Featured Works

Christian Marriage: A Fresh Look Beyond Tradition

No Comments

“The man is the head of the woman and the home.”

This phrase is a familiar refrain, often delivered with divine finality at Christian weddings. Of course, the idea is not new for a couple—it has been absorbed over years of teaching and reinforced through sermons, family norms, and church culture. But what if this foundational message is, at best, incomplete—or at worst, a misreading? The dominant framework for Christian marriage rests heavily on the writings of the Apostle Paul, whose epistles are frequently cited as the authoritative blueprint for household structure. But have we engaged his letters carefully, contextually, and with the interpretive humility they demand? Since so much weight is placed on Paul’s words, it is only fitting to begin where so many start and end—with Paul. Consider the following:

Galatians 3:27-29 ESV
[27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. [28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [29] And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

It is vital to begin with why Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians. Galatia was a Roman province in central Asia Minor, today’s central Turkey. Paul took the message about Jesus to this area and helped establish the church during his three missionary journeys. Some years later, some “agitators” – likely Jewish Christians – began to teach the Galatians that they must do more to inherit the promise. In other words, these agitators claimed that Jesus was not enough. They wanted the Gentile Galatians to embrace some aspects of Jewish mysticism involving the observance of special days (4:10), circumcision (5:2), and general Torah-observing (5:4). None of these things is wrong per se – after all, the church today continues to do them selectively: we mark Easter and Christmas, boys get circumcised, and we select what portions of Torah we like. The problem was doing them because they believed they would add to what Jesus had done and complete their redemption.

Continue Reading

Featured Works

Paul and Women (Series Part 5): Women Shall be Saved through Childbearing?

1 Comment

Earlier in the series, we discussed a unique problem letters pose for understanding. We have looked at letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians and the Ephesians. But the pastoral epistles are different. Whereas the letters to the Corinthians and Ephesians, for instance, were meant to be read aloud to respective church members, the letters to Timothy (and Titus) are personal in a different way because they were addressed to named individuals. Just as it is true for the Corinthian correspondence, we do not know precisely what the problems were because Paul did not spell them out. We also do not comprehensively understand the issues 1 Timothy was written to address. Of course, Timothy and Paul knew what the problems were, but all we have are hints.

Internal Difficulties

1 Timothy 2 is one of the most challenging passages with explicit, seemingly misogynistic words. After all, this is the passage that says women will be saved through childbearing – thereby suggesting that the means or mechanism of salvation differs by gender. Many are Christian women who had too many children because their church traditions taught them that their womb was a highway to heaven. And, of course, considering how dangerous the birthing process still is, many Christian women did lose their lives in childbirth. Many churches treat women differently because of this passage and similar ones today. So, it is a significant passage we will carefully and sensitively address.

To begin with, even a face-value reading of 1 Timothy suggests that more must be going on beneath the surface. Consider the following:

1 Timothy 2:11 NKJV
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission.

Leaving aside the fact that various church traditions have grossly misunderstood the imperative in this verse – focusing on the “silence” instead of the “learn” part – this charge does not square well with what Paul says to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 11:5 NRSV
But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.

We have addressed this passage elsewhere. The point here is that Paul takes it for granted that women could pray and prophecy in church settings. This is not surprising because when the Spirit descended on the believers at Pentecost, he did so on both men and women (Acts 1:14, 2:4). Nobody prophecies with her mouth shut. So, the women in the Corinthian church were not silent, and Paul was okay with it. The only relevant problem Paul addressed with the Corinthian church was disorderliness resulting from not taking turns to speak.

Here is another point to consider:

1 Timothy 5:14 NRSV
So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, and manage their households, so as to give the adversary no occasion to revile us.

The first letter to Timothy contains hints implying that the church had a significant problem with single women. In this verse, Paul advises Timothy to encourage young widows to remarry and bear children. This would ensure the church could focus its limited resources on older widows. The problem is that Paul provides the opposite counsel to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 NRSV
[8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. [9] But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

Here, Paul encourages the single women in the Corinthian church to remain unmarried, provided they can exercise self-control. He later explains his logic, too: Single people have more time for God than married people do.

There is yet another compounding observation. Paul often spoke well of female colleagues in ministry. Romans 16 lists a bunch of these women with some interesting details, too:

Romans 16:1-3, 6-7, 12-15 NIVUK
[1] I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. [2] I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. [3] Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus.
[6] Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you. [7] Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
[12] Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. [13] Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too. [14] Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other brothers and sisters with them. [15] Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the Lord’s people who are with them.

Whatever else Paul was, he did not seem to be a misogynistic narcissist who could not appreciate the gifts and labor of women. Paul here says Phoebe was a deacon and financier of his ministry. This is astounding because various church traditions have used Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus to argue against women deacons. Yet, the author of those letters mentions a female deacon by name here.

The Priscilla and Aquila of verse 3 are the same couple introduced in Acts 18:1-3. When Apollo, an eloquent, skilled, and knowledgeable believer, came to Corinth to preach Jesus, Priscilla and Aquila perceived that Apollo yet had more to learn. Luke writes:

Acts 18:25-26 NIVUK
[25] He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervour and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. [26] He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Now, are we to believe that Priscilla was quiet and in the kitchen all the time Apollo was in her house being instructed about Jesus, even though she was with Paul and learned the way of Jesus? Luke here says “they”—Priscilla and Aquila—explained the way of God more adequately to Apollo. Paul also calls them both his “fellow workers in Christ Jesus.” It is also worth mentioning that Priscilla’s name is often the first listed whenever the couple is mentioned in the New Testament.

Next, in Romans 16, Paul speaks of a certain “Andronicus and Junia.” They very likely were another couple of ministers. Interestingly, Paul says this couple, including the female Junia, “are outstanding among the apostles” and that they were believers in Jesus before he was. So, before the world would divide over Paul’s letters concerning whether women could be pastors and teachers, there already were female apostles in Jesus. Once again, this should not be surprising because when the Spirit descended on Pentecost as Jesus promised, he was no respecter of phalluses. He gifted men and women alike. It makes complete sense that there were women teachers like Priscilla and apostles like Junia. Paul lists other women in Romans 16 who labored hard in the Lord with him.

In Philippians, Paul names two other women:

Philippians 4:2-3 NIVUK
[2] I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. [3] Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.

Euodia and Syntyche were going through a rough patch that is not uncommon in ministry. Paul and Barnabas were in disagreement over whether to have Mark travel with them. Paul says these women “contended at my side in the cause of the gospel.” Again, are we to imagine that the women silently cooked while Paul and the other guys preached the gospel? That is very unlikely.

If Paul preached a phallus-respecting gospel, he would not be preaching the gospel of Jesus. Interestingly, Luke, Paul’s traveling companion, records an occasion when Jesus was in the house of Martha and Mary, Lazarus’ sisters. In this story, Jesus was teaching while Martha understandably was a good host as she cooked for at least thirteen grown male guests. On the other hand, Mary shirked sociocultural norms by sitting at Jesus’s feet to learn from his teaching rather than help in the kitchen. Frustrated, Martha complained to Jesus. Luke reports:

Luke 10:40-42 ESV
[40] But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” [41] But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, [42] but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

So, Jesus allowed women in his program from the beginning. Judging by the numerous female companions in his ministry, Paul also seemed to have received the memo.

One more point is relevant here. Indeed, the broader culture generally treated women as subordinates. In first-century Palestine, a woman’s testimony was legally inferior to a man’s. Yet, the resurrected Jesus chose to appear exclusively to women, thereby placing them in the position of preaching about what they had seen. In 1 Corinthians 15:13-17, Paul says the resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. There would be no Christianity had Jesus not risen. Hence, the women who first saw the resurrected Jesus were the first Christian preachers – and they announced the good news of his resurrection to men, including Peter and John. Jesus specifically directed the women to preach what they witnessed to the men (cf. Matthew 28:10, for instance). Now, why would Jesus grant women such a privilege only to take it away from them a few years later? That seems very unlikely. Paul’s words to Timothy are appropriate here:

1 Timothy 6:3-4 ESV
[3] If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions

A gospel that maligns women would not agree with the words and deeds of Jesus. So, we have several reasons to suspect that whatever contrary things Paul said to Timothy in his letters were specific to the church under Timothy’s care. They were measures intended to fix particular problems. There is no way to read 1 Timothy 2 at face value, not if we want to believe that Paul was a mentally stable Christian with a love for and knowledge of Jesus.

Locating the Church and the Challenges

So, what is going on then? Thankfully, scholarship has made significant progress on deciphering the first letter to Timothy in very recent years. We still may not be certain about every detail, but we often can be sure about what Paul is not saying in this text. Paul begins this letter with a useful detail:

1 Timothy 1:3 ESV
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

Two points are immediately obvious. First, Paul left Timothy behind to combat false teaching. Second, the false teaching in question was happening in Ephesus. So, we know the location of the church(es) under Timothy’s care. This is a very useful bit of information because Luke tells us more about Paul’s missionary trip to Ephesus.

In Acts 19, Paul returned to Ephesus. At first, Paul characteristically entered a synagogue to reason with Jews about the identity of Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah. He did that for three months (19:8). It soon became clear that some people in the synagogue had chosen against believing and even spoke “evil of the Way before the congregation” (19:9). So, Paul discontinued that enterprise and went to a neighboring “hall of Tyrannus” to reason daily with whoever cared (19:9). He continued this for twenty-four months. Perhaps he persisted for so long because he was so effective, and God blessed the endeavor:

Acts 19:10 ESV
This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

Paul was so effective that even members of opposition camps derivatively invoked the name of Paul’s Lord with moderate success. On one occasion, however, seven sons of a Jewish man called Sceva decided to cast devils out of a possessed man in Paul’s Jesus’ name. It was a bad market day for them as the possessed man gave the sons a good beating for invoking the name of a Jesus they did not personally know. The news of this event in Ephesus only further put reverent fear in people’s hearts concerning Paul’s Jesus (19:17). Paul’s ministry was doing well. In fact, Luke reports:

Acts 19:18-20 ESV
[18] Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. [19] And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. [20] So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily.

It is true that Proverbs 10:22 says the blessing of the Lord enriches and that he adds no sorrow to it. But sorrow and troubles are different things. When Paul got in the heads of “all the residents of Asia,” many would inevitably believe and follow Paul’s Lord. Even if they do not follow Jesus, they may hold to their traditional beliefs only loosely. Both scenarios are bad for those who profited from the traditional ways of life. Before long, opposition arose.

Just before the opposition broke out, Paul resolved to visit some of the other churches he had earlier planted, having spent about three uninterrupted years in Ephesus alone. In preparation, he sent some of his assistants to Macedonia while he stayed back in Ephesus. One of these assistants was named Timothy. Judging by 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul must have sent Timothy back to Ephesus later. Paul and his team made multiple trips back and forth among the churches they planted. (See Acts 18:5, for instance.) Notice how this detail implies that Timothy was with Paul in Ephesus from the beginning and, therefore, would have complete knowledge, as Paul, about the challenges of the Ephesian church – the sort of detail neither man would feel compelled to rehash in personal letters.

A silversmith named Demetrius made shrines of the goddess Artemis and became conscious of cash flow. He called an emergency meeting of fellow workmen in similar trades. From him, we got a sense of what Paul preached. Paul had directly undermined Demetrius’ business by preaching that “gods made with hands are not gods” (19:26). That singular move might have helped the Ephesians abandon the goddess of their city. But, as Demetrius sees it, things could get worse:

Acts 19:27-28 ESV
[27] And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the Temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.” [28] When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

The resulting riot was great. So great that Paul left Ephesus for Macedonia.

Demetrius says a few things that are easy for us moderns to miss. The goddess Artemis of the Ephesians, known as Diana to the Romans, was one whom all Asia and the world worshipped. This is not a hyperbole. Artemis had been the goddess of Ephesus at least 500 years before Paul was born. Her renown among the Greek pantheon was second only to Zeus. Indeed, as Sandra Glahn argues in Nobody’s Mother, a proper understanding of Artemis is necessary for clearing up the confusion in Paul’s first letter to Timothy.

Who was Artemis of the Ephesians?

Trigger warning: The following mythological account involves women dying in childbirth.

Sandra Glahn marshals epigraphical, Greco-Roman, and patristic literary, archaeological, and Scriptural data to correct some popular ideas in scholarship concerning the identity of Artemis. In Greek mythology, Artemis was the daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. She was born first and is said to have aided her mother in delivering Apollo, her brother. This is the origin of the widespread belief in Artemis’ role as a protector of women in labor. Leto was said to have labored for nine days before Apollo was born because Hera, another of Zeus’s wives, had kidnapped the goddess of childbirth. Watching her mother in pain for so long made a lasting impression on young Artemis. She went to her father, Zeus, asking to be made a permanent virgin. Artemis was not anti-male; she was only anti-sex. (Glahn, 96). She was a huntress highly skilled in archery. She kills with her deadly arrows anyone who stands in her path. “When humans are involved, her arrows can be painless if death is desired and ruthless if used as an executioner’s tool” (Glahn 115). Though she killed male and female alike, she seemed to have killed women more.

Indeed, as various Greek sources show, Artemis’s role in midwifery was two-fold: she could either bring women safely through childbirth or she would kill them quickly in childbirth to save them from enduring pain for too long before dying. To better appreciate Artemis’ role in midwifery, readers should recall that childbirth was always dangerous, even in our day. In those days in Ephesus, women married at about 14 years, while men were generally older at about 30 when they married. There was no anesthesia, morphine, chloroform, nitrous oxide, or C-section. Every time a woman was pregnant, especially for the first time, she truly was uncertain whether she would survive. Artemis was her only hope – of safe delivery or quick, painless death. Artemis was the traditional savior of Ephesian women.

Among Greco-Roman deities, Artemis of the Ephesians stood as one of the most formidable and widely revered, particularly in Asia Minor. Her Temple at Ephesus, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, functioned as a religious, civic, and economic powerhouse. This Temple dates to 550 BCE (Glahn, 99). Glahn notes that when this Temple burned down in 356 BC, the year Alexander the Great was born, various kings and dignitaries contributed towards rebuilding it. Some ancient sources claimed the construction took 120 years to complete (Glahn 99). Artemis’ Temple was in the same league as the Great Pyramid of Giza. So, Demetrius and the other workers in Acts 19 faced an actual economic loss with Paul’s gospel. Besides, Artemis was also known by numerous titles and epithets that reflected her vast jurisdiction. Some of these descriptions are particularly relevant. Theoi Project, an online resource, lists tens of titles for Artemis, including Locheia (protector in childbirth), Parthenos (Virgin), Phosphoros (“Bringer of Light”), and Kourotróphos (nurturer of children), Soteira (“The saving god”), Protothronia (“of the First Throne”). Based on what we know of Paul, there was no way he would allow some of these titles to stand unchallenged if he could do something about it.

Another important relevant detail concerns how Artemis Ephesia dressed. She is often portrayed in sculptures in heavily embroidered, opulent, and ceremonial dresses that mark her as a cosmic queen. “Artemis is the lord of virginity, who wears a gold belt, drives a golden chariot, and sits on a golden throne” (Glahn, 55). Artemis’ devotees near Ephesus routinely took expensive dresses to her shrine as an act of worshipful devotion. Glahn notes a legal case in 4 BC involving a death sentence for forty-five people who assaulted “a sacred delegation dispatched from Ephesus to the shrine of Artemis in Sardis with tunics for the goddess” (131). Those tunics were so valuable that forty-five people risked their lives. This practice had significant cultural implications in Ephesus, where women took pride in dress as a form of religious identity. Indeed, “when the average Roman woman in antiquity stepped outside her home, her apparel and hairstyle would have conveyed visual signals about her rank (citizen, freeborn, slave), her marital status, in some cases her age, and even her moral status” (Glahn 132). As we shall see shortly, Paul has much to tell Timothy about Ephesian women’s dress and coiffure.

One final point connected to Artemis is worth noting. In Greek mythology, the Amazons were elite virgin female warriors and daughters of the god of war, Ares. They were typically depicted wearing short, belted tunics, one-breasted armor, and sometimes loose pants. The Amazons are said to be the founders of Ephesus. Artemis was their patron deity, and she was worshipped as the city’s protector (Glahn 116). Hence, this Amazonian imagery intersected with the cult of Artemis, likely influencing how female devotees dressed and presented themselves, especially priestesses who were usually virgins while serving. Their attire signaled devotion, independence, and power, making clothing a socio-political and cultural statement.

Considering what life looked like centuries before Paul took the gospel to Ephesus, we can understand the problems that might result when Ephesians converted to Jesus en masse. They, like all of us, had much mind renewal to undergo. In the early days, we can expect a good measure of syncretism as people learned to let go of their earlier beliefs and swapped worldviews. Armed with this information, we are now ready to explore 1 Timothy.

1 Timothy 1—2: What Can We Discern?

We have already learned that a major problem in the Ephesian church was false teaching, resulting in inappropriate behaviors and manners in the church. Certain unnamed persons were teaching different doctrines, devoting “themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith” (1:4). Considering that Paul says these teachers were eager to teach the Torah without having a clue about what they so confidently asserted (1:7), it is plausible that these teachers were Gentile Ephesians – probably men and especially women. Jews are unlikely to be described as not “understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1:7) concerning the Torah. Whoever they were, Paul wanted them to stop propagating falsehood out of “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1:5).

Paul proceeds to discuss the purpose of the Torah as being for the lawless and the disobedient, not the righteous (1:10). He also quickly recaps his former life as a blasphemer and persecutor of the church of Jesus, ending with the following:

1 Timothy 1:16 ESV
[16] But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

Since Timothy very likely already knew Paul’s conversion story, having been his ministry companion for years, his narration here as the “foremost sinner” (1:15) whom Jesus saved may reveal his heart posture towards the church problems he is about to address. Paul says Jesus showed “his perfect patience” as an example for others, including even the false teachers in this troubled Ephesian church. Paul might have intended this to reiterate his comment about a “love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1:5). He mentions two people, “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1:20). Being a former blasphemer himself (1:13), Paul likely temporarily expelled these fellows from the church to teach them a lesson. If they repent, Paul very likely will accept them as he did with the fornicating Corinthian, whom he also handed over to Satan (see 1 Corinthians 5:5 and 2 Corinthians 2:5-11).

Paul continues to address the Ephesian church problem in chapter 2. He begins thus:

1 Timothy 2:1-2 NIVUK
[1] I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people – [2] for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Verse 1 is a recognizable Pauline ministry method. Paul believes that general peace in a land is good for the gospel message. He urges prayers for people in the government because they have much to do with whether believers can “live peaceful and quiet lives” (2:2). One bad government policy can significantly alter the landscape for believers. Paul further assures Timothy that saying such prayers for government officials is good:

1 Timothy 2:3-5 NRSV
[3] This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human

Scholars have postulated a possible polemic against Artemis in these verses. The words “God” (theo), “Savior” (soter), and “saved” are all traditionally associated with Artemis in Ephesus. She was the Ephesians’ goddess, city protector, and savior. Paul’s additional comment that there is one God and one mediator between God and humans ensures that no room is left for Artemis in the cosmos. She cannot help anyone because she is neither the only true God nor the appointed mediator. Glahn notes a contrast between Artemis and the mediator between God and humans, “Instead of remaining only on the receiving end of sacrifices, which would be his right, he ‘gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God’s purposes at his appointed time'” (129). Paul continues:

1 Timothy 2:8-10 NRSV
[8] I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; [9] also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, [10] but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God.

Apparently, this church was so dysfunctional that the men were angrily quarreling with some church members, very likely the women, during prayer. This reading is plausible because Paul immediately shifts from the men to addressing a woman’s problem in the church. It is worth reminding readers that Koine Greek, the ancient language Paul wrote in, had one word for both “wife” and “woman.” It also had one word for “husband” and “man.” So, scholars use context to determine the appropriate translation. Often, we cannot be certain. In 1 Timothy 2, “woman/women” could be translated as “wife/wives.” The same is true for man/husband.

Older Western exegetes misunderstood Paul’s instruction to the women here. They thought there was a sexual undertone where none existed. The women did not dress provocatively. On the contrary, they were classy and flaunted opulence. This sartorial standard was appropriate for the devotees of Artemis. It could be that this expensive presentation in church meetings provoked anger and quarreling among men. Since Paul firmly believes that the ethics and rules of conduct in Jesus are different and inclusive, he wants women to be considerate. No point showing up to church with all the diamonds (which pearls were to first-century women) and gold. It would be better and sufficient to clothe oneself with appropriate good works for fellow humans. In other words, instead of appearing in a way that might ruin someone else’s day, Paul wants the women to work for the wellbeing of that other person. That is Jesus’s way of living – a way in sharp contrast to Artemis’.

We are now ready for the hotly contested verses in the passage:

1 Timothy 2:11, 12 NIVUK
[11] A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Various Christian traditions have misplaced the imperative in verses 11 and 12. Paul’s emphasis was not that an Ephesian woman should be quiet but that she should learn in quietness. This “quiet” language is the same root word Paul applied to the whole church, male and female, in verse 2, about living peaceful and quiet lives.

But why might Paul have thought this was a good idea? Earlier in the letter, Paul said “certain persons” were teaching false doctrines. As we have seen, women in Ephesus played leading roles in their society – including as priestesses of the cult of Artemis. Even if an Ephesian woman did not play any of these traditional roles, it is not difficult to see how that culture would have been shaped so that women had more power or, in any case, played more active roles in that society. Hence, it could be that the women were also leading in this church but ineffectively. Paul said earlier that certain people desperately wanted to teach the Torah, the basis of the Christian faith, but made a mess of it. It is not unlikely that the teachers Paul had in mind were the women or, perhaps, a majority of the women.

There is another plausible explanation. We have already noted that Paul seemed to appreciate the value of political stability for spreading the gospel message (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Rome had laws forbidding women from intervening between two parties in public settings. Quoting another scholar, Glahn notes, “an imperial ban already existed from the time of Augustus on women intervening on behalf of their husbands in the context of legal argument” (135). Recall that a church in the first century was typically a gathering in someone’s house that would have other couples in attendance; it is not difficult to see why Paul would want to stop the problem of making men (or husbands) quarrel angrily during prayers in the church. He could be mindful of the civil laws while trying to teach the Ephesians how to “behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

Verse 12 is difficult to exegete because it contains a hapax legomenon, a word that only occurs once in a corpus or the entire Bible. In the business of translation, scholars often study how a term is used in various places to determine the best meaning of the word. The word translated here as “assume authority over” (“authentein”) only occurs here in the whole Bible. Predictably, opinions are diverse on how to understand it. Some scholars think verse 12 contains two commands: a woman (or wife) may not teach, and a woman (or wife) may not exercise authority over a man. In this reading, Paul would be giving different but related instructions. It is also possible to read the verse as containing one instruction: a woman (or wife) may not teach a man (or husband) because that would amount to exercising authority over a man – which is somehow not right. These readings, at face value, seem supported by the following two verses:

1 Timothy 2:13-14 NIVUK
[13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve. [14] And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

So, as a basis for his instruction that the Ephesian women should learn in quietness and not be teachers, Paul alludes to the creation story, saying Adam was formed first. There is something about the ontological priority of Adam that makes it wrong for a woman to teach or “exercise authority over a man,” whatever that means. Paul quickly follows this explanation with, “Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” If this reading is correct, it would follow that this ruling applies to all women, not just the Ephesian women.

But is it correct? First, there is evidence that “authentein” refers to usurping authority, as the KJV translates it. If this alternative reading is accurate, it suggests that the women (or wives) acted this way in response to the men. Glahn writes (139):

the author’s instruction suggests that both husbands and wives in the assembly need to calm down. The men/husbands are angry during prayer, and the women/wives are acting in a way that communicates a sense of superiority or perhaps violates civil law.

Glahn also offers an alternative translation of verse 12: “I am not permitting a wife to teach with a view to domineering a husband, but to be in quietness” (Emphasis original to the quote, 139).

Besides, as we have learned in our exploration of similar ideas in 1 Corinthians, the ideas in verses 13 and 14 seem questionable enough for us to wonder if there might be a case of Paul quoting the Ephesians or something similar. First, the statement that Adam was formed deserves a comment in light of what we argued elsewhere. There is only one sense in which the male human of Genesis was formed first. The human God created and placed in the Garden was not described in gendered terms until Genesis 2:22 – 23. Adam was formed first precisely when God put the human to sleep and took a piece out of his side to form the woman. That time interval is the moment the gendered male human came to be, not prior. Now, this does not imply subordination. The woman is not inferior in any way to the man. On the contrary, the man and the woman are different expressions of interdependent equality. (See our treatment of Genesis 2 here.)

The idea that it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner is very problematic because that is emphatically an inaccurate and incomplete story. In the Genesis account, Adam was right there next to Eve while she was being deceived (Genesis 3:6). When Eve offered him of the fruit of the forbidden tree, Adam did not protest or otherwise tried to carry out God’s instruction. So, if Adam was not deceived, he surely did not act like it. Moreover, Eve was not the only one who became a sinner. Both she and Adam became sinners, and Paul acknowledges this point in other letters:

1 Corinthians 15:22 NIVUK
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Notice Paul does not say, “in Eve all die.” Here is another reference:

Romans 5:12, 14 NIVUK
[12] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned –
[14] Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Again, Paul says sin entered the world through one man, not a woman. He furthers says Adam broke a command without even mentioning Eve. So, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is unlikely to be Pauline in origin – unless we want to posit that Paul was mentally unstable or incompetently inconsistent.

The question remains: so what roles do these verses play in the argument of the letter? Opinions differ. One plausible account says Paul might have felt the need to stress the creational priority of man because the Ephesian women were doing the opposite. Remember that in the mythological birth story, Artemis was born first before her brother, Apollo. So, the Ephesians inherited a mythic-historical narrative of the priority of the woman.

Furthermore, as already mentioned, the Ephesian culture was probably matriarchic in some significant ways. Since these women wanted to be teachers of the Torah so desperately, these verses may indirectly tell us just how badly the Ephesian women teachers mishandled the text and faith. They could not even correctly understand that Adam was first. If this theory is correct, we would be right to suspect some syncretism going on in that church. No wonder Paul wanted them to teach no more but learn in quietness!

We have finally come to the most vexing verse in this letter:

1 Timothy 2:15 ESV
Yet [woman] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Some translations like the NIV conceal a grammar problem in this verse. Notice that “woman” is singular, but “they” is plural. Since the verse comes on the heels of 13 and 14, it could also contain an Ephesian quote. Glahn observes (146-147): “part of this statement could be quoted material: “and ‘she will be saved in childbearing.'” Then he tacks on the qualifications (“if”) and then ends with the phrase, “This is a faithful saying.” Her reading is far more plausible.

As we saw earlier when addressing related issues in 1 Corinthians, Paul often use local sayings in his corresponces – sayings the original recipients would have unmistakably understood. Glahn includes a detail in the quote above that is worth stressing. Whereas many English translations have often appended πιστός ό λόγος, sometimes translated as “This is a faithful saying” to 1 Timothy 3:1, thereby implying that the “faithful saying” is about a desire to be a deacon, Glahn convincingly argues that this clause fits better with the prior verse about childbearing.

What is this verse talking about? There have been church traditions that teach that a woman will be saved through motherhood, thereby suggesting that a woman’s womb can play a role in her eternal salvation. There is simply no way this could be true at face value. The salvation of women is not dependent on the fruitfulness of their wombs. The questions are endless – what about barren women? Or women who became barren because of trauma? Or women who do not desire to be mothers? Or women who would want to be mothers but died for Jesus before they could be mums? This idea is simply a false gospel, and we can rule it out.

A more plausible explanation is to see Artemis behind the verse. Traditionally and for centuries, Artemis was the Ephesian women’s savior (“soter”) through the precarious act of childbirth. She was the goddess of midwifery, believed to be capable of making childbirth painless and successful. It is not unlikely that some Ephesian Christian women continued to hope in Artemis during pregnancy. 1 Timothy 2:15 may be Paul’s way of assuring women that Jesus, not Artemis, is the one who can grant safe childbirth. The argument for this has two parts. First, Paul opens this letter by applying Artemis’ epithets to Jesus:

1 Timothy 1:1 ESV
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

Paul says here that another God, not the goddess Artemis, is the Soter and that Jesus, not Artemis, is the hope of Christians, especially pregnant women. The second part of the argument is embedded in the 1 Timothy 2:15 text itself:

1 Timothy 2:15 ESV
Yet [woman] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Notice how Paul qualifies “saved through childbearing” with the following: “if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” – attributes that mark a Christian. In other words, Paul says the women will be saved through childbearing if they remain Christians – not reverting to a devotion to Artemis – and place their hope and trust in the true Soter, not Artemis. This should probably not be taken as a promise that all Ephesian pregnancies will be safe. I think Paul’s larger point is that Artemis is not the real deal. He accentuates this point with “this is a trustworthy saying.”

Reading Paul’s letter to Timothy without considering Artemis’s pervasive influence in Ephesus is to miss the cultural subtext of many of his arguments and allusions. Far from writing abstract theology, Paul practically engages the dominant religious ideology of the region—one that upheld a virgin goddess who protected women in childbirth, symbolized female spiritual autonomy, and was intertwined with myths of female power and priority. Paul’s responses in 1 Timothy, especially regarding childbearing and modesty, subtly but deliberately reframe spiritual authority around Christ and away from Artemis’s domain. His instruction that Ephesian women should stop teaching was a practical step to solve a pressing problem. Once the problem resolved, Paul would have allowed competent and gifted women to teach. Understanding Artemis, then, is key to understanding Paul’s rhetorical strategy in one of the most theologically contested letters in the New Testament.

Works Cited

“Cult of Artemis: Titles” Theoi Greek Mythology, edited by Aaron J. Atsma, Theoi Project, www.theoi.com/Cult/ArtemisTitles.html. Accessed 26 May 2025.

Glahn, L. Sandra. Nobody’s Mother: Artemis of the Ephesians in Antiquity and the New Testament. IVP Academic, 2023.

Continue Reading

Featured Works

The Impotence of Nature in Aristotle’s Politics: The Case of Natural Slavery

No Comments

The far-reaching divide on the authenticity, intentions, and the compositional arrangement of Aristotle’s Politics is quite understandable. In the all-encompassing system Aristotle was building, the Politics was supposed to be the crown of it all. The Nicomachean Ethics is to find its ultimate fulfilment in the Politics since politics, as Aristotle asserts, is the noblest place where human eudemonia can be found. The apparent inconsistencies and seemingly infra dig arguments found in the Politics, however, have raised several questions. In an apparent move to rescue Aristotle, some experts have advanced interpretive alternatives to the work.

Theories abound on what one could make of the body of works titled Politics. As Carnes Lord explains: “the specific difficulties posed by the text of the Politics continue to be regarded by many as convincing evidence of a lack of unity and coherence in the work as a whole, and in its basic argument” (459-60). For instance, Lord summarizes the position of Werner Jaeger, an Aristotle scholar, thus “the Politics is essentially an amalgam of two separate treatises or collections of treatises written at widely separated intervals and embodying very different approaches to the study of political phenomenon” (460). Internal evidence within the work informs the general suspicions scholars hold about the integral status of the work. Scholars have pointed out inconsistencies with the endings of a sizeable portion of the books of the work, as well as transitioning clauses that do not seem to belong where they are found. The discovery that some of Aristotle’s works were only intended by him as educational treatises and not for popular consumption has also split scholarly views on the matter.

However, one thing that does not seem to be debated (or even debatable) is that Aristotle did write a big chunk of the Politics for whatever purpose, and thus employed (some of) the arguments in the book. More pointedly, it seems quite apparent that the role of nature in Aristotle’s Politics is no editor’s making but a rather essential part of what Aristotle intended to do. Thus, it is fair to critique the work. In this piece, I shall argue that Aristotle’s use of Nature in the Politics to establish the naturalness of slavery and, by extension, the naturalness of the polis is dubious and untenable.

The Politics begins with a description of the types of natural rules and associations. Aristotle writes: “We observe that every state is a certain sort of association, and that every association is formed for some good purpose”1 (1252a1-3). Thus, Aristotle’s natural teleology is found in the very first sentence of the work when he says that every koinonia (community or communality) is formed for some end, the end that people think is good for the specific koinonia. The state or city-state is the best among associations because it is both the highest and embraces other associations and, thus, subsumes the good that is in the simpler associations since “all associations aim at some good” (1252a4). Aristotle then proceeds to describe the various types of rules with political importance; these rules not only differ “in point of large or small numbers” (1252a10) but also in kind.

Furthermore, they are necessarily natural. The beginning of all associations is when “those which are incapable of existing without each other… unite as a pair” (1252a26-27). The assertion (for there is no argument here provided) that this couple is otherwise “incapable of existing without each other” deserves to be unpacked. In what sense are these (presumably adult, though the woman may be much younger) human beings, who hitherto lived independently of each other, suddenly become incapable of existing without each other? Were they existing before and up to the time they are supposedly to go unavoidably into this seminal koinonia? Here, then, is the first place where one sees Aristotle employing what seems like a circularity in his argument.

Aristotle seems to want there to be no will or intellectual contributions from the couple to claim that nature does it all—it is why this cannot be “from choice; rather, as in the other animals too and in plants, the urge to leave behind another such as one is oneself is natural” (1252a28-30). His analogy of lower animals is beneficial in unpacking the intentions here. Lower animals appear to be ruled by the need to propagate their genes. There is seemingly a statistical freedom regarding what two animals may eventually get together to interbreed. Still, if they live long enough, a healthy male animal and its female counterpart have no choice but to interbreed at some point, for this is the “natural” thing to do. This does not seem problematic. How this may absolutely apply to humans endowed with reason is not clear at all. What is clear, however, is that Aristotle needs this reasoning to pass for him to reach his famous conclusion that the city-state is natural. Indeed, he later makes such an explicit conclusion: “Therefore, every state exists by nature, since the first associations did too” (1252a30-31). That is, this conclusion stands only if the first association is natural. Aristotle does not give any air-tight argument for this requirement, resulting in a mere assumption and assertion of the naturalness of the first association. From here on, Aristotle wields the power of nature to posit the naturalness of the other types of rule; without resolving this critical issue of how nature could necessarily bring about the first associations, however, the phrase “by nature” is suspiciously empty. This suspicion is seemingly more warranted when one reads that “anyone who, though human, belongs by nature not to himself but to another is by nature a slave; and a human being belongs to another if, in spite of being human, he is a possession” (1254a14-17). That is, a human is a slave because he is someone else’s possession—and this because he is by nature a slave. The circularity is quite apparent.

Aristotle also asserts that a master and a slave cannot exist without each other. Even the fairest reading of this claim would be problematic. A fair reading would be that he is merely saying that the master and the slave need each other (not by choice or by any other means that may suggest a different arrangement is possible, of course) for preservation. In claiming that the master and the slave cannot exist without each other, just as the first association was unavoidable, the slave would seem to have gained a higher status since the good life of the master is utterly dependent on the slave. That is, the master needs the slave, and this would seem to undermine the concepts of “slaves” and “masters”; for instance, if taken purely philosophically, free from the distortions of history, that the master needs the slave for preservation, the sense in which a master could possess a slave will then be quite problematic unless this possession is reversibly mutual—that is, the claim that “the master is only master of his slave, but does not belong to him, the slave is not only the slave of his master, but belongs to him wholly” (1254a11-13) would be an empty assertion. Indeed, Aristotle later likens a slave to a tool used to effect some end. He writes that the possession of slaves (being a superior type of tool) becomes necessary only because an inanimate tool cannot be self-moved nor could it “perform its own task either at our bidding or anticipating it” (1253a33-34). A slave, however, is an animate tool, but one that is both capable of being “self-moved” (1253a36) and could carry out his tasks at the master’s bidding. By his analogy, the master-slave relationship is unnecessary.
Besides, the fact that the slave can carry out his master’s bidding implies that he shares to some commensurate degree in reason. That is, he is not all-body-and-no-brain. Besides, if we grant that a good slave may reach a point of anticipating his master’s bidding, it becomes even more problematic to see why he may not also be able to “use its intellect to look ahead” (1252a31).

Astronomical works exist in the literature to defend the apparent inconsistencies in Aristotle’s work regarding his use of nature to justify the naturalness of the types of rule he discussed in the first book of the Politics. Wayne Ambler argues that although Aristotle was open to the practice of slavery since he gives it a place in the fulfilling polis he built, he nevertheless cannot be seen without difficulties as sanctioning actual slavery (390). In other words, Ambler sees an important difference between actual slavery and the natural slavery that Aristotle discusses. As he states, “Aristotle’s natural master and natural slave establish standards which deny rather than establish the naturalness of actual slavery (390). Ambler attempts to exculpate Aristotle’s texts from readings that make him into a proponent of the practice of actual slavery by arguing that the kind of relationship that Aristotle claims exists between a natural master and a natural slave, comparable to that which exists between the soul (or thought) and the body, is not one to be found among human beings (392). Writing about the supposedly unrealizable conditions for naturalness of slavery, Ambler writes that, in fact, Aristotle “never applies them directly to human beings” (392). One apparent consequence of this claim is that the subject of slavery and its practice, the natural kind in any case, does not apply to human beings—a consequence that is in tension with Aristotle’s claim that slaves are humans (1254a14). If this is the case, it makes one wonder why Aristotle would write extensively about it and even include human slaves in his regime at all.

Rather than concede the arguable inconsistencies in Aristotle’s writings, Ambler argues that these seemingly inconsistent statements are deliberate works of Aristotle to some definite end. Hence whereas Aristotle is generally seen to be inconsistent in having defined slaves as tools of action, not of production (1254a1-8) but later allows for their use in productive capacities such as in agriculture, Ambler counters thus: “If, however, it was Aristotle’s intention to show various differences between natural and actual slavery, and not to simply to ratify actual slavery as natural, then this would not be a sign of failure but one aspect of his success” (396). At best, Ambler makes Aristotle out to be an intellectual deceiver who raises real questions and then provides simulacral responses, or one who uses prevarications to dodge questions.

A less radical attempt to, at least, grant coherence to and, thus, preserve Aristotle’s theory of slavery was provided by W. W Fortenbaugh (quoted by Nicholas Smith), who argues that Aristotle’s seemingly inconsistent views on slavery could be resolved with an improved understanding of the moral psychology that he provides. He particularly attempts to make sense of Aristotle’s denial of slaves of a foresight by arguing that in so doing Aristotle does not necessarily also deny slaves a human status (114):

Aristotle denies the logical or reasoning half of the bipartite soul but not the alogical or emotional half. This means that slaves can make the judgements involved in emotional responses and therefore have at least a minimum share in
the cognitive capacity peculiar to men in relation to other animals.

Smith enumerates the many discrepancies in Aristotle that this reviewed moral psychology approach might resolve satisfactorily. On this reading, notes Smith, it would become possible for real humans to qualify as natural slaves; there now is a basis for natural masters and their slaves to enjoy some kind of camaraderie; indeed, provided the slave stays long enough with the master to learn of and from him, it is conceivable for the slave to be freed at some point or, at least, the idea of slave freedom is more readily conceivable (115). Smith, however, goes on to argue that even this improvement ultimately fails to rescue Aristotle’s theory on slavery. He notes that whereas those philosophers like Wayne Ambler had argued that the conditions for qualifying as a natural slave are beyond humans, on Fortenbaugh’s argument, however, almost all humans would qualify as natural slaves since most people had guardians and parents from whom they received instructions while growing up (116). The chances of survival without these guardians seem quite infinitesimal. Aristotle, however, would not allow for this, for he, in fact, differentiates between the rule over slaves and free-born children (1259b10).

Furthermore, Smith finds problematic Aristotle’s insistence that the rule over slaves be despotic or tyrannical. He observes that there are two models that Aristotle explicitly employs in his writings to explain this master-slave rule: the soul-body relationship and that which Fortenbaugh points out in his article, the intelligence-emotion relationship (117). Aristotle believes that a slave is fundamentally psychically deficient and different from a natural master. As Smith puts it, “slaves are so much more beast-like than man-like that it is Nature’s design that slaves would actually be distinguishable physically from masters” (118). Indeed, contrary to the Ambler-esque claims, Aristotle quite often employs actual analogies to make his points, such as when he concurs with a poet saying, “’It is proper that Greeks should rule non-Greeks’, on the assumption that non-Greek and slave are by nature identical” (1252b7-9). As Smith points out, Aristotle clearly is committing to the view that there are slave candidates among non-Greeks, implying that, at least, some of these people are deficient in ways characteristic of a natural slave (119). What happens after a slave is purchased—assuming Aristotle’s theory can safely legitimize this? Well, the slave comes under the instruction of the natural master, where his status may change as he moves towards the human side of the divide and away from the beast side. But why the continued despotic rule over him since “now the proper model is again reason to emotion” (122)? Smith concludes thus (122):

Aristotle has told us why we can hunt some human beings as we do non-human animals (though not, presumably, for meat), and why some human beings are only actualized as human beings through the guidance of others. But he has never explained why some human beings deserve to
suffer continuing despotical rule.

Malcolm Heath’s “Aristotle on Natural Slavery” is in many ways an improvement on Fortenbaugh’s work, whose goal is to “look for an interpretation of the theory of natural slavery that is credible in the sense of being broadly coherent and plausible” (244). His work rests on a theoretical assumption of extracorporeal data that would be accessible to Aristotle, which Aristotle would justly consider in his writings. Heath defines a moral psychology that has greater explanatory power. He concludes that Aristotle could have meant that natural slaves suffer from limiting impairments that disrupt practical reasoning, deliberation, and “capacity for global deliberation” (253). Heath’s work does appear plausible, and the questions the model may fail to answer are probably the ones Aristotle fails to answer as well. He writes, for instance, that natural slaves lack deliberative capacity, deliberation being “reasoning back from a goal to the action required to implement that goal” (249). The natural question to ask is why? What does one make of a Greek man with a subtle congenital mental impairment leading to a compromised deliberative capacity? Aristotle is not prepared to allow for Greek males to be natural slaves. Besides, as Smith points out, the question of the continuing tyrannical rule of the natural master over his slaves, under the improvement in psychic status that Heath’s formulation of Aristotle’s moral psychology grants the slave, still stands.

Granting the naturalness of the first association to Aristotle and internal consistencies in the Politics, scholars have noted varying points of worry in the Aristotle corpus. Donald Ross, in his “Aristotle’s Ambivalence on Slavery,” points out “a real problem in the Aristotelian corpus concerning slavery” (54). Ross argues that Aristotle is inconsistent in his treatment of slavery in that “in the Nicomachean Ethics it is overwhelmingly the master whose advantage is furthered by slavery” (57) an observation Ross holds to be contrary to the spirit of the following lines in the Politics: “It is clear then that there are some people, of whom some are by nature free, others slaves, for whom the state of slavery is both beneficial and just” (1254b39-41). That Aristotle holds such contrary views on the subject is a “prima facie inconsistency,” argues Ross.

There are points where it seems like Aristotle is torn between maintaining the status quo of his days and breaking through it. Nicholas Smith also points out that Aristotle, a slaveholder himself, “provided in his will that his own slaves be freed” (111). Such a realization makes one wonder what happens to slavery being not only beneficial to the slave but also just. Even worse, what happens to the Delphic knife-like attribute of nature?


Works Cited

Ambler, Wayne. “Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery.” Political Theory 15.3 (1987): 390-410. JSTOR. Web. 5 Nov 2015.

Aristotle, Politics Books I and II. Trans. Trevor J. Saunders. New York: Oxford, 1995. Print. Clarendon Aristotle Series.

Heath, Malcolm. “Aristotle on Natural Slavery.” Phronesis 53.3 (2008): 243-270. JSTOR. Web. 12 Nov 2015.

Lord, Carnes. “Politics and Philosophy in Aristotle’s Politics.” Hermes, 106. Bd., H. 2 (1978), pp. 336-357. JSTOR. Web. 6 Nov 2015.

Ross, L. Donald. “Aristotle’s Ambivalence on Slavery.” Hermathena No. 184 (Summer 2008), 53-67. JSTOR. Web. 6 Nov 2015.

Smith, D. Nicholas. “Aristotle’s Theory of Natural Slavery.” Phoenix 37. 2 (1983): 109-122. JSTOR. Web. 5 Nov 2015.

Continue Reading

Christianity Decolonized, Featured Works

On the Office of the Bishop of Rome: Matthew 16:13-21 is Certainly NOT about the Papacy

No Comments

Matthew 16:18-19 ESV
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The world awaits a new Pope, and some of us hope for a Pope of African (or Asian) descent. The reason is simple. Whatever the merits of the spiritual arguments, we should not downplay the politics. A Black Pope at a time like this will forever reorder the cosmos. The Church has its history of discrimination and racism. Electing a non-white Pope would be a deafening signal that the world is forever changing.

Continue Reading

Christianity Decolonized, Christianity Dissected, Featured Works

The Gospel and the “Sons of God” of Genesis 6

1 Comment

The Easter Story Retold: How It All Started

According to the Christian calendar, the Holy Week commemorates the most important week ever in the cosmos’ billion years of existence. It is the week of Easter or, to be more inclusive, the week leading to Resurrection Sunday. The idea that one week can identifiably be more significant than all others may offend a thinking mind at first. After all, we have repeatedly heard the argument that our earth is only a speck in the big picture of things. It is an argument asserting that size matters. Ordinarily, I would agree with the argument, but there are exceptions. People do not usually conclude, for instance, that the butt is more important than the brain due to size. Similarly, a speck of uranium may be considered more important than the mountain of trash standing over it.

For generations, churchgoers have been taught to believe that a Messiah became necessary because of Adam and Eve’s sin, but that is an incomplete story that accounts for only one-third of the data. To be sure, the story arc resulting in the Messiah’s coming began with Adam and Eve, but there is more. Let us begin from the beginning.

So, how did we get here? As far as we can tell, an uncreated creative mind wanted to get to work. Evidently, it was not his first attempt at creating. He had already created a myriad of essentially immaterial beings “eons” prior to the “moment” he decided on another project. Undoubtedly, there were innumerably infinite ways the project could have taken shape. But just as he had to narrow down the options with his other creative projects, he must do the same here. God decided to make a class of beings constructed of molecules for unrevealed reasons – a terrifyingly complicated undertaking.

How do you build a being from molecules? Easy — you start with, well, molecules! The problem is that molecules did not exist yet. So, the ultimate project must wait as God began by creating the Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur, and other isotopes needed to make the molecules from which his end product would be constructed. But how long would the construction project have to wait? It is not very long – only about 30 million years, which apparently equals about a few days in God’s reference scale. Once the material universe was in place with its arrays of stars coming into and out of existence and all the requisite atoms were available, God could initiate the building of functional molecules.

It soon became clear that God did not want wild humans. Hence, though he had caused vegetation to spring up everywhere on the blue globe, he yet proceeded to carve out a garden for the creature he was about to construct. The human was going to be cultured. After arrangements for human flourishing were in place, God finally built his project after waiting a few million years, a dating that excludes moments “before” the cosmos came to be. The human God created was neither male nor female. It was a genderless composite. In time, it became apparent that the human would not optimally flourish in its composite state. It must be split equally into two complementary forms. Hence, God formed the woman from a rib of the human he had made. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew term for “rib” is a construction term often used to describe a side of a temple. Here, then, is how we finally got the gendered male and female humans. She was in no way inferior to the man. Yes, she was a suitable “help” for the man, but “help” often describes how God is a “help” to humans. If “help” suggests any asymmetry, it is probably in the other direction.

I wish they lived happily ever after, but there would not be a worthwhile story if they did. Some of God’s earlier creations were not down with God’s new hairy creatures. It is not immediately clear if it is the hair or something else, but those older immaterial beings were ticked. Soon enough, they figured out how to mess up God’s project. They would corrupt the young creatures before they have exercised their spiritual muscles unto maturity. Obviously, this implies that the hairy creatures were not incorruptible. If they became corrupted, it was because they could be corrupted. They were not perfect, only good. Very good, actually. Sinister forces succeeded and corrupted the humans.

What was God to do? Another 30 million years is nothing to an eternal being, but starting afresh would communicate lasting victory to the sinister forces. He must find a way to undo the damage. However, we soon learn that God is not in a hurry. Just as he took his time to execute the creation project, he seemed just as relaxed in his redemption plans. It will take a few thousand years to sort things out. In the meantime, however, things became terrible very quickly.

Bashan and Genesis 6’s Sons of God

By the second generation, while there were only four named humans in the story, a man would remorselessly murder his own brother. But that was only the beginning of moral decay. The corruption would soon become supernaturally charged. In Genesis 6, we read the following:

Genesis 6:1-4 ESV
[1] When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, [2] the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. [3] Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” [4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

This is a hotly debated pericope; we shall not attempt to settle it here. It is fair to say that the standard view in our churches today is that the “sons of God” are humans – whether human kings, descendants of Seth, or something similar. I shall only point out to readers that this reading is a more recent (4th century AD) position. A much older Second-Temple Era tradition takes the “sons of God” as supernatural beings/angels, and the evidence for this reading, in my view, is much stronger. Besides, as we shall see, the angelic interpretation has immense explanatory power. The Genesis 6 passage builds on the earlier chapter. Genesis 5 is a genealogy featuring extraordinarily long life spans. Adam, for instance, lived for 930 years, and Methuselah famously lived for 969 years. Scholarly debates continue as to whether these are literary or literal ages. However, our pericope in Genesis 6 suggests that the human life span was cut shorter to 120 years. Exactitude does not seem to be the point because people lived longer than 120 years afterward but significantly less than the ages reported in Genesis 5.

If we suppose the “sons of God” are supernatural beings, then Genesis 6:4 would suggest that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sexual union of angels and women. These Nephilim are often identified as giants who descended from Anak (Numbers 13:33). They are, hence, also called Anakim (or Anakites) and lived in the land Israel was to inherit, Canaan (Joshua 11:21, 22). Though it remains an offensive and troubling issue in popular discourse, one of the literary reasons God would have the Israelites wipe off everyone in Canaan was because they were descendants of the Nephilim. The famous Goliath was also of the Nephilim. In other words, God was somehow using the Israelites to solve an ancient problem of angelic corruption in his project.

Some well-known non-canonical Second-Temple era Jewish literature unequivocally understood the “sons of God” as defiant angelic beings (1 Enoch 6 and Jubilees 5, for example). We may also have a New Testament witness to this tradition of reading Genesis 6. Consider the following:

2 Peter 2:4-6
[4] For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; [5] if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [6] if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;

This passage speaks of “angels when they sinned” (verse 4). When was that? It does not explicitly say but moves on to the time of Noah. The careful reader would immediately notice that the story of Noah and the flood is in the same chapter that discusses how the “sons of God” copulated with women. It is, therefore, very plausible that Peter here says God consigned those sinning “sons of God” to hell and that he “did not spare the ancient world” precisely because he wanted to wipe off the Nephilim from the earth, a project that continued even through the ancient Israelites, as earlier mentioned en passant. Besides, the 2 Peter passage also referenced Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient cities known, among other things, for their terrorizing and inappropriate sexual practices. Peter could have cited the sexual practices of these cities as a contrast with the order-defying sexual practice of the “sons of God” of Genesis 6. Indeed, the passage talks about “those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority” (2 Peter 2:10 ESV). Of course, the acts of angels copulating with women are an exercise in “defiling passion,” which also despises the authority of God and his established order of reproduction according to kinds (Genesis 1:11).

In the non-canonical Second-Temple era work called 1 Enoch, the “sons of God” entry point onto the earth is believed to be Mount Hermon (1 Enoch 6:1-6), also called Mount Sirion and Senir (Deuteronomy 3:9). It was the tallest mountain in ancient Israel serving as the northern border of Bashan, east of the Sea of Galilee. In the days of Joshua, after the Israelites had conquered the land, Bashan was allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh:

Joshua 13:30 ESV
Their region extended from Mahanaim, through all Bashan, the whole kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, sixty cities,

This Og king of Bashan came at the Israelites while they were coming out of the wilderness to battle with them:

Deuteronomy 3:1-2 ESV
[1] “Then we turned and went up the way to Bashan. And Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. [2] But the Lord said to me, ‘Do not fear him, for I have given him and all his people and his land into your hand. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.’

The implication is that Og and his people are descendants of the Nephilim.

Furthermore, Psalm 68 also has a lot to say about Bashan. Consider the following selected verses:

Psalm 68:1, 15-16, 18, 20 ESV
[1]  God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered; and those who hate him shall flee before him!
[15] O mountain of God, mountain of Bashan; O many-peaked mountain, mountain of Bashan! [16] Why do you look with hatred, O many-peaked mountain, at the mount that God desired for his abode, yes, where the Lord will dwell forever? [18]  You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.
[20] Our God is a God of salvation, and to God, the Lord, belong deliverances from death.

The Psalm unequivocally begins with an expectation that Yahweh will arise to battle with his enemies. These enemies are identified as relating to Bashan. Indeed, the Psalm says Bashan is envious of Zion, the mountain God desires as his forever residence. (Note that the ancients believed that gods lived in mountains, regions of the earth that were removed from ordinary human incursions.) Next, we get the familiar verse that Paul applies to Jesus in his letter to the Ephesians: “You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the Lord God may dwell there.” Finally and critically, the Psalm links this divine battle with Bashan to human salvation from death. As pointed out later, this is directly connected with “the gates of Hades” of Matthew 16.

Interestingly, by applying the Psalm to Jesus, Paul affirms that Jesus fulfills the expectations of this Psalm. The Psalm promises a deliverance from death, a central component of the Gospel that Paul preached. Two additional points are worth making here. First, this is yet another example of the subtle ways New Testament authors affirm that Jesus is Yahweh. Undoubtedly, the God that Psalm 68 expects to battle with Bashan is the Yahweh of Israel. Yet, the monotheistic Jew, Paul, has no problems placing Jesus in that spot of Yahweh. Also, Paul’s use of the Psalm implies that the functioning of the ministry gifts Jesus gave the church somehow contributes to deliverance from death, even as they equip saints for ministry work. We shall have more to say shortly.

The Role of Noah

We began the story from the beginning of humanity’s slide into decay. With only four named persons, there was a murder. We also saw supernatural beings’ role in increasing corruption in the land when angelic beings took on flesh and birthed the Nephilim of old. By the middle of Genesis 6, here is the report of that world:

Genesis 6:12-13 ESV
[12] And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. [13] And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

So, the corruption and violence only increased, and God concluded that the generation had to be wiped out. But Noah and his family were rescued. It is vital to remember that the people rescued were part of a corrupt generation. The text does not tell us how Noah found divine favor, but we read that Noah obeyed and performed the tasks given to him (Genesis 6:8, 22). And everyone who believed Noah was also rescued. After the flood wiped out life on the earth, we read:

Genesis 9:1-3 ESV
[1] And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. [2] The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. [3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

The careful reader ought to catch the allusions embedded in this passage. Earlier, God said, “Be fruitful and multiply” to the humans in the Garden of Eden. The language of dominion over the animals is also reminiscent of the task given to Adam. Even Genesis 9:20, “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard,” is a clear allusion to Genesis 2:15, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” There are thus two literary functions performed by the Genesis 9:1-3 verses above. First, the world must be repopulated with Noah and his people just as Adam and Eve had to do, being the first humans (Genesis 9:19). But there is more. The verses above also remind the reader that God had not given up on addressing the problems caused by Adam and Eve. Indeed, the flood became necessary because what Adam initiated had degenerated into worse acts of violence and evil.

However, the flood was no real solution; it only slowed the decay but did not reach the root. Indeed, one of Noah’s sons would soon remind us that the problem remains. After Noah had resettled post-flood, he drank from the wine of the vineyard he had planted. He became drunk and fell asleep naked. Next, we read:

Genesis 9:22-25 ESV
[22] And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. [23] Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. [24] When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, [25] he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

This is a problematic passage for a few reasons. Though the passage’s text merely says Ham saw his daddy’s nakedness, verse 24 says Ham did something to his daddy while he was asleep. Merely seeing someone’s nakedness does not equal “doing” something to them. Besides, it likely was not Ham’s first time seeing his dad naked, especially when he was a little boy. The other problem is that Noah cursed not Ham, the perpetrator, but Ham’s son, Canaan. These observations have generated many interesting conversations concerning the nature of Ham’s offense, including voyeurism, paternal rape, or incestuous sex with Noah’s wife (and Ham’s mother). Now is not the time to flesh out the arguments. Regardless of how we read the story, it is a reminder that this son of Noah was no different from the others killed in the flood. In other words, again, the flood did not solve the problem of evil inclinations in human hearts. It merely scaled it down.

Shortly afterward, we are introduced to the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) following a Table of Nations (Genesis 10). The world was being repopulated again through the three sons of Noah after everyone else died in the flood. As if to remind us that the flood did not solve a problem, the new generation of humans yet decided against God’s directive by choosing to congregate in a chosen spot rather than spread far and wide:

Genesis 11:4 ESV
Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

So, they explicitly intended not to be “dispersed over the face of the whole earth” – the very result God wanted all along from the days of Adam. With a measure of irony, though they were going to build a tall tower reaching to the sphere of the gods, the Most High God came down instead to inspect the defiant project (Genesis 11:5). Twice, in consecutive verses, the passage says God ensured that the people were eventually dispersed over the face of earth as God always wanted (11:8,9). God achieved this desire by confusing the people’s language.

Abraham is a Major Character

Ten generations and 465 literary years later, God made a pivotal move toward solving the problems we have been discussing. Perhaps God waited until the genetic contributions of the “sons of God” and Nephilim in the gene pool were washed out. Whatever his reasons, God decided to call a 75-year-old childless Abram to derive an ultimate son from his lineage. Nine generations after Noah, God made a move:

Genesis 11:31 ESV
Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there.

So, Abram’s father intended to journey with some family members to a land Yahweh was very interested in, Canaan. Indeed, when God eventually called Abram, he told him to complete the journey his father had started. Understandably, Abram took everyone who began the journey with Terah with him to Canaan (Genesis 12:5). No reason is given for why God wanted Abram to complete the journey, but we are told the following:

Genesis 12:2-3 ESV
[2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

This is a familiar passage that deserves careful parsing. Narratively, Genesis 10 describes the many nations that emerged from the three sons of Noah. Strangely, God calls Abram and promises to make a hitherto non-existing great nation out of him, even though several great nations already exist on earth. In fact, Abraham did not even have a child because his wife was barren. It is as though God abandoned the other nations to start afresh with Abram. He, however, is not permanently abandoning the other nations because “all the families of the earth” somehow will be blessed by the nation God would make of Abram. From that moment forward, God specifically guarded the blessing within Abram’s lineage.

This was a serious project because God clarified that he needed no help. Abram was 75 when God called him and told him he would become a great nation, but he remained childless 10 years later. (This is a recurrent theme we have seen in Genesis so far – God never seems to be in a hurry.) So Abram (and Sarai) understandably thought they could help God initiate the “great nation” project through a second wife. But God was firm and clear:

Genesis 17:19-21 ESV
[19] God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. [20] As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. [21] But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Ishmael was not it – hence, the later Islamic claim of a prophet from Ishmael’s lineage has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. Ishmael will also become a great nation like the ones in Genesis 10. But he is not to become the “great nation” that will be a blessing to the world.

Eventually, 25 years after the initial promise, the promised son Isaac was born. And when he became a father, he gave birth to twins, creating a little problem. The “great nation” lineage can not come from both children. God must make his election clear again. It would be Jacob, despite his devious ways. Jacob would become a father of 12 sons, but the promise must be carried forward through Judah, one of Jacob’s worst and most unintegral sons. Matthew states that God closely supervised the blessing for 42 literary generations until Jesus was born.

The Gospel Effectuated

This, then, is the long-lived redemption plan of God. Jesus was the long-awaited son and deliverer. This Messiah will decisively address all the problems we have discussed. Paul clearly understands this when he writes:

Galatians 3:8 ESV
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

The good news, or gospel, of God finally redeeming the cosmos did not start with Jesus. On the contrary, Jesus came to initiate the end of it. The Gospel that Jesus effectuated began with Abraham. Abraham was the genealogical head of a project that produced the promised Rescuer of the cosmos. But the problems predated even Abraham. The Jesus Event finally effectively dealt with the problems we have chronicled: the glory lost in Eden, language confusion at Babel, and the corruption of the angelic sons of God.

Jesus as Adam 2.0+

Romans 5:12-21 is an extensive contrast of Adam and Jesus, which shows that Jesus’s appearance had something to do with the ancient problem in the garden:

Romans 5:12-15 ESV
[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

The argument is straightforward: Jesus reverses the error and the attending consequences of Adam’s trespass in the Garden. Whereas death, through sin, spread to all men as a result of Adam’s acts, Jesus’s obedience provides life to all who appropriate the offer:

Romans 5:18-19 ESV
[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Hence, Jesus solves the Adam Problem. Christ is the second and last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47).

Tongues in Acts: Babel Reversed

Luke, the author of Acts, seems intentional about connecting the ministry of Jesus – specifically the ministry of the Holy Spirit – to the Babel event of Genesis 11, thereby implying that Jesus addresses another ancient problem. Below is how the Babel story begins:

Genesis 11:1-4 ESV
[1] Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. [2] And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. [3] And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. [4] Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”

The chapter begins by saying the whole world had one language. Since the previous chapter gives a table of nations, each with its own language (Genesis 10:5), we need not conclude that this verse asserts the existence of a single language from which all languages are derived – a claim against current scientific evidence. On the contrary, the verse can be taken to say the world had a lingua franca, a common language for business. The relevant point here is the flow of this narrative: the people had a common language and understanding to permanently station at a chosen spot rather than spread all over the earth as God wanted. To achieve his goal, God determined that confusing their language so they no longer understand one another was an effective way to get the people to abandon the project (Genesis 11:7, 9).

In Acts 2, the believers were gathered in one spot as Jesus instructed them. Suddenly, the Spirit descended and filled eachperson so that they “began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Meanwhile, something else was happening outside:

Acts 2:5-12 NIVUK
[5] Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. [6] When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. [7] Utterly amazed, they asked: ‘Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? [8] Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? [9] Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, [10] Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome [11] (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs – we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!’ [12] Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’

Religious Jews from “every nation under heaven” heard the Galileans speak in these traveling Jews’ languages. Both the “every nation under heaven” phrase and the list of nations provided allude to Genesis 10, the table of nations, and Genesis 11. And, of course, the central action is a reversal. Unlike in Genesis 11, God has supernaturally enabled all the people “from every nation under heaven” to once get his message through “common” languages.

Acts expands the pattern. Every time a distinct category of people received the gospel message, they spoke in tongues. This happens again in Acts 10 at Cornelius’ house – the first Gentile group to be accepted by God without first converting to Judaism. In Ephesus, a region far removed from the regions of the Spirit’s operations thus far in Acts, some individuals also received the Spirit and spoke in tongues. This suggests that the divine program is not geographically restricted.

The Death of Jesus and the Powers

We have been trained over the years to associate Jesus’s death with the atonement – and, for sure, it has much to do with that. But the death of Jesus addresses other critical issues. Consider the following:

Colossians 2:13-15 ESV
[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
[14] having cancelled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. [15] And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

This common passage deserves careful parsing. The central issue the letter to the Colossians addresses is the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ for salvation. The Colossian church was being harassed by some Jewish teachers teaching that the Gentile church had to do more to become complete children of God. The “more” required seemed to be about Jewish mysticism and Torah-observing. Paul would have none of that as he revealed the clearest and boldest claims about Jesus (Colossians 1:15-21; 2:9-11). In Colossians 2:8, Paul writes:

Colossians 2:8 ESV
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

In this difficult verse, Paul contrasts Christ with some “elemental spirits of the world.” According the the Faithlife Study Bible, there are three possibilities for the “elemental spirits”:

The Greek phrase used here could refer to several concepts: the basic religious teachings of Jews and Gentiles; the material parts of the universe (such as water, earth, and fire); or spiritual powers (such as evil spirits or demonic entities). In this context, the first and third options are most likely. Paul makes clear that these teachings or forces are negative influences.

In other words, Paul says the mystical Jewish doctrines are being influenced by demonic forces in opposition to Christ. This is the context for understanding 2:13 – 15. Verse 15 says Jesus disarmed the “powers and authorities” and “made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” In other words, Jesus’s death on the cross, while initiating the atonement process, was a direct victorious battle over the powers and authorities, the elemental spirits of the world who influenced the lives of the Gentiles (See Colossians 2:20). How is that so?

A Return to Bashan

As argued at length in another entry, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16 is directly connected to this idea:

Matthew 16:18-19 ESV
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Gospels record Jesus once making a 25-mile-and-15-hour trip from Galilee to Caesarea Philippi, where Jesus uttered the words above (See Matthew 16:13). But “Caesarea Philippi” was a new name for an ancient rocky region we have already encountered, Bashan. (See our “Gates of Hell” article for how Bashan became Caesarea Philippi.) Besides, at the time of this trip in the first century, this region had a temple devoted to Pan, the god of the underworld. It also had a grotto locals described as the “gates of Hades.” Matthew employs much wordplay in verse 18. “Peter” means “rock,” and Jesus uttered the words while he stood on a rocky surface. In other words, Jesus here declared that he would build his church right atop the gates of Hades, thereby employing another double entendre. He referred to the spiritual reality of Hades while affirming that Peter would play a critical role in the project.

Furthermore, this battle with Hades will somehow result in Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter (and the rest of the disciples). The Apostles had a gatekeeping role in the kingdom. It is, hence, not an accident that when the church’s construction properly began with the giving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, Peter gave the first public sermon. Notice how Matthew immediately connects the “gates of Hell” pericope with the death of Jesus:

Matthew 16:21 ESV
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

Matthew here tells us that everything Jesus said hinged on his death.

As earlier shown, Paul also connects Jesus’s death and Bashan. When Jesus took the disciples to Caesarea Philippi, Paul was not yet a believer. But after Jesus appeared to him, Paul validates the “gates of Hades” story through Psalm 68. Paul repurposes Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:8 – 14. Paul’s use of Psalm 68 implies that giving ministry gifts – Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Evangelists, and Teachers – to the church is a continuation of the church-building process Jesus said he would perform atop Bashan. Paul specifically says these gifts are “for building up the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12). The “body of Christ” is, of course, the church. In other words, Jesus’s one-time mission to Caesarea Philippi continues to bear fruit through ministry gifts. God continues to settle an old score, as Psalm 68 prophecies. Jesus is the Yahweh who settles the score.

John the Revelator also alludes to this reality. The resurrected Jesus introduces himself to John in this way:

Revelation 1:17-18 ESV
[17]  When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, [18] and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

When and where did Jesus get “the keys of Death and Hades”? Obviously, when he died and went to the Underworld. The imagery here is of a complete routing of his enemies. He beat them so badly that he took the keys from them. They no longer can keep people in, but Jesus can keep people out of the reach of Death and Hades. As John records, Jesus’s encounter with Hades was a victory useful for encouraging believers:

Revelation 3:21 ESV
The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.

But, of course, believers are not expected to do battle in life by themselves or in their own strength. Indeed, there is another related reason Jesus died and rose:

Hebrews 7:24-25 NIVUK
[24] but because Jesus lives for ever, he has a permanent priesthood. [25] Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

Right now, Jesus is praying for his own. His love for humanity is deep. When it is all said and done, God will dwell with humans in a new Eden, just he wanted always wanted:

Revelation 21:3-7 ESV
[3] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [4] He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” [5] And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” [6] And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. [7] The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son.

And this, all of this, is the gospel. This the good news that turned the ancient world upside down and brought a great empire to its knee.

Work Cited

Barry, John D., Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar. 2012, 2016. Faithlife Study Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Continue Reading

Featured Works, Islam Matters

Demonstrating the Islamic Dilemma

No Comments

If the Quran is true, then the Bible is true. But if the Bible is true, then the Quran is false.

That is the dilemma. I know this will disturb some, and others may take offense. But I want to begin by saying I’m not looking to do any of those things. My interest here is truth. I am interested in what we can establish from primary texts. As I often remark, I do not pretend to be an expert. In fact, I would appreciate substantive, reasoned pushback and clarification.

I will present my argument in three blocks. First, I will show that the Quran consistently approves of the Bible, especially the Torah and the Injeel (i.e., Gospels), as divinely inspired and unalterable words of Allah. Then, I will show that the Quran is often wrong in many details compared to the Bible. Finally, I’ll demonstrate that the Bible knows nothing about and does not anticipate the Quran.

We begin with Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 136:
قُولُوا آمَنَّا بِاللَّهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

Say, [O believers], “We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.”

These verses of Quran 2 clearly imply consistency and continuity in the messages revealed to Abraham all the way to Jesus. Verse 146 adds, “Those to whom We gave the Scripture know him as they know their own sons,” even if not all of them were faithful. To avoid any misconception, Allah further reveals Quran 5, Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 46:

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.

Allah has been consistent in his messaging. The message revealed to Jesus in the Gospels continues and confirms what was revealed to Moses in the Torah. Allah also says the Gospel message of Jesus “was guidance and light” for the righteous. In fact, Allah so approves of the Gospel that he further says:

Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 47:
وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنجِيلِ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

So, again, we see that Allah claims to have revealed the Gospel and expects Christians to live and judge by it. Indeed, Allah rewarded those who faithfully lived by the Gospel:

Surah Al-Hadid, Verse 27:
ثُمَّ قَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِرُسُلِنَا وَقَفَّيْنَا بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ وَجَعَلْنَا فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ رَأْفَةً وَرَحْمَةً وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا فَآتَيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْهُمْ أَجْرَهُمْ وَكَثِيرٌ مِّنْهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ

Then We sent following their footsteps Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allah . But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient.

It is typically at this point in conversations that Muslim apologists generally claim that the Gospel has been corrupted. There are at least two problems with this claim. First, the Quran never makes such a claim, as shown elsewhere. On the contrary, the Quran plainly says the Bible of Muhammed’s time was reliable and trustworthy (5:43 – 44). Second, the Quran forbids such a claim. If the Gospel can be corrupted, being the authorized word of Allah, then the Quran can be corrupted. You can’t have one but not the other. Besides, Allah says his words are unalterable:

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 34:
وَلَقَدْ كُذِّبَتْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِكَ فَصَبَرُوا عَلَىٰ مَا كُذِّبُوا وَأُوذُوا حَتَّىٰ أَتَاهُمْ نَصْرُنَا وَلَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِ اللَّهِ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَكَ مِن نَّبَإِ الْمُرْسَلِينَ

And certainly were messengers denied before you, but they were patient over [the effects of] denial, and they were harmed until Our victory came to them. And none can alter the words of Allah . And there has certainly come to you some information about the [previous] messengers.

Surah Al-Anaam, Verse 115:
وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا لَّا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

So, we see that Allah’s words cannot be altered. Furthermore, the popular idea among Muslims that the Bible was corrupt ought to have been abandoned after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls belonged to a community that existed before Jesus’s time, and the Torah therein is the same as the one in our Bible.

Here we are, then, in our argument. The Quran consistently affirms that the messages revealed to prophets like Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus all ultimately derived from Allah, and Allah’s words are incorruptible. Indeed, the Quran explicitly makes specific relevant claims:

Surah Ghafir, Verse 78:
وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا رُسُلًا مِّن قَبْلِكَ مِنْهُم مَّن قَصَصْنَا عَلَيْكَ وَمِنْهُم مَّن لَّمْ نَقْصُصْ عَلَيْكَ وَمَا كَانَ لِرَسُولٍ أَن يَأْتِيَ بِآيَةٍ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ فَإِذَا جَاءَ أَمْرُ اللَّهِ قُضِيَ بِالْحَقِّ وَخَسِرَ هُنَالِكَ الْمُبْطِلُونَ

And We have already sent messengers before you. Among them are those [whose stories] We have related to you, and among them are those [whose stories] We have not related to you. And it was not for any messenger to bring a sign [or verse] except by permission of Allah . So when the command of Allah comes, it will be concluded in truth, and the falsifiers will thereupon lose [all].

The implication, again, is that the stories Allah revealed to Muhammed about prophets before him are correct and true. This means we should expect to find the same stories in the Bible, or, at the least, we should not find inconsistency. Again, the Quran supports this reading:

Surah Fussilat, Verse 43:
مَّا يُقَالُ لَكَ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ قِيلَ لِلرُّسُلِ مِن قَبْلِكَ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لَذُو مَغْفِرَةٍ وَذُو عِقَابٍ أَلِيمٍ

Nothing is said to you, [O Muhammad], except what was already said to the messengers before you. Indeed, your Lord is a possessor of forgiveness and a possessor of painful penalty.

The problem begins when we compare what Allah supposedly revealed in the Bible to what Muhammed claims in the Quran. We find too many inconsistencies – the sort one might expect from a fabrication. Let us begin with Surah 10:

Surah Yunus, Verse 37:
وَمَا كَانَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنُ أَن يُفْتَرَىٰ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَٰكِن تَصْدِيقَ الَّذِي بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ مِن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ

And it was not [possible] for this Qur’an to be produced by other than Allah , but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.

The Quran is only about one-sixth the size of the Bible, yet it claims to be a “detailed explanation” of the Bible. The easily verifiable truth is that the Quran lacks details and often briefly alludes to biblical stories, expecting the readers to consult the Bible for details. For instance, in Quran 2, while seeking a justification for a holy army that fights on behalf of Allah, Muhammed leans on the story of the ancient Israelites in the days of kings Saul and David. The Quran devotes only six short verses to the story in 2:246 – 251, while the Bible has ten chapters for it. Unsurprisingly, what ensues is a confusion. Consider this:

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 246:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الْمَلَإِ مِن بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ مِن بَعْدِ مُوسَىٰ إِذْ قَالُوا لِنَبِيٍّ لَّهُمُ ابْعَثْ لَنَا مَلِكًا نُّقَاتِلْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ قَالَ هَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ إِن كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْقِتَالُ أَلَّا تُقَاتِلُوا قَالُوا وَمَا لَنَا أَلَّا نُقَاتِلَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَقَدْ أُخْرِجْنَا مِن دِيَارِنَا وَأَبْنَائِنَا فَلَمَّا كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ تَوَلَّوْا إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِّنْهُمْ وَاللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِالظَّالِمِينَ

Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after [the time of] Moses when they said to a prophet of theirs, “Send to us a king, and we will fight in the way of Allah “? He said, “Would you perhaps refrain from fighting if fighting was prescribed for you?” They said, “And why should we not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven out from our homes and from our children?” But when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned away, except for a few of them. And Allah is Knowing of the wrongdoers.

Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 247:
وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا قَالُوا أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ عَلَيْنَا وَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ بِالْمُلْكِ مِنْهُ وَلَمْ يُؤْتَ سَعَةً مِّنَ الْمَالِ قَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَاهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةً فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ وَاللَّهُ يُؤْتِي مُلْكَهُ مَن يَشَاءُ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

And their prophet said to them, “Indeed, Allah has sent to you Saul as a king.” They said, “How can he have kingship over us while we are more worthy of kingship than him and he has not been given any measure of wealth?” He said, “Indeed, Allah has chosen him over you and has increased him abundantly in knowledge and stature. And Allah gives His sovereignty to whom He wills. And Allah is all-Encompassing [in favor] and Knowing.”

This, in fact, did not happen. In the Bible, the Israelites wanted a human king after the prophet Samuel had become old and his children were not competent judges:

1 Samuel 8:4-5 ESV
[4] Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah [5] and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

Unlike the Quran’s stated motive in 2:246, the Israelites did not ask for a king so they could become a fighting people. They wanted a king to judge their affairs. Of course, they knew that kings also fought battles. Indeed, Samuel warned them that the king they would get would rule them unfairly by conscripting their children into his army, perhaps against their will (1 Samuel 8:11 – 14). But when Saul was finally revealed as the king, the people did not protest – they were too desperate for a king. Indeed, here is how the Bible records their response:

1 Samuel 10:24 ESV
And Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people.” And all the people shouted, “Long live the king!”

The protest that the Quran attributes to the people against the selection of Saul was actually something Saul himself did. He was a man of low self-esteem. Upon having a chance to speak with the revered prophet Samuel, Saul said:

1 Samuel 9:21 ESV
Saul answered, “Am I not a Benjaminite, from the least of the tribes of Israel? And is not my clan the humblest of all the clans of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then have you spoken to me in this way?”

It is low self-esteem masquerading as humility. The additional details in Quran 2:247 are apocryphal. That is not how it happened.

This sort of things are not the exceptions but the rules. The Quran repeatedly misses all kinds of details too many to count. For instance, the Quran says Pharaoh’s wife raised Moses in the palace while the Bible says it was Pharaoh’s daughter. Quran 12:70 says a “golden bowl” belonging to the prince of Egypt, Joseph, was placed in Benjamin’s bag while the Bible says it was a “silver cup.” Then there are instances of extra-biblical embellishment of biblical stories. I have blogged about cases of the Quran’s use of known fictional Judeo-Christian materials in its embellishment. For instance, the Quran tells a story of the boy Jesus animating a clay bird. This story existed in a recognizable form in the non-authoritative, pseudepigraphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In other words, while claiming divine revelation, we see that the Quran merely repurposed human materials known to critics in Muhammed’s day.

Now, we are ready to proceed to the final part of the argument. Consider the following:

Surah As-Saff, Verse 6:
وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُم مُّصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِن بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ قَالُوا هَٰذَا سِحْرٌ مُّبِينٌ

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.”

The Quran explicitly says Jesus anticipates the prophethood of Muhammed while also preserving evidence that even 7th century critics did not buy it. This verse has led generations of Muslims to attempt to locate Muhammed in the Bible. John is one common place Muslims go to. Some of the usual candidates are:

John 1:20-21 ESV
[20] He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” [21] And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”

John 14:16 ESV
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

There are too many reasons why this move is effete and ridiculous. First, the first chapter of John forbids a Muslim from even looking in the book for Muhammed. A good portion of the Quran is devoted to Islamic monotheism and the denial of the divinity of Jesus. But John begins his gospel account thus:

John 1:1-4 ESV
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

John affirms a plurality in the Godhead and names Jesus as a member of the Godhead. Clearly, John envisions a different God than the Quranic Allah.

Second, the passages above clearly do not refer to Muhammed. The John 1:20 – 21 passage above is about the JEWISH Messiah, and verse 20 explicitly says that. Third, Muhammed died and did not resurrect and so he did not live “forever.” Even if he did, Muhammed never met the disciples of Jesus and could not have been with them forever. Fourth, the very next verse in John 14 explicitly names the referent, “the Spirit of Truth” who, in the narrative world of John, is also referred to as the Holy Spirit.

Besides, according to the Torah, which Allah supposedly revealed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Muhammed (or anyone else in his genealogy) to be “the prophet.” When God called Abraham and promised him that his offspring will be a blessing to the world, God seemingly did not set the promise rolling ten years after. Abraham was worried and tried to help God out by taking a second wife, Hagar. Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, and Abraham reasoned that God’s promise and blessing might materialize through Ishmael’s lineage. But God explicitly rejected Ishmael and his lineage:

Genesis 17:18-21 ESV
[18] And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” [19] God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. [20] As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. [21] But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Because he was Abraham’s son, God prospered Ishmael materially. But Ishmael was not going to bear the covenant of a seed of Abraham becoming a blessing to the world. Muhammed cannot be found anywhere in the Bible because Allah made sure of it centuries prior.

Here we are then. If the Quran is true, the Bible is true. But if the Bible is true, the Quran is demonstrably false. This is the Islamic Dilemma.

If you are an informed Muslim or know someone who is, consider sharing this piece with them.

Continue Reading

Christianity Dissected, Featured Works

Atonement Requires More than the Death of Jesus

No Comments

I understand that this can become a charged issue for many Christians and that various Christian traditions over the ages have taught that Jesus’s death by itself was sufficient for atonement. Indeed, I believed similarly until I came across a scholarly work by David Moffitt. When we interact with various biblical data points, we will see that the Bible says something different about our topic. The belief that Jesus’ death was all needed for atonement has much biblical data for it. Here are a few:

John 1:29 ESV
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

The idea here is that of the sacrificial lamb in Jewish temple rituals. Of course, John would further clarify that this lamb was slain in Revelation 5:6. Together, the verses imply that the slaying of the Lamb equals the taking away of sins.

Colossians 2:13-15 ESV
[13] And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, [14] by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. [15] He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Paul says the “record of debt” opposing the Colossians before God was canceled by nailing it to the cross. The idea is substitutionary. God took care of sins by the cross.

Romans 5:6, 8 ESV
[6] For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
[8] but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Again, Paul reiterates the same message that Jesus’ death has much to do with addressing humanity’s status as “sinners.”

There are other examples one could point to in defence of the traditional understanding that the death of Jesus by itself takes care of the human sin problem. However, a few other passages provide more details that must be accounted for along with the verses above. Consider the following:

1 Corinthians 15:16-17 ESV
[16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

This is a fantastic passage that is often overlooked. 1 Corinthians 15 is believed to be the earliest piece of Christian writing – before Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul here defends the resurrection of Jesus and tells his audience, if they were in doubt, to investigate the over 500 people still alive then and who saw the risen Jesus. In the quoted verses above, Paul says the Corinthians (and all of us) are still in our sins and retain the “sinners” status if Jesus did not resurrect. Contrasted with the traditional understanding of atonement, this is a staggering claim. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then he remains forever dead. But if the death of Jesus per se was sufficient for atonement, then the resurrection should not matter. In other words, we should not remain in our sins if Jesus did not rise! Yet, the same Paul who makes the statements to the Colossians and the Romans now tells the Corinthians that there is more to the story.

Furthermore, Paul is not alone on this point. Indeed, one of the central themes of the book of Hebrews has to do with this subject. Consider the following:

Hebrews 7:25 ESV
Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

This text says the resurrected Jesus lives to intercede for believers to save them “to the uttermost” or completely. Again, if his death took care of sin, why did he rise only to continuously make intercession for the people who already believed? The implication is that, contrary to a popular claim, the death of Jesus does not cover all sins – past, present, and future.

The penetrating insight Moffitt, a specialist in the book of Hebrews, offers is that we should understand Jesus’s sacrifice in light of the Old Testament’s sacrificial system. When we do, we realize that atonement sacrifices in ancient Judaism were not an event but a process. When a sinner approached the temple for propitiation, he came with an animal (a bull is required for the sin offering, a ram for a burnt offering, and two additional goats for Yom Kippur. See Leviticus 4 and 16). The sinner seeking to be cleansed then lays his hands on the head of the animal in a substitutionary move; his sins are transferred to the animal. Then, the animal is killed in the courtyard/entrance to the tent of the meeting. Here is an important point: the sinner is NOT yet cleansed because the animal was killed. There are yet more critical steps in the process.

The instructions differ a bit depending on whether the sinner is a priest, an ordinary Israelite, or an elder. But they invariably involve bringing some of the blood of the slain animal inside the Tent of Meeting. The priest would sprinkle some of the blood on the altar and pour the rest at the base of the burnt offering altar. The animal’s fat will be removed and burnt on the altar of the burnt offering. Then, the remaining parts of the slain animal – the head, legs, entrails, and dung – will be carried outside the camp to be burnt on a fire of wood. Only after the process is complete is a sinner assured of forgiveness.

Remarkably, the author of Hebrews sees the sacrifice of Jesus in the same way and declares the sacrificial system of Judaism as “copies of the true things” (9:24). Here is a relevant quote:

Hebrews 9:11-12 ESV
[11] But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) [12] he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Jesus entered the holy places not in his death but through the ascension that followed his resurrection. This is why the resurrection is essential. If Jesus remained dead, he would have failed to complete the atonement process. This is not to trivialize his death – after all, there can be no resurrection without his death. So, all the New Testament passages suggesting that Jesus’s death achieved atonement took the resurrection (and ascension) for granted. The authors were aware of the process but focused on portions of the process as they saw fit. But when a church like the Corinthians started twisting truths, Paul had to set them straight by emphasizing the criticality of the resurrection in the atonement process.

Here is the key takeaway: Whereas the death of Jesus is by itself insufficient for atonement, Jesus is! The cross is vital, but it is not all there is. We don’t fix our gaze on the cross. We fix our gaze on the one who was on the cross and rose again!

Referenced Work

Moffitt, David M. Rethinking Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Baker Academic, 2022.

Continue Reading

Featured Works, Islam Matters

Women are Eternally Inferior in Islam

No Comments

To a Christian, the fourth chapter of the Quran would be most important for its emphatic denial of the crucifixion of Jesus (4:157) and Jesus’ sonship (4:171), which are important ideas we have addressed elsewhere. However, this chapter also fleshes out an idea earlier introduced in the Quran: the inferiority of women. As we shall argue, the Quran is consistent in its portrayal of the inferiority of women. Women in Islam are not only inferior in this life but will also remain inferior in the afterlife. Let us begin with 4:2-3:

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 2:
وَآتُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ أَمْوَالَهُمْ وَلَا تَتَبَدَّلُوا الْخَبِيثَ بِالطَّيِّبِ وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَىٰ أَمْوَالِكُمْ إِنَّهُ كَانَ حُوبًا كَبِيرًا

And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime.

Surah An-Nisa, Verse 3:
وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَىٰ فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا

And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.

Continue Reading

Featured Works

The Damascus Road Experience: Understanding Galatians 1:11-12

2 Comments

Galatians 1:11-12 NIV
[11] I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. [12] I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

That is a staggering claim. Paul here says the gospel he preached had no human origin because no human taught it to him. In other words, Paul claims not to have attended a Sunday School meeting or responded to an altar call. If he had done any of these things, he would have been exposed to the human teachings of the gospel.

However, Paul seems to affirm the opposite position in 1 Corinthians: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (15:3 ESV). Here, Paul says he received the central Christian message concerning the death of Jesus apparently from those who were Apostles before him. (It also could be that Paul here says he received it from Jesus himself.) Do we have a contradiction in Paul’s messaging, or might there be more beneath the surface? That is the question this piece is devoted to. I shall argue that Paul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus is the key that unravels these verses and that there is no contradiction. Being a late apostle, Paul had to rely on the earlier Apostles for the historical bits he missed out on, such as the sermons, sayings, and deeds of Jesus while he walked among disciples. However, Paul’s claim of not being taught the Gospel can co-exist with his (later) reliance on the Apostles.

Continue Reading
1 2 3 … 7