safe?  Nah.