Re: Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb

Introduction

A while ago, I received a response from someone linking to a 2014 article that attacks the idea that 1 Timothy 2:12 denies women church authority. The article is by Gail Wallace and is entitled Defusing the 1 Timothy 2:12 Bomb. As I wrote before, it attempts to present a counterargument to the use of 1 Timothy 2:12 as a prooftext against female preachers. I will give Ms. Wallace credit in that she has attempted to present a more coherent argument than the usual "You just don't get the context!" excuse that is often thrown haphazardly in Charismatic and liberal circles. I also give her credit for not simply jumping to Galatians 3:28 and erroneously using it against the passage, thereby quoting scripture against scripture. (I discuss why Galatians 3:28 is irrelevant to the discussion of gender roles in church leadership here.) Nonetheless, as we shall soon see, her article still presents problems in its line of thinking and method of argument.

As I often do, all sections quoted directly from the article will be in purple text.

The Meaning of the Word "Authority"

Ms. Wallace opens up the main portion of her article by honing in on the Greek word often translated as "authority."

Before we conclude that this passage is “clear” we must consider the limitations of our English translations. The most problematic issue is the rendering of the verb authentein as authority. This unusual Greek verb is found only once in scripture and rarely in extrabiblical texts, where it is usually associated with aggression. Authentein is translated as “domineer” in the Latin Vulgate and New English Bible and as “usurp authority” in the Geneva and King James Bibles.

A study of Paul’s letters shows that he regularly used a form of the Greek “exousia” when referring to the use of authority in the church (see 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 1 Cor 6:12, 7:4, 9:4-6, 9:12, 11:10, 2 Cor 2:8, 10:8, 13:10, Col. 1:13, 2 Thess 3:12, Rom 6:15, 9:21). So it is strange that some modern versions translate this simply as “authority”. Considering the context, it is likely that Paul was objecting to something other than the legitimate use of authority in 1 Timothy 2:12. [...]

In regards to the Greek word αὐθεντέω, it is true that the word is only once used in the New Testament (here, in this very verse), and rarely used outside of scripture, in other Greek sources. It is true that it's a word which, translated literally from its compound words, means "to unilaterally take up arms." That it is translated as "authority" is not necessarily an incorrect translation, since it refers to authority, albeit one which is taken by one's own accord. Greek scholar AT Robertson goes into detail on this in his commentary for the verse.:

The word auqentew is now cleared up by Kretschmer (Glotta, 1912, pp. 289ff.) and by Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary. See also Nageli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus and Deissmann, Light, etc., pp. 88f. Autodikew was the literary word for playing the master while auqentew was the vernacular term. It comes from aut-ente, a self-doer, a master, autocrat. It occurs in the papyri (substantive auqenth, master, verb auqentew, to domineer, adjective auqentiko, authoritative, "authentic"). Modern Greek has apente = Effendi = "Mr." [source]

Some supporters of Ms. Wallace have opined that AT Robertson is not a proper scholar to cite, as he was (according to them) dealing with a limited amount of knowledge regarding Greek in Paul's time. Despite this, even modern scholarly works on the Greek, such as the NET notes, explain the word, and its use, along similar lines:

According to BDAG 150 s.v. αὐθεντέω this Greek verb means “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to” (cf. JB “tell a man what to do”).

It's also weird that Ms. Wallace says "considering the context," given she hasn't yet offered any exegesis or verse-by-verse explanation of what Paul is speaking about. (We'll go over this briefly in a moment.)

There is also the possibility that the verb didaskein (to teach) is linked here to the verb authentein in what is called a hendiadys (two words joined by a conjunction to make a single point). “Don’t eat and run” would be a modern example. So a better interpretation might be “don’t teach in a domineering way”. [emphases in original]

The problem here is that Ms. Wallace plays word games by honing in on the word "teach," and connecting the two words together to form the phrase "teach in a domineering way." Even in the example she gives, such a construction wouldn't be conceivable - can one "eat in a running way," or "run in an eating way"? By ignoring the full wording of the verse, she's played fast and loose with the wording to get the verse to say what she'd prefer it to say, and in doing so has presented an incomprehensible argument.

In verse 12, Paul, shortly after saying that women should learn "with entire submissiveness" (v. 11), begins the new phrase with the Greek conjunction δέ. Although δέ can be used as a connective conjunction, it's being used here in a more contrastive way - in other words, Paul made a positive statement in verse 11 (women should learn), and is now presenting a contrast to it (women should not teach or exercise authority over men). In this contrastive statement, Paul first states διδάσκειν δέ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω ("but a woman teaching I do not permit"); he then connects this via οὐδὲ (the conjunction "nor" or "neither") αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός ("taking authority over a man"). Therefore, while Paul does permit a woman to learn with entire submissiveness, he does not permit a woman to teach, nor to hold authority over a man.

This is probably why, in nearly every English translation of the Bible, the translators separate the "teaching" and "exercising authority." The only exception might be The Voice, which isn't even a translation, and which renders the verse "it's not my habit to allow women to teach in a way that wrenches authority from a man." The point is, the vast majority of scholarly translations have seen, in the verse, two separate points made by Paul: women are not to teach, and women are not to exercise authority over a man. None of them interpret it as Paul saying women shouldn't "teach in a domineering way"; neither does the original Greek even warrant such a translation.

Additionally, the grammar in this passage changes abruptly from the plural “women” in verses 9 and 10 to “a woman” in verses 11-15. Then it changes back to “women” in the next chapter, suggesting that Paul had a specific woman in mind, perhaps one that Timothy had written to him about. Furthermore, some scholars believe “I don’t permit” could also be accurately translated as “I am not currently permitting”. So while these verses are often used to defend male-only leadership, current scholarship suggests that the passage is anything BUT clear on the issue. [emphasis in original]

Two things to immediately note here:

First, Ms. Wallace appeals to "current scholarship" and "some scholars," and yet doesn't cite one single scholar on the issue. The funny thing is that, because of this, she received criticism in the comment section for the article, and some of her supporters had to come to her rescue by quoting scholars for her. Ms. Wallace quoted these supporters in a follow up post (hence quoting scholars from second-hand sources, something most academics advise you not to do).

Second, she argues in an appeal to vagueness rather than any coherent argument. Regarding the latter, what we mean here is that she argues something might "possibly" mean something, and that we aren't really "clear on the issue." This is ironic given the assurance given by her supporters in the previously cited follow up post. Like many liberal or post-modern arguments, the crux of it all seems to rely here on the idea of, "We can't really know what the word means, but we can know for sure that you're wrong."

More specifically, Ms. Wallace enters into speculation here based on a loose interpretation of the grammar: namely that Paul goes from the plural "women" to the singular "woman" between verses, hence "suggesting that Paul had a specific woman in mind." And yet Paul uses the singular "man" as well - did Paul have a specific person in mind for that? Was there a specific man the woman was usurping the authority of? Why would Paul not name her, or him? This is especially strange given that, in the previous chapter, Paul outright names Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he says he has "handed over to Satan" (1 Tim 1:20). In the next epistle to Timothy, Paul also names Phygelus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15). It is certainly true that Paul had used vague language for specific cases in the past (1 Cor 5:1), but he also gave enough details to let us know what specifically he was addressing, and that they were specific people he had in mind, even giving advice on how to handle the situation (1 Cor 5:2-5). We don't see that here, in this circumstance.

The fact is, the larger context of the epistle tells us what Paul is saying. He is sending Timothy pastoral advice on how to assist in the growth and running of the church, as he tells Timothy later on: "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God" (1 Tim 3:15). This is seen throughout the epistle: 1 Timothy 2:1-8 deals with prayer, and who to pray for; 2:9-15 with how women are to behave; 3:1-7 with pastor qualifications; 3:8-13 with deacon qualifications; 4:1-16 with the minister's duty of defending the flock from false doctrine; 5:1-16 with the treatment of widows; 5:17-22 with the treatment of elders; and 6:1-19 with further instruction on ministry. Point being, the section dealing with women is meant to be seen regarding all women within the church, just as the other sections deal exclusively with elders, widows, deacons, etc.

Why then the change in number, from plural to singular? To simply speak about a subject on more specific, general terms, in a synechdoche sense, and via use of a generic noun. When George Patton said "No soldier ever won a war by dying for his country," he was speaking about all soldiers by using the singular on a more personal level; he was in no way implying that he had only one, solitary, specific soldier in mind. When we use the phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," does that mean there's only one woman out there who will ever be scorned and react with fury, or that it only refers to a single woman?

This use is seen even in scripture. When Paul asked "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?" (1 Cor 1:20), was Paul referring to a specific wise man and scribe? Did he have only one wise man or scribe in mind? Of course not - he was employing generic nouns in a synechdoche sense. Similarly here, Paul discusses the role of men and women in the church by using generic nouns: a woman cannot have authority over a man. He does this likewise to tie into the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve was deceived and fell with Adam, in essence presuming authority over him. Paul is saying that, just as it was wrong for Eve to presume authority over Adam, so too is it wrong for any woman to presume authority over any man within the church.

As for "some scholars" saying that Paul's words for "permit" should actually be "I am not currently permitting," it would be nice, once again, if Ms. Wallace could cite at least one scholar in that regard, or quote one. Daniel Wallace (no relation to our author), who is a scholar in New Testament Greek, and one of the foremost New Testament Greek scholars in our time, wrote on this very issue in great detail, and comprehensively refutes it:

If this were a descriptive present (as it is sometimes popularly taken), the idea might be that in the future the author would allow this: I do not presently permit... However, there are several arguments against this: (1) It is overly subtle. Without some temporal indicator, such as ἄρτι or perhaps νῦν, this view begs the question. (2) Were we to do this with other commands in the present tense, our resultant exegesis would be both capricious and ludicrous. Does μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ..., ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν Πνεύματιin Eph 5:18 mean "Do not for the moment be filled with wine, but be filled at the present time by the Spirit" with the implication that such a moral code might change in the future? The normal use of the present tense in didactic literature, especially when introducing an exhortation, is not descriptive, but a general precept that has gnomic implications. (3) Gramatically, the present tense is used with a generic object (γυναικὶ), suggesting that it should be taken as a gnomic present. (4) Contextually, the exhortation seems to be rooted in creation (note v. 13 and the introductory γάρ), rather than an address to a temporary situation. [pg. 525, Wallace]

There is nothing in the Greek to imply "This is something I'm only currently forbidding," unless one wishes to stretch the present indicative form well beyond what it means.

The Historical Context of the Letter

Ms. Wallace continues her response by discussing the context of Paul's epistle.

You’ve heard the real estate expression about property values, right? It’s all about “location, location, location”. Since the Bible is made up of a variety of genres (law, history, poetry and wisdom literature, prophetic messages, gospel accounts, letters), to interpret it correctly, we have to think about “context, context, context” . In the case of 1 Timothy, Paul was writing a personal letter instructing Timothy about how to deal with heresy being spread by false teachers in Ephesus. This is spelled out at the beginning of the letter:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless geneaologies… They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm…” (1 Tim 1:3-4, -7).

Keener notes that while these false teachers were most likely men, much of the spreading of the false teaching was through women in the congregation. It is likely that most women in the Ephesian church had limited training in Christian theology and that their interest in false doctrine was proving to be dangerous. There is no evidence in the text that Paul was writing to establish a permanent restriction on all women for all time. [all emphases in the original]

Neither has anyone ever argued that the sole reason for Paul writing to Timothy was to dictate gender roles, therefore that's a straw man.

More important is the connection made by Ms. Wallace between the mention of false teachers at the beginning of the epistle, and the possibility that there may have been women spreading false doctrine among the congregation. Certainly some learned commentators (eg., John MacArthur) have suggested that Paul may have been inspired to mention female church teachers because of the possibility of it happening in Ephesus. Nonetheless, there are a few problems with Ms. Wallace's presentation here...

First, it contradicts Ms. Wallace's earlier point. She had harped on Paul's use of the singular "woman" to argue on the possibility that Paul was only attacking one woman, not collective women. Now, she's arguing there might have been more than one woman in Ephesus on Paul's mind. Which is it? One woman usurping a man's authority, or several women? This sort of argumentation is similar to heretics who support "Gay Christianity" by presenting a shotgun approach for passages that conflict their worldview, and not caring if any of the explanations, when paired up with one another, completely contradict. Either there was one woman in Ephesus Paul had in mind, hence his singular use of the word "woman," or there were more than one woman Paul had in mind, hence Ms. Wallace outright admits that her initial contention is completely erroneous. You can't have both.

Second, that women might have been embracing false doctrine would make Paul's point that women could not exercise authority over men meaningless, especially if the ones bearing authority (as Ms. Wallace cites Keener) were actually men, and the women were merely following those men, and spreading around what those men were saying. Even if one wished to argue the women were being used to spread that false doctrine allowing, following a false teacher is different than being that false teacher and using that teaching in an authoritative manner. When Paul attacked false doctrine, he generally targeted the teachers, rather than the lower echelon followers, in his attacks against authority (cf., 2 Cor 11; Titus 1:10).

Third, if Paul's main purpose in writing to Timothy was to help explain "how to deal with heresy being spread by false teachers in Ephesus," then a good chunk of the entire epistle would not make sense. We went over earlier on the various subjects covered by Paul throughout this epistle to Timothy, and while some of them do involve combating false doctrine or preaching truth, not all of them do. Ms. Wallace did not cover the entire context of 1 Timothy, and hence is just throwing out this argument in the hopes that it will be believed, whether by her or those who agree with her. This is especially ironic given she has argued that we should rely on context and the full purpose of a book.

Ms. Wallace continues:

Another interesting fact about 1 Timothy is that the myths and endless genealogies circulating in Ephesus included the idea that Eve was created before Adam and was superior to him. (Read this post for other facts about Ephesus and goddess worship and this one for detailed explanation of gnostic teachings about Adam and Eve.)

It is likely that Paul was writing to correct false notions that were circulating rather than suggesting that Eve’s deception should be the basis for banning women from teaching. This cultural context also helps us understand Paul’s mention of the creation order in verses 13 and 14 (more on Paul’s use of the creation narratives here).

This explanation would make Paul's point disjointed. We must remember that, shortly after saying women should not teach or exercise authority over a man, Paul opens up verse 13 with: "for it was Adam...", etc. The Greek word γάρ there is a conjunction which most often refers back to the precedent, hence its common translation of "for." Paul is connecting the story of Adam and Eve back to his command that women should not teach and have authority over men. In other words, Paul is not saying, "Don't teach or exercise authority. Oh yeah, and here's a funny belief some have about Adam and Eve..." Rather, Paul is saying, "Don't teach or exercise authority, for don't forget that Adam and Eve..."

This is seen further in verse 14, when he says that the woman "being deceived, fell into transgression," and then moves into women in general in verse 15. The Greek for "fell into transgression" is, according to the NET notes, literally "has come to be in transgression," and places "an emphasis on the continuing consequences of that fall." (Certainly Genesis 3:16 makes it clear that Eve's transgression would continue on to all women.) Again, Paul is clearly not speaking about a specific misunderstanding of Adam and Eve that some heretics might have had, but rather is continuing his train of thought from verses 11-13. (I refer back to my earlier quote of Daniel Wallace, who likewise affirms this.)

Therefore, Ms. Wallace's appeal to a speculative attack on Gnostic belief cuts up Paul's words and only adds further confusion to the text.

Matters of Interpretation

Ms. Wallace now attempts to present some rules about interpretation of scripture as some preliminary conclusions to her post.

Doctrine should not be built on a hapax legomenon (a word that occurs only once in an author’s writings or a text). When a word is only used once it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer the writer’s meaning, since there are no other examples of word usage to compare. The word “authentein” translated as authority in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a hapax legomenon. This fact alone is sufficient to suggest caution in using this text as a foundation for church doctrine.

And yet most scholars and commentators throughout the ages have had little problems attempting to understand what Paul was attempting to say in this verse, and with that language. Contrary to Ms. Wallace's statement, it is not "impossible" to infer what Paul was driving at here. The only time people started having troubles interpreting this verse, let alone with that word, was when those same people decided they wanted women to preach.

Likewise, the idea that "when a word is only used once it is difficult, if not impossible, to infer the writer’s meaning," and hence "doctrine should not be built" around such a passage, is a standard I doubt would be applied equally to other such moments in the New Testament. For example, another hapax legomena is found in this very same epistle, when Paul uses the word ἑδραίωμα in 1 Timothy 3:15. The word is translated either as "support" (NASB) or "foundation" (NIV; NLT), and though there is no other use of this word in the New Testament, there is likewise no misunderstanding of what Paul intended to say here (save for some abuses by Roman Catholics), nor has there been an outcry by many to avoid using this verse for church doctrine because of one single word in it alone.

Interpretation should be consistent with the rest of the passage under study. As Groothuis notes “It is inconsistent to regard the dress code in 1 Tim 2:9 as culturally relative, and therefore temporary, but the restriction on women’s ministry as universal and permanent. These instructions were part of the same paragraph and flow of thought.”

Similarly, if we insist that verse 12 is applicable today, to be consistent, that ruling should apply to the whole passage, including verse 15 (women shall be saved through childbearing). I find it concerning that most people who claim that 1 Timothy 2:12 is clear and applies today usually don’t have a clue as to what the verses that follow mean and how they should be applied.

I'm not aware of anyone arguing 1 Timothy 2:9 was only "culturally relative," though I won't deny such arguments may exist. Nonetheless, most people, I'm certain, would recognize Paul's command for women to dress humbly as hardly temporary. (Many Christian women today would do well to learn from that passage.)

As for the "women shall be saved through childbearing" section, while this has been a difficult passage for many to explain, and has led to much conjecture, all the same, this passage has been dealt with over time. It must first be noted that τεκνογονία, the word translated "bearing of children," refers to the entire process, and not merely the birthing itself.  The NET notes present a variety of options for interpretation, one of which I believe works best in the context:

“It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role.

John Chrysostom seems to be of the same opinion; in his commentary for this verse, he says of women:

Let her not however grieve. God hath given her no small consolation, that of childbearing. And if it be said that this is of nature, so is that also of nature; for not only that which is of nature has been granted, but also the bringing up of children. "If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"; that is, if after childbearing, they keep them in charity and purity. By these means they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ. [source]

In other words, in contrast to the women attempting to usurp authority over men, and hence try to become men, just as Eve did, the women who accept their roles as women will be sanctified and blessed by God, and hence it is said they are "saved through child bearing." This makes sense in context to Paul's flow of thought from verse 12 into this section, discussing Adam's primacy in creation over Eve (v. 13), then Eve, and hence women, falling into transgression through her being deceived (v. 14), which resulted in the curse against her that added pain to childbirth (Gen 3:16).

Interpretation should not contradict the rest of the author’s teaching. For example, 1 Timothy 2:1-10 provides instructions for both men and women to follow when praying in public. And in 1 Corinthians there are instructions for women praying and prophesying in church. Paul gives many other instructions about corporate worship and spiritual gifts that are not restrictive of gender. He also commends a number of women serving in leadership positions (Romans 16). So Paul is generally supportive of women’s participation, which contradicts the idea that women must be silent.

The appeal to 1 Timothy 2:1-10 is a category error: praying corporately is not the same as exercising church authority.

Her appeal to 1 Corinthians is problematic. She is most likely referring to 1 Corinthians 11:5, where Paul says: "But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved." She also seems to have forgotten about 1 Corinthians 14, where Paul gives instructions on the order of worship in the Corinthian church (which includes praying and prophesying), and at the tail end of it writes:

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. [1 Corinthians 14:34-35]

While some might suppose a contradiction here, John Calvin explains, from his commentary for 1 Corinthians 11:5:

It may be replied, that the Apostle, by here condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in 1 Corinthians 14. In this reply there is nothing amiss, though at the same time it might suit sufficiently well to say, that the Apostle requires women to show their modesty — not merely in a place in which the whole Church is assembled, but also in any more dignified assembly, either of matrons or of men, such as are sometimes convened in private houses. [source]

Looking at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and comparing it with 1 Timothy 2:12, it seems more like it's Ms. Wallace who is contradicting what scripture teaches elsewhere, not her opponents.

As for Romans 16, Ms. Wallace goes into further detail about what she means in another follow up post.

We know from the rest of the New Testament that Priscilla instructed Apollos, Phoebe was a deacon and Paul’s emissary to Rome, and Lydia oversaw the church at Philippi. Junia is called an apostle and was imprisoned for her witness. It seems unlikely that these things could have been accomplished while being quiet in church or without any church authority.

Priscilla (Prisca in Romans 16:3) did instruct Apollos, although Ms. Wallace conveniently forgets to mention that she did this with her husband, and privately (Acts 18:26). Explaining something to another person privately with your husband is not the same thing as a woman holding a specifically outlined position of authority over men in a local church.

It is true that Phoebe is described as a "servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom 16:1), and the word the NASB translates as "servant" comes from the Greek διάκονον, whose root word is at times translated as "deacons" (cf. Php 1:1), and in this case (being in the feminine form) could be translated as "deaconess." However, this identity is not in and of itself certain. The root word simply means "servant," and is often translated as such throughout the New Testament in its other uses, which are clearly not referring to the position of deacon (cf. Matt 20:26; 23:11; John 2:5; etc.). In fact, Ms. Wallace seems to have missed that Timothy himself is called a διάκονος in this very epistle (1 Tim 4:6), yet it's quite obvious he's not in the position of deacon. Because of this, the verse has led to much historical debate about whether or not Phoebe was in fact a deaconess, or Paul was merely referring to her as a general servant of the church. Obviously this leads us to conclude that Romans 16:1 is not strong enough to be a sedes doctrinae for women serving in the deacon role; the NET notes say that "the evidence is not compelling either way," and that their translation of "servant" should not be "regarded as tentative." Even if we accepted, merely for the sake of argument, that Phoebe was a deaconess, then this would still be irrelevant to the discussion: deacons carried a serving function, not a leadership or teaching authority; it would therefore not contradict the traditional reading of 1 Timothy 2:12.

In regards to Lydia, there is no evidence that she oversaw the church at Philippi in a leadership function. She was an early convert, and permitted the apostles to stay at her home - that is all which is said about her in scripture (Acts 16:15-16). She "oversaw" the church in her hospitality and support, but this is not the same as carrying church leadership as ascribed to presbyters and overseers.

In regards to "Junia," most recognize that there has been great debate on whether or not Junia is a male or female name, let alone whether or not this was a proper name (Junia or Junias, etc.). There is also debate about whether or not Junias and Andronicus were "outstanding among the apostles" (NASB) or "well known to the apostles" (ESV). The NET notes go into greater detail about the word and grammar here:

The term ἐπίσημος (episēmos) is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country“]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.”

Therefore, it is ironic that Ms. Wallace should demand we not base our doctrine on something that isn't quite clear in scripture, and yet, for her doctrine, appeals to a passage that has been a subject of much debate for a long time. Leftist interpretation seems to pick and choose which issues in scripture: they invent problems in passages which prove problematic to their worldview (eg., 1 Timothy 2:12), yet will seemingly ignore large debates for passages which they think prove their point (eg., Romans 16:1, 7). Certainly most people would recognize, even if there was an argument that Junia was a female, and indeed an apostle, there are two things to make citing her irrelevant to this discussion: 1) apostles were a temporal authority, not a permanent one as presbyters and overseers are; 2) the question over the identity and position of "Junias" in Romans 16:7 is enough for us to say that it cannot be a sedes doctrinae verse to bring up in regards to women in leadership. For feminists and leftists to continually bring up Romans 16:7 as an end-all-debate verse against the orthodox simply shows with how little seriousness they take sola scriptura.

Contrary to the claim that that Paul "commends a number of women serving in leadership positions," few, if any, of those women mentioned served any leadership positions, and those which supposedly did are connected to verses that have been the subject of even more interpretive debate than 1 Timothy 2:12.

Interpretation should not contradict the overall teaching in the New Testament, especially the example and teaching of Jesus. As Brauch notes, “Christ is the center – the Logos, the living Word, and Scripture must be viewed through the Christ filter. Jesus’ words and acts are normative and paradigmatic and should be a critical filter for interpreting scripture” (pp. 248-9). In the gospels Jesus never suggests that women’s roles were to be secondary or limited in the community of faith, even when he had the opportunity to do so.

Here Ms. Wallace argues from silence: Jesus never said women couldn't hold church authority, therefore you can't say they can't hold church authority. This is similar to leftists who fallaciously argue that, since Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, Christians can't consider homosexuality a sin.  On the other hand, all of Christ's twelve disciples were men; yes, women traveled alongside them, but in a supporting function (Luke 8:1-3). On the other hand, one of Christ's own appointed men, the apostle Paul, penned the words seen in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.

Unless we're going to engage in Red Letterism, to hold such an extreme view is hardly nonsensical, and is definitely not sola scriptura.

Concluding Thoughts

Ms. Wallace offers her conclusion to her post:

Once these issues of translation, context, and interpretation have been considered, it seems that 1 Timothy 2:12 only prohibits women who do not have rightful authority to do so from teaching and assuming authority over men. [emphasis in original]

And so, after relying upon speculation and appealing to uncertainty, Ms. Wallace suddenly gives us certainty. (Or, to be more fair, a greater degree of certainty towards one argument than another.) Her conclusion is that 1 Timothy 2:12 only "prohibits women who do not have rightful authority to do so from teaching and assuming authority over men." How was this certainty of hers obtained?

1) By toying with the original Greek to reword the passage (Paul was saying "don't teach in a domineering way"), thereby proving the old saying, "A little Greek is a dangerous thing."

2) By providing an inconsistency about to whom it was Paul was referring. (A specific woman, later on a group of women.)

3) By reading Gnostic heresies into the passage, cutting up Paul's words and his clear flow of thought (something she accuses her opponents of doing).

4) By appealing to verses of great historical debate (eg., Rom 16:7) while attacking her opponents for appealing to verses of little historical debate (1 Tim 2:12).

When one reads the constant attacks against the clarity of orthodox thought, followed by a presumption of clarity in a historically new explanation, one is reminded of the devil in Genesis 3:1-5, and can hear the snake whispering in our ear, "Did God say a woman should not exercise authority over a man...?" When scripture is appealed to, the snake replies, "Oh, but that's not what God means..." Interesting how heresies and false beliefs often start out by questioning what God says, then add confusion and muddled thought into God's word.

Earlier I made mention of how those who advocate female pastors - be they Charismatics or liberals - usually just fall back on shallow arguments. Ms. Wallace's article shows why this is: when one does attempt to defend the doctrine in greater detail, their arguments cannot hold water under scrutiny. To the mind seeking a strong delusion, it may come across as an open-and-shut case, and yet to the careful mind, the inconsistencies and superficial nature will be plainly evident.

Certainly women are important in the church. Certainly women can serve and assist the church. Nonetheless, scripture is quite clear that, in offices of leadership, in particularly in regards to elders and overseers within the local church, this is not to be filled by women. If we seek to muddle the clear teaching of God's word, we should not be surprised when our own thinking comes out muddled as a result.

***

Works Cited

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Print.

Complementarianism and the Gospel

An unpopular subject these days is the role of the two genders, not only in society at large but especially within the confines of marriage. It gets especially difficult because you often have two extremes in the discussion: those of an egalitarian, feminist stream, and those of the "gimme a beer" woman stream. Some in the latter camp have even go so far as to say a husband should be allowed to physically discipline their wife, as they would one of their own children. A lot of egalitarians or semi-complementarians (ie., those who might want to be complementarians but are nervous about the doctrine) may use that one extreme to mock the entire concept, or present it as the reason why the entire concept should be dismissed.

The thought occurred, in recent musings on the subject, that one problem with the presentation of complementarianism is that, insofar as marriage is concerned, it is presented in a simple dogmatic fashion rather than what it's supposed to be: a home presentation of the Gospel. This comes across most clearly in one of the Bible's most clearest passages teaching on the subject, which we will present, and analyze, in full below:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. [Ephesians 5:22-33]

Coming from a section on submission, the apostle Paul turns to the application of this at home. He tells wives to submit to their husbands, "as to the Lord." This does not mean the husband is God, but rather this is directly related to the understanding of Christ and the church: Paul explains that "the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior."

Some might point out here that the word "submit" is not in the original Greek for verse 22; indeed, Paul's original wording is "wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord." The word "submit" is added by most translations for two reasons:

1. Paul is continuing his train of thought from verse 21: "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." (We will touch on this verse later on in this post.)
2. Translators are attempting to tie this verse with the parallel passage in Colossians 3:18-19.

The original Greek word for "submit" in Colossians 3:18 is ὑποτάσσω. As many translation commentaries have noted (eg., AT Robertson's own wonderful work on the New Testament Greek), this word carries a very military feel to it; just as a private submits to his sergeant, so too does a wife submit to the husband. Other moments in scripture where the same word is used include:

• Christ is told that demons are in subjection to the disciples in his name (Luke 10:17).
• Christians are told to be in subjection to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1).
• God is said to have placed everything in subjection to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).
• The church is said to be in subjection to Christ (Ephesians 5:24 - this very passage).
• Believers are told to be in subjection to God (James 4:7).

We must also note here that, right at the beginning, Paul draws a connection between husband and wife, and Christ and the church. Those who want to do away with the idea that the roles of husband and wife in a marriage are somehow different, or (to be more fair) wish to do away with the idea that the wife submits to the husband, must therefore undo Paul's analogy. If wife does not submit to husband "in everything," then the church does not submit to Christ "in everything"; if the husband does not have a position of authority over the wife, then Christ has no position over the church. Indeed, in my discussions on this passage with egalitarians and feminists, a common tactic has been to commit a red herring and jump to an entirely different passage altogether, hence inadvertently pitting scripture against scripture. The reason they would do so is obvious: because you cannot defend an egalitarian or feminist view of marriage with this passage.

Yet immediately we must stop here and ask: what is the nature of the husband's authority over the wife? It won't be denied that many have abused this passage, even going so far as to cite passages elsewhere in scripture where God commands complete obedience, and hence interpret it as husbands having absolute authority like God Himself. While we shouldn't, like the feminist heretics, forsake the metaphor, we shouldn't likewise forget how Paul himself defines the metaphor. We see that Paul, after telling wives to submit to husbands as the church to Christ, now turns to husbands and explains what their role entails.

The apostle says that the husband's role centers around one single fact: love. From this love stems a great self-sacrifice on the part of the man, and for one single purpose: the sanctification and nurturing of the wife. Husbands are to love their wives "as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her, so that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might preset to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless" (vv. 25-27).

Paul adds to this that "husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself" (v. 28). Likewise, "no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of his body" (vv. 29-30). Returning to the metaphor of Christ and the church, the apostle makes the connection that, just as the church is Christ's body, so too is the wife to be seen as the husband's own flesh - and rightfully so, given that, upon marriage, man and woman become one flesh (vv. 31-32). Yet even in this case, there is still some hierarchy, for the woman is said to be like the man's body, and the man is to love and nourish the woman as he would his own body. Nobody is controlled by their body, merely influenced by its condition. It is our duty to nourish and care for our body - hence the husband is commanded by Paul to love and cherish his wife as if she were his own body, because, within his Christ-Church metaphor, she is. Therefore, any man who abuses his wife for her sin is akin to the flagellants of the Middle Ages, who whipped their bodies because of their sin. This is especially plain in the parallel verse in Colossians 3:19, where the apostle Paul commands husbands to "not be embittered against" their wives.

It should be noted here that, while there is a call for wife's submission, it is not to be blind or sinful submission. When Paul told believers to be in submission to their governments in Romans 13:1, he obviously did not mean to be in submission to the point that the government commands you to sin (otherwise, there were thousands of Christian martyrs in the Roman Empire that misunderstood that verse). With marriage, this is especially clear in the parallel verse in Colossians 3:18, where wives are told to be in subjection to their husbands "as is fitting in the Lord." If a husband is in sin, or is wanting the wife to sin, then that is where she draws the line in submission.

All the same, the roles in marriage are quite clear: wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to care and love their wives. Paul says as much in the concluding verse of this passage, stating "each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband" (v. 33). The word here in the NASB for "respects" is phobetai in the Greek, from which we get the word phobia. As might be discerned, the word means "fear" - but it is not meant here as a kind of horrifying fear. Paul is not saying a wife should be literally afraid of her husband! Rather, it means a kind of great respect, similar to when we speak of the "fear of the Lord." A woman who disrespects her husband, in any way, is just as bad as a husband who does not give proper love to his wife. It has been said by many that, in a relationship, a man expects respect, while a woman expects love; from here, we can see that this isn't just good marriage counseling, it's actually as God designed it.

When you recognize the proper roles within a marriage, you suddenly realize a spiritual truth: marriage is in and of itself a daily model for the Gospel. The husband sacrifices himself for the wife, as Christ for the church. The wife submits to the husband, as the church to Christ. The wife is sanctified and spiritually led, as Christ does the church. In cases of sin, the wife can come to the husband, who must love and nourish her, as Christ loves and nourishes those who repent before him. The husband likewise looks within himself, and, knowing he can never truly be "like Christ," turns to God for repentance. The husband reviews his spiritual leadership, and, if finding himself lacking anywhere, seeks to rectify the situation, again turning to God for repentance and guidance.

Marriage, it can be said, is always seen under the shadow of the cross.

It probably should not surprise us, then, that in many circles where traditional marriage roles are undone, there is likewise an undoing of the Gospel and Christ's relationship with man. The substitutionary atonement may be removed, and man may be seen as a "partner" with Christ, co-joined in an earthly work. There is no hierarchy on earth, and hence the idea of a hierarchy with God above all is seen as shallow and superficial at best. I'm not saying that one necessarily leads to the other - sometimes these happen at once, or reversed. My point is that we shouldn't be surprised that in circles where complementarianism is undone, other orthodox doctrines are likewise undone.

Some egalitarians attempt to refute the idea that wives are to submit to their husbands by honing in on the words of Paul from the same chapter: "and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (Eph 5:21). Since we are to be subject to one another, they argue, it is nonsensical to say wives should submit to their husbands - in fact, husbands should submit to their wives in the exact same manner. In doing so, they make two mistakes:

• They argue scripture against scripture. They do not deal with what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-24, instead grabbing a verse, isolating it, and pretending that no other verses exist. They are like the child who covers his eyes and thinks that, because he can't see something, no one else can, forgetting that rational people with eyes to see will indeed see that they are being dishonest with the text.
• Related to the previous problem, they forget that, after writing those words, Paul then clarifies what that subjection looks like. He explains what the subjection entails specifically: wife to husband (Eph 5:22-24), children to fathers (Eph 6:1-3), and slave to master (Eph 6:5-8). If an egalitarian wishes to argue there is no distinction between husband and wive because of verse 21, then they must likewise argue, to maintain Paul's consistency throughout his train of thought, that there is no distinction between children and parents, and slaves and masters.

Another tactic by some is to hone in on Paul's words "we are members of His body" (Eph 5:30). Some will use this and say that, since we are all members of Christ's body, no one is above another. Others will use this to take the idea of a husband being "the head" to say that the head is still part of the party. Both these arguments run into issues.

• In the former case, it's forgetting the connection Paul is making in his analogy: just as Christ is the head, and the Church the body, and hence has authority over it, so too is the husband the head of the wife, and hence has authority over her. For this argument to maintain some level of consistency, one would have to say that Christ has no authority over the Church.
• In the latter case, this is just completely missing the point of the argument. Paul is saying that the head has control over the body - the head is seen as the "center" of the body, in some way. Similarly, Christ is "head" over the Church, and the husband is "head" over the wife. Likewise, similar to the previous argument, one would have to logically deduce, in order to remain consistent with Paul's argument, that Christ has zero authority over the Church.

Still other egalitarians will jump from Ephesians entirely, running to Paul's words in Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). If we are all one in Christ, they argue, then you cannot say that men and women have special roles, or that one rules over the other. The problem with this is two-fold:

• As before, they are arguing scripture against scripture. Those who follow the Feminist Christian heresy are unable to properly deal with passages in their proper context; they must always jump to some other verse and deal with that instead, revealing the incoherent nature of their thinking. Instead of dealing with verses giving the clearest teaching on a doctrine (the sedes doctrinae verses, as Lutherans say), they will jump to verses with a much more vague connection, and attempt to teach clarity from there. Similar tactics are employed by Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and others who follow a false teaching.
• To appeal to this verse is appealing apples to oranges. In this section of Galatians, Paul is elucidating on the nature of the promise of the Gospel, and the unity of believers under that promise - not just the Jewish descendants of Abraham. Believers, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or social status, are "all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). Unlike certain Gnostic heresies, being a man does not make one saved alone, and belonging to a specific ethnic lineage does not make you saved. Hence, Paul is speaking of a salvific unity, not a kind of SJW-brand of egalitarianism. If he were, not only would he be contradicting himself in Ephesians 5, where he speaks of wives being in subjection to their husbands and slaves to their masters, but likewise in another epistle, where he speaks of sending a runaway slave back to his master (Phil 1:10-16).

The fact remains, there is a scriptural call for roles within marriage, within the relation of husband and wife. This hierarchy is tied with the hierarchy of Christ and the Church, in relation to the Church's loyalty and service to Christ, and Christ's love and care for the Church. For one to deny the one hierarchy is to deny the other. The shame is that, in denying this relationship and its respective roles, we in essence deny what is a wonderful, experiential representation of the Gospel and that relationship between Christ and believer.

Wives, are you in submission to your husbands? Does it reflect the submission that the church should have towards God? Husbands, do you love, sanctify, and nourish your wives? Does it reflect the kind of love and joy that Christ gives to the church? Are you the guardian of the spiritual well-being of your household? You two are one flesh, and if either fail in their role, then the entire body will be sick, and the marriage shall suffer. Take the commands of submission and love as a chance to work the Gospel into your marriage, and to continually give yourself and your spouse the Gospel every day.

As I said before, place your marriage under the shadow of the cross.

Therapeutic Theology II: The Revenge

I came across another one of these images on a social media site which shall remain nameless. It cites Romans 8:28 and reads: "God can turn around any situation." I just did some cross referencing in the Bible, and realized that, once again, we had an example of therapeutic theology robbing a verse of its context and reading into some feel good mentality that distracts people from the true meaning.

First, let's look at the original wording of the verse:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. [Romans 8:28]

All right, so maybe this is a little more in context than the previous image we looked at. Now, let's look at the full context - and I do mean the full context.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [Romans 8:18-30]

What is this talking about? Is this talking about God taking your flat tire on the highway and making your day all brighter? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if they put toppings on your hamburger (when you clearly said not to put any on there) since God will make you smile later on? Is it saying that it doesn't matter if someone's texting and talking while you're trying to watch Les Miserables, because God will help you enjoy the movie nonetheless? Actually, no. In fact, starting in verse 18, Paul even confesses that there are sufferings, but that it doesn't matter compared to the glory revealed to us (that is, salvation). He then talks of how the Spirit assists us during these sufferings, and then says: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." Does this mean, however, God can make our day better? Actually no, given the following verse, which is the famous golden chain of redemption. This means that God makes all spiritual things work out for good, because no matter how bad our sufferings might be. It is saying that regardless of what a Christian encounters that will cause him to feel despair and a loss of hope, that we can find joy and peace in the knowledge that we are in the hands of a God who will never let us go, and who will see us through to the end.

As I said in the previous post, this sort of thing does nothing but sacrifice the true meaning of God's word in exchange for emotionalism and "feel good" theology. Yes, I'm sure this image brightened the day for some people...but at what cost? And what does it ultimately teach them in regards to the treatment of God's word?

Does Genesis 49:27 Teach Paul was Evil?

"Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." [Genesis 49:27]

Does this verse warn us to avoid Paul of Tarsus as a false apostle and evil man? The reasoning behind this is that Paul was a member of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul said this himself in his epistles:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. [Romans 11:1]

If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. [Philippians 3:4b-6]

A conclusion is taken from this: Paul must have been "a ravenous wolf" - a false apostle - who "devoured the prey" of the Gospel, and "divided the spoils" in evil. I am not making this up - someone recently presented this to me as an argument against Paul's apostleship.

Of course, Paul isn't the only descendant of Benjamin in scripture. Who else is? The judge Ehud (Judg 3:15), the king Saul and his son Jonathan (1 Sam 9:21), and Mordecai the helper of Esther (Est 2:5) were all descendants of Benjamin. While one might make a case for Saul, are we to say that Ehud, Jonathan and Mordecai were all wicked men who could not be trusted? In fact, let's go a step further - should any ethnic Jew who descends from the tribe of Benjamin be considered evil? Why does the application of Genesis 49:27 only deal with the apostle Paul? Why isn't it about Ehud? Why isn't it about Jonathan? Why isn't it about Mordecai? Why isn't it about that nice Jewish man you met on the train?

Plus, this isn't the only verse in the Bible about Benjamin. We find Moses speaking in the Law with:

Of Benjamin he said, "The beloved of the LORD dwells in safety. The High God surrounds him all day long, and dwells between his shoulders." [Deuteronomy 33:12]

Wait a minute...in one verse Benjamin is a "ravenous wolf," but in another verse Benjamin is a "beloved of the Lord" and is surrounded by God, and God dwells between his shoulders? Is this a contradiction? Should we trust Paul now, since it is now said that God has surrounded him and dwells between his shoulders? But I thought Paul was a ravenous wolf - now God dwells inside him? As a wise man once said, "This done confuse my thinkin'!" There has to be a contradiction here!

On the contrary, there is no contradiction, because those who use Genesis 49:27 in the manner our diatribe does are misusing it completely. Turn to Genesis 49 and look at the entire context of the chapter - you will find that it is Jacob blessing his sons, and telling them what their descendants will be like. When he calls Benjamin a "ravenous wolf," it is actually meant as something of a compliment, because the descendants of Benjamin (such as Ehud and Jonathan) became skilled at war. Some commentators who discuss this topic:

But [the verse] respects the tribe itself, compared to a wolf for its fortitude, courage, and valour, as well as for its rapaciousness, it being a warlike tribe; and the Jewish writers say, that it is compared to a wolf, because of its strength. [John Gill; from his commentaries]

...he only foresees and foretels this, that his posterity should be a warlike tribe, strong and daring, and that they should enrich themselves with the spoils of their enemies... Ehud the second judge, and Saul the first king, were of this tribe; and so also in the last times Esther and Mordecai, by whom the enemies of the Jews were destroyed, were of this tribe. [Matthew Henry; from his commentaries]

Benjamin is described as a wolf who is engaged morning and evening, that is, all day long, in hunting after prey. He was warlike by character and conduct (Judges 20-21), and among his descendants are Ehud, Saul, and Jonathan. [Albert Barnes, from his commentaries]

This is how the verse has been interpreted during the span of the 2000 years of the Christian church, therefore anyone who argues contrary to this has clearly been given a new revelation no one else has ever received. For certain John Calvin writes of interpreters who wrongfully applied verse 27 to Paul, saying that he went from being a wolf to an apostle, and Matthew Henry does similar as those interpreters when he says that Paul did "in the morning of his day, devour the prey as a persecutor, but, in the evening, divided the spoil as a preacher." In such a case, however, it interprets it as referring to Paul in a positive light, not a negative one. Again, the idea that this verse refers specifically to Paul, and in a negative light, is brand new to the history of Christianity.

Of course, there lies here a bigger problem than the misuse of a single verse, and that is a flawed methodology in reading the scriptures. Rather than reading God's word in context and as a flow of thought, it is read like ancient hieroglyphics, or a system of cryptic messages from which some secret message has to be decoded. Like some Omega Code nonsense, people go through God's word, picking a verse here and applying it to an unrelated verse here, trying to discover some undiscovered conspiracy that will reveal some unknown truth. Consistency seems to not be a concern - one cannot, after all, declare one book of the Bible corrupt but at the same time take their evidence from it. Furthermore, if we confess scripture to be God's divine word, we cannot at the same time declare him a victim of fatalism by saying that bits and pieces (if not outright chunks) of lies have been inserted into His divine truth with God being unable to do anything in the way of preservation. The former is the habit of atheists and Muslims seeking to refute Christianity, while the latter is the habit of liberal Christians seeking to minimize God's authority. In the end, such methodology is opposed to God, not supportive.

The fact is, God has not hidden truths in scripture that we have to search out and unscramble like a kind of divine cryptogram. God's truth has been made plain to us, so that everyone from the theologian with a ThD to the layman sitting in church taking notes may hear it and be edified, if not saved. As the apostle John wrote: "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). God uses the preaching of the written word to give His general call for salvation, just as the apostle Paul wrote: "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Rom 10:14) Our salvation does not come from looking for Gnostic-like truth hidden deep within scripture, waiting to be discovered and opened up like a Hellraiser puzzle box. Our salvation comes from the preaching of God's word, which is available to all to be heard by all.

If any one treats God's word in the manner I have described previously - looking through it like a hyper-dispensationalist trying to find some secret message to reveal to believers - I seriously suggest that you reevaluate how you read God's word. Meditate on these things, and by God's grace you will realize that scripture is not a magical puzzle box, but the single narrative of God's bringing about salvation for His people. When you discover this, you will truly enjoy the word of God for what it is. God bless.

You Have Received a Warning at Christian Forums

Dear Paul33AD,

You have received a Warning at Christian Forums.

Reason:
-------
Warning

Hello Paul33AD,

Your post quoted below was recently reported for staff review. After careful review our moderating team has reached consensus and has decided to issue you a warning for this post which you made in the thread "Is the Gospel really enough?" for violation of the following Christian Forums rule:

Flaming

• Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
• If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
• Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
• Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.

Your post will remain deleted from the thread. Please take some time to review our Sitewide Rules before making any further posts. You should also review the Moderation Protocol for Christian Forums. This warning does not carry any points, however, further violations will lead to infractions which do carry points. The policy for reviewing staff actions is located here. The review policy is as follows:

If you receive a staff action such as a warning or an infraction, you may contact a Supervisor or an Administrator to discuss the action. If you receive a ban, you may use the Member Services Center to begin a thread and talk to the Administrators about the staff action. They will decide if the ban was given in error and should be reversed or if it was correct and should remain in place.

Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me, a Supervisor, or an Administrator.

Sincerely,
**CF Staff Team

-------

Original Post:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Christian Forums

Total Depravity...or Local Depravity?

An argument I've heard twice given is centered around the belief that the scriptures do not teach total depravity, also known as total inability. The argument goes something like this: when Paul talks about the sinfulness of man in Romans and Ephesians, he is actually talking about the sinfulness of those societies. That is, he is talking about the sinfulness of Rome and the sinfulness of Ephesus. Paul is therefore not arguing that all of mankind is sinful or inclined towards wickedness, but that those specific societies were inclined towards wickedness.

Is this the case? Let's take a moment to examine Paul's discussion of sin in both Romans and Ephesians, starting with the epistle to the Romans.

One of the most extensive discussions of human depravity is found in Romans 1:18-32. However, right afterwards, we find the apostle Paul writing this:

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. [Romans 2:1]

Previously, Paul had been dealing with the pagan mindset of the general world. Now he turns it on the Jews. The Jews condemned Gentile society for all of those things mentioned in Romans 1, and yet, as Paul says, they were guilty of the same thing. The Jews believed that they were considered righteous by their possession of the Law, and yet, as Paul points out here and throughout most of his epistles, no one is justified by the Law or works of the Law. In fact, Paul contends that judgment from God will be carried out regardless of whether or not they follow the Law or have good works of which to boast.

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [Romans 2:12]

God's judgment, therefore, is complete. There is no excuse for those under the Law just as there is no excuse for those outside the Law.

Many inclusivists argue of a "third way", where a person is proclaimed innocent by God out of ignorance of the gospel, but this presupposes it is simply a lack of faith that sends one to hell rather than one's sins. It also forgets that nowhere in scripture does it speak of a third way where someone is not sent to hell simply because they never heard the gospel. There are those who are Christ or against Him (Matt 12:30) - there is no neutral ground, and lukewarm theology is an abomination to God (Rev 3:16).

In any case, Paul continues his criticism of Jewish believers who uphold their righteousness by their Jewish identity, pointing out that, as they are unable to follow the Law, they in fact bring disservice to God through their disobedience.

You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." [Romans 2:23-24]

This brings us to the climactic moment of the book of Romans:

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." [Romans 3:9-12]

Paul now brings the previous two and a half chapters to a hilt: everyone is sinful. Jew, Gentile - everyone. "All, both Jews and Greeks" is what Paul writes. This is not a matter of "local depravity." Paul is clearly arguing here that all of mankind is fallen. The beginning of chapter three is summarizing everything that was discussed throughout chapters one and two - and the summary is that we are all sinners in need of a savior.

Now let's turn to Paul's epistle to the Ephesians, specifically the beginning of chapter two.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [Ephesians 2:1-3]

Paul begins this epistle by directly addressing the Ephesian readers, stating: "You were dead in the trespasses and sins" (v. 1). It is true that he is specifically speaking to the Ephesian Gentile Christians here (we'll see that as this discussion progresses), but look at what the apostle says in the next verse: "following the course of this world" (v. 2). He calls unbelievers the "sons of disobedience", then says in verse 3: "among whom we all once lived." Who is the "we all"? It's the Jewish believers - Paul included. If one reads the first chapter of Ephesians, we see that Paul is expanding on the extension of salvation from the Jews to the Gentiles (especially Eph 1:11-13; compare to Eph 2:11-13). In many ways, Ephesians 2:1-3 is simply a longer version of Romans 3:9. However, the clincher in our discussion comes at the end of verse 3: "[we] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." Paul says the "rest of mankind" are "children of wrath" (also translated "objects of wrath"), showing that everything he has discussed in these three verses is a statement of the spiritual condition of all of mankind.

In fact, Paul's point here is so obvious that I must be perfectly blunt: anyone who argues Paul is here teaching about a "local depravity" rather than what we might call "universal depravity" is either arguing from a second-hand source or purposefully ignoring parts of scripture. If you are guilty of the former, I encourage you to study God's word more; if you are guilty of the latter, I ask you humbly to repent of mishandling God's word.

Scott Hahn and Sola Fide Part II

In the first post, we discussed Scott Hahn's arguments against the Reformed doctrine of sola fide in his work Rome Sweet Home. Specifically, we touched briefly on 1 Corinthians 13:2 and more in detail on James 2:24. Before we continue, let us reiterate two positions. First, Scott Hahn's explanation of what made him lose faith in sola fide, from his conversion story:

Saint Paul (whom I had thought of as the first Luther) taught in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere that justification was more than a legal decree; it established us in Christ as God’s children by grace alone. In fact, I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone! Sola fide was unscriptural! [Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, pg. 31]

Again, we should reiterate that sola fide does not mean "faith isolated" or "faith apart from everything else," commonly associated with the easy believism theology expounded upon in many Evangelical churches. Faith is simply the door through which God justifies a person. The mere statement "I believe" does not save a person.

To repeat one source that clarifies sola fide's position:

From the perspective of those steeped in the medieval church's instruction, the Reformers' radical reduction of what was needed for justification was shocking. Urging that it came "by faith alone" seemed to undercut any call to holiness of life - the life spent doing good works. The defenders of the Roman church quickly pointed out that the Reformers' teaching would lead to indifference toward godliness.

In 1531 Melanchthon responded to this assertion as made in the Roman Confutation (a reaction to the Augsburg Confession). He observed, "Our opponents slanderously claim that we do not require good works, whereas we not only require them but show how they can be done." According to Melanchthon, while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone: the faith that justifies cannot be solitary. It cannot exist by itself, in supposedly blissful isolation. What Melanchthon here asserted was the common teaching of all the Protestant Reformers. [James R. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings; pg 122-123]

To add another:

How else indeed can we say that we are justified by anything other than faith? Sola fide has never, ever meant "justified by a barren, dead faith that is not Spirit-borne nor accompanied by all the rest of the work of God in His redeemed people." The alone has always referred to the denial of any additions to faith, especially those that speak to merit...As B. B. Warfield put it, "The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests...It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith." [James White, The God Who Justifies, pg 108-109]

I would like to now give a modest look at scripture regarding the teaching of Paul regarding works, faith and justification. We are told, after all, that Paul never taught sola fide and that the teaching is unscriptural. We know that sola fide does not refer to faith and nothing else (ie., say the sinner's prayer, you're in), and therefore it does not refer to a dead faith (therefore, as we saw in my last post, James 2:24 is irrelevant as a criticism).

I would like to first look at a few passages, starting from Ephesians.

Ephesians 2:8-10

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. [Ephesians 2:8-10; ESV]

In the preceding verses, Paul had been telling the Ephesians how they were dead in their trespasses and sins (2:1). They “were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (2:3). Rather shocking words for those who know people of unbelief, and humbling words for those who used to belong to unbelief. Yet God, “being rich in mercy” (2:4), and though we were "dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (2:5). Those who were dead are now alive, just as Christ made Lazarus rise from the grave (John 11:43-44). God has turned the heart of stone to a heart of flesh (Eze 11:19), hence Paul's wording "by grace you have been saved" (2:5).

At this section he repeats this again, elucidating with "by grace you have been saved through faith" (2:8) (hence the common connection between sola gratia and sola fide). Yet Paul pauses here and states "this is not of your own doing" - as if the Ephesians had done something pleasing to God to earn faith, or had performed some great work to show they wanted God's pleasure. Rather, this grace and faith is referred to as "a gift of God" (2:8). This grace and faith is "not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (2:9). Therefore there is absolutely no credit that can be given to man for this faith. Works and faith did not spring up as one or side-by-side, but rather a divinely given faith was planted in the hearts of the believer.

Paul calls the believers “His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,” which were prepared by God beforehand so that “we should walk in them” (2:10). Note something here: we are called God's "workmanship." This is for two reasons: (1) We are God's literal creation - no one exists except by God's command; (2) we are the developed souls chosen by God to be His children. We are both His physical and spiritual workmanship. Note also this: we are created in Christ Jesus for good works - in other words, the faith comes first ("created in Christ Jesus") followed by the works ("for good works"). This statement by Paul, however brief, fits in well with the theology of James in the second chapter of his epistle, which condemned empty faith and spoke of displaying faith through works. It also fits well with the teachings of fellow apostle John, who wrote to the church: "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments" (1 John 2:3).

Paul's message here is clear: (1) the believers (for Paul refers to "us," meaning more than just the Ephesians) were saved through their faith; (2) this faith did not come about by works, but was a gift from God; (3) from this faith flowed works. This sounds remarkably like sola fide.

Romans 3:21-26

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. [Romans 3:21-26; ESV]

In the previous chapters, Paul has been building on the depraved state of man. He speaks of those who "suppress the truth" of God in their unrighteousness (1:18), though the truth "about God is plain to them" (1:19). Directing his attention to the Jewish Christians, he explains that even they, who have the Law, are no more justifiable than the Gentiles who are without the Law. "Both Jews and Gentiles," Paul says, "are under sin" (3:9).

Now, after so much bad news, Paul begins to finally preach the good news. He states that “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it” (3:21). Paul says two things in this statement: (1) Paul states that the coming of Christ was foretold by the prophets and the Law which the Jews believed in ("the Law and the Prophets bear witness"); (2) the righteousness of God is now given beyond the ethnic and religious Jews to even the Gentiles ("manifested apart from the law"). This righteousness is now given by God through “faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (3:22). It is the faith in Christ through which this righteousness is bestowed.

Paul then emphasizes what he did earlier, which was “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23), and therefore are “justified by his grace as a gift” and only “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:24) whom “God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (3:25). The "bad news" makes a comeback: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - none are worthy to be before God, and "no one seeks God" (3:11; quoting Psalm 53). There is nothing a man could do (let alone perhaps want to do) to be with and know God. Then Paul returns to the "good news": we haven been given grace from God "as a gift" (similar to the language of Ephesians 2) through the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus," whose propitiation shall be "received by faith."

What again are we hearing here? (1) That believers received their salvation from faith; (2) this faith did not come about my man's doing, as man is by his very nature unrighteous, but rather it was a gift from God. Again, this sounds remarkably like sola fide. 

Romans 4:1-8

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." [Romans 4:1-8; ESV]

Paul makes reference here to Genesis 15:6, the same verse referred to in James 2:23. Yet whereas James spoke of events after the verse, Paul refers here to the verse itself within its context in time. Paul refers to Abraham as “our forefather in the flesh," as he is still speaking mostly to the Jewish Christians at this point. Later on, Paul will identify Abraham as “father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (4:12), as his offspring will include those of his faith rather than simply his descendants.

Paul states that if Abraham was justified by the works he did, then “he has something to boast about,” though “not before God” (4:2). In language that is again similar to that of Ephesians 2, Paul forebears any action on the part of man unless we give man something to boast about. With the question of why some people believe and some don't, would a believer really say, "Well I believe because I was smarter," or, "I believe because I did more research." That is boasting in your works, and not in the grace of God. To God, man's boasting means nothing. Our earthly accomplishments will burn up just as easily as paper tossed into a flame.

Turning to the scripture now, Paul cites Genesis 15:6 and then identifies the true meaning of "righteousness": “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (4:4-5). This presents two situations: (1) a person works and is given a wage because it is due, just as a person goes to a job and expects a paycheck for doing that job; (2) a person does not work, but simply believes in He who justifies the ungodly, and then his faith is counted as righteousness. In other words, the ungodly are justified by God as a gift, not as a wage due. Furthermore, it is by their faith in the God who justifies the ungodly that they are given righteousness. If it was by something they had done, then 4:4 would have been incorrect. If, however, it was simply by the grace of God, then 4:5 rings true.

From here Paul turns to Psalm 32:1-2, identifying the nature of “the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works” (4:6). Two blessings are given: (1) blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, for God “in his divine forbearance...had passed over former sins” (3:25); (2) blessed are those whose sins are covered, for Christ’s death provided “a propitiation by his blood” (3:25). In this righteousness bestowed by faith comes the forgiveness of past transgressions and the covering of our sins - a true justification.

What then has Paul taught us? (1) That man cannot boast in his work, for his faith is a gift from God; (2) through that faith is the man given righteousness from God. This sounds...again...remarkably like sola fide.

Scott Hahn and Sola Fide Part I

Scott Hahn has, with his wife, been a convert to Roman Catholicism since 1986 (source). He is fairly well known amongst most Roman Catholics as a kind of "model convert" and has supposedly won many over to the Roman Catholic Church with his story. Particularly popular is his reasoning against Protestant theology, which does seem to have some affect on people. One convert's story:

An audiotape recording on the conversion of former Protestant minister Scott Hahn clinched it for me. Hahn clearly exposed the errors in the Protestant Reformation’s battle cries of sola fide and sola scriptura. [Lynn Nordhagen, When Only One Converts; pg 190]

The audio recordings of Scott Hahn's conversion are floating about the internet and are widely available, but it was also converted into literary form in his book Rome Sweet Home. Here was what he had to say regarding the doctrine of sola fide:

Saint Paul (whom I had thought of as the first Luther) taught in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere that justification was more than a legal decree; it established us in Christ as God’s children by grace alone. In fact, I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone! Sola fide was unscriptural! [Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, pg. 31]

Luther and Calvin often said that this was the article on which the Church stood or fell. That was why, for them, the Catholic Church fell and Protestantism rose up from the ashes. Sola fide was the material principle of the Reformation, and I was coming to a conviction that Saint Paul never taught it.

In James 2:24, the Bible teaches that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Besides, Saint Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:2, “...if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” This was a traumatic transformation for me to say that on this point I now thought Luther was fundamentally wrong. For seven years, Luther had been my main source of inspiration and powerful proclamation of the Word. And this doctrine had been the rationale behind the whole Protestant Reformation. [ibid, pg 32]

I'd like to respond to this somewhat simplified view on the topic, and respond to it in two parts. I would like to begin first with an examination of the texts which Hahn cited as those which led to his "traumatic transformation."

It would be proper beforehand to properly define what sola fide is. The phrase is a Latin one which means "by faith alone," and is often related to sola gratia ("by grace alone"), just as Paul related faith and grace with: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8; ESV). However, sola fide does not mean "faith isolated" or "faith by itself," as we see so often in the easy believism of modern day Evangelicalism.

From the perspective of those steeped in the medieval church's instruction, the Reformers' radical reduction of what was needed for justification was shocking. Urging that it came "by faith alone" seemed to undercut any call to holiness of life - the life spent doing good works. The defenders of the Roman church quickly pointed out that the Reformers' teaching would lead to indifference toward godliness.

In 1531 Melanchthon responded to this assertion as made in the Roman Confutation (a reaction to the Augsburg Confession). He observed, "Our opponents slanderously claim that we do not require good works, whereas we not only require them but show how they can be done." According to Melanchthon, while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone: the faith that justifies cannot be solitary. It cannot exist by itself, in supposedly blissful isolation. What Melanchthon here asserted was the common teaching of all the Protestant Reformers. [James R. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings; pg 122-123]

The issue between sola fide and works is that it is from our faith that the works stem, and therefore it is not our works which justify us but the faith from which those works come.

Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith having all that he requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day even till the future life...Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessing have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love. [Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian; source]

Therefore we must remember that sola fide does not mean an isolated faith that amounts to: "I believe in God. The End," but a living faith from where a person believes in God and, from that faith, does the will of God. That will be important as the discussion progresses.

Scott Hahn's Case Reviewed

I'd like to begin with 1 Corinthians 13:2, as that will be the simplest to start with. It would be important to first note that 1 Cor 13:2 has nothing to do with justification, nor does it directly relate to the topic of sola fide. In the previous chapter, Paul had been speaking to the Corinthians about unity within the church despite the existence of various spiritual gifts. Paul then transitions into the topic of love, ending the section with a promise to show "a more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31; ESV). The faith spoken of in 1 Cor 13:2, however, is not a faith of justification so much as a faith in miracles. This would coincide with the comparison of this faith to the spiritual gifts, as well as Paul's elucidation of "faith, so as to move mountains." Again, 1 Cor 13:2 has nothing to do with the topic of justification, let alone sola fide.

Now we move on to James 2:24, which is perhaps the most common passage cited against sola fide. Let us begin by looking at this section of James 2 in context:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. [James 2:14-26; ESV]

In the verses preceding this section, James had been speaking heavily about hypocrisy in worship (James 2:1-13). He instructs the believers: "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty" (2:12). He then moves onto the deeper meaning of this topic.

The apostle asks what good it is "if someone says he has faith but does not have works," asking specifically if "that faith" will save him (2:14). This is a person who believes but has nothing to show for it. James gives an example of such a person with a mini-parable: a supposed Christian meets a poor person, wishes them well, but does nothing to alleviate their pain. To this kind of outward show of faith (or lack thereof), James asks, "What good is that?" (2:16).

Of course, these people might try to defend such a faith. "Show me your faith apart from your works," James asks, "and I will show you my faith by my works" (2:18). Here he is merely reiterating what he said earlier in his epistle, which was "be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (1:22). He declares he will respond to faith isolated with faith displayed by works - in other words, a faith displayed by works stemming from that faith. It is by the fruits of his faith that James will display such a faith.

Pressing the issue, James makes a grand statement to those who are hearers but not doers: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (2:19) The demons, being fallen angels, know there exists a one true God, but this did not bring them joy. They hate God, work against His ways, and at the mere utterance of His name feel fear because of His power over them. This is a dead faith. A supposed Christian may know there is a God, and may believe that Christ is Lord, but they do not do as He commands. James stresses here that such a faith is not a true faith.

There would probably still be people arguing the point here, so James transitions into an example of scripture. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" he asks (2:21).

Here we should stop momentarily to remind the reader of something: James is not stating that Abraham is justified by works alone, as he has continually associated faith and works together. Most Roman Catholics, including Scott Hahn, are aware of this, but how faith and works are related, especially in regards to sola fide, we will get to momentarily.

In regards to the sacrifice of Isaac, James explains that one can "see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works" (2:22), and "the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness' - and he was called a friend of God" (2:23). The reference to Genesis 15:6 is the exact same reference that Paul makes in Romans 4:3, which takes place before the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1-19). This has led some to claim there is a contradiction between the works of Paul and James, but upon closer inspection a greater harmony can be discerned.

The immediate assumption here may be that Abraham was justified because he had faith and he performed works. Let's not, however, forget the full context. James has been attacking empty faith with no outward shows of works, and then takes us to the story of Abraham and Isaac. His reference to Gen 15:6 is spoke of in the past tense, as he says "the scripture was fulfilled" (and there can be no fulfillment unless there was a state that required fulfilling). The Greek word itself (ἐπληρώθη) means "to complete" or "make full." Furthermore, James emphasizes to the reader that Abraham's faith was "active along with his works" and "was completed by his works." Ultimately, Abraham's faith was revealed and confirmed by his works, and showed that he had truly been made righteous by God for his faith.

Now we finally get to the verse in question: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24). By now, we see the full context: the "works" are those stemming from faith and not apart from faith; "faith alone" does not mean the same context of sola fide. Instead, it relates more to what we might call solo fide, or faith isolated from everything else. The apostle goes on to explain: "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead" (2:26). The "faith apart from works" refers to an empty faith (the faith of demons in 2:19) and therefore a dead faith. James is, in the context of this entire section, attacking the concept of a dead faith, and promotes instead a living faith from which works are shown as fruits.

It might be good here to turn to the teachings of our Lord in a related manner. Christ instructed His disciples, "So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit" (Matt 7:17; ESV) and likewise, "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit" (Luke 6:43-44; ESV). People so often forget that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. What if the tree bears no fruit, you ask? It is dead. Dead, just as the barren fig tree that bore no fruit (Luke 13:6-9), and dead like the faith of the false Christian in James 2:16.

Therefore, Scott Hahn's citation of James 2:24 does not deny sola fide in any way, shape or form. James is teaching a living faith? So is sola fide. James says that works must be a sign of our faith? So is sola fide. The easy believism of some modern Protestant churches does not deny the true definition of sola fide. Orthodox Protestants have certainly never denied a living faith - in fact, as already established, that is precisely what sola fide is and how it is taught. One example:

Why then does James say that it was fulfilled? Even because he intended to shew what sort of faith that was which justified Abraham; that is, that it was not idle or evanescent, but rendered him obedient to God, as also we find in Hebrews 11:8. The conclusion, which is immediately added, as it depends on this, has no other meaning. Man is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits. [John Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2:23]

And another:

When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men's embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it. [Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2]

And another:

Obedience to God is essentially requisite to maintain faith. Faith lives, under God, by works; and works have their being and excellence from faith. Neither can subsist without the other, and this is the point which St. James labours to prove, in order to convince the Antinomians of his time that their faith was a delusion, and that the hopes built on it must needs perish. [Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2:24]

And another:

Ye see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only - St. Paul, on the other band, declares, A man is justified by faith, and not by works, Rom 3:28. And yet there is no contradiction between the apostles: because, They do not speak of the same faith: St. Paul speaking of living faith; St. James here, of dead faith. They do not speak of the same works: St. Paul speaking of works antecedent to faith; St. James, of works subsequent to it. [John Wesley’s Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2:24]

Again, if Scott Hahn wishes to tell us that James 2:24 smashed sola fide for him, then he either did not fully understand sola fide during his Protestant days, or he did not fully study James 2 enough to understand what the apostle was really saying.

Much of what we've discussed touches on the subject of works' relationship to faith and justification. I hope, God willing, to touch on this in the second part, where I will respond to Scott Hahn's assertion by searching the writings of Paul specifically and the New Testament in general.