Search Results for: mark 15

Posted on

Follow God’s example of sacrificial love for each other—Ephesians 4:32—5:2

Fight-or-flight instincts serve a necessary purpose for cornered people or animals. When people misrepresent us or wrong us, our self-preservation instincts naturally prime us to lash back at them. But God gives us a higher example in his gospel: an example of self-sacrificial love and forgiveness.

When Paul calls us to imitate God, he refers especially to sacrificial love and forgiveness:

“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Eph 4:32—5:2, NIV)

In the body of Christ, our fellow members are as human as we are, and some are emotionally dysfunctional. Simple misunderstandings can take on new dimensions for people who have been repeatedly hurt, and they may lash out and hurt others. But the conflict can stop with us. We need to speak truthfully, not slandering others by misrepresenting or caricaturing their intentions (4:31). We must speak truthfully to one another because we are fellow members of Christ’s body (4:25). Expressing anger in words that we can’t take back gives the devil a foothold (4:26-27). What we speak should be for the purpose of building each other up (4:29). That often means we have to swallow our pride, holding our natural instincts in check long enough to formulate a softer response that gives grace to the hearers. (A gentle answer often deescalates anger, whereas a harsh response escalates the conflict—Prov 15:1.)

Paul does not summon us to create unity in Christ’s body, but to preserve unity by being at peace (Eph 4:3). That is because Christ has already brought us together as his body (2:15-16; 4:4), at the cost of his own life (2:16). When we engender divisions in his body, we sin against Christ’s sacrifice. As we would suffer pain if our own body were torn apart, we cause Christ pain when we divide his body, by what we speak or how we act.

Paul applies this image both to ethnic divisions (2:11-13) and other relationships (4:25). Our goal, to which true ministry leads (cf. 4:11-12), is maturity in Christ: not a baby body, but an adult body (4:13-15). This is expressed in a body whose parts function together, in unity of faith in and knowing God’s Son (4:13), in speaking God’s truth in love (4:15), as each member of the body, joined directly to Christ, does its part in building up the whole body (4:16). We do need to guard the body against those who are out to advance themselves (4:14) rather than functioning as gifts given by Christ for his body (4:7-8, 11-13). Nevertheless, not only in local church relationships but even in online community, believers should deploy the truth in love, not in ways counterproductive to our unity in Christ.

The model of Christ’s divine love, so pivotal to Paul’s case in Ephesians 4:32—5:1, does not start there. The first part of Ephesians is lavish in its depiction of God’s love for us. For example,

God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses,according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us” (Eph 1:4-8, ESV).

Throughout the first part of his letter, Paul elaborates all sorts of blessings that God has given us in Christ. When, in the remainder of his letter, he summons us to love and serve one another, he calls us to give what we have received: grace. God gave us grace (1:6-7; 2:5-8), including by giving us some of his other servants to build us up (3:2, 7-8; 4:7). We also have opportunity to share grace with one another, including by how we speak (4:29).

We follow Christ’s example of sacrificial love—even for us his followers, who forsook him and fled when the time came to take up the cross and follow him (cf. Mark 14:50). We love because he showed us how. In the words of another apostolic author: “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

Posted on

Mary kept all these things in her heart—Luke 2:19 (and: prophecies vs. ‘prophetic declarations’)

But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart (Luke 2:19, NIV)

Christmas is a joyful time for many parents, but also a time of grief for those who have lost children. (This is also true for other deep relational losses, some of which my wife and I have experienced, but few losses run deeper than the loss of a child—something Mary would eventually experience.) This may be especially true for those who believe that God has shown them about their child’s destiny and, at least so far, things appear to be working differently.

Jesus’s birth, of course, is special in a way that no other birth is. But we can still learn some lessons from how Mary responded to clear revelations about Jesus’s identity and mission.

The shepherds testified about what the angels had said: this baby would be a savior, Christ the Lord (Luke 2:8-17)! This testimony confirmed the message that Mary had already received directly from the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:28-37). Many in Bethlehem marveled at the shepherds’ testimony (2:18). Mary, however, preserved these matters in her heart (2:19). She does the same thing later after the young Jesus’s encounter with Bible experts in the temple (2:51). (Luke might even tell about Mary’s memory of these events to suggest that Mary is his source for this information; certainly he met at least briefly with Jesus’s brother James, in Acts 21:18.)

The term used for the “matters” or “words” she kept in her heart appears often in the preceding context, for Gabriel’s message to her (1:37-38), for God’s wonderful work for Zachariah and Elizabeth (1:65), and for the angels’ message to the shepherds (2:15, 17). It will soon be used for God’s prophetic message to Simeon (2:29). All children are special, but Mary, more than any other mother, had good reason to know that her child was the most special of all—the one we all must depend on.

Soon after this event Simeon in the temple prophesies that this child, God’s Messiah, will embody salvation for all peoples (Luke 2:26-32; cf. 2:38). This goes well beyond what Mary and her husband would have imagined (2:33). This message also fits a theme that Luke develops further throughout his work (e.g., 3:6; Acts 13:47; 28:28).

Yet Simeon also prophesies that this child will face opposition and that Mary will face pain (2:34-35). He is prophesying what the Spirit is saying—not simply making a “positive confession” about what Mary might want to hear, or what Simeon might want to come to pass. He is not merely expressing everyone’s hopes for the child. There is a difference.

Simeon’s message underlines a steep price to Jesus’s mission. God has appointed Jesus to expose what is really in the hearts of people (2:35), using Greek terms that Like later uses for Jesus revealing the hypocrisy of many religious people (5:22; 6:8) and even the wrong thoughts of his own disciples (9:47; 24:38). By showing people for what they were, he would become a stumbling block for many, what Simeon calls their “falling” (2:34; cf. 20:18). By contrast, he would be for others a promise of resurrection, what Simeon calls their “rising” (2:34; everywhere else in Luke-Acts this means the resurrection of the dead). Jesus as a sign will also be “spoken against” (2:34: antilegô), a term also applied to hostility against his followers (21:15; Acts 13:45; 28:22).

Further, a figurative “sword” will also pierce Mary’s own heart (Luke 2:35), perhaps initially fulfilled when her son is missing (2:43-48), because she cannot yet understand his life mission (2:49). It may have been further fulfilled when, instead of immediately answering Mary’s concerns, Jesus embraces his disciples as mother and siblings (8:19-21). He warns that loyalty to himself comes before loyalty to parents (12:53; 14:26; though Jesus still affirms honoring parents, 18:20). Even Mary herself must accept the role of disciple as well as mother (Acts 1:14). Jesus’s death would surely prove most traumatic of all.

Sometimes a prophecy is true and it comes to pass in ways that do not make sense to us. The cross was a steeper price than Mary would have imagined; and how could the cross lead to Jesus embodying salvation? Joseph’s father disapproved of his dreams (Gen 37:10), but his father kept it in mind (37:11), just like Mary did centuries later. Yet with Joseph’s apparent death, any possibility of the dream being fulfilled seemed hopeless (37:33-34). Unlike Jacob, the reader of Genesis 37 knows that Joseph remains alive. But how will his exploitation as a slave lead to his exaltation?

Jacob’s son Joseph still has enough faith to remain loyal to God (39:9). He has enough faith—or at least such irresistible gifting—to continue interpreting dreams (40:8-22). And finally this gift exalts him, ironically fulfilling part of his own dream many years earlier (Gen 41).

That is often how God works: he brings humility and often even humiliation before exaltation (Prov 15:33; 18:12; Matt 23:12//Luke 14:11; Luke 18:14). That pattern climaxes in the cross: our divine Lord humbled himself. He did so even to the point of the most shameful and humiliating of deaths, execution for treason against the mighty and widely feared empire of his day (Phil 2:8). Yet every knee will bow at Jesus’s name (2:10) and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (2:11). God’s plan was fulfilled (Acts 2:23-24).

Unfortunately, not all prophecies are clear. Moreover, in circles today where we believe that God’s Spirit still speaks to us, we also need to do a better job of testing today what some claim that God is saying. Some circles risk watering down real prophecy, even inadvertently, with their own interests. Toward the beginning of their callings, God warned both Jeremiah and Ezekiel not to be moved by the opposition they would face for speaking the truth (Jer 1:8, 17; Ezek 2:5-7; 3:8-9). Those who prophesied only what people wanted to hear were suspect (Jer 28:9), and if their hearers were living ungodly lives, the prophecies of peace were false (Jer 4:10; 6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 23:17; Ezek 13:10, 16; Mic 3:5). Of course, not all prophecies include elements of reproof or bad news; two of the seven New Testament churches in Asia Minor were spared reproof, and one was even spared any bad news (Rev 2—3).

Scripture is worth standing on. Scripture also says that we should hold fast true prophecies from God (1 Thess 5:20-21). The same context, however, warns that prophecies must be tested (5:21-22; 1 Cor 14:29). Circles that believe that God will bring about whatever one speaks in faith weaken the distinction between what they say and what God says. Yet “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it?” (Lam 3:37, NIV). Genuine authority to command mountains (Mark 11:23-24) presupposes faith in God (11:22), which in turn presupposes that what we are trusting for, God actually supports.

Not everything that everyone says to us is God’s message, and that may be true especially in circles where people believe they can make “prophetic declarations” apart from genuine direction from God’s Spirit. When those declarations are made publicly and fail, they can make true prophecy harder to believe. But of course more people today, like most people in Jeremiah’s day, will listen to those who tell them what they would like to hear (2 Tim 4:3). Full disclosure: I personally also absolutely prefer what is positive! But in the long run, truth is what matters most of all. God is not wrong simply because someone spoke wrongly in his name. But when we speak in God’s name and are wrong, we dishonor God’s name. Whether in prophecy or in the gift of teaching Scripture, we should be very careful when we say, “The Lord says.”

Other times are more like the above examples from Jesus’s childhood, or the earlier story of Joseph’s dreams. God really has spoken, but we do not understand the message’s full import until it is fulfilled.

Sometimes what God has spoken is best kept in our hearts, as in the case of Mary, until we understand how it will be fulfilled. This helps prevent bringing dishonor on God’s name; a prophecy, like a biblical text, sometimes needs interpretation. Our understanding is finite, and our interpretations are limited. Not everything God tells us is for public consumption, especially when it seems foolishness to outsiders, and especially when we are not yet sure enough of the meaning to risk God’s honor in case we are wrong.

We know in part and we prophesy in part (1 Cor 13:9), but we can truly trust that God has everything under control. We know he works things for our ultimate good, even when we do not understand how (Rom 8:28). In faith, we do our best to follow his leading. In faith, we trust that he knows what he is doing even when we do not.

Posted on

Megachurch

Lest my blog about God’s building program (http://www.craigkeener.org/the-new-building-program/) leave the wrong impression, I want to make clear that I am not opposed to megachurches. I was an associate minister in one in Philadelphia, a church I love.

In Acts 2:46, Jerusalem’s Jesus movement, by this point numbering in the thousands (2:41), met together. Here the apostles could pass on their teaching to large numbers of people at once (2:42). This arrangement was not possible for churches in other Mediterranean cities in which churches were later planted. Temple grounds were public spaces that could accommodate crowds listening to sages, but the other temple grounds in the Roman empire were for pagan deities. Only Jerusalem’s temple was a suitable mass-meeting place for Christians. The next largest locations would often be villas, but these were often quite a long walk from where many other Christians lived.

Megachurch, however, is not the normal state of the church through history. One might compare dog breeding. Breeding has produced many kinds of dogs. If those dogs were on their own in the wild, however, their cross-breeding could eventually produce more generic dogs, much like their pre-bred forebears (albeit perhaps with some improvements from the stronger and more survivable varieties). When persecution comes, homes (or even caves or forests) become more natural and often safer meeting places. When transportation becomes difficult (as in the case of fuel shortages), neighborhood churches become much more serviceable.

That we see something of both models in Acts suggests that what matters is not a prefabricated format but what works for the kingdom. Still, Acts itself shows us that even in Jerusalem, where the church could meet in the public temple, the church also met in homes (Acts 2:46). They broke bread together (2:42), something more suitable in a household setting; probably the twelve apostles also made rounds in many of these homes.

That all the churches in the New Testament ultimately met in homes, wherever else they may have gathered when that was also possible, is important because it reminds us about the church’s DNA. We are family, and therefore a family setting is helpful. Still more important, we are one body with interdependent gifts (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:4-26), and we need a setting sufficiently intimate for us to contribute our gifts to one another. By itself, watching a sermon or even a worship team is not church (even though we do need people to preach and lead worship). We function as church when we are in relationship with one another. If we designed our architecture to that end, we would be facing one another rather than facing a stage.

Again, this is not to deny the value of what megachurches can provide in religious free and economically complex societies. Pooling resources in ways that smaller gatherings cannot, megachurches can provide programs for various age groups and other target groups. These could also be provided by alliances of smaller local churches (at least in urban areas), though coordination can be more complicated, and denominational differences would have to be addressed. But without small groups, megachurches do not automatically provide relationships. For those of us who are introverts, that might be an appeal, but we still need others. Whatever the church setting, we need to be in relationships with other believers, need to be able to contribute gifts that God has given us, need to be able to receive spiritual gifts from others (which cannot all be dependent on the pastor-teacher or another single gift).

Paul’s letters to entire churches and groups of churches in cities and regions, and particularly his teaching on the church as Christ’s body, means that we need to be the church together, whatever format that looks like. Even if you get some good teaching on YouTube or other “distance learning,” you still need time together with other believers, talking about and worshiping the Lord.

Those who emphasize meeting together often cite Hebrews 10:25: “not forsaking our own assembling together” (NASB), “not giving up meeting together” (NIV). But keep in mind that the verse continues, “encouraging one another” (NASB; NIV). The writer emphasizes that this is all the more the case in difficult times and as history moves toward its future climax. Church is not only a matter of assembling, but also of interaction with at least some fellow believers, whom we can strengthen and who can strengthen us.

Whether due to fuel shortages, climate changes, legislation that taxes church property, or outright persecution, we cannot count on megachurches being the church’s permanent format. The house churches Paul started in gentile cities around the Roman world undoubtedly seemed less impressive than the Jerusalem megachurch, which had grown particularly massive by the late 50s or early 60s of the first century, some thirty years after Jesus’s resurrection (Acts 21:20 might be hyperbole, but literally the Greek text speaks of tens of thousands). But God knew the future. Jerusalem would soon lay in shambles, and the future lay more with the dispersed churches positioned to reach their localities around the empire.

If many have the current blessing of large churches today, we need to think wisely in terms of the long-range future. What matters most in the long run is not the number of people who attend, but how many people we genuinely reach for Christ, and how deeply we present them mature in Christ (Col 1:28). What matters is not how much seed is sown, but where that seed will flourish and in turn produce more seed (Mark 4:15-20). It is not even how many people pray an initial prayer acknowledging Christ; only those who persevere will be the laborers’ reward (cf. 1 Cor 3:14-15; 2 John 8).

Whatever the ministries God has assigned us, let us responsibly care for the sheep, and equip God’s people to minister to one another (Eph 4:11-13).

Posted on

The New Building Program

I have never been one for church building projects. I am willing to be pragmatic about it: sometimes one does run out of room, and if the resources invested in the building will ultimately yield more fruit for the kingdom than another allocation of those resources, then by all means it is worthwhile. But where building programs simply function to measure a leader’s status (what has sometimes been facetiously labeled an “edifice complex”), the motivation deserves further scrutiny.

I also grant that buildings can bring God glory, for those with eyes to see it. Whether we examine ancient pyramids, medieval cathedrals or modern skyscrapers, such engineering feats warrant our praise of the God who created human beings with such ingenuity. As I marvel at God’s handiwork in nature, I wonder marvel at his glory displayed in human designs. When we look at remains from the ancient world, we imagine the splendor of civilizations of Egypt, Rome, and the like.

While I thank God for modern engineers, however, some ancient building projects also remind me of the impoverished workers and slaves by whose labor such structures were erected at the behest of elites. Building projects such as Babel’s ziggurat (Gen 11:4) or the pyramids also reflect human pride or false religious beliefs. Earthly splendor may outlast its contributors, but ultimately it remains destined for oblivion. From God’s perspective, the eternal destiny of the laborers counts far more heavily than the bricks that may have outlived them.

Jesus’s disciples were impressed with the splendor of Jerusalem’s temple (Mark 13:1), and for good reason. Jerusalem’s temple for the one true God dwarfed even Ephesus’s temple of Artemis temple, or Athens’ Parthenon. It was the greatest temple of the ancient world, and had it survived, it would surely draw more visitors today than does the Parthenon (which, I can attest as one who has visited there, does draw many visitors). It was undoubtedly the most magnificent structure to which Jesus’s Galilean disciples had been exposed.

But God’s standards are not ours. After the disciples pointed Jesus’s attention to the temple complex’s various buildings (Matt 24:1) and massive masonry (Mark 13:1; most stones weighed many tons), Jesus pointed out the temple’s impending fate. “Not one stone will be left on another” (Matt 24:2; Mark 13:2). Jesus may have used some hyperbole, but within a generation (cf. Matt 23:36; 24:34), in A.D. 70, this splendid temple lay in ruins. In Jesus’s day, the temple was big business, and some of its top leaders were apparently more consumed with the business side of the temple than its spiritual side (21:13). Its priesthood scrupulously attended to its ritual functions, but they also forgot that they were mere tenants (Matt 21:33-36). Unwilling to hand over authority to God’s Son, they rejected him (21:37-39; 23:31-36). Their house would thus be left desolate (23:38; 24:15).

Jesus invested instead in a different building. When Peter confessed Jesus’s identity as the Messiah, the Lord announced: “On this rock I will build my church” (16:18). In the OT, God spoke of “building” his people (or, in times of judgment, tearing them down). What lasts forever is not the physical building in which the church meets. In the New Testament, the church itself—people—are God’s temple. And God continues to build his house through the confession of who Jesus is.

Church buildings are resources, means to an end. What matters more is making disciples who can endure through testing, followers of Jesus who will last forever. That’s why the great commission involves both evangelism and teaching (28:19-20). Our greatest investments should be not in what the world sees and values, but in what God sees and values—the lives of his people.

Posted on

Jesus and elites

Why did Jesus keep running into trouble with elites? The scribes, an educated elite, are judging him in Mark 2:6-7, 16, and the Pharisees, a pious fellowship honoring ancestral tradition criticized him in 2:24 and 3:6. Jesus answers evasively and in riddles and parables designed to delay harsher confrontations till the closing phase of his ministry. In 3:22, Jerusalemite scribes accuse him of acting by Satan; although Jesus still reasons with them, his response escalates to a serious warning. Jesus responds more harshly to the challenges of scribes and Pharisees in 7:6-13, even calling them hypocrites. (In 7:5, as in 2:24, they criticized his disciples, inviting his defense. In 10:11-12, Jesus defends innocent parties divorced by their spouses.)

Jesus’s forerunner, John, suffers under a different elite: the political ruler of Galilee, the tetrarch Herod Antipas, who executes him (6:27).

Yet Jesus also warns his followers against acting like religious elites themselves. When his followers want to exclude someone who acts in his name because the person does not belong to their own group, Jesus stands up for the person (9:38-42). When his followers want to protect Jesus from interruptions by “unimportant” people like little children or blind beggars, Jesus reaches out to those “unimportant” people (10:13-16, 48-52). When some disciples want to become most prominent in the kingdom, Jesus reminds them that true leadership ought not to reflect the world’s ideals of power, but servanthood (10:35-44). Our Lord himself modeled this, coming to serve and to die for us (10:45).

Naturally Jesus’s conflict with elites escalates in the region’s elite location, Jerusalem. He fends off challenges from critics in ch. 12 and reveals coming judgment on the temple (and thus the religious establishment that claims to speak for God) in 13:1-2. And finally the chief priests, who doubled as Judea’s aristocratic leadership, hand Jesus over to the Roman governor for execution. Jesus had already hinted as much in his parable in 12:1-11, where he depicted Jerusalem’s leaders as abusing their rule over God’s people.

Jesus welcomed everyone, but he went out of his way for the lowly, not the rich (10:17-25) and powerful. To the extent that any of us have some social advantages in life, to that extent we must humble ourselves all the more to approach Jesus; it is harder for the wealthy to enter the kingdom (10:23) and easier for children (9:35-37; 10:14-15). If we want to follow our Lord’s example, we need to humble ourselves. When we live by the world’s values of celebrity cults and seeking power over others instead of being servants to all, we miss the very point for which our Lord called us.

Posted on

Women in Ministry

Twenty years ago, Enrichment Journal (from the Assemblies of God) invited me to write an article in support of women in ministry. The article was available both in print and online. Because that website is not currently online, however, I make that article available here, with the permission of Enrichment Journal. (What follows is my twenty-year-old pre-edited draft; but I also include the edited PDF.) At the very least, I hope that those who insist that women’s ministry is unbiblical will understand why those who find it biblical hold the view that we do, and will recognize that, contrary to what some of our detractors say, many of us do support women in ministry because we believe that it is biblical.

 

EJ_2001_02_Spring_KeenerDownload

            Was Paul for or against Women’s Ministry?

            The question of women’s ministry is a pressing concern for today’s church. It is paramount first because of our need for the gifts of all members God has called to serve the Church; now the concern, however, has extended beyond the Church itself. Increasingly secular thinkers today attack Christianity as “against women” and thus irrelevant to the modern world.

            Yet the Assemblies of God and other denominations birthed in the Holiness and Pentecostal revivals affirmed women’s ministry long before the role of women became a secular or liberal agenda.[1] Likewise, in the historic missionary expansion of the nineteenth century, two-thirds of all missionaries were women. The nineteenth century women’s movement that fought for women’s right to vote originally grew from the same revival movement led by Charles Finney and others that advocated the abolition of slavery. By contrast, those who identified everything in the Bible’s culture with the Bible’s message were obligated to both accept slavery and reject women’s ministry.[2]

            For Bible-believing Christians, however, mere precedent from church history cannot settle a question; we must establish our case from Scripture. Because the current debate focuses especially around the teaching of Paul, we focus on his writing, after we have briefly summarized other biblical teachings on the subject.

Women’s Ministry in the Rest of the Bible

            Because Paul accepted as God’s word both the Hebrew Bible and Jesus’ teachings, we must briefly survey women’s ministry in these sources. The ancient Near Eastern world of which Israel was a part was definitely a “man’s world.” But because God spoke to Israel in a particular culture does not suggest that the culture itself was holy; the culture included polygamy, divorce, slavery, and a variety of other practices we now recognize as unholy.

            Despite the prominence of men in ancient Israelite society, however, God still sometimes called women as leaders. When Josiah needed to hear the word of the Lord, he sent to a person who was undoubtedly one of the most prominent prophetic figures of his day, namely Huldah (2 Kings 22:12-20). Deborah was not only a prophetess but a judge (Judg 4:4)–that is, she held the place of greatest authority in Israel in her day. She is also one of the few judges of whom the Bible reports no failures (Judg 4–5).

            Although first-century Jewish women rarely if ever studied with teachers of the law the way male disciples did,[3] Jesus allowed women to join his ranks (Mk 15:40-41; Lk 8:1-3)–something the culture could regard as scandalous.[4] As if this were not scandalous enough, he allowed a woman who wished to hear his teaching to “sit at his feet” (Lk 10:39)–taking a posture normally reserved for disciples. And disciples were teachers in training![5] To have sent women out on the preaching missions (e.g., Mk 6:7-13) might have proved too scandalous to be practical, but the Gospels nevertheless unanimously report that God chose women as the first witnesses of the resurrection, even though first-century Jewish men often dismissed the testimony of women.[6]

            Joel explicitly emphasized that when God poured out His Spirit, women as well as men would prophesy (Joel 2:28-29). Pentecost meant that all God’s people qualified for gifts of God’s Spirit (Acts 2:17-18), just as salvation meant that male or female would have the same relationship with God (Gal 3:28). Subsequent outpourings of the Spirit have often led to the same effect. 

Passages where Paul Affirms Women’s Ministry

            Paul often affirms the ministry of women despite the gender prejudices of his culture. With a few exceptions (some women philosophers), advanced education was a male domain. Because most people in Mediterranean antiquity were functionally illiterate, those who could read and speak well generally assumed teaching roles, and with rare exceptions, these were men.[7] In the first centuries of our era, most Jewish men, like Philo, Josephus, and many later rabbis, reflected the prejudice of much of the broader Greco-Roman culture.[8]

            Women’s roles varied from one region to another, but Paul’s writings clearly rank him among the more progressive, not the more chauvinistic, writers of his day. Many of Paul’s colaborers in the gospel were women.

            Thus Paul commends the ministry of a woman who brings his letter to the Roman Christians (Rom 16:1-2). Phoebe is “servant” of the church at Cenchrea. “Servant” may refer to a “deacon,” a term sometimes designating administrative responsibility in the early Church; in his epistles, however, Paul most frequently applies the term to any minister of God’s word, including himself (e.g., 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; Eph 3:7; 6:21). He also calls Phoebe a “succourer” or “helper” of many (16:2); this term technically designates her as the church’s “patron” or sponsor, most likely the owner of the home in which the church at Cenchrea was meeting. This entitled her to a position of honor in the church.[9]

            Nor is she the only influential woman in the church. Whereas Paul greets about twice as many men as women in Romans 16, he commends the ministries of about twice as many women as men in that list! (Some use the predominance of male ministers in the Bible against women’s ministry, but that argument could work against men’s ministry in this passage!) These commendations may indicate his sensitivity to the opposition women undoubtedly frequently faced for their ministry, and are remarkable given the prejudice against women’s ministry that existed in Paul’s culture.

            If Paul follows ancient custom when he praises Prisca, he may mention her before her husband Aquila because of her higher status (Rom. 16:3-4). Elsewhere we learn that she and her husband taught Scripture to another minister (Acts 18:26). Paul also lists two fellow-apostles,[10] Andronicus and Junia. Although “Junia” is clearly a feminine name, writers opposed to the possibility that Paul could have referred to a female apostle suggest that “Junia” is a contraction for the masculine “Junianus.” But this contraction is very rare compared to the common feminine name, and does not even occur in extant inscriptions from Rome; this suggestion rests not on the text itself but entirely on the presupposition that a woman could not be an apostle.

            Elsewhere, Paul refers to the ministry of two women in Philippi, who, like his many male fellow-ministers, shared in his work for the gospel there (Phil. 4:2-3). Because women typically achieved more prominent religious roles in Macedonia than in most parts of the Roman world,[11] Paul’s women colleagues in this region may have moved more quickly into prominent offices in the church (cf. also Acts 16:14-15).

            Although Paul ranks prophets second only to apostles (1 Cor. 12:28), he acknowledges the ministry of prophetesses (1 Cor. 11:5), following the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Exod. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; 2 Kings 22:13-14) and early Christian practice (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9). Thus those who complain that Paul does not specifically mention “women pastors” by name miss the point. Paul rarely mentions any “men pastors” by name, either; he most often simply mentions his traveling companions in ministry, who were naturally men. Given the culture he addressed, it was natural that fewer women could exercise the social independence necessary to achieve positions of ministry. Where they did so, however, Paul commends them, and includes commendations to women apostles and prophets, the offices of the highest authority in the church!

            While passages such as these establish Paul among the more progressive writers of his era, the primary controversy today rages around other passages in which Paul seems to oppose women’s ministry. Before turning there, we must examine one passage where Paul clearly addresses a local cultural situation.

Paul on Head Coverings

            Although Paul often advocated the mutuality of gender roles,[12] he also worked within the boundaries of his culture where necessary for the sake of the gospel. We begin with his teaching on head coverings because, although it is not directly related to women’s ministry, it will help us understand his passages concerning women’s ministry. Most Christians today agree that women do not need to cover their heads in church, but many do not recognize that Paul used the same kinds of arguments for women covering their heads as for women refraining from congregational speech. In both cases, Paul uses some general principles but addresses a specific cultural situation.

            When Paul urged women in the Corinthian churches to cover their heads (the only place where the Bible teaches about a woman’s “covering”), he follows a custom prominent in many Eastern cultures of his day.[13] Although women and men alike covered their heads for various reasons,[14] married women specifically covered their heads to prevent men other than their husbands from lusting after their hair.[15] A married woman who went out with her head uncovered was considered promiscuous, and was to be divorced as an adulteress.[16] Because of what head coverings symbolized in that culture, Paul asks the more liberated women to cover their heads so as not to scandalize the others. Among his arguments for head coverings are the fact that God created Adam first; in the particular culture he addresses, this argument would make sense as an argument for women wearing head coverings.[17]

Passages where Paul may restrict Women’s Ministry

            Because Paul in some cases advocated women’s ministry, we cannot read his restrictions on women’s ministry as universal prohibitions. Rather, as in the case of head coverings in Corinth above, Paul is addressing a specific cultural situation. This is not to say that Paul here or anywhere else wrote Scripture that was not for all time. It is merely to say that he did not write it for all circumstances, and that we must take into account the circumstances he addressed so we can understand how he would have applied his principles in very different sitations. (For instance, few readers today would advocate us going to Troas to pick up Paul’s cloak; we recognize that Paul addressed these words specifically to Timothy–2 Tim 4:13.)

Let Women Keep Silent (1 Cor 14:34-36)

            Two passages in Paul’s writings at first seem to contradict the “progressive” ones. We should keep in mind that these are the only two passages in the Bible that could remotely be construed as contradicting Paul’s endorsement of women’s ministry elsewhere.

            First, Paul instructs women to be silent and save their questions about the service for their husbands at home (1 Cor 14:34-36). Yet Paul cannot mean silence under all circumstances, because earlier in the same letter he acknowledged that women could pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor 11:5), and prophecy ranked even higher than teaching (12:28).

            Here knowing ancient Greek culture helps us understand the passage better. Not all explanations scholars have proposed have proved satisfying. Some hold that a later scribe accidentally inserted these lines into Paul’s writings, but the hard evidence for this interpretation seems slender.[18] Some suggest that Paul here quotes a Corinthian position (1 Cor. 14:34-35), which he then refutes (1 Cor. 14:36); unfortunately 14:36 does not read naturally as a refutation. Others think that churches, like synagogues, were segregated by gender, somehow making women’s talk disruptive. This view falters on two counts: first, gender segregation in synagogues may begin centuries after Paul, and second, the Corinthian Christians met in homes, whose architecture would have rendered such segregation impossible. Some also suggest that Paul addresses women abusing the gifts of the Spirit, or a problem with judging prophecies. But while the context does address these issues, ancient writers commonly used digressions, and the theme of church order is sufficient to unite the context.

            Another explanation seems more likely. Paul elsewhere affirms women’s role in prayer and prophecy (11:5), and the only kind of speech he directly addresses in 14:34-36 is wives asking questions.[19] In ancient Greek and Jewish lecture settings advanced students or educated people frequently interrupted public speakers with reasonable questions. Yet the culture had deprived most women of education, and considered it rude for uneducated persons to slow down lectures with questions that betrayed their lack of training.[20] So Paul provides a long-range solution: the husbands should take a personal interest in their wives’ learning and catch them up privately. Most ancient husbands doubted their wives’ intellectual potential, but Paul was among the most progressive of ancient writers on the subject.[21] By ancient standards, far from repressing these women, Paul was liberating them![22]

            This text cannot prohibit women announcing the word of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:4-5), and nothing in the context here suggests that Paul specifically prohibits women from Bible teaching. The only passage in the entire Bible that one could directly cite against women teaching the Bible is 1 Tim. 2:11-15.

In Quietness and Submission (1 Tim 2:11-15)

            In this passage Paul forbids women to teach or exercise authority over men. Most supporters of women’s ministry think that the latter expression means “usurp authority,”[23] something Paul would not want men to do any more than women, but the matter is disputed.[24] In any case, Paul also forbids women here to “teach,” something he apparently allowed elsewhere (Rom 16; Phil 4:2-3). Thus he presumably addresses the specific situation in this community; because both Paul and his readers knew their situation and could take it for granted, the situation which elicited Paul’s response is thus assumed in his intended meaning.

            Paul’s letters to Timothy in Ephesus provide us a glimpse of the situation: false teachers (1 Tim 1:6-7, 19-20; 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:17) were misleading the women (5:13;[25] 2 Tim 3:6-7), who were the most susceptible to false teaching only because they had been granted the least education. This behavior was bound to bring reproach on the church from a hostile society already convinced that Christians subverted the traditional roles of women and slaves.[26] So again Paul provides a short-range solution: “Do not teach” (under the present circumstances); and a long-range solution: “Let them learn” (1 Tim 2:11).

            Today we read “learn in silence” and think the emphasis lies on “silence.” That these women are to learn “quietly and submissively” may reflect their witness within society (these were characteristics normally expected of women). But ancient culture expected all beginning students (unlike advanced students) to learn silently; for that matter, the same word for “silence” here is applied to all Christians in the context (2:2). Paul specifically addresses this matter to women for the same reason he addresses the admonition to stop disputing to the men (2:8): they are the groups involved in the Ephesian churches. Again it appears that Paul’s long-range plan is to liberate, not subordinate, women’s ministry. The issue is not gender, but learning God’s Word.

            What particularly causes many fine scholars to question this otherwise logical case is Paul’s following argument, where he bases his case on the roles of Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Paul’s argument from the creation order here, however, is one of the very arguments he earlier used to contend that women should wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:7-9). In other words, Paul sometimes cited Scripture to make an ad hoc case for particular circumstances that he would not apply to all circumstances. His argument from Eve’s deception is even more likely to fit this category. If Eve’s deception prohibits all women from teaching, Paul would be claiming that all women, like Eve, are more easily deceived than all men. If, however, the deception does not apply to all women, neither does his prohibition of their teaching. Paul probably uses Eve to illustrate the situation of the unlearned women he addresses in Ephesus; but he elsewhere uses Eve for anyone who is deceived, not just women (2 Cor. 11:3).[27]

            Because we do not believe that Paul would have contradicted himself, Paul’s approval of women’s ministry in God’s word elsewhere confirms that 1 Timothy 2:9-15 cannot prohibit women’s ministry in all situations, but addresses a particular situation.

            Some have protested that women should not hold authority over men because men are the “head” of women. Aside from the many debates about the meaning of the Greek term “head” (for instance, some translate it as “source” instead of “authority over”),[28] Paul speaks only of the husband as head of his wife, not of the male gender as head of the female gender. Further, we Pentecostals and charismatics affirm that the minister’s authority is inherent in the minister’s calling and ministry of the Word, not the minister’s person. In this case, gender should be irrelevant as a consideration for ministry–for us as it was for Paul.

Conclusion

            Today we should affirm those whom God calls, whether male or female, and encourage them in faithfully learning God’s Word. We need to affirm all potential laborers, both men and women, for the abundant harvest fields.

[1]See e.g., V. Synan, The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 188-89.

[2]See S. Grenz and D. Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 42-62; N. Hardesty, Women Called to Witness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984); G. Usry and C. Keener, Black Man’s Religion (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 90-94, 98-109.

[3]L. Swidler, Women in Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1976), 97-111; C. Keener, Paul, Women & Wives (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992), 83-84. The one exception apart from Jesus’ disciples is Beruriah (second-century), who confronted prejudice from most male rabbis.

[4]See G. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford: Oxford, 1989), 202; J. Stambaugh and D. Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 104; W. Liefeld, “The Wandering Preacher As a Social Figure in the Roman Empire” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1967), 240. Critics often maligned movements supported by women (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus [New York: Penguin, 1993], 109).

[5]To “sit before” a teacher’s feet was to take the posture of a disciple (Acts 22:3; m. Ab. 1:4; ARN 6, 38 A; ARN 11, §28 B; b. Pes. 3b; p. Sanh. 10:1, §8). On women in Jesus’ ministry, see especially B. Witherington, III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, SNTSM 51 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984).

[6]Jesus’ contemporaries generally held little esteem for the testimony of women (Jos. Ant. 4.219; m. Yeb. 15:1, 8-10; 16:7; Ket. 1:6-9; tos. Yeb. 14:10; Sifra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; cf. Lk 24:11); in Roman law see similarly J. Gardner, Women in Roman Law & Society [Bloomington: Indiana University, 1986], 165).

[7]Although inscriptions demonstrate that women filled a prominent role in some synagogues (see B. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1982]), they also reveal that this practice was the exception rather than the norm.

[8]E.g., Philo Prob. 117; see further Safrai, “Education,” JPFC 955; R. Baer, Philo’s Use of the Categories Male and Female, AZLGHJ 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1970).

[9]See further Keener, Women, 237-40.

[10]Because Paul nowhere else appeals to commendations from “the apostles,” “notable apostles” remains the most natural way to construe this phrase (see e.g., A. Spencer, Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989], 102).

[11]See V. Abrahamsen, “The Rock Reliefs and the Cult of Diana at Philippi” (Th. D. dissertation, Harvard Divinity School, 1986).

[12]See, e.g., comments in C. Keener, “Man and Woman,” pp. 583-92 in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 584-85.

[13]Jewish people were among the cultures that required married women to cover their hair (e.g., m. B.K. 8:6; ARN 3, 17A; Sifre Num. 11.2.2; 3 Macc 4:6). Elsewhere in the East, cf. e.g., R. MacMullen, “Women in Public in the Roman Empire,” Historia 29 (1980): 209-10.

[14]Sometimes men (Plut. R.Q. 14, Mor. 267A; Char. Chaer. 3.3.14) and women (Plut. R.Q. 26, Mor. 270D; Char. Chaer. 1.11.2; 8.1.7; ARN 1A) covered their heads for mourning. Similarly, both men (m. Sot. 9:15; Epict. Disc. 1.11.27) and women (ARN 9, §25B) covered their heads for shame. Roman women normally covered their heads for worship (e.g., Varro 5.29.130; Plut. R.Q. 10, Mor. 266C), in contrast to Greek women who uncovered their heads (SIG 3d ed., 3.999). But in contrast to the custom Paul addresses, none of these specific practices differentiates men from women.

[15]Hair was the primary object of male desire (Apul. Metam. 2.8-9; Char. Chaer. 1.13.11; 1.14.1; ARN 14, §35B; Sifre Num. 11.2.1; p. Sanh. 6:4, §1). This was why many peoples required married women to cover their hair, but allowed unmarried girls to go uncovered (e.g., Charillus 2 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 232C; Philo Spec. Leg. 3.56).

[16]E.g., m. Ket. 7:6; b. Sot. 9a; R. Meir in Num. Rab. 9:12. For a similar custom and reasoning today in traditional Islamic societies, see C. Delaney, “Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame,” pp. 35-48 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean, ed. D. Gilmore, AAA 22 (Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987), 42, 67; cf. D. Eickelman, The Middle East: An Anthropological Approach, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989), 165.

[17]On Paul’s various arguments here, see more fully Keener, Women, 31-46; or more briefly, in “Man and Woman,” 585-86. For a similar background for 1 Tim 2:9-10, see D. Scholer, “Women’s Adornment: Some Historical and Hermeneutical Observations on the New Testament Passages,” Daughters of Sarah 6 (1980) 3-6; Keener, Women, 103-7.

[18]G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 699-705. Fee may be right that the entire western tradition displaces this passage, but this might happen easily enough with a digression (common enough in ancient writing), and even in these texts the passage is moved, not missing.

[19]E.g., K. Giles, Created Woman: A Fresh Study of the Biblical Teaching (Canberra: Acorn, 1985), 56.

[20]See e.g., Plut. On Lectures 4, 11, 13, 18, Mor. 39CD, 43BC, 45D, 48AB; compare tos. Sanh. 7:10.

[21]One of the most progressive alternatives was Plut. Advice to Bride and Groom48, Mor. 145BC, who nevertheless ended up accusing women of folly if left to themselves (48, Mor. 145DE).

[22]For more detailed documentation, see Keener, Women, 70-100; similarly, B. Witherington, III, Women in the Earliest Churches, SNTSM 59 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988), 90-104.

[23]See further discussion in Keener, Women, pp. 108-9.

[24]For recent and noteworthy arguments in favor of “exercise authority,” see the articles by Baldwin, Köstenberger, and Schreiner in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995).

[25]The Greek expression for the women’s activities here probably refers to spreading false teaching; see G. Fee, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, NIBC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), 122.

[26]Given Roman society’s perception of Christians as a subversive cult, false teaching that undermined Paul’s strategies for the church’s public witness (see Keener, Women, 139-56) could not be permitted (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2, 7, 10, 5:7, 10, 14, 6:1; Tit. 1:6, 2:1-5, 8, 10; cf. A. Padgett, “The Pauline Rationale for Submission: Biblical Feminism and the hina Clauses of Titus 2:1-10,” EQ 59 (1987) 52; D. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles, SBLDS 71 [Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983]).

[27]1 Tim 2:15 may also qualify the preceding verses; see Keener, Women, pp. 118-20.

[28]Catherine Clark Kroeger and others believe it implies “source,” Wayne Grudem and others that it implies “authority over.” With Gordon Fee, I suspect that ancient literature allows both views, but that Paul uses an image relevant in his day (see further Keener, Women, 32-36, 168).

Posted on

What does revival look like? II. Returning to God’s Word—2 Kings 22:10-20. A. Setting the stage

Walking into certain Christian bookstores (or scanning certain YouTube videos) can sometimes be a traumatizing experience for a Bible scholar. It might be something like a nutritionist or cardiologist stepping into a greasy burger joint reeking with the odor of fries, or a respiratory therapist walking into the smoking area of an airport, or … well, you get the picture.

I may exaggerate somewhat: usually even some of the lighter fare (such as many encouraging testimonies) is spiritually healthy. But it can’t substitute for the Bible or what helps us understand the Bible, even if it makes a nice dessert topping. Regarding the Bible, the most knowledgeable voices are not always the best communicators, and even they do not always have the best marketers. In keeping with U.S. culture, the religious market, like other markets, is driven by consumer appetites whetted by good marketing.

Bibles sell well, but difficulties in understanding parts of the Bible mean that even in a land saturated with Bibles, many people do not read them much, or read isolated verses apart from the context that helps explain their purpose. (We have instant foods and other shortcuts; we sometimes treat the Bible in the same way.) Meanwhile, in some less information-glutted parts of the world, people are desperate for Bibles in their language, just like in some parts of the world, people would be desperate to eat much of the food that many North Americans throw away.

Jesus taught that the first commandment is to recognize that there is just one true God, and so to love him with our whole being (Mark 12:29-30, citing Deut 6:4-5). That passage goes on to speak of keeping God’s words in our heart and reciting them for successive generations (Deut 6:6-7). (Most people could not read, so they had to learn and recite.) God’s law should be what they talk about at home and when they’re not at home (i.e., wherever they are), when they lie down and when they rise (a nice Hebrew way of saying, all the time; 6:7). They should surround themselves with reminders of God’s law everywhere (6:8-9). When God blesses his people with material prosperity, they should take heed not to forget him (6:10-15), but should continue to keep his commandments (6:17).

But Israel did forget God’s law. Many still claimed to follow their national God, but they no longer tested things from Scripture. Many of the priests and scribes who were supposed to instruct them tried to be more progressive and incorporate religious traditions from surrounding, polytheistic cultures. More commonly, the people who lacked teaching simply adopted traditions from such cultures without recognizing what was forbidden. They worshiped on high places, and worse yet used deity-images, and dedicated some of their babies as bloody sacrifices to obtain divine favors.

Such behavior prevailed through royal example through most of the reign of Manasseh, who reigned for over half a century. Manasseh experienced a latter-day change of heart (2 Chron 33:12-16), but pagan practice was now too deeply entrenched among his people to change their practices (33:17). After all, most of them had grown up with this state of affairs. His son Amon carried on this line of behavior for two years. When Manasseh’s eight-year-old grandson Josiah came to the throne, he followed a different path, probably encouraged in it by tutors put in place by the aged and repentant Manasseh before his death. But what could Josiah do? After all, he was righteous as best as he knew, but he did not have other standards to go by. Scripture had been suppressed or forgotten; certainly it was no longer center stage.

Throughout the ancient Near East, collections of laws were promulgated and then often forgotten. But foundation documents were often preserved in temples. To honor the Lord, Josiah orders the high priest to begin repairing the Lord’s house (2 Kgs 22:3-7), and what happens next sets a revolution in place. Christians in parts of Western Europe experienced something similar when Erasmus made available the New Testament in Greek: in a time when scholars were interested in going back to the classical sources and people were tired of corruption in the church, more leaders realized that the church’s foundation documents—Scripture—taught something different than many of the customs that had grown up since then. This discovery sparked the Protestant Reformation, as well as reform within much of the rest of the Western Church.

In Medieval Western Europe, most people could not read and many priests had inadequate knowledge of Scripture. Today we can read, but the book of the law has been lost in much of Western Christendom because of skepticism, difficulty understanding different literary genres, or most often simple negligence. Some simply defend adamantly their denominational traditions without searching Scripture for themselves; others depend on various other filters (their pastors, radio preachers, etc.) for their access to biblical truth. Some of these sources are trustworthy and valuable, but how can one evaluate which is which? Teaching is necessary, but devotional materials (including my blog posts) cannot be a substitute for direct engagement with God’s word itself, where (as for anyone with a Bible or internet access) that is available.

What happened when the book of the law was discovered in the temple? That’s the story that’s the heart of this lesson. It is the subject of the next lesson. (See also part I: http://www.craigkeener.org/what-does-revival-look-like-part-i-the-spirit-speaks/; http://www.craigkeener.org/what-does-revival-look-like-the-spirit-speaks-application/)

Posted on

The faithless prayer meeting—Acts 12:5-16

Have you ever been in a situation where you felt like you didn’t have enough faith to pray? Or where something turned out differently than you’d hoped, and you assumed that it was because you lacked faith? Or where God answered your prayers, but you weren’t sure it was God or you initially couldn’t believe that it really happened?

In Acts 12, James, brother of John, is arrested and executed by King Herod Agrippa I. Jesus explained that the twelve apostles would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes (Luke 22:30); he did not say that it would happen before their death and resurrection (Mark 10:38-39). For those who expected the kingdom immediately, however, the death of one of the apostles was a faith-testing event. James was not only one of the twelve, but one of the three closest to Jesus (Luke 8:51; 9:28).

Now Peter, leader of the twelve, is arrested and scheduled to face the same fate. The church prays fervently for his release (12:5). While believers pray, an angel of the Lord comes and leads Peter out of the prison, and he heads for a Christian household where, it turns out, believers are praying (12:12). Yet when he first arrives, the believers initially do not believe that their prayer is answered.

The narrative bristles with irony:

  • Israelites at the first Passover were girded and sandaled, ready to escape captivity (Exod 12:11)—in contrast to Peter, at a later Passover season (Acts 12:4, 8)
  • Whereas the church is praying fervently for his deliverance (12:5, 12), Peter is sound asleep (12:6-7; cf. Luke 22:45)
  • Neither the people praying (Acts 12:12, 15) nor Peter himself (12:9) initially believe his release
  • Peter thought the angel he was seeing was a “vision” (12:7) just as Jesus’s male followers once had supposed that his female followers saw only a “vision” of angels (Luke 24:23)
  • An angel frees Peter (Acts 12:7-11) but his supporters suppose him an angel (or ghost; 12:15)—as some supposed when they saw the risen Lord (Luke 24:37)
  • When a woman joyfully proclaims his survival (Acts 12:14), others faithlessly dismiss her testimony like that of the women at the tomb (Luke 24:11)
  • Whereas Peter’s guards in 12:6, 10 fail to keep him in, in 12:13-15 his own supporters keep Peter out
  • Whereas the iron gate in 12:10 opens of its own accord, in 12:14 the gate of the house where fellow-Christians pray for his safety remains barred to him
  • Whereas Peter comes to his senses only when he recognizes that the “vision” (12:9) is real (12:11), believers accuse Rhoda of madness (12:15) for declaring Peter’s presence

To borrow an analogy from Luke’s Gospel, Those inside have been “knocking” in prayer that a figurative door may be “opened” for them (Luke 11:5-10), for Peter’s release (Acts 12:5, 12)—yet fail to believe that the answer to their prayers is knocking on their door!

We can be happy that God is not limited to acting on our faith. That was certainly the case when Gabriel was sent to Zechariah to let him know that his wife Elisabeth was going to have a son (Luke 1:18-20). (Moses certainly didn’t have faith to make the burning bush burn.) To a lesser extent, it was also true when believers were praying for Peter’s release from Herod Agrippa’s plans to kill him in Acts 12:5-16.

But while their faith wasn’t perfect, they had enough faith to pray. They came to the right place with their needs. Although I called this a “faithless prayer meeting,” they weren’t really faithless; they just had limited faith that didn’t match God’s much greater power. It takes just a mustard seed, because the real issue is not how big is our faith, but how big is the God in whom we trust. That is, we don’t need to put faith in our faith, as if faith itself is a force of imagination that makes things happen. We can trust a God who is bigger than us being perfect or having everything figured out. Yes, God invites us to have faith. Yes, confidence in him matters. But we can thank God that he is not controlled by or limited to our faith. He is bigger than we can ask or imagine, and we grow deeper in faith as we witness and consider his gracious acts.

Posted on

Conflict part 3: conflict within families

Sometimes conflict arises even in one’s family. And here I am not thinking just of extremely dysfunctional families like Joseph’s (yes, your brothers selling you into slavery is certainly dysfunctional). Who is closer, and to whom is one more vulnerable, than a person whom one loves deeply and whose words matter most? The biblical patriarchs sometimes experienced passionate marital disagreements:

Gen 16:5 (ESV): “Then Sarai said to Abram, ‘May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my slave-girl to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the Lord judge between you and me!’”

Gen 21:10-11 (NIV): Sarah “said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.” The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.” (But God told him to listen to Sarah.)

Or Gen 30:1-2 (NIV): “When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” Jacob became angry with her and said, “Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?””

Avoiding open conflict, Rebekah simply accomplished her plan for Jacob behind Isaac’s back, since he did not listen more directly to her revelation about the elder serving the younger.

The ideal, of course, is 1 Pet 3:7: husbands be sensitive to your wives so that nothing hinders your prayers (for God heeds the righteous, not the evil, 3:12).

Again, divine wisdom warns us about harmful words:

Prov 12:18: “Rash words are like thrusts from a sword, but the wise person’s tongue brings healing.”

Prov 18:21 NIV: “The tongue has the power of life and death …”

What about needless conflict in the family and its health consequences? Although framed from the man’s perspective in Proverbs, the principles should apply both directions.

Prov. 12:4, NRSV: “A good wife is the crown of her husband, but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.”

14:1, NRSV: “The wise woman builds her house, but the foolish tears it down with her own hands.”

17:1, NRSV: “Better is a dry morsel with quiet than a house full of feasting with strife.”

21:9, NRSV: “It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a contentious wife.”

Parent-child relationships can also be stressful (although as parents it may help work some spiritual maturation in us!):

Prov 10:1 (NASB): “A wise son makes a father glad, but a foolish son is a grief to his mother.”

Prov 15:20 (NRSV): “A wise child makes a glad father, but the foolish despise their mothers.”

Prov 17:25 (NRSV): “Foolish children are a grief to their father and bitterness to her who bore them.”

Prov 23:24 (NRSV): “The father of the righteous will greatly rejoice; he who begets a wise son will be glad in him.”

Prov 27:11 (NRSV): “Be wise, my child, and make my heart glad, so that I may answer whoever reproaches me.”

Prov 28:7 (NRSV): “Those who keep the law are wise children, but companions of gluttons shame their parents.”

Eph 6:4: “Fathers, do not stir up/stoke your children’s anger …”

The Bible shows us that conflict happens within families. But it also invites us to a higher ideal of resolving differences with mutual love, respect, and servanthood. For example:

Prov 31:28 (ESV): “Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her”

Eph 4:26-27 (NIV): “… Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.”

Eph 4:29: “Don’t speak what harms others. Instead speak what is good for them, building them up and meeting their needs …”

Eph 4:32 (NIV): “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

Eph 5:2, 21: “Act in love … submitting to one another out of respect for Christ”

Eph 5:25 (NRSV): “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

Mark 10:43-44 (NRSV): “… whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all.”

John 13:14 (NRSV): “So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.”

(P.S., on an anticlimactic note about these lists of verses, I mix and match some translations on my computer more based on ease of access than based on recommending one translation over another.)

Posted on

God uses little people—Exodus 6:28-30

The last post discussed how Exodus uses Moses’s genealogy (Exod 6:14-25) to underline the weak sort of vessel that God chooses to use. Exodus frames that genealogy with Moses’s fearful protest in the presence of YHWH: “I’m uncircumcised in lips; so how is it that Pharaoh is going to listen to me?” As with some other framing devices in ancient oral literature, this one is somewhat inverted, transposing the order of the two clauses (6:12, 30).

Because Exodus emphasizes the point by repeating it, it seems fair for us to do the same.

Yet the Lord had already answered Moses’s objection earlier. “I’m not a good speaker,” Moses protested, “and my mouth and tongue are heavy!” (4:10). “Who made a person’s mouth?” the Lord demanded. “I will go with your mouth and teach you what to say” (4:11-12).

Who are we to question God’s call? Who are we to evaluate by the world’s criteria? God will back up what he calls us to do. Some speakers who do not sound eloquent are nevertheless anointed by God in such a way that people’s hearts are changed. Eric Liddell did not have the best form, but God made him fast. Unlike George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards was not the most eloquent speaker, but the Spirit could fall when he simply read a sermon. Natural gifts are a blessing, but for God’s call we cannot depend solely on them. We depend on the one who called us, and he can gift us in new ways as he chooses.

If God gives you ways to fulfill your calling better, take advantage of them. But don’t think that God cannot use you because you are too small. God uses especially those who know they are small. As mentioned earlier, someone once introduced Hudson Taylor, nineteenth-century founder of a very effective ministry to China, as a very great man. When Hudson got up to speak, he countered that he was a very small man with a very great God. He understood the ministry principle revealed in this passage.

Ultimately we are called to speak whether people will listen or not (as in Isa 6:9-13; Jer 1:17-19; Ezek 2:5-7; 2 Tim 4:2-5). Sometimes the fruit comes later (cf. Acts 7:58). It is not our role to predict which seed will bear fruit, but we can trust that it will always be enough; God’s message will bear fruit in its time (Isa 55:10-11; Mark 4:14-20, 26-29).

Jeremiah lived to see his land devastated and his people enslaved; yet a generation beyond him, God’s people recognized the truth of his message and never again turned to physical idolatry (2 Chron 36:21-22; Ezra 1:1; Dan 9:2). Paul lamented that all Asia—the place of his greatest ministry (cf. Acts 19:10, 17, 20)—had turned away from him (2 Tim 1:15). Yet his writings have shaped and challenged the church for two millennia.

Moses could not enter the promised land, though God did allow him to see it (Deut 34:1-6). The next generation, growing up under God’s revelation, apparently treated Joshua much better, but Moses faced opposition even from his own people. Yet God fulfilled the purpose for which he raised Moses up. We later see the same principle regarding David: he died, “after he had served God’s purpose in his own generation” (Acts 13:36). We should never forget that we are each only part of the story. Yet we can also celebrate the privilege that God has given us, that we do get to be part of his story, a story that will echo throughout the ages of eternity.

Whether our role seems to us big or small, let us fill that role with our whole hearts, and give all the honor to the story’s Author, to the Lord himself.