In 1967 the United Presbyterian Church
in America adopted a new confession of faith. Concerning the nature of
the Bible the following statement was made:
“The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are
nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought
forms, and literary fashions of the place and times at which they were
written. They reflect the view of life, history, and the cosmos which
were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach
the Scriptures with a literary and historical understanding. As God has
spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident
that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing
world and in every form of human culture.”
The foregoing paragraph contains some
very subtle implications. It reflects what is known as the “historical
critical” approach to biblical interpretation, and is based upon an
“existential” attitude toward the scriptures. This interpretative theory
was popularized by radical theologians like Rudolph Bultmann. It
suggests that the Bible is principally the result of the formative
influence of the life-situation
of the early church. In other words, the New Testament is merely the
record of how the primitive
Christians, consistent with
their subjective inclinations, adapted the broad principles of the
religion of Jesus to their unique life styles. This view contends
therefore, that what was true for the first-century
church may not be true for today’s church.
Christianity
is viewed as a rather “plastic” religion; it may alter its forms of
expression to fit the mood and tempo of any given culture and historical
circumstance.
In 1976 Presbyterian scholar Robert C.
Sproul addressed this controversy, describing the existential approach
as "a new hermeneutic" ("Controversy at Culture Gap," Eternity, May
1976, pp. 13ff). Does that sound familiar? Indeed! It is the identical
philosophy that we are now hearing from numerous clerics who identify
themselves with "Christendom."
And given enough time, all of the latest denominational fads eventually
find their way into the kingdom
of Christ. A relatively recent writer opined:
“The historical method of hermeneutics approaches the Scripture with the
understanding that the text was written in another period and from
within a culture different from Western civilization. Instead of asking,
‘What is the meaning of the text for me today?’ the historical method
asks, ‘What is the meaning of the text to those who first read it?’ The
history and culture behind the text are what determine the real meaning.
. .
“The implication of this method of
interpretation for the Restoration Movement is that many proof-texts
which have been used to support favorite doctrines must now be
challenged as to their application for the 20th century church” (Bill
Swetmon, “The Historical Method in Hermeneutics,” Image, July 1989, p.
23).
To what extent did the culture of the
first century affect the formation of New Testament doctrine? Which
elements of New Testament teaching are culturally oriented so that, from
a practical vantage point, they may be altered today to conform to our
own unique situation?
Might one assume, for instance, that
the New Testament ritual of immersion in water had its roots in the
Jewish ceremonial washings of the first century (baptistries have been
found in the Essene ruins at Qumran), so that baptism is not an
obligation in the twentieth century? And what of the communion
components? May we conclude that the bread and fruit of the vine were
simply cultural features associated with the Passover feast, hence,
other food items may be substituted today?
One of the primary motives with some
professed Christians, in their quest to release the modern church from
the oppressive shackles of first-century
culture, is the liberation of women to assume a more dominate leadership
role in the public life of the church. There is truly a feminist
revolution in the making. Some are aiming for women worship-leaders,
lady preachers, and yes, even female elders.
Were Paul’s instructions regarding the
limited sphere of woman’s public teaching role culturally oriented? This
was the position argued by William Barclay relative to Paul’s
instructions concerning a woman’s teaching role. The apostle declared:
“But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but
to be in quietness” (1 Timothy 2:12). Of this context Barclay wrote:
“This is a passage that cannot be read out of its historical context.
All the things in this chapter are mere temporary regulations laid down
to meet a given situation” (Letters to Timothy, Titus & Philemon,
Westminster Press, 1960, pp. 76,78). One writer has asserted: “Paul
could not have given women much more freedom than he did without going
outside the borders of his culture” (Steve Ink, “Another Look At
Hermeneutics,” Part 3, Image, March 15, 1987, p. 11).
How does the conscientious Bible
student distinguish the options of culture from the abiding
obligations of divine command? The following thoughts are
submitted for careful consideration.
Focusing the Issue
First, no one has the right to assume
that a divinely given instruction or practice is culturally conditioned
unless there are contextual considerations which clearly indicate that
such is the case.
For example, when Christ
sent His disciples forth to proclaim the coming kingdom, He forbade them
to preach to the Gentiles or Samaritans (Matthew 10:1ff). Was
this to be the case always? Clearly not, for after the church was
established, both Samaritans and Gentiles were granted the privilege of
responding to the gospel (Acts 8; 10). Thus, though the preaching
mission of the apostles in the preparatory phase of the kingdom
was culturally limited, as the Jews were being prepared for an
acceptance of other peoples, such is not the case now.
During his second missionary
campaign, when Paul came to Lystra, he had Timothy, a young colaborer in
the gospel, circumcised (Acts 16:3). Was this practice by divine
demand, or was it a culturally conditioned decision? How is one to know?
It is clear that the apostle’s practice on this occasion was a cultural
expediency for the following reasons:
- Certain false
teachers in the early church attempted to bind circumcision as a
matter of religious obligation, but the doctrine was summarily
rejected by men acting under the guidance of the Spirit of God
(Acts 15:1,28ff).
- When
Judaizers demanded the circumcision of Titus, Paul refused to yield
to their dictates—even for an hour (Galatians 2:3-5).
- The New
Testament expressly states that circumcision received as a matter of
attempting to achieve salvation voids the work of
Christ, for in Christ the ritual is
valueless (Galatians 5:2,6).
Thus, additional biblical
information regarding circumcision puts the matter into clear focus.
Upon what basis, though, could one
argue that immersion in water was a cultural phenomenon of antiquity and
therefore not binding today? There is absolutely none! First, since
baptism is “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), and as the
need of forgiveness of sins is both universal and perpetual, it
is clear that this rite is universal and perpetual, hence, not cultural.
Second, since the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ
must always be the heart of the “everlasting gospel” (cf. 1
Corinthians 15:1-4;
Revelation 14:6), why would not the ceremony that pictures this
historical event (cf. Roman 6:3-4,17-18)
be an abiding obligation?
Second, there are biblical
passages which indicate that the basic forms of New Testament doctrine
were to be age-lasting;
hence, they were not cultural.
Consider these examples. In the great commission Christ
declared:
“All authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go,
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching
them to observe all things whatever I commanded you and behold, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:18-20).
Within this context the Lord
authorized immersion into the name of the sacred Godhead. Note that the
obligation to immerse was grounded in His authority, not culture.
Moreover, the promised blessing—that Jesus would remain with His people
unto the end of the world—was coexistent with the responsibility to be
immersed. Hence, immersion would be a divine duty until the end of the
world. It was not a temporal, culturally oriented option.
Are the original elements of the
Lord’s supper—bread and fruit of the vine—mere relics of the Passover
celebration (hence, as some contend, more meaningful, modern items might
now be substituted), or must the ancient forms be retained? Let Paul
answer: ”. . . as often as you eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye
proclaim the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Corinthians 11:26).
It is clear that the apostle intended that the bread and fruit of the
vine be retained as symbols of the Savior’s body and blood until the
return of Christ
is accomplished! These were not optional expedients flavored by culture.
Third, the growing contention that
the apostolic limitation of woman’s role in the public worship of the
church was culturally imposed ignores that fact that the divine
injunctions regarding male/female relationships were anchored in
creation principles that relate to fundamental differences between the
sexes. And creation foundational truths transcend culture.
Consider this point. In the Lord’s
declaration regarding the sanctity and permanency of the home, He
affirmed: “Whosoever shall divorce his wife, except for fornication, and
shall marry another, is committing adultery: and he who marries her when
she is put away is committing adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Was this
ordinance an accommodation to the cultural habits of that day? May we
assume that the teaching of Jesus on divorce and remarriage is not
binding today so that one may capriciously divorce and remarry without
limitation? Surely not. The fact is, Jewish, Greek, and Roman attitudes
concerning divorce and remarriage were all exceedingly loose in that
era. The Lord’s rather rigid instruction was based upon God’s design for
the human family as reflected in the acts of creation at the very
beginning of earth’s history (19:4-8).
Get the point, please. When a New Testament teaching is based upon the
historical facts of creation, it cannot be dismissed as “cultural.”
Similarly, in several New Testament
contexts Paul affirms the concept that there is a scale of authority in
the divine scheme of things. In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16;
14:33-35;
and in 1 Timothy 2:8-15,
the apostle sets forth three fundamental truths. First, man is the
spiritual head of woman; she is to respect that position (1
Corinthians 11:3,10;
14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11). Second, woman’s subordinate status is to be
demonstrated by certain obligations enjoined (1 Corinthians 11:5-13),
and by other activities forbidden (14:34-35;
1 Timothy 2:12).
Third, the theological bases of these instructions arise from the
creation background (1 Corinthians 11:7-12;
14:34; 1 Timothy 2:13), and from the historical introduction of sin
into this world (1 Timothy 2:14). A consideration of these facts
makes it clear that apostolic instructions regarding woman’s role in the
church are not cultural and transitory. They are coexistent with the
Christian age.
C. C. Ryrie has noted that Paul’s
regulation of woman’s role “was not something which was simply forged on
the spur of the moment because of the particular situation in one local
church of the first century. It is grounded in facts which are not
altered by geography or centuries (The Role of Women in the Church,
Moody Press, 1958, p. 79). William Hendriksen’s comment is also very
appropriate. He states that Paul’s “directives regarding the woman’s
role in connection with public worship are based not on temporary or
contemporary conditions or circumstances but on two facts that have
meaning for all time, namely, the fact of creation and the fact
of the entrance of sin” (“The Pastoral Epistles,” New
Testament Commentary, Baker, 1957, p. 109).
A further evidence that the New
Testament doctrine concerning woman’s role is not cultural is found in
the fact that the apostles’ teaching was not merely imposed in isolated
areas to accommodate fluctuating local circumstances; rather, it was
bound upon churches everywhere. The epistle to the Corinthians was not
only to the saints in Corinth, but also was directed to “all that call
upon the name of our Lord Jesus in every place” (1:2). What he
taught in Corinth, he taught in “every church” (4:17). His
ordinances were bound in “all the churches” (7:17). With
reference to woman’s submissive position: “As in all the churches
of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches” (1
Corinthians 14:33-34),
and if any contended against his apostolic injunctions, they were
informed that their conduct was out of step with the general practice of
the churches of God (11:16).
As one scholar notes:
”. . . in both 1 Corinthians, chapter 11, and 1 Timothy,
chapter 2, Paul bases his instruction upon the implications of Old
Testament Law, specifically, the creation narrative. Furthermore, the
Apostle gives no indication whatsoever that the principles he sets down
are not binding upon all the churches” (David R. Nicholas, What’s A
Woman To Do. . . In The Church?, Good Life Productions, 1979, p.
55).
We must remember that when one
removes a divinely stated rationale for a practice from the text of the
New Testament, and then injects his own assumed rationale as the basis
for the instruction, he is no longer practicing exegesis; rather, he is
guilty of eisegesis, i.e., he thrusts his own opinion into the Bible.
This is precisely what has been done when it is argued that Paul’s
reasoning for woman’s submission is due to culture.
The “New
Hermeneutic”—Some Arguments Offered
Those who contend for the
Historical/Critical method of New Testament interpretation, with its
corresponding “new hermeneutic,” offer several arguments which they feel
buttress their position that
Christianity was not designed to
be a static religion with “pattern theology.”
First, it is argued that the
early church never possessed the entire New Testament, hence, a New
Testament pattern could not have been required as the norm for the
entire family of God in that era. This allegation is seriously
flawed for several reasons.
- It is an
argument based upon ignorance. We simply do not know how much
revelatory information the churches of the first century had. A
variety of spiritual gifts was available to them, and for all we
know, they may have been very well informed. Moreover, those early
saints may have possessed many more copies of the scriptures than is
assumed by some modern scholars.
- We must take
into consideration the fact that God may have been more tolerant of
“knowledge weaknesses” in that period of progressive revelation than
He now would be when we have access to the whole New Testament in
its completed format.
- It is clear
that the early saints did practice “pattern theology” (cf. Acts
2:42;
Romans 6:3-4; 17-18; 16:17;
1 Corinthians 1:10).
If one may adapt Christianity
to his personal and/or cultural preferences, how could he even
“depart from the faith”? (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:1ff; 1 Timothy
4:1ff).
Second, it is alleged that we
must honor the “principIes” which inhere in the commands of the New
Testament, but that we are allowed to alter activity modes to
accommodate our present situation.
An analogy is commonly drawn between
the “greeting kiss” of the first century (cf. Romans 16:16), and
that of modern women preachers. It is argued that if we may honor the
greeting “principle” today, without holding to Paul’s specific
application—the “kiss”—similarly, women may still respect the
“principle” of feminine submission while publicly teaching audiences of
mixed sexes.
Two things may be said in response
to this quibble.
- The alleged
parallel is specious. There is absolutely no evidence that the
saints of the early church were ever commanded to kiss one another
per se as a method of greeting, and I know of no scholar who
has ever argued that position. Kissing, as a method of greeting, had
been practiced for centuries (see Genesis 27:26; 29:13; 1 Samuel
20:41; 1 Kings 19:20;
Matthew 26:49). The thing commanded by the New Testament writers
was that the practice be “holy” and in “love” (agape—i.e., in
the genuine spiritual interest of another). There is not a single
passage in which the greeting kiss is mentioned but what the
admonition is not qualified by a modifying term (see Romans
16:16; 1 Corinthians
16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14).
In view of this, one is bound to conclude that the instruction
concerning the “holy kiss” is as binding today as it ever was. No
Christian will ever be
allowed to greet his brother or sister in lust, treachery, or
hypocrisy.
- Just how
would one honor the principle of obedience while doing that
which has been specifically forbidden, by failing to do that which
has been commanded, or by altering sacred instruction? That is truly
a curious state of affairs. It is, in fact, nonsensical. May one
uphold the “principle” of remembering the death of
Christ by utilizing steak and
coffee in the communion supper? There is no way to maintain the
“principle” of obedience while one is disobeying God!
Conclusion
There is a revolt underway in the
Christian community. Many are
feverishly working to throw off biblical authority and to write a new
“Constitution” for the religion of Jesus
Christ.
It is the law of “no law.” It involves a disposition that is determined
to evolve a new religion fashioned after human desire. The faithful must
prepare for, and vigorously oppose this growing apostasy.
