Christian Moral Issues

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Can A Christian Kill For His Government?

Can A Christian Kill for His Government?

By Bennie Lee Fudge Proposition: MAY A Christian Kill?
The Bible authorizes the Christian acting as a punitive agent of the civil government, either as a law enforcement officer or as a soldier in the army. Is this true?

Definition of Terms
The Bible: The Old and New Testaments. It is not a question of what seems right to me, of what I want to do, of what the majority want. Neither is it a question to be settled by the probable consequences of our actions. For the Christian the only question is, What does the Bible teach?

Christian: An obedient believer in Christ. We are not concerned with what the Old Testament Jew should do. He was under Moses. Neither are we concerned with the relationship of sinners to the punitive office. They are in the kingdom of darkness. Our question is, "What shall the follower of the Prince of Peace do?"

Punitive agent: One who is authorized by the civil government to execute punishment upon lawbreakers.

Civil Government: Organized human government, the legislative judicial, and executive machinery of political government. The primary function of all civil governments are to protect the innocent and punish the criminal. The New Testament recognizes this in Romans 13. These primary functions are kept in mind throughout this document when referring to the institution of civil government.

I.
Spiritual and Material RealmsLuke 20:22-25, “But He perceived their craftiness, and said to them, 'Why do you test Me? Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?' They answered and said, 'Caesar’s.' And He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.' ”

PREMISE:The Christian lives and operates in two realms: the spiritual and the material. God has two institutions operating under His authority. To civil government He has given the responsibility of discipline as it pertains to the physical life. To the church He has committed the spiritual resources, and gives the responsibility of order and discipline as it pertains to the spiritual life within the spiritual kingdom. One of these ordained institutions employs physical force because the nature of it’s work demands it. The other uses love and persuasion, because the nature of it’s work demands it. The spiritual things are God’, and must be rendered to Him. To rightly divide the Word must not apply Scriptures dealing with the spiritual realm to things of the material realm, and vice versa.

REPLY:
The first premise is false! In the first place, the Scriptures cited (Luke 20:22-25) does not prove it. Read the verses carefully. As we shall see later, the Christian owes certain things to Caesar, and other things to God, but the words of the Master here are not a commentary upon these general relationships. The Lord here is talking about money, the danarius, the creation of Caesar, bearing his image and name. That which bears Caesar’s image and superscription belongs to Caesar, was made by him, must be rendered to him, and may be used by him as he sees fit.

Now, what is it that belongs to God, was made by Him, made in His image, bears His name or superscription, and must be rendered to Him and Him alone, to be used by Him as He sees fit? The child of God. Body and soul, stamped with the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and bearing His name (Acts 11:26; Ephesians 3:15). My money belongs to Caesar and must be freely rendered to him for whatever purpose he may wish to us it. He used it often to persecute Christians, yet it was his and had to be rendered to him. He uses it today to teach scientific and sociological theories contrary tot he Bible, to provide halls for dancing and reveling, and for other purposes that Christians oppose; yet it is his; he, not I, is responsible for it’s use, and I must render it unto him. On the other hand, I belong to God (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), and dare not use my body --- which is not mine, not Caesar’s, but God’s --- in any way that God has not authorized. Caesar has no voice here. Just as certainly as the penny belongs to him by creation, image and superscription, the Christian belongs to God by creation, image and superscription!

The premise that the Christian operates in two separate realms, the spiritual and the material, is false, in the second place, because it is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. The truth is that in this life the spiritual and the material are inseparable. The spiritual operates only through the material. This is exactly what James is talking about when he says, "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can his faith save him? Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead in itself. Yea, a man will say, you have faith and I have works; show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” (James 2:14-18).

It is impossible for us to manifest our spiritual side (our faith) except through our material side (our works). The material life of the Christian is simply the spiritual life at work. Paul recognizes this in Romans 12:1, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service” Our spiritual growth can be measured exactly by the use we make of our material bodies.

There are only two realms, so far as the Christian is concerned: the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God. We were once, both the material and the spiritual parts of us, in one of these kingdoms, but we are now, both the material and the spiritual parts of us in the other. “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Colossians 1:13). This effort to separate the spiritual and material realms , each with it’s own head and laws, and having the Christian jumping back and forth from one to the other, is absurd, besides being unscriptural.

The Christian is a citizen of the kingdom of God, lives in many different relationships. To one individual he is a husband, to another a father or mother, to another a son or daughter, to another a blood brother or sister, to another a brother or sister in Christ, to some a teacher, to another a student, to one a master, to another a servant, etc. In all of these relationships of life --- and you will notice that they are all manifested in the “material” realm -- - he is subject to Christ. “All authority has been given unto Me in heaven and on earth.” (Matthew 28:18) “That in all things He might have the preeminence.” (Colossians 1:16). The Christian has a definite relationship to God, his parents, his wife, his children, his neighbors, the church, the civil government, his servants, the elders of the church, the church under him if he is an elder, etc. Each of these relationships is spiritual in that it is prompted and directed by the spirit, and each is material in that physical means must be used in it’s execution. In none of them can the spiritual and the material be separated. In all of them he acts as a child of God and is subject wholly to the law of God. The law of God has given definite principles to guide us in each us in each relationship that God intends the Christian to sustain. God has told me how to conduct myself as a member of a congregation, or as an elder over the congregation, as a servant, or as a master over servants, as a pupil, or as a teacher over pupils.

There are some relationships into one side or the other that I may enter. I am told how I am to conduct myself toward the devil, but not how I am to conduct myself as a devil; my relationship toward evildowers, but not as an evildoer; my duties toward a law enforcement officer and the government, but not my duties as a law enforcement officer or a part of the government; my attitude toward God, but not my attitude as a god. It is a mere quibble to say to say that we are not told how to conduct ourselves as farmers, merchants, or doctors. These are simply occupations and not primary relationships of life. It is inconceivable that God should fail to tell us how to conduct ourselves in a relationship of such basic importance as civil government if He had intended for us to function in it.

We may say that the Christian does not operate in the two realms. He operates in one, the kingdom of God. In this realm he sustains may relationships toward different individuals and institutions. There are some relationships into which he may not enter, and civil government is one of these.

II.
JEWISH AND ROMAN PRACTICEThe apostles of Christ established Christianity among the peoples subject to the Jewish and Roman governments, both of which vigorously enforced capital punishment and sustained themselves by force of arms. Therefore this is the

PREMISE:

REPLY
The first premise assumes that the people among whom Christianity was established regarded participation in a purely civil government and bearing arms for it as the accepted thing. This assumption is false.

In the first place, the Jewish government, although exercising civil and military functions, was primarily an ecclestical government . The civil and military officials were subject to, part of, the hierarchy. Their ecclestical government was responsible for the enforcement of laws given directly from God. They were authorized by God to inflict capital punishment for violation of both moral and positive laws. One of the designated crimes to be so punished was Sabbath violation (Numbers 15:35), a purely religious offense.

The parallel to this government will be found, not in our civil government, but in our religious government. We have an ecclesiastical, or church government (Philippians 3:20; Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 5:12-6:5). Where has God authorized this ecclestical government to exercise capital punishment?

As to the Roman government, the counterpart of our modern civil government, far from being the accepted thing by the people among whom Christianity was established, it was bitterly resented by them and denied the right to rule over them. Instead of having to command the people to not take part in the Roman government And army, the apostles had to command them to accept it’s overlordship and pay taxes to it. They did not command them to take part in the government, or to bear arms for it, which they certainly would have, under the circumstances, if they had wished them to do so.

III.
THE INSTINCT OF SELF-PRESERVATION

PREMISE:

REPLY
The second premise is misapplied. One instinctively defends his own life when attacked; he does not instinctively defend the form of government, national ideals, political and social customs, territories, and other things that go to make up the nation. The very fact that a tremendous national propaganda campaign necessarily accompanies every war is proof enough of this.

One cannot lose his individual identify as a part of the nation. That is the doctrine of Nazism and Fascism. Yet that is what one must do to consider an attack upon his national institution as an exercise of this instinct of self-preservation.

IV.
INNOCENCE AND GUILT

PREMISE:

REPLY
In the first place, it is impossible for a man to judge between offensive and defensive wars while the war is in progress and he is involved in it. Napoleon declared in his last days that he had never waged an offensive war. The people of Germany believed in World War I, and also in the one initiated by Hitler and believed they were defending their fatherland. It is axiomatic in war that the best defense is a good offensive.

Again, the second premise is misapplied. It is assumed that men lose their individual responsibility as a part of the nation. God’s failure to punish Noah and lot with their wicked nations shows that this assumption is false. God respected them as individual personalities and recognized their personal responsibility. The punishment of Achan in the midst of a righteous nation is another case in point, and that even in a dispensation in which personal responsibility was largely subjugated to the national. In the New Testament personal accountability is emphasized throughout.

This argument contends that a man is not guilty of murder who kills in defensive war. It necessarily follows that any man who kills in offensive is guilty of murder. To maintain this distinction and keep in mind our individual accountability we must presuppose one nation in which every person is individually guilty and another in which every person is individually innocent. Otherwise, individually innocent soldiers in the armies of aggressive nations are guilty of murder, and the inevitable killing of civilian, women, and children by soldiers in the armies of defensive nations is murder. In war I do not kill a nation; I kill a man, an individual soul, no more guilty of personal aggression against me than I am against him. This argument, instead of drawing a clear-cut distinction between the innocent and the guilty, utterly destroys any distinction!

V.
SERVANTS OF THE KINGDOM
OF THIS WORLD“Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.' ” (John 18:36).
PREMISE:

If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight

REPLY:
The first premise is begging the question, assuming the thing to be proved. It assumes “All servants (including Christians) of the kingdoms of this world may fight to defend these kingdoms.” Study the text carefully. Jesus is clearly distinguishing between His kingdom and the kingdoms of this world; between the nature of His kingdom and earthly kingdoms; between the servants of His kingdom and the servants of those kingdoms. He simple stated without approval or disapproval a universally recognized fact that the servants of earthly kingdoms fight for their governments.

The servants of Christ, of whom He spoke that night , were subjects of the Roman government. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:16). In the same way the kingdom of Christ is in the world, but not of the world. In the sense in which Jesus spoke that night one can just as well include His kingdom among the kingdoms of this world as he can include His servants among the servants of the kingdoms of this world. The contrast is primarily between His servants and the servants of worldly kingdoms, despite the fact that His servants were subjects of Rome. If we today would build a postulate upon His words we must say, “The servants of the kingdoms of the world (exclusive of My servants) fight for those kingdoms.”

We cannot say that the nature of the kingdom, but not of the servants, is different --- that I might fight for the kingdom of the world because of their physical nature, but may not fight for the kingdom of God because of its spiritual nature. It is not the nature of the kingdom in itself, but my nature as a servant of the kingdom that keeps me from fighting for it. We claim to be fighting for the principles of the kingdom of God in the present war. We can fight for ideals and spiritual principles. I can fight for the kingdom of God --- its nature does not prevent my doing so, except as its nature has changed my nature.

VI.
THEY THAT TAKE THE SWORD
PERISH WITH THE SWORD
“All they that take up the sword shall perish with the sword,” (Matthew 26:52).
Perish with what sword? That of the civil ruler (Romans 13:4).
PREMISE:

The major premise assumes that all subjects of the civil government, including Christians, have the authority of Christ to wield the sword. This is the very point at issue, so this is an assumption and not an argument.

VII.
MORAL AND PENAL LAW

PREMISE:All law is of three kinds: positive, moral, or penal. Positive law is that which rests on the arbitrary authority of God. Moral law is that which is derived from the nature of things and sets out what is right between man and man. Penal law is that which defines the punishment due the character violating the others.

REPLY:
This threefold classification of law is erroneous. All law is penal law. There is no such thing as law without a penalty. However, we shall accommodate ourselves to this classification, and examine this argument from this viewpoint. We make the same accommodation in our first affirmative argument.

Since penal law is not inherent in the nature of things, it must rest upon the positive authority of God or upon purely human authority. A thing that is morally wrong can never be right without a positive law from God to make it so. Divine penal law is simply one phase of positive law. Under the Old Covenant the moral law was given, “Thou shalt now kill.” Without a positive law from God authorizing an exception to this law for penal purposes it would have been unconditionally wrong for an Israelite to kill. But God authorized a penal law, “thou shalt surely be put to death,” and named the administrator. It was still wrong for anyone to kill other than the God-ordained legal administrators, but it was right for them.

In the New Covenant the same moral law still holds: “thou shalt not kill,” (Matthew 19:18). God has ordained a penal law today involving an exception to this moral law, and has named the administrator --- the civil government (Romans 13). He has not authorized the Christian as such to execute this penal law. The moral law still applies to him without a positive law from God to authorize an exception for penal purposes. The positive command to the Jew, “Thou shalt surely be put to death” is striking absent with the Christian. To assent that the Christian may execute the penal law as an agent of the God-ordained administrator, the civil government, is assuming the very proposition to be proved.

VIII.
CLEANSING THE TEMPLE
“And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changer’s money, and overthrew the tables.” (John 2:13-16)
PREMISE:

REPLY
The major premise is false. The Revised Version (universally recognized as the better translation) reads, “And he made a scourge of cords and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew their tables.” The Revision does not say that he used the scourge on men, but on the animals. Neither translation has force applied to men in the parallel passages (Matt. 21:12-16, Mk. 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46). Instead, every one of these accounts, including John’s, tells us the means used in driving the men out: he taught them and presented the Scriptures to them. This weapon drove Satan from the field of battle in the wilderness; it drove these men from the temple; it is the sword of the Christian today. The same expression used here in both Greek and English — ”cast out”—is also used of “casting out” demons (Matt. 8:16, 8:31, 9:33, 34, etc.). I suppose Jesus flogged the demons with a scourge of cords!

A second fallacy is that Jesus was enforcing the law of the land. In cleansing the temple Jesus was performing a purely religious act that had nothing whatsoever to do with either enforcing or violating any civil law of any government. If it could be proved that Jesus employed force on men here (which we have seen cannot be proved) we would have proved that it is right to use force in keeping the worship of God pure, not that it may be used in enforcing civil laws. This argument could justify my forcibly driving a digressive preacher from the pulpit and overthrowing the piano, but could not justify my execution of a condemned man for the government.

IX.
CIVIL GOVERNMENT ORDAINED OF GOD
Read Romans 13:1-7.
PREMISE:The civil government is ordained of God. Christians must be subject to it and support it for conscience sake, which places civil government as an institution in the realm of that which is morally right. Conscience has to do with matters morally right and wrong. The God-ordained purpose of the divinely approved institution of civil government is to bear the sword, punish evil-doers, and praise the righteous. But civil government works through its citizens and subjects.

REPLY
The first premise is defective. Logically to draw the above conclusion, the first premise must be construed to mean, “It is right for any citizen of the civil government, acting as an agent of the government, to bear the sword and punish evil-doers.” It is assumed that “the powers that be” of Romans 13:1 includes the civil government with all its citizens and subjects. Since this assumption would include Christians, the first premise is in reality begging the question.

A study of Romans 13 will show that Paul considers the Christian as entirely separate from “the powers that be.” “Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers.” Paul is considering the government as one party, the Christian as another, the Christian subject to the government. This applied to every soul among the Christians. “He (the power, the administrator of civil government) is a minister of God to thee for good.” Not that the Christian is the minister of God in this capacity, but that another party he, third person, automatically excluding the Christian who is addressed in the second person—is such a minister. Notice the same distinction in the following verses: "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he (not thou) beareth not the sword in vain; for he (not thou) is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.”

Now comes the Christian’s part in this order of things — ”Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience, sake. For this cause ye pay tribute also; For they (not ye, now) are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” It is strikingly noticeable that in listing the services “due” the civil government by the Christian, Paul did not include “defense to whom defense is due” or “vengeance to whom vengeance is due.” Those two duties have always been expected of their subjects by the civil governments, yet inspiration nowhere names them as due by the Christian. It is similarly outstanding that while he mentions that ye (Christians) should pay tribute, custom, honor, fear, be subject, it is always "he" or "they" when bearing the sword is mentioned. So far as Romans 13 goes, the Christian’s relationship to political government is wholly passive. This is the teaching of the entire New Testament on the matter. There is not one example, command or necessary inference of the Christian by divine sanction taking an active part in civil or military government.

Since it is clear that in Romans 13, Paul considers the sword-bearer and the Christian as separate and distinct individuals, our premise, to represent correctly the teaching of the passage, would read, “It is right for some citizens of the civil government, acting as agents of the government, to bear the sword and punish evil-doers.” In this case it remains to be proved that Christians fall in that class qualified to bear the sword and punish evil-doers. This is the point to be proved in the beginning, so this argument is begging the question, and therefore no logical argument at all.

X.
PAUL’S USE OF ARMED DEFENSE
“If I then am a wrong-doer and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if none of those things is true whereof these accuse me, no man can give me up unto them I appeal to Caesar” (Acts 25:11).
“And he called unto him two of the centurions and said, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go as far as Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; and he bade them provide beasts, that they might set Paul thereon, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor” (Acts 23:23-24).

PREMISE:

I Cor. 4:16

REPLY
In the example of Paul, as in Romans 13, we are taught that there are certain things that we as Christians owe the government and certain things the government owes us. The government owes the Christian armed protection, and the Christian owes the government subjection, tribute, and Prayer. On the other hand the Christian does not owe the government armed protection, and the government does not owe the Christian subjection, tribute, or prayer.

XI.
CORNELIUS THE SOLDIER
Cornelius was a soldier in the Roman army. We do not know whether he remained in the army after he became a Christian, but Peter said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons, but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” (Acts 10:34). Peter applied this to Cornelius before he preached the gospel to him and therefore confirmed his moral character as a soldier.
PREMISE:

Acts 10:1

Acts 10:34

REPLY
If Acts 10:34 was applied to Cornelius before he became a Christian, he was accepted with God before he became a Christian, and obedience to the gospel is not necessary to acceptance with God. The fact is that Acts 10:34 teaches that only those who fear God and work righteousness in obeying the gospel are acceptable with him. The passage did not apply to Cornelius before lie obeyed the gospel.

But grant for argument’s sake that Cornelius was morally perfect. He lived under either the Patriarchal or the Jewish dispensation, both of which sanctioned the execution of vengeance by God’s people. Under either of these dispensations Cornelius could have been a perfect moral character as a soldier, for God specifically provided for that office. Where has He provided for the execution of vengeance by His people today? He has not. Cornelius was entering into a new relationship with God, under a new system of worship, new relationships with God and men, and a new system of penal laws.

XII.
THE PHlLIPPIAN JAILER
Acts 16:23-36. “He was baptized, he and all his, immediately” -(verse 33). “But when it was day . - . the jailer reported the words to Paul” (verses 35, 36).
PREMISE:The jailer was baptized between midnight and 1:00 A. M. When it was day he was still holding his position as jailer. Nothing is said about Paul’s telling him he was wrong in doing so, which he certainly would if he had been wrong.

REPLY
This argument, like those on Cornelius, Sergius Paulus, etc., is based on the silence of the scriptures. No one has ever given up all his bad habits or relationships or learned all the truth in the first six hours of discipleship. Acts 19:19 tells of believers who had continued to practice magical arts for a time. We have a record of their learning better and quitting. Acts 6:7 tells of Levitical priests who became obedient to the faith. Nothing is said of their giving up their office or of their being told that a Christian could not serve in such a capacity. Polygamy was common in the first century, but there is no mention of the apostles teaching against it or of anyone ceasing to practice it. By this line of reasoning we conclude that it is right for a Christian to hold the Levitical priesthood, practice polygamy, and hold a punitive civil office. The same line of reasoning is used upon this same text in Acts 16 to prove infant baptism. The jailer’s household was baptized, and nothing is said about there being no infants in it: therefore infant baptism is authorized by the Bible! An argument that proves too much proves nothing at all.

XIII.
COMBATANT AND NON-COMBATANT SERVICE

PREMISE:All agree that a Christian may pay taxes and render certain noncombatant services to the government during war times, whether in the army or out of it. All this is directly in the prosecution of the war. There is no difference in principle between combatant and noncombatant service. It is just a question of participating a little or a lot.

REPLY
We deny the second premise. We owe the government every service that does not conflict with the law of Christ. If I owe a legitimate debt to a man whom I know to be a bootlegger, I am duty bound to pay him that which I owe, as long as it does not involve a sacrifice of Christian principle. I must pay him the money I owe him, even though I know he will use it in the manufacture and sale of illicit liquor. It is his money, not mine --- I merely have it borrowed for a time. I am not responsible for the use he makes of his own money. I owe the government taxes. It is Caesar’s money, not mine. I am not responsible for the use he makes of his own money. If I owe my bootlegger neighbor work I can pay it by pulling corn for him or by delivering food for his family, knowing in so doing I am releasing him to go to the still and make whiskey. I am not responsible for what he does with his time and labor, The service that I am rendering him is his. I owe it to him. But I cannot go to the still and help make whiskey. To do so would conflict with a greater and previous obligation to the Lord. In like manner I can pay the government any service I owe it by producing foodstuffs or by caring for the wounded, but I cannot shoulder a gun and kill my follow-man.

XIV.
THE HEBREW WORDS FOR “KILL”The word “kill” in the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13) is “ratsach” and means murder. word “kill” in the commandment “Thou shalt surely kill him” (Deut. 13:9) is “harag,” and means to slay. It is sinful to murder, but it is not sinful to slay. The official slaying for punishment of crime therefore is not murder.

PREMISE:

REPLY
The first statement is false. The only difference between “harag” and “ratsach” is that the former is the more inclusive. They are used almost interchangeably in the Old Testament. If we try to say that murder is prohibited and slaying permitted, using the English Bible, we are confronted with the fact that “ratsach” is translated “slain” in Judges 20:4 (A. V.), Prov. 22:13, and Psa. 62:3. But Ex. 20:13 forbids to “ratsach”, and therefore forbids to slay. On the other hand, if we go back to the Hebrew and say that it is a sin to “ratsach,” but not a sin to “harag,” we find “harag” the word used in Gen. 4:8 of the killing of Abel by Cain, in Gen. 4:15 of the slaying of Cain forbidden by Jehovah, in Gen. 4:23 of the murder of a man by Lamech, in Gen. 37:20 of the proposed killing of Joseph by his brethren, in Judges 9:5 of the killing by Abimelech of his brothers, in I Sam. 22:21, of the slaying of the priests of Jehovah by Saul, in I Kings 18:13, of the slaying of the prophets of God by Jezebel, and in II Chron. 21:4 of the slaying by Jehoram of his brothers. In every one of these cases the Hebrew word is “harag” and in every one of them it is translated “slay.” But we are told that it is not a sin to “harag” or slay!

This same word “harag” is translated “murder” in Psa. 10:8, Jer. 4:31, and Hos. 9:13 (A. V.). Therefore if it is not a sin to “harag,” it -is not a sin to murder. Both words are translated by three English words: “kill”, "slay", and “murder”.

When the Hebrews spoke of killing in war they had to use one of their general words for “kill,” usually “harag” or “muth.” We have already seen by the scriptures that “harag” is used repeatedly of murders. “Muth,” the other general word used to refer to killing in battle, is used in I Sam. 22:18 of the slaughter of the priests of Jehovah by Doeg, in 2 Chr. 22:11 of the destruction of the royal family by Athaliah, in I Kings 13:24 of a man slain by a lion, in 2 Kings 15:14 of the assassination of Shallum by Menahem, in 2 Kings 15:30 of the murder of Pekah by Hosea, etc.

According to Davies’ Lexicon our English word “murder” is traced back to this word “muth,” used of killing in war as well as of other killings. The word “nacah” used frequently of killing in battle, is used in Ex. 2:12 of Moses slaying the Egyptian, in 2 Sam. 13:30 of Absalom’s murder of his brothers, in I Kings 16:11, 16 of the murder and assassinations by Zimri, in Jer. 40:15 of the plotted murder of Ishmael, etc. “Chalal,” translated “slay” or “kill” in battle a number of times, is used in Isa. 53:5 to refer to the wounding or killing of Jesus, which is called murder in Acts 7:52. Every word in the Hebrew language translated “slay” or “kill” and applied to killing in warfare is also applied to murder. The Hebrew language does not make a distinction between killing in war and other killing.

The lexicons hear out this statement, as do the scriptures cited above. Only two words (muth and harag) are specifically applied by the lexicons to killing in war. Gesenius says of “harag”: “kill, slay, implying ruthless violence, especially private violence,” as its first meaning, and derived from that, “Hence of wholesale slaughter after battle. Also of slaughter in a revolt.” Davies says of this word: “To strike, to smite down, hence to murder, kill. To slay, slaughter in war.” Of “muth” Gesenius says: “Of killing men in personal combat or in war.” Davies traces our English word murder to “muth.” Both lexicons include “murder” and “killing in war” in the same definition or even subdivision of a definition of both words.

It will be asked, “But why did not God use one of these words in the decalogue instead of “ratsach,” which is never applied to killing in war?” The answer is “ratsach” is the only word of the ten Hebrew words translated “kill” that applies only to the taking of human life. To have forbidden to “harag” would have prohibited killing beasts, vines, or anything else. A prohibition of “zavach” would have eliminated animal sacrifices; “Chalal” applies to piercing or boring anything, and in killing refers only to death by piercing, as with a spear or sword; to forbid to “tavach” would prohibit killing animals for food. If the word had been “muth” it would have meant literally “to cause to die” and would have forbidden anything causing the death of anything else. A prohibition of “nacah” would forbid slapping with the hand or even clapping hands in applause. If “nakaf” had been used it would have forbidden the Jews to encircle anything or round off any of their vessels. “Katal” is a poetic and late word in the language; while “shachat” includes the killing of animals for both sacrifice and food. The word “ratsach,” used by God in the sixth commandment, is the only word in the Hebrew language that means the killing of man by man without restricting the means of killing, and at the same time does not include more than the taking of human life.

The argument has been made that “ratsach” applies only to premeditated private killing, or murder. In the Pi’el or intensive form of the word this is true, according to Gesenius, but in the Kal form it Is not true. The prohibition in Ex. 20:13 and Deut. 5:17 is expressed in Kal. The Kal form of the word is cited by Gesenius as being used for premeditated murder fifteen times, for accidental killing twenty-one times, and for killing in justice by the divinely and legally appointed avenger of blood twice. Throughout Numbers 35 the word “ratsach” is used consistently to refer to all three parties, the murderer, the accidental slayer, and the legal avenger. A good example of the interchangeability of the Kal form of “ratsach” with other words meaning “kill” is Num. 35:30. “Whosoever killeth (nacah) any person, the murderer (ratsach) shall be slain (ratsach) at the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die (muth).” Also Num. 35:27: “The avenger of blood shall slay (ratsach) the manslayer (ratsach).” If God had intended to prohibit premeditated and private murder but at the same time imply a condoning of other forms of killing he would have used the Pi’el; form of the word, which means just that. But he did not use the Pi’el; he used the Kal form which means to kill, to slay a human being; homicide; manslaughter; the taking of the life of man by man, regardless of the means or motive.

It is the stating for the Jewish dispensation of an eternal principle of God, which has applied in all ages of mankind. It is a general prohibition of killing one’s fellow man. True, God made exceptions to this general rule --- killing in justice by divine appointment, and going to war at divine command. The first exception is made in the same word of the commandment, “ratsach,” (Num. 35:27, 30). The other uses the general terms for kill or slay, which we have already shown to be applied to murder and used synonymously with “ratsach” in many places. This distinction has proved to be a distinction without a difference.

XV.
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

PREMISE:History shows that during the early ages of the church Christians were connected with the military service.
“There were, up to this time, many Christians connected with the military service, both in the higher and lower ranks; and they as yet had never been compelled to do anything contrary to their conscience” (295 A. D.) Neander, Vol. 1, page 146.
“The persecution having begun with those brethren who were in the army,” Eusebius, Book 8, chapter 1.
Cyprian and Tertullian also mention Christians serving in the army.

REPLY
The authorities cited simply show that Christians served in the army in the second and third centuries A. D. They do not show that it was generally accepted by the church, or that it was right. Neander,, the historian quoted above, argues at length his opinion that the early Christians were wrong in refusing service. When he made the statement quoted, he referred only to certain individuals among the Christians. When treating of the attitude of the church in general toward military service, he says.

Many Christians, again, from a conscientiousness worthy of all respect, thought themselves bound to take passages like Matt. 5:39 in the literal sense. That tone of mind very generally prevailed It revolted their Christian feelings to suffer themselves to be employed as instruments of pain to others, to serve as the executors of laws which, in all cases, were dictated and animated by the spirit of rigid justice, without any mixture of mercy or love.

The Christians stood over against the state, as a priestly, spiritual race; and the only way in which it seemed possible that Christianity could exert an influence on civil life was (which it must be allowed was the purest way) by tending continually to diffuse more of a holy temper among the citizens of the state

The time of which both Neander and Eusebius spoke (295 A. D., which, incidentally, was during Euseblus’ lifetime) was after the apostasy and corruption of the developing Catholic Church was well under way. The entire selection from which the above sentence of Eusebius’ was taken, describes the condition of the church at that time:

But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy. This persecution began with the brethren in the army.

This passage proves that at that age of the church Christians were

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

It no more endorses one of these things than it does the others.
The reference to Cyprian does not mention military service at all. Tertullian mentions Christians serving in the army and states his disapproval of it.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?You can accept the authority of Christ by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized into Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (Galatians 3:27; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Abortion

by Smith Bibens When the Allied armies marched into Germany at the end of World War II, the soldiers of those armies were shocked to discover the death camps where millions of Jews and other “undesirables” had been put to death. When General Eisenhower toured one of these facilities, he was so enraged by what he saw, that he sent soldiers into a neighboring German village, gathered up all the adults and made them come and see what their apathy and indifference had done to their fellow human beings. He wanted them to see the stark, gaunt faces of people who had been gassed even as the Allied armies had been railing on to liberate these places. He wanted them to see the unburied corpses of those who had died because the German people had not the moral conviction or courage to stand up against the holocaust perpetrated by their leaders.

I wish that I could do the same for people in our world today. I don’t believe those of you who read this tract are indifferent to the abortion issue. But many in our society are. The reason our country has become so involved in abortion today. is not because the pro-abortion forces are so strong in their influence, or because the pro-life forces are so weak in their influence, but because there is between these two positions a large center, a majority of people in our nation who, while not enthusiastic for abortion, are simply indifferent. They do not understand the issues that are involved. They do not understand the terrible and awful consequences that will certainly accrue to our nation as a result of this modern holocaust.

My purpose in this work is to offer an introductory education to the issue of abortion from a biblical and scientific perspective. I would like to begin by introducing two passages of Scripture.

“Without understanding. covenant breakers, without natural affection,
implacable, unmerciful” (Romans 1:31).

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud. blasphemers, disobedient to parents. unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers. incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady. highminded. lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God” (2 Timothy 3:1-4).

In the preceding texts we find the mention of a vice styled “without natural affection.” In the passage from Romans. Paul is describing the pagan world of his day, and the sins of which the were guilty before God. In the passage from Timothy, Paul, with prophetic vision, looks down the stream of time and warns of vices what would characterize the “last days.” The phrase “without natural affection” is the English translation of one word in the Greek New Testament The word is astorge, from a-, negative prefix meaning “no, without,” and storgos, meaning “love of kindred.” Storge was the Greek word for “family affection.” This word bespeaks the natural love of parents for children, of children for parents, or between any kinfolks. So astorge simply means “no love of kindred.” Abortion is one of the clearest expressions of this vice that is condemned by God.

A Brief history of Abortion
Abortion has been called a “crime of civilization.” The practice of abortion has always been most common in societies that were advanced in terms of material prosperity, culture, civilization and education.

In the Greek world, abortion and infanticide were commonly practiced as a means of family limitation. This did not mean that it was everywhere accepted as morally right. The Hippocratic Oath has been for centuries the ethical foundation for Western medicine. It was authored by the Greek physician Hippocrates (460?- 377’? B.C.). White the Oath of Hippocrates comes out of a pagan context, it gives evidence of a moral conscience in the pagan Greek civilization against abortion. In part, the Oath read: “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel; furthermore, I will not give a woman an instrument to produce abortion” (World Book Encyclopedia. “Hippocrates”, vol. H.p. 227).

Abortion was also practiced during the period of the Roman Empire. The practice was punishable by banishment or death, but as the Empire grew more decadent, the laws were not enforced.

With the coming of Christianity, abortion was vehemently condemned. Early Christian writings (extra-biblical) reflect the opposition of Christians to abortion from earliest times. The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 138) states “Thou shalt not kill the child by abortions.” The Didache (AD 80) ranks abortion with the sins forbidden in the Ten Commandments. Tertutlian (Al) 240) calls abortion homicide.

From the fourth century through the twentieth century, abortion was generally considered criminal. That changed in Soviet Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. Abortions were legalized in Russia beginning in 1920. To this day the vast majority of abortions have been performed in Communist or Marxist countries. Japan is another country, though not Communist or Marxist, that adopted a very liberal abortion policy in the late 1940s.

The pro-abortion movement began in earnest in this country following World War II. By the 1960s, the pro-abortion movement had found significant support in the upper echelon of the intellectual and academic communities. A Rockefeller Foundation study commended abortion as an effective means of population control. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, several states were considering laws that would liberalize abortion. Some states had permitted abortions to save the life of the mother. Others allowed abortions to be performed in cases of rape or incest New York State adopted a very liberal (for the times) abortion law in the early 1970s.

In most slates where liberalized abortion laws were being considered, however, the measures were defeated in state legislative bodies or in public referendums. In 1972, Michigan and North Dakota both voted down, by over 60% majority, referendums in legalizing abortion It may be stated that abortion, as practiced today in countless abortion clinics from coast to coast, was illegal in the U S until January 22. 1973.

Since that time countless millions of unborn children have been aborted out of pure selfishness and immorality At this time an average of 4 000 babies are being aborted every day Since abortion was legalized over 30 million unborn children have been slain. In most American cities the number of abortions is almost as a high as the number of live births per year. In eighteen American cities the number of abortions actually exceeds the number of live births including Atlantic City San Francisco, Seattle and many others.

On that fateful day when the Supreme Court handed down two decisions that were to open the abortion floodgates (Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton) the Court ruled that any state abortion law in the future would have to meet certain guidelines. Summarizing the Court’s dictum, we find:
First trimester: During the first three months of pregnancy the states must leave the abortion decision to the woman and her doctor. This amounts to abortion on demand.
Second trimester: During the second three months the states may only enact laws which regulate abortions in ways “reasonably related to maternal health.” This simply means that the states may enact laws determining who is qualified to perform abortion and where the abortion is to take place. The states may not enact any laws which safeguard the lives of the unborn.
Third trimester: After the woman’s sixth or seventh month of pregnancy, the states may forbid her to have an abortion that is not determined to be necessary to preserve her “life or health.” The Court, however, went on to define the term “health” in such broad terms—i.e. social well-being— as to make it virtually impossible for a state to protect the unborn child even after the sixth or seventh month of pregnancy

So the Supreme Court, contrary to a long history of legal tradition, overwhelming biological evidence, and the ethical beliefs of a majority of the American people, struck down the laws of all fifty states, even the most liberal. The Court made abortion on demand, at every stage of pregnancy, the law of the land, and gave the US. the dubious distinction of having the most liberal abortion laws in the world.

In subsequent rulings the Court carried this massive assault on life to the institution of marriage and the structure of the family. In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri vs. Danforth the Court ruled that a wife may obtain an abortion without the husband’s consent. In the same opinion the Court held unconstitutional Missouri’s law requiring parental consent prior to a minor’s abortion.

Most Americans regard the law as a teacher. Whatever is legal is moral. In reality, of course. that is not always true. It was Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who observed in 1928 that “our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example.”

The opinion by the Court that fateful day was so unanimous, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion. “We feel,” wrote Blackmun, “that the right is located in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty,” but he thought it could also be located in “the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people” (Wade. pp. 3 7-38). Vague as to the exact constitutional provision. the Court was sure of its power to proclaim an exact constitutional mandate. It set forth a doctrine of human life that was foreign to the religious and ethical heritage of the nation. Blackmun, in citing the history of abortion, made reference to the Persians, Greeks and Romans. No mention was made of what may be called our Judeo-Christian heritage, a heritage founded upon the moral and ethical teachings of the Old and New Testaments, and a heritage which has guided the Western world for nearly seventeen centuries.

In effect, Justice Blackmun was saying that somehow the legislators of all fifty states, for over a century, had overlooked a fundamental human liberty tucked away in the Constitution of the United States. Wherever the liberty came from and however recent its discovery, it was of very high rank. It was considered “fundamental” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” (Wade. p. 37). With these characteristics, the right of abortion on demand, according to Justice Blackmun, takes it place among such rights as: freedom from illegal search and seizure, the right to a fair and speedy trial, freedom of speech, of conscience rind of religion. It is strange that Justice Blackmun did not see the incongruity of giving so basic a position to a demand which had until his opinion, been consistently rejected by the American people.

The Practice of Abortion
As previously pointed out, abortion is legal in this country right up into the seventh month of pregnancy. However, children have been prematurely born as early as nineteen weeks after conception and have lived. One of these children is Susanna South, and she is pictured in a book entitled The Zero People at the age of three years (at the time of publication).

Considered scientifically, human life begins at conception. Although consisting of only one cell, that cell is biologically a human being, with the complete set of 46 human chromosomes necessary for human life. Within seconds after conception the process of cell specialization and cell division begins to take place that will result in a newborn baby. At this very early stage offend life, the being in the womb of its mother may not look very human, and it may not have the consciousness of its humanity that a mature human enjoys, but it is no less human.

In testimony delivered before Congress, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological and scientific writings” (Report on the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158. 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, p. 7; quoted in Abortion: Questions and Answers, p. 40).

Without getting technical, allow me to describe the growth of the baby in the womb of its mother. By the time the baby is 18-25 days old, long before its mother knows that she is pregnant, the heart starts beating. At 45 days electroencephalographic waves can be picked up from the baby’s developing brain. By 9-10 weeks the thyroid and adrenal glands are functioning. The baby can squint, swallow, and move his tongue. By 12 weeks the fingerprints of the hands are already formed, and except for size, will never change. At 13 weeks he has fingernails, sucks his thumb, and can recoil from pain. In the fourth month the growing baby is 8-10 inches in height. In the fifth month there is a time of lengthening and straightening of the developing baby. Skin, nails, and hair grow. All of the internal organs are present and function. This is the month in which the movements of the infant are felt by his mother. In the sixth month the developing baby responds to light and sound. He sleeps and wakes. He gets hiccups and can hear mom’s heartbeat. In the seventh month the nervous system becomes more complex. The infant is about 16 inches long and weighs 3 pounds.In the final eight and ninth months there is a time of fattening and rounding out.

How is abortion accomplished? How is the marvel of a developing human being brought to a screeching halt? Them are three commonly methods of human abortion. The first technique is called dilation and curettage, shortened to D & C, and is carried out between the seventh and twelfth weeks of pregnancy. In this technique the doctor uses sharp instruments to scrape the baby off the wall of the mother’s womb. The body of the baby, though small, is literally cut in pieces. Hemorrhaging is often profuse.

A second technique is called suction abortion. A powerful vacuum tube sucks the baby out of the womb and into a disposable jar rending it to pieces The small parts of the baby s body ate recognizable as heads legs, arms etc. More than 75% of the abortions performed in the U. S. and Canada are performed this way.

Later in pregnancy, when the first two procedures mentioned might cause too much hemorrhaging, the second most common type of abortion is used. This is the salt poisoning abortion or “salting out.” This is the method employed when the baby is 16 weeks old or older. A long needle is inserted into the mother’s abdomen and directly into the sac holding the baby. A highly concentrated salt solution is injected into it. The salt poisons the baby in the womb. The outer layer of skins is burned off the baby by the high concentration of salt. Brain hemorrhaging often results. It takes about an hour to kill the baby by this method. The mother goes into labor about a day later and delivers a dead, shriveled up baby.

At this point I must mention the claim made by the pro-abortion forces that safe, legalized abortion is necessary for the social, medical, and emotional well-being of American women. The fact is, like many operation procedures, there are risks involved, and their are a higher number of risks and risk of serious problems cropping up later, than the pro-abortion people like to admit The problems are medical, physical and emotional, according to a pamphlet entitled Abortion... Legal, But Not Safe published by the Missouri Citizens for Life Education Fund.

There are the immediate dangers that any abortion procedure could result in major hemorrhaging, serious infections, and damage to the woman’s reproductive organs that could render her sterile or complicate future pregnancies. If a woman has had one or more abortions, there is a greatly increased risk of stillbirths and miscarriages in future (when she might want to have a child), premature birth and low-birth weight (when she does have a child), and the very serious possibility of a tubal pregnancy. Add to these consequences the emotional damage that is caused by abortion. Not all women have guilt feelings after abortion But about 1 out of 2 do, and some of the emotional problems that result are very severe. Guilt, depression, grief and anxiety can go on for years, or forever.

A counselor writes, “It has been my clinical experience that a significant number of women are requesting counseling for a depression problem found to be an expression of an unresolved grief issue over a prior abortion” (Skelton, George; “Many in Survey Who Had Abortion Cite Guilt Feelings”; Los Angeles Times. 3-19-89, cited in Abortion.. Legal, But Not Safe. In Japan, where liberal abortion laws have been in place for decades. Buddhist temples began offering atonement ceremonies in the late 1950s for men and women who were agonizing over their decisions to go ahead with abortions. In the words of one Dr. Seto, people are “feeling bad killing their babies” (Lehner, U. C. “Japanese Ceremonies Show Private Doubts Over Use of Abortion,” Wall Street Journal, .1-6-83, cited in Abortion. .. Legal, But Not Safe).

The Significance of Abortion in Our Society
Why do women seek to have abortions? Largely for selfish, self-centered reasons According to research supported by Planned Parenthood, the major pro-abortion organization in America, most abortions are performed for convenience reasons. The following material is from Why Women Abort: The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) which is the research arm of the pro-abortion organization Planned Parenthood Federation of America, conducted a survey of 1,900 women who had undergone abortions in America.... Though the women polled by AGI were from a vast cross-section of different ages, races, and walks of life, nearly three fourths of the respondents shared one major reason for their decision to abort: concern about how having a baby would change their lives. About two thirds of the women who offered this reason went on to say that a child would interfere with their job, employment or career. Almost half of these women reported that a child would hinder their school attendance. About two thirds of women surveyed said they did not feel they could currently support a child. However, a number of these women who listed “can’t afford” as a reason had incomes well above the national poverty level.

Many cite the fact that they do not want their irresponsible sexual promiscuity to be known to parents or friends. Others have been promiscuous and intend to keep on living that way, and have no desire to be tied down to a child or relationship at that time in their life. The following chart breaks down the results of the above cited survey even more exactly:

Reasons for Requesting an Abortion

As the Human Resource Council, author of Why Women Abort concludes:

“Abortion for convenience offers such a clear view of the selfish, “me-first” direction abortion has taken in this country. . As the public becomes more aware of the humanity of the unborn child and the devastation of the abortion act, perhaps society will respond to the life of the unborn not with convenience, but with compassion.”

What does all this signify about the practice of abortion?
First and foremost, it signifies a rejection of the knowledge of God. Take a close look at what Paul says in Romans 1:18-31 and compare it to our society. Compare it with the spirit of our age where such vices as abortion on demand are openly practiced. Notice this part of the passage:

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (Romans 1:28-31).

Secondly, abortion on demand is a symptom of the fact that family values are on the decline, as well as sexual morals. God’s Word says “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4). But the “New Morality,” which is actually just the old immorality under a new guise, has taken over a large part of the American conscience. The Bible warns, “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18). But so many are so crazed with lust they will expose themselves to terrible social diseases and make innocent, unborn babies pay the price for their lack of self-control. Such will be lost, however:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Third, abortion is evidence of a loss of respect for human life. Human life is the special creation of a loving Creator. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26). Man is not just a brute animal, the end result of a long series of evolutionary accidents. He is made in the image of God and is accountable to God as a child is to a father. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7; cf. James 3:7).

Murder is condemned in God’s Word. When Noah and his family came out of the Ark. God gave instructions for living in the cleansed world He gave them and their descendants. One passage in Genesis 9 indicates that human life is to be highly valued, and those who shed innocent life are to forfeit their right to live.

“And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it. and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whose sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man” (Genesis 9:5-6).

Under the Law of Moses, Israel was told “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). They were warned not to pollute the land with the blood of the slain. “So ye shall not pollute the Land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it”(Numbers 35:33).”Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. and ye know that no
murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15).

Where is all this modern pro-abortion activity leading? Into further encroachments against human life. We are hearing more about euthanasia alt the time. We are hearing about physician assisted suicide. Influential voices are calling for the government to give the medical profession the power of life and death over other sections of the population.. Dr. William Gailin, Professor of Psychiatry and Law at Columbia University, said,”. . . it used to be easy to know what we wanted for our children, and now the best for our children might mean deciding which ones to kill. We’ve always wanted what is best for our grandchildren, and now that might mean killing them... “(Conference of American Association of University Women, Feb. 17, 1972). George Paulson writes, “How long should life be preserved when there is no redeeming social value? If life has no apparent purpose, perhaps it is to the benefit of others that such lives should not be salvaged” (“Who Should Live?,” Geriatrics, Mareh 1973, pp. 136-138). I could fill these pages with similar shocking quotations from the “social engineers” who want to plan our society. These “engineers” will have a larger and larger hand in our society, especially if our government takes over control of the health care industry, as now proposed by the current administration. They propose not only to pay for all abortions on demand under a national health care plan, but also limit the access of certain “non-productive” members of society to health care.

A fourth thing signified by the practice of abortion is that covetousness has just about taken over our land. Children are discarded because they will cramp someone’s lifestyle. Jesus says, however, “And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth” (Luke 12:15). When someone would forego the joys and lessons of life that come with being a parent, and choose to live a self-indulgent lifestyle. That bodes ill for their soul and the nation that exalts such conduct

The Word of God vs. Planned Parenthood
Federation of America
The edicts of the courts of men will not last forever. The Word of God will.
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). The Word of God will judge the lives of men:

“And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me. and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have Spoken. the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:47-48).

“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead”(Acts 17:31).

What says this Word on the subject of abortion?
First, all life is a gift from God “He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25). As already demonstrated, God has ordained that those who take from others this gift; are to forfeit their right to it. Those guilty of murder will be judged by God, certainly, whether they received justice in this life or not. Human governments may legalize abortion, but in the eyes of God it is still murder.

In the Old Testament we read of a practice that resulted in God’s wrath being poured out upon the people of Canaan, other pagan people, and even upon Israel and Judah. In the Bible you will find the word “tophet.” it is a horrifying word. It means “place of burning.” It refers to the burning of infant children in child-sacrifice rituals. The Canaanites practiced this abomination. Scholars tell us that the Canaanites employed this to maintain control over the population, and maintain a materialistic, sensual lifestyle. Israel was commanded to destroy them and to never practice this wickedness (Leveticus 18:2 1; Deuteronomy 18:9-10). However, in time Israel did (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Chronicles 33:6). The “tophet” at Jerusalem was in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, known by New Testament times as Gehenim. Because of the innocent blood shed in Gehenna, God promised to pour out His wrath upon Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:36; Jerimiah 19:6, 11).

The ancient practice of child sacrifice is still going on in our world. The forms and procedures are different but the sin is the same. The nations of the earth, including America, are making themselves abominable in the sight of God. The religious ritual has been replaced by a clinical, medical one, but the result is the same. Innocent blood is being shed. And God has never allowed this sad situation to continue unpunished. The sexual promiscuity of our day, population control to ensure a “high standard of living”— it is just the old fornication, materialism, and covetousness of the Canaanites brought up to date.

Second, we notice that the Scriptures teach that children are a blessing from God.
“Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3-5).

In the Bible we can read of people who were childless, and they felt themselves deprived of a great blessing. Several righteous couples who were childless, sought for the Lord’s deliverance from this situation. They prayed for God to give them children. And God often did give children in answer to the prayers of the righteous—Abraham and Sarah come first to mind. But there were others. Isaac and Rebekah, for instance: “And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived” (Genesis 25:21). Then there was Hannah, whose son Samuel was born in answer to prayer (1 Samuel 1 & 2).

In the New Testament we read of Zacharias and Elisabeth, who were blessed to become the parents of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-13). Notice what the angel told Zacharias: “Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard: and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John” (Luke 1:13). We also read Ruth 4:13, “So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son.” Children are the gift of God. That gift is given at conception. To destroy this gift of God is a sin.

Third, the Bible makes no distinction between prenatal and postnatal life!
Of Jeremiah, God said, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jerimiah 1:5).

It is stated of John the Baptist, by his mother Elisabeth, that “the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” The word “babe” is from the Greek brephos. The word is used of both infants and unborn children. The definition of brephos is “a child; whether unborn, an embryo, fetus", Luke 1:41,44: or just born, an infant, Luke 2:12, 16; Acts 7:19; or partly grown, Luke 18:15; 2 Timothy 3:15. (TheAnalytical Greek Lexicon Revised. p. 73; cf. Thayer, p. 105). Further, Mary was informed by the angel that “...thy cousin Elisabeth, she bath conceived a son in her old age” (Luke 1:36). “Son” is from huios. a word describing the relation of descent whether before or after birth has taken place. Obviously, the Holy Spirit has chosen words to convey to our minds the humanity of John while still in his mother’s womb.

Paul stated that God “separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace” (Galatians 1:15). Even before Paul was a “viable human being.” by the standards of the modem abortionists, God had set him apart to the great work that Paul eventually did. Do people who favor abortion not see the terrible loss in human potential that has occurred because so many have been slaughtered in this way? There may not be other Pauls or John the Baptists, but there have certainly been some Beethoveins, and George Washingtons, and Jonas Salks.

While the Bible never says “Life begins at conception,” the language the Holy Spirit employs leads inexorably to that conclusion. Some forty Scriptures refer to conception as the Start of new life in the womb of the mother. In the Genesis narratives alone, the phrase “conceived and bore” is found eleven times. The close pairing of the two words clearly emphasizes conception, not birth, as the starting point of life (Genesis 4:1, 17; 21:2; 29:32-35; 30:5, 19, 23; 38:3,4) (Fowler, p. 136).

The Scriptures reveal that those who are welcomed into the eternal habitations of the Father will not inhabit the same body they possess in this life. In some way that we cannot begin to guess at we will be different, but it will still be us.

“It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body,and there is a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:44).

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2).

We see that human life consists of more than the time between the womb and the grave. In the womb there is human life, and after the tabernacle of this flesh is laid in the grave, life will go on.

Conclusion
While pro-life activism is not an appropriate response for New Testament Christians, we can and should make use of the resources available to us to educate our children and the world at large to the evil of abortion. In our public and private teaching we should take a stand on the issue and present scriptural reasoning to support our position. We need to clearly teach the immorality of abortion, at the same time holding out the blessed prospect of forgiveness to those who have scarred their lives with grief and guilt because they made the “choice” in the past. We need to teach our children respect for human life and the wickedness of shedding the blood of the innocent Perhaps more than anything we need to get down on our knees and pray. We must pray that our national leaders would see the wickedness of abortion, or that they might be replaced by those who do.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?You can accept the authority of Christ by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized into Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (Galatians 3:27; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).

P. 0. Box 725, Buffalo,
MO 65622

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Modest Apparel; --- The Woman’s Role

Modest Apparel: The Woman's Role

by Melvin Blalock I have been asked to deal with several passages pertinent to modest apparel and the woman’s role in the church. These may be viewed as separate topics, but they are certainly connected. It was with some trepidation that I agreed to accept this subject. With many, this is not a popular subject, whatever one might say will probably displease someone. However, I seek not to please men, but God. That being said, I am honored to participate in this study and to give consideration to the following passages in the order that was requested: Deuteronomy 22:5; 1 Peter 3:3; 1 Timothy 2:9-10; 1 Timothy 2:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35; and 1 Timothy 2:8-15.

Deuteronomy 22:5“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

This prohibition is not at all difficult to understand. These instructions were given to Old Testament Israel. It applied with equal force to both sexes and absolutely forbade cross-dressing. The woman was not to wear a man’s garment, nor was the man to wear a woman’s garment. This tells me that the unisex movement did not originate with God. God created men and women to be different, and He insisted upon that distinction being readily discernible. The clothing was to be such that would easily distinguish the sexes. To attempt to obliterate this distinction was contemptible to God. To use the wording of Deuteronomy, “it was an abomination.”

Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary (#844 1) defines this word to mean something “disgusting, an abhorrence.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, offers the following definition: “an abominating; great hatred and disgust; loathing; anything hateful and disgusting.”

God found this practice disgusting. My friends, that is pretty strong language. Some may feel we need not be concerned with this passage because is in the Old Testament, but I am always concerned when God says He abhors something. I cannot imagine our eternal and unchangeable God, who is so definite about something He finds disgusting, at a later time becoming acclimated to it and acceptant of it. While it is true that we are not amenable to the laws of the Old Testament, we do not discard principles that are clearly set forth there in God’s dealings with man. We are reminded of this in the New Testament by the following passages:

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4).

“Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted” (1 Corinthians 10:6).

“Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Corinthians 10:11).

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Many commentators say that “scriptures” in this passage refer to the Old Testament.

I like what Matthew Henry had to say in his commentary regarding Deuteronomy 22:5: “The distinction of the sexes by apparel is to be kept up, for the preservation of our own and our neighbor’s chastity, v. 5.”

There are New Testament passages that show plainly that God still wants men to look and act like men and women to look and act like women. Effeminacy in men is condemned. Jesus talked about soft or effeminate clothing on men in Matthew 11:7-8, saying that they who wear such are in king’s houses.

Paul said that the effeminate would not inherit the kingdom of God
(1 Corinthians 6:9). Concerning the hair, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15:
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

In these passages. as well as those we have under consideration, we find that God has distinctive roles for men and women and that their wearing apparel is also to be distinctive of their gender.

Certainly there is much teaching about morality and righteousness in Deuteronomy 22. There are things recorded there for our admonition even in this last dispensation of time. In studying these issues, it has been my observation that God has not lowered moral standards since those words were given to Israel so long ago. God has not “loosened up” on any moral issues that I can think of. If anything, the standard is higher in the New Testament. Adultery is an example: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28). Divorce for any cause was tolerated under the Mosaic system, which is not so in this dispensation.

Let me say clearly that the unisex movement was clearly forbidden under the law, and I believe it is no less an abomination to God today. Lesbianism and homosexuality are often associated with cross-dressing. Homosexuality was also an abomination to God (Leviticus 18:22). Like cross-dressing, homosexuality is not specifically called an abomination in the New Testament, but it is denounced plainly as sin. The point is that if either of these was an abomination then, we believe they are no less an abomination today. Homosexual will close the doors of heaven against its adherents (1 Corinthians 6:9). The Deutonomy passage has to do with the subject of the woman’s role and her modesty, which is shown by not wearing that which pertains to a man.

I Peter 3:3-4“Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

The Holy Spirit in this passage is de-emphasizing the outward adornment and exalting the inward beauty, the ornamentation of a gentle and quiet spirit. It should be understood that he does not forbid the wearing of certain ornaments, or that of apparel, but rather the inner person is where the emphasis is to be placed. Dr. James MacKnight offers the following comments:
“Let it not be the outward adorning only. The word ‘only’ is supplied here, agreeably to the known phraseology of scripture, and to the nature of precept. For we cannot suppose that the apostle forbids Christian women to adorn themselves with apparel suitable to their station, any more than the Lord forbade his disciples to labor for meat that perisheth, John vi.27. His meaning in that precept certainly was, that the disciples were not to labor for meat which perisheth only, but also for the meat that endureth to everlasting life...”

MacKnight used the Syriac version in his scripture reference. It reads as follows: “Of these, let the adorning be not what is outward only, of plaiting of hair, and of putting round golden chains, or of putting on clothes.” The NKJV has a similar rendering: (1 Peter 3:3) “Do not let your adornment be merely outward --- arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel.” The language contained in these verses is known as a Hebraism, which is common in sacred languages. Guy N. Woods makes the following significant observation:

So here Paul does not forbid women to wear jewels, or to adorn themselves with modest apparel; he does admonish them to regard such as utterly worthless in comparison with the graces which adorn the Christian character, and which alone determine one’s worth in God’s sight.. .Paul also gave attention to the vanity characteristic of worldly women in adorning themselves with ‘braided hair, gold or pearls or costly raiment’ (I Timothy 2:9), and from the historians of the period in which Peter wrote, we learn that women were disposed to go to extreme lengths in braiding and plaiting their hair, often arranging massive whorls of it several inches above the head into which had been woven twisted strands of gold and chains of pearls which glistened and scintillated in the light, thus making an impression of great brilliance.

I Timothy 2:9-10
“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

Some argue that Paul is giving instruction for the woman’s adornment in the public assembly of the church. While his instructions would certainly include the assemblies, I believe he was concerned for the Christian woman’s adornment and behavior in general. I do not believe the verses in this text are limited to the assembly. I will later give you the reasons why I believe this to be true. In this passage, Paul is concerned with Christian women being adorned modestly. First, he speaks of modest apparel. It will be helpful to define some of the wording of this verse.

W. E. Vine defines the word “modest”:
kosmios, orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest.

He defines the word “apparel”:
katastole... connected with katastello, “to send or let down, to lower” (kata, “down,” stello, “to send”), was primarily a garment let down; hence, “dress, attire,” in general (cf. STOLE, a loose outer garment worn by kings and persons of rank --- Eng., “stole”);
<1 Timothy 2:9>, “apparel” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

Thayer defines katastole, “A garment let down, dress, and attire.” Young defines this word, “long robe.” katastello is found in no other text in the Bible. When I read this definition of apparel, my mind envisions our godly sisters with their beautiful uncut hair and their modest dresses. We should not overlook this significant word, katastello, meaning “to send or let down, to lower.”

“It is evident that modest apparel means a woman’s clothing should not be such as would expose her body in a way to suggest evil thoughts. Shamefacedness means womanliness; the opposite of brazenness.” The Greek word for sobriety is also defined ‘self-control’ in Thayer’s lexicon. (E. M. Zerr).

A woman may be so skimpily clad that she reveals her body, provoking lust, or she may be fully clothed, and yet her clothing be so tight that it reveals her anatomy to the point that she is no longer decent. Either is the opposite of “modest or seemly” attire. There are items of clothing that cannot be worn modestly in public. The woman may be attired so elaborately that it would calling attention to her and, hence, would not be modest.

Brother Mike Criswell gave the following good rules concerning modest apparel. He wrote of the three “L’s” --- Lots, Loose, Long. He states:

This seems to be a good rule of thumb for both men and women. Lots, loose, and long, so it doesn’t reveal the form and shape of the body so as to incite lust in the opposite sex.

What principles are Christians to follow in deciding what to wear?

a. The garment must distinguish the person from the opposite sex.
b. The garment must not be too flashy but must depict a heart of modesty.
c. The garment must not incite lust in the opposite sex.

“Shamefacedness” is defined by W. E. Vine: “Shamefastness: aidos, a of shame, modesty, is used regarding the demeanor of women in the church, I Timothy 2:9. Shamefastness is that modesty which is ‘fast’ or rooted in character” (Davies; Bible English, p. 12).

In our immoral world, so many have no sense of shame, and they openly show that to be true by their demeanor and their mode of dress. The Apostle is saying that a godly woman will have that inward modesty, “shamefastness,” rooted in her character. By the indecent behavior and the improper attire worn by many, we are reminded of the words penned by Jeremiah: (8:12), “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush...” May God’s people never become so like the world that they lose their ability to blush.

Sobriety is another quality that composes the godly woman’s character. “Sobriety” is defined by W. E. Vine: sophrosune, denotes soundness of mind...Acts 26:25, “soberness;” 1 Timothy 2:9, 15, “sobriety;” ‘sound judgment’ practically expresses the meaning.

It is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to these from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as would overbear the checks and barriers which aidos (shamefastness) opposed to it (Trench, Synonyms, pp. xx, end).

In the first part of verse 9, he discusses the importance of wearing modest clothing and the inward qualities of the godly woman that govern her choices in that clothing. In the latter part of the verse, he speaks of undue emphasis being placed upon outward ornamentation. As we noted from Guy N. Wood in his commentary on 1 Peter, it was a common practice at that time to weave strands of gold and pearls and other costly array in the hair, calling undue attention to one’s self. Shamefastness and sobriety would rule against this practice. We should not conclude from this that all makeup and jewelry are forbidden, but moderation is the key. The real emphasis is not to be on the outward adornment. Paul says that the godly woman should adorn herself instead with good works (v. 10). This is not a contradiction of Peter when he said, “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1 Peter 3:4). Her meek and quiet spirit and her good works are the adornment that will make her truly attractive. When we study these verses, surely we are reminded of the “virtuous woman” in Proverbs. “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates” (Proverbs 31:30-31). The “virtuous woman” dressed in a way that was becoming to her station: “She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple” (Proverbs 31:22).

There are several points that lead us to the conclusion that the verses in 1 Timothy 2 are not limited to the assembly. We will notice a couple of those at this point. It is absurd to think that Paul is only concerned with modest apparel in the assembly. Godly women are to dress always in a way that is indicative of inward modesty and sobriety. Further-more, her real adornment is to be that of good works that is becoming a woman professing godliness. Are we to suppose that these good works are only performed in the assemblies? Quite the opposite is true. Most good works performed by women are outside of the church assembly.

I Timothy 2:11-12
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

After instructing the woman on her apparel and adornment, Paul turns to the subject of the woman’s role. I am indebted to Brother Alan Bonifay for the following information, along with a good outline explaining these two verses. Alan noted in his study:
I. Kinds of teachings:

house to house

private sessions

1 Timothy 2:12

II. What does the Bible say about women teaching God’s Word?
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:11-12).

rest, quiet, tranquillity; a quiet tranquil life as it does in 2 Thessalonians 3:12, or it can mean silence as it does here and in Acts 22:2

with all subjection

to place or arrange under; to subordinate, 1 Corinthians 15:27; to bring under influence, Romans 8:20 passively, to be subordinate, 1 Corinthians 14:32; to be brought under a state or influence, Romans 8:20; in the middle voice it means to submit one’s self, to render obedience, be submissive, Luke 2:51; 10:17

2 Corinthians 9:13

Galatians 2:5

pray every where

yes

2 Timothy 1:5

3:14-17

Titus 2:3-5

teachers of good things

(1) kalodidaskalos

(2) sophronizo

c. Acts 21:9

d. 1 Corinthians 11:5

e. Acts 18:26

1 Timothy 2:11-12

c. Acts 20:20

house to house

Publicly

(2)

House to house

1 Timothy 2:11-12

Comments from OthersThough most commentators hold the public assembly view, commentator E. M. Zen is an exception. He writes beginning at 1 Timothy 2:1: Some commentators think this instruction has reference to the public services of the congregation. Doubtless it includes that, but verse 8 commands that men pray everywhere, which makes the exhortation general.

Matthew Henry writes concerning prayer in his comments on
I Timothy 2:8: “Men must pray everywhere: no place is amiss of prayer, no place more acceptable to God than another.” Ellicott comments on the Greek word for “learn,” manthano, and states that it is “in antithesis (contrast) to didasko.” On the subject of Christianity changing the primal relationship of women to men, he also states:

While it animated and spiritualized their fellowship, it no less definitely assigned to them their respective spheres of action; teaching and preaching to men, ‘mental receptivity and activity in family life to women’ (Neander, Planting, vol. I, p. 147, [Bohn]).

“What grave arguments these few verses supply us with against some of the unnatural and unscriptural theories of modern times!” (Ellicott, p. 52). Thus, the role of the woman is ‘in antithesis to’ or in contrast to being a teacher. Thayer defines didasko as “to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses,” while manthano is defined as “to learn, be appraised.” Ellicott also says, “Every form of public address or teaching is clearly forbidden as at variance with the woman’s proper duties and destination” (Ibid.).

Alford states on 1 Timothy 2:11-12:

Let a woman learn (in the congregation, and everywhere: see below) in silence in all (possible) subjection (the thought of the public assemblies has evidently given rise to the precept (see I Corinthians xiv. 34); but he carries it further than can be applied to them in the next verse): but (the contrast is to a suppressed hypothesis of a claim to do that which is forbidden; c. a similar de, I Corinthians xi. 16) to a woman I permit not to teach (in the church primarily), or, as the context shews, anywhere else (Alford, p. 319).

Before leaving this passage, we must discuss the clause, “usurp authority over the man.” There are two things that the woman is prohibited from doing. She is prohibited from teaching (delivering a didactic discourse) and from usurping authority over the man. These are two independent phrases separated by the conjunction “nor.” This Scripture does not say anything about “teaching over the man,” as some allege. For obvious reasons, the Sunday School brethren want to give it that construction to sustain their unscriptural practice of women teaching a Bible class so long as men are not present.

Brother Jerry Cutter states the following in a tract called “The Teaching,” pages 18-19:
“Usurp authority over” is.. .only one word in the Greek, and means “Exercise dominion over one . . ..I Timothy 2:12” (Thayer’s Lexicon, p. 84). In short, “over” is not connected with “teach” in I Timothy 2:12, but only with having dominion over the man, or the second part of the verse. b. The Bible does not say, “I suffer not a woman to teach over the man!” The passage says nothing about “teach-over.” Rather, it, says, “I suffer not a woman to teach,” nor do something else. c. Compare these two parallel passages:
(1) I Timothy 2:12: “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” If “over the man” modifies both “teach” and “usurp authority,” consider the following and see the contradiction:
(2) Leveticus 19:14: “Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind...” Shall we say that the prepositional phrase, “before the blind,” modifies the first prohibition? If so, the passage merely means, “Thou shalt not curse the deaf before the blind.” In other words, according to such logic, it would be perfectly all right to curse the deaf, provided it is not done before the blind.”

What may we conclude from 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and the other passages concerning the woman teaching? First, we learn that a woman is prohibited from being a public teacher of God’s Word, and in that sphere she is to remain silent. Second, we further learn that she is never to usurp authority over the man, but to be silent, or in subjection.

I Corinthians 14:34-35“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

There is nothing difficult to understand about the wording of this text. We have already shown by 1 Timothy 2 that the woman is not permitted to teach except in private situations. Obviously, in the assembly she is prohibited from doing such. Paul emphatically says that she “is not permitted to speak,” but that she is to be “under obedience, as also saith the law” (1 Corinthians 14:34). The NKJV reads, “. . .but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.” I have wondered about the expression, “as also saith the law.” MacKnight refers the reader to that law given in Genesis 3:16.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Paul shows that her role is one of submission. She is to be a learner in the assembly and not a teacher. She is not to ask questions in the assembly; but if she has questions, let her ask her husband at home. Paul says, “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (v. 34), and then in verse 35, “. . . for it is a, shame for women to speak in the church.” Some have labored to explain away these strong prohibitions because they plainly condemn their women preachers and teachers. Some argue that this was written to the church at Corinth during the age of spiritual gifts and does not apply to the church today. First, we would point out that this message was not only for first-century Corinth. At the introduction of this epistle, Paul wrote, “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (1 Corinthians 1:2). In the present chapter, he wrote, “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33). It is evident that these inspired words were for the benefit of the Lord’s church throughout the whole world and for infinity.

Brother Bennie Cryer wrote the following in the O.P.A. April 1, 1988, under the caption, “Some Thoughts on 1 Corinthians 14”:
“WHAT 1 CORINTHIANS 14 IS NOT TEACHING. 1. Its main purpose is not teaching rules to be used to regulate the use of spiritual gifts only. It does teach rules for edifying an assembly when the church gathers for the purpose of rendering spiritual service to God. The reason spiritual gifts were regulated by the rules for edification found in this chapter is because these rules could be violated by one with spiritual gifts in the same fashion they could be by teaching using knowledge he had acquired through study and meditation. It is not considering how that knowledge got into the teacher’s mind but how that knowledge is dispersed to the audience. It is to be done in such a way all may learn and all may be comforted. v. 31...”

Brother Cryer writes in his fourth point:
“It is not teaching that only the wives of inspired prophets were to keep silent in the assemblies. It is teaching that the prophets’ wives were to keep silent in the assemblies, not because they were wives of prophets, but because they were women, ‘For it is a shame for women to speak in the church,’ ” vv. 34—35.

These verses obviously regulate the woman’s role when the church convenes an assembly. It is required that she remain silent in all such assemblies.

I Timothy 2:8-15
Now we wish to return to the verses recorded in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. In verse 8 he particularly addresses the men, telling them, “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” Some have concluded that since he addressed men in this verse, it shows that he has in mind the public church assembly. Nowhere in the entire chapter does he name the church assembly. He does say, “I will therefore that men pray every where...” “Every where” is surely more general than the assembly, athough the woman certainly would be excluded from leading a prayer or song in the assembly by this divine injunction. It is the men who are to taking the lead when public prayers are offered. My wife recently related a story to me about the time in a public gathering she was asked to return thanks for the meal by her supervisor. The supervisor, who was a woman, knew that Alberta was a preacher’s wife. Alberta was probably the only Christian in the gathering, but she declined because there were men present. I firmly believe that she did the correct thing.

Let us look back to I Timothy 2:1-2: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” He began this chapter with an exhortation to prayer. Should we conclude that the only times we are to pray for kings and all that are in authority is in the public assembly? E.M. Zen in his commentary says that the “every where” in verse 8 makes it general.

In verse 8, Paul wrote that men were to “pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” E. M. Zen makes the following observation regarding “lifting up holy hands”:
LIFTING UP HOLY HANDS means hands of men who are living holy or righteous lives. The lifting of the hands is merely an allusion to the ancient practice of presenting the uplifted hands in respectful petition to God (Nehemiah 8:6; Psalms 141:2; Lamentations 3:4). The command pertains to the kind of hands being lifted up, and not as to the posture of the body during prayer: The Lord is not concerned about that matter...”
“Without wrath and doubting” are more qualifications to acceptable prayer wherever it is offered. Adam Clarke writes concerning “Without Wrath”: “Having no vindictive feeling against any person; harbouring no Unforgiving spirit, while they are imploring pardon for their own offences.”

Concerning “Doubting,” W. E. Vine, page 337, offers the following: “diaogismos expresses reasoning or questioning hesitation, 1 Timothy 2:8, See Dispute, A, No. I.” On page 324, W. E. Vine says “Dispute” denotes, primarily, an inward reasoning, an opinion.”

Dr. James MacKnight writes: “dialogismos sometimes signifies reasoning in one’s own mind, sometimes reasonings and disputings with others. See Luke ix. 46,47. The disputings of which the apostle speaks in this passage, are of those only about the times and places of prayer, but those about other points of religion, whereby bigots inflame themselves into rage against those who differ with them.”

After his directive to men about prayer, Paul then turns his attention to the women. We notice that he begins his dialogue with women by writing “In like manner.” E. M. Zen comments,

In like manner is all from the Greek word HOSAUTOS, and one word in Thayer’s definition is ‘likewise,’ and that word does not necessarily mean a repetition of some previous action, but rather that the writer has something more to say. It is as if the apostle said, ‘furthermore, I have something to say about the women.’

In the remaining verses of this chapter, the apostle discusses issues concerning modesty, adornment, and the woman’s role. He finishes up by explaining why woman has been assigned a submissive role. He shows why it is that she may not be a public teacher. We have already discussed modesty, adornment, and her restriction concerning the teaching in verses 9-12. Without rehashing material that we have already covered, let us proceed to verses 13-15:
“For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

We read the following in the Gospel Advocate Commentary: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. The reasons for this teaching are here given, which show the reach or extent of the principles. Adam had priority in creation. He was the original human being. Eve was from him and subordinate to him, and was formed a help suited to him. The argument here based on priority of creation is much strengthened by the following statement: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” (1 Corinthians 11:9). This teaching of Paul respecting the public position of woman as regards man, in which he shows that she is to hold a subordinate place, is based upon no arbitrary human speculation, but upon God’s original order in creation—that divine order which first created man and after man’s creation formed woman as his help meet.

This provides one of the reasons that the woman is not to exercise authority over the man, but to be in submission. Furthermore, she is not to be a public teacher.

In verse 14, we are furnished with the second reason. “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14). MacKnight comments:

The serpent did not attempt to deceive Adam; but he attacked the woman knowing her to be the weaker of the two. Hence Eve, in extenuation of her fault, pleaded, Gen. iii. 13. “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat.” Whereas Adam said, ver. 12. “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat;” insinuating, that as the woman had been given him for a companion and help, he had eaten of the tree out of affection to her.

Now let us look at the final verse in this discussion, verse 15: “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” There are at least four different ideas about the woman’s salvation in childbearing. I believe that Dr. James MacKnight is correct in his translation of verse 15. It reads as follows:
However, though Eve was first in transgression, and brought death on herself, her husband, and her posterity, the female sex shall be saved equally with the male, through childbearing; through bringing forth the Saviour; if they live in faith, and love, and chastity, with that sobriety I have been recommending.

His comments on this verse are insightful:
The word saved, in this verse, refers to the woman in the foregoing verse who is certainly Eve. But the apostle did not mean to say, that she alone was to be saved through child-bearing; but that all her posterity, whether male or female, are to be saved through the childbearing of a woman; as is evident from his adding, “if they live in faith, and love, and holiness with sobriety.” For safety in child- bearing doth not depend on that condition at all; since many pious women die in child-bearing, while others of a contrary character are preserved—the salvation of the human race through child-bearing was intimated in the sentence passed on the serpent, Gen. iii.l5. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise they head.” Accordingly, the Saviour being conceived in the womb of His mother by the power of the Holy Ghost, He is truly ‘the seed of woman’ who was to bruise the head of the serpent; and a woman, by bringing him forth, hath been the occasion of our salvation—Vulg.

ConclusionIn conclusion, we have determined from these words of Holy Writ that God has assigned a distinctive role for the woman, one that we are bound to honor. It is perhaps significant to point out that none of the apostles, elders, deacons, and evangelists of the New Testament were women. This is not to say that woman is inferior in intelligence or talent, but that God made her to be a help mate to man and assigned her a role of submission. He has explained to us why she cannot be a public teacher of God’s Word, and that matter should be settled. Not only does God expect her to behave in accordance with her femininity, but to look the part as well. Her wearing apparel is to be modest, and her adornment is to depict a character of shamefastness and sobriety. Truly the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit is of great price in the sight of God.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?You can accept the authority of Christ by doing what He commanded (Matthew 7:21; John 14:15; 15:10-14; Luke 6:46). Notice the pattern for becoming a Christian as revealed in the Scriptures. The Gospel was heard, resulting in faith (Romans 10:17). Repentance of (turning away from) sin (Acts 17:30) and confession of Jesus as the Son of God followed (Romans 10:10). Believers were baptized into Christ for the remission (forgiveness) of sins (Galatians 3:27; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Romans 6:3-5), and added to His church (Acts 2:47). Christians were taught to be faithful even to the point of death (Revelation 2:10).

214 Pearl Street, Cleburne, TX 76031

Christian Moral Issues

Blog Archive

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Can A Christian Kill For His Government?

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Abortion

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Modest Apparel; --- The Woman’s Role

Other Christian Sites For Spiritual Growth

About Me