A Typical Assembly of Christians in the First Century

We tend to think of "going to church" in terms of 1950's ideology: get the family together on Sunday morning in their Sunday-go-to-meetin' duds, drive (or walk) to church, where the kids go off to their Bible class and the adults meet in an adult class, followed by a sermon-dominated "worship service" after everyone comes back into the assembly hall, where the main form of participation is singing the same songs everyone else is singing, bowing your head reverently in prayer, and listening attentively and quietly to the sermon, followed by a greeting and pat-on-the-back aimed at the preacher, finished up by a big Sunday lunch back home or at the restaurant, with just the immediate family, and maybe a few friends.

But if we're truly to be Biblical in our assemblies, we need to look at the assemblies we see in the New Testament.

Four of them come to mind:

Acts 20:7ff

The saints are assembling on the first day of the week to break bread.

We don't know if this is the Jewish first day (i.e. our Saturday night) or the Greek first day (i.e. our Sunday).

We don't know if this "breaking of the bread" is the Lord's Supper, a special meal that the church decided to gather for (either just because, or because it was a going-away supper for Paul), a regular weekly assembly for eating a regular meal just because the assembly is a family, the second Passover (for those who missed the first one), or what.

There is no mention of eating prior to midnight, but there is after midnight, which means that if it is the Lord's Supper, it took place on the second day of the week (if using Greek timing), or the intent of the assembly was to meet for eating on our Saturday night (if using Jewish timing).

So to make a "law" out of this example for us to eat the Lord's Supper on Sundays is to go beyond what the Scriptures reveal to us. All we really know is that the main emphasis for the meeting is to "break bread", to eat, either a normal meal, or the Lord's Supper "ritual", or perhaps a combined Lord's Supper "ritual" within the context of a full meal, which is most like the original, first Lord's Supper, being initiated within the context of a full meal.

Another thing we notice about this meeting is that Paul lectured a long time (v. 9 -- "discoursed"-ASV; "preached"-KJV; "talked still longer"-ESV), and bored a young man to literal death. It's interesting that after the young man was revived, Paul changed his format to "conversation" (v. 11 -- "talked with"-ASV; "conversed with"-ESV). Might we heed this Biblical warning against long one-sided sermons in favor of interactive discussions? (Keep this question in mind as you read the section below on 1 Cor 14.)

James 2:2-6

The word which James uses for "assembly" here is "synagogue" -- "If a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your synagogue, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in...".

So first off, we can see that the Christian assembly has been influenced by the Jewish assembly. This should be no surprise; the church was exclusively Jewish for the first fourteen or so years, and when non-Jews started being added to the church, there was a lot of pressure by the Jews to force the Gentiles to essentially become Jewish. Acts 15 speaks of the Jerusalem conference that settled this matter, deciding that Jews should be Christians in their distinctive Jewish ways (still keeping the Law of Moses, being circumcised, etc), but that Gentiles can be Christians without adopting the Jewish ways. Nevertheless, Christianity started out Jewish, so it's not surprising to see the Christian assembly as having its roots in the Jewish synagogue.

The main point of James' mentioning of the assembly is that we should show fairness to all, rich and poor alike, that there should be no distinctions based on socio-economic class.

Jude 12

Jude mentions the "love feasts", at which blasphemers feast with his readers. It would seem these "love feasts" are regular meals of some sort, although we don't have enough information to conclude much about them, not even if they are just ritualistic meals or real fill-your-belly meals.

1 Cor 11 - 14

We've already seen that eating seems to be a significant part of Christian assemblies. We see that again here in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians.

Paul tells the Corinthians that they're not really eating the Lord's Supper when they come together (v. 20), because of their divisions (v. 18). This Lord's Supper is obviously not just a ritualistic tidbit of cracker and a sip of grape juice/wine, but a full-blown meal, in which some people have eaten all the food and imbibed to the point of drunkenness, having no concern that they've left nothing for the late-comers who then remain hungry.

Paul scolds these people, telling them that if the only reason they're at the Lord's Supper is to satisfy their hunger, they should eat at home. He then makes it clear that the purpose of the Lord's Supper is not to fill your belly, but to remember the Lord's death until he comes, saying that if you eat the bread or drink the cup without recognizing the body, even those who arrive late, you're eating and drinking condemnation to yourself (vv. 27-29). Therefore, when you come together for the purpose of eating, wait for one another (v. 33). If you can't wait, eat at home, so that you won't come under judgment (v. 34).

In this passage, we see that, like in Acts 20, the assembly is for the purpose of eating. The eating is not a simple ritualistic snack, but a full-blown meal, incorporating the remembrance of Jesus' death. And like in Jude 12, it's a feast in which love is to be shown to one another, by recognizing the body (i.e. by recognizing that this is a group activity); it's a full-blown meal in which you are to wait and share with one another, in remembrance of Jesus.

Earlier in this chapter, we've seen that the traditions delivered by Paul (v. 2), and the customs of the assemblies (v. 16), allow for both men and women to pray and prophesy (vv 4-5), provided certain hair-covering regulations are observed. (At first glance this seems to conflict later with chapter 14.) So it would seem that if a woman were to be asked to say the thanksgiving prayer for the meal, that would be acceptable so long as she does so within the societal norms of what is proper concerning her appearance (in that culture, it was shameful for a woman to have her hair cut short or uncovered - v. 6).

In chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, we see that within the assembly, different Christians will exhibit different God-given gifts; not everyone is an eye; not everyone is an ear. God has made us different, giving us different gifts, for the benefit of the entire body. Some might be law-observing Jews, some might be non-Law-observing Gentiles (v. 13, with Acts 15, 21, esp 21:20-25). So we can have lots of variety within the body (artsy people vs mathy people? drama performance people vs scientific data people? book-worms vs jocks?, introverts vs extroverts? holy-roller "spirit-filled" people vs text-oriented scholars?), so long as we're unified.

Chapter 13 is a side-bar concerning the value of love as a gift over other spiritual gifts.

Then in chapter 14 we get a wider view of a Christian assembly. In Acts 20 we saw that the church assembly in Troas consisted of "breaking bread" and talking/discussing late into the night. In 1 Cor 11 we saw that the church assembly in Corinth consisted of eating a big meal together in remembrance of Jesus' death. Now in chapter 14 we see what else goes on in the Corinthian assembly.

Everyone in the assembly has a gift to exercise for the benefit of the group (1 Cor 12:7) - some have a psalm to sing, some have a teaching, some have a revelation, some have a tongue, some have an interpretation (1 Cor 14:26). But all things must be done for the benefit of, the building up of, the assembly (v. 26). Things must be done decently, and in order, not a free-for-all (v. 40); people must take turns in exercising their gifts, "one by one, so that everyone may learn and everyone may be encouraged" (v. 31). And it all must be done with understanding (v. 15), which means that speaking in tongues is to be discouraged unless there is an interpreter who can translate for the benefit of everyone else (v. 28), although it is not to be forbidden (v. 39). But the expectation is that the "whole church assembles together and all are speaking" (v. 23) in song, or in tongues, as an interpreter, in prophecy, or to evaluate what others have said (vv 26-29), all providing conviction and judgment as required (v 24).

What we do not see in this assembly is a passive sitting for an hour while one person lectures for a long period. We do see the lecture format in the beginning of the meeting in Acts 20, but even that changes after the lecture results in people going to sleep, into a more interactive conversational format.

Our church assemblies are centered on being mostly passive while listening to a lecture, with just a smattering of activity done in unison, exactly like everyone else is doing, with very few individuals addressing/contributing to others within the group. The New Testament assemblies seem to have been centered on everyone contributing to others in the group, for the good of the group, in conjunction with a common meal that focuses on one-another-ness in honor of Jesus' death.

Are we doing it wrong?

What Are the Rules for Worship?

Contrary to what most of us have been taught and have believed all of our lives, we're not really given instructions as to how we're to worship, either individually, or as a group. We've taught for years that there are rules for corporate worship, but we've had to inductively reason those rules out using (fallible, I might add) human logic. Such rules include meeting on the first day of the week, to break br.., er, have the Lord's Supper, and to conduct Five Acts of Worship (and no more, so I guess immersion is not an act of worship or we wouldn't be doing it in our assemblies, or maybe we've just miscounted and there are Six Acts of Worship). Yet when you really sit down and look at these "approved Apostolic examples" or necessary inferences, you realize they're not commands given by God, but they're commands deduced by men, taught as doctrine. I suspect the Teachers of the Law in Jesus' day used similar human logic to arrive at their traditions. Jesus strongly condemned them for elevating their human-derived conclusions to the level of Command (Matt 15:1-9).

God has given us very few actual commands about how to worship; most of what we believe are God's Rules for Worship are actually rules we've derived using human logic, and poor logic at that sometimes. For example, are we 100% certain that Acts 20 implies a weekly gathering for the purpose of taking the Lord's Supper? Maybe it was just a going-away supper for Paul on the last night he planned to be there (having intended to leave on the morrow). Maybe it was the Jewish Second Passover for those who for whatever reason missed the first official one; the timing is pretty close. Maybe it was a weekly event, but not for the Lord's Supper, but just for an ordinary meal. Notice that if Luke was using Greek reckoning, if the disciples met on the first day, Paul didn't break bread until Monday, after midnight. If Luke was using Jewish reckoning, the disciples met on what we would consider Saturday night. Or maybe Paul's breaking bread after midnight wasn't the same as the breaking of bread for the purpose of the meeting. The point is we make assumptions, and then bind our conclusions as if they are God's commandments, when God has not really given us many commandments.

In fact, Paul specifically contrasts the old covenant, having many rules and regulations, with the new covenant, saying, "Why do you submit to regulations: 'Don't handle, don't taste, don't touch'? .. They are commands and doctrines of men, although they seem religiously valuable" (Col 2:20ff), adding, "Don't let anyone judge you about what you eat or drink, or what holy days you may or may not observe, including the Sabbath" (v 16).

Is it not odd that God clearly spelled out his instructions for worship under the old covenant, but then left it to the vagaries of human reasoning to figure out his instructions for worship in the new covenant based on hints and clues and a very few specifics? If how we "do" worship was so important in the old covenant that God spelled out the details, what does it say about how we "do" worship in the new covenant that he hasn't spelled out the details?

Most of us have grown up thinking we have rules for our "worship assembly", when in reality most of those rules are jigsaw-puzzled together using human logic, rather than being commands given by God.

Thus, as Paul argues in Romans 14, perhaps we should be a little less dogmatic about how "worship service" must be conducted.

So, You're Glad You're White?

"I teach a class called Blacks in the Bible. I open up all these passages people have never thought about."

"What passages do you mean?"

"Well, for starters, Ephraim and Manasseh are two of the twelve tribes of Israel, right? According to Genesis 41, they were the sons of Joseph and an Ethiopian woman. They were 50 percent black. The fathers of two tribes of Israel were black. Ever seen that in the Bible story pictures?

"Jethro was a Midianite from Southern Arabia, which was occupied by Ethiopians. He was the father of Zipporah, wife of Moses, who was a Cushite, an Ethiopian--says so in Numbers 12. Jethro's family were believers, proselytes to the Jewish faith. Moses married this black woman, and when Miriam grumbled about this interracial marriage, God gave her leprosy to teach her a lesson.

"Or how about David...[who] easily had enough black blood that if he lived in America today he'd be called black.

"Solomon was David's son by a Hamitic woman Bathsheba, whose name means 'daughter of Sheba', an African. Zephaniah the prophet was a descendant of 'Cush', a black man.

"And look at the messianic line of Jesus. In his legal genealogy, through Joseph, four women are mentioned--Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. ... All of them were black! Jesus' mother Mary was also a descendant of Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. There may have been other Hamitic blood in Jesus too, but as far as we know, there was no Japhetic blood, no white blood. Those who teach that having black African blood in you puts you under a curse must believe Jesus was under a curse--that the whole messianic line was cursed! By American standards, Jesus had enough African blood to be called black."

Dominion, by Randy Alcorn, p388

And that doesn't include the black governmental official who is a prime example of conversion in Acts 8:26ff, or the black church prophet/leader/teacher, Simon the Black (Niger), or his co-worker Lucius, also from a black part of the world, in Acts 13:1, or the black Libyan, Simon the Cyrenian, who was forced to carry Jesus' cross, in Luke 23:26, or the black woman who is celebrated as loved in the Song of Solomon.

It wasn't long ago that white America scorned blacks as being sub-human and otherwise not of true human value, cursed by God. We've thought that being white made us better, and we would never approve of a "mixed marriage". I bet Miriam had a change of mind when she was turned "white as snow" with leprosy.

How blind we humans can be.

The Widow's Two Coins

You know the story; the widow gave all she had to God. What a wonderful example of dedication! Here's the text from Luke 21:

¹[Jesus] looked up and saw the rich dropping their offerings into the temple treasury. ² He also saw a poor widow dropping in two tiny coins. ³ “I tell you the truth,” He said. “This poor widow has put in more than all of them. ⁴ For all these people have put in gifts out of their surplus, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”

I read something the other day (don't remember where) which gave me a new perspective on this account of the widow's offering. I don't know that the perspective is accurate, but it's a thought that never occurred to me before.

If we include the paragraph just prior to this account in Luke 21:1ff, and the paragraph after, we have this construction:

• "Beware of the scribes, who devour widows' houses." (Luke 20:46-47)
• "This widow put everything she had to live on into the Temple treasury." (Luke 21:1-4)
• "This Temple adorned with gifts dedicated to God? The day is coming when not one stone will be left on another." (Luke 21:5-6)
  

How do scribes devour widows' houses? Are they making mortgage loans to the widows, and then foreclosing on those loans? Maybe the scribes are romancing the widows, using them for their money until the money's all gone? Or is it a more subtle, psychological method? Maybe it's that the scribes are teaching from the pulpit that if you don't contribute to the church, you're cheating God?

Looked at in this light, it's less a praising of the woman's generosity (although it is that, too), than a condemnation of the Temple authorities' pressuring everyone, including those who can't afford it, to give what they can't afford in order to build up the meeting house which is gone tomorrow.

Is this an accurate understanding of this text? I don't know. But I thought it worth sharing.

Spiritual Gifts Today?

Most of us have not experienced any supernatural activity in our lives which would lead us to believe the Spirit's miraculous workings still occur. And as we tend to be very experience-influenced (it's natural to walk by sight, "unnatural" to walk by faith), we tend to think if we don't see it happening, it must not happen.

Totally understandable viewpoint.

But the question is not, "What do we experience?"; the question is, "What do the Scriptures say?".

The "Scriptural objections" that miraculous powers have ceased comes from three lines of reasoning:

1) We see that the purpose of miracles in the New Testament was to confirm the Word, which has since been completed and confirmed, thus ending the need for that purpose any more.

2) We see that miraculous powers were given by the laying on of the apostles' hands, and since the apostles have now all died out, that source of power is no longer available to us.

3) 1 Cor 13:8-13 says that miraculous powers will cease when the perfect knowledge/prophecy has arrived, and now that the Bible has been completed, that condition is fulfilled.

Let's look more closely at those three "Scriptural objections":

1) The Purpose of Miracles Has Been Fulfilled

Reason #1 is based on the false notion that the only purpose of miracles was to confirm the message of the apostles. Confirmation of the apostles' message is indeed a purpose of "signs and wonders":

^{HCSB Heb 2:3} how will we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was first spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him. ⁴ At the same time, God also testified by signs and wonders, various miracles, and distributions of gifts from the Holy Spirit according to His will.

 and

^{1 Cor 1:4} I always thank my God for you because of God’s grace given to you in Christ Jesus, ⁵ that by Him you were enriched in everything—in all speech and all knowledge. ⁶ In this way, the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you, ⁷ so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

and

^{HCSB Mark 16:20} And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the accompanying signs.

In the above passages, we see that the Lord's message was established by the "mouth" of two witnesses (2 Cor 13:1):
 - that of the apostles, and
 - that of miraculous workings from God

However, confirmation of the apostles' message is not the only purpose of miraculous spiritual gifts. As is evident from the following passage, miraculous gifts were not merely for those who needed the word confirmed, but also for those who had already believed the word and no longer needed it confirmed:

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:22} It follows that speaking in other languages is intended as a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers. But prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

So we begin to see that there are other purposes for miracles other than only confirming the message of the apostles. What, then, are some of those purposes?

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:3} But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement, and consolation.

In this passage above we see three additional purposes for prophecy (for a total of four, so far):
 - Building up (edification)
 - Encouragement
 - Consolation (I would think things such as healing a sick person, just for the sake of improving their life, would fit into this category)

Still another purpose for miracles is revealed by the following Scripture (bringing our total to five):

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:24} But if all are prophesying and some unbeliever or uninformed person comes in, he is convicted by all and is judged by all. ²⁵ The secrets of his heart will be revealed, and as a result he will fall facedown and worship God, proclaiming, “God is really among you.”

Here we see that prophecy is not a sign for confirmation of the word, but for convicting and judging an unbeliever of the secrets of his heart to lead to his praise of God.

And here's a sixth purpose given by Scripture:

^{HCSB Acts 11:28} Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine throughout the Roman world. This took place during the time of Claudius. ²⁹ So each of the disciples, according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brothers who lived in Judea.

and

^{HCSB Acts 21:10} While we were staying there many days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. ¹¹ He came to us, took Paul’s belt, tied his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into Gentile hands.’”

Here in these two passages we see that a purpose of prophecy is to provide practical information to the church so that the believers might then take action based on that information.

So, using these Scriptures, we see that there are at least six purposes of miraculous Spiritual gifts:

 - confirming the message of the apostles
 - building up (edification)
 - encouraging
 - consolation
 - conviction/judgment of the unbeliever
 - practical information useful to the church

Of these six purposes, only one, that of confirming the apostles' message, is no longer necessary, since we no longer have apostles giving a message needing confirmation. We still have the other five needs however, so there may be room for miracles to fill those needs.

2) The Gifts are No Longer Available Because the Apostles Can No Longer Give the Gifts

Like Reason #1, this Reason #2 is also based on a false notion, that the only way to receive such Spiritual gifts is through the laying on of the Apostle's hands. But the Scriptures demonstrate that there are at least three methods for acquiring such Spiritual gifts:

 - through the laying on of the apostles' hands:

^{HCSB Acts 8:18} When Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, ¹⁹ saying, “Give me this power too, so that anyone I lay hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.”

 - at God's whim:

^{HCSB Acts 10:44} While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came down on all those who heard the message. ⁴⁵ The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. ⁴⁶ For they heard them speaking in other languages and declaring the greatness of God.

 - by eager desire and prayer

^{HCSB 1 Cor 14:1} Pursue love and desire spiritual gifts, and above all that you may prophesy.  ...  ¹³ Therefore the person who speaks in another language should pray that he can interpret.... ³⁹ Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in other languages.

3) 1 Cor 13 Says Miracles Will Cease When the Bible is Completed

As shown above, of the three purported "Scriptural objections" to miracles in the present day, the first two fail to stand up to scrutiny. This leaves 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 as the sole "Scriptural" objection to miracles in the present day.

It should be noted at the outset that this passage does not say, "Miracles will cease when the Bible is completed." That is a meaning placed upon the text which may or may not be there. I easily grant that some people understand this text to mean that, but it must be acknowledged that the text does not say that.

This passage has been interpreted as a prophecy of the end of prophecy. But looking at the context, that's not what Paul was trying to get at. What is the theme of his overall discussion in these few chapters?

His theme is Love, and it starts way back in chapter 11, when he discusses the abuses going on at their assemblies.

The Corinthians claimed to be meeting together to honor the Lord in the Lord's Supper, but Paul says that's not what they were actually doing (11:20). It seems that in the early days, the Lord's Supper was intertwined with a full meal, just as the Last Supper was an intertwining of specific parts of the Passover meal with the full meal of the Passover.

However, the Corinthians had lost sight of the fact that this meal was about honoring Jesus' death (11:23-26), and about being united (11:17-22; 33-34). They were selfishly filling up their plates and scarfing their food without concern for anyone behind them in line, which left some folks hungry while others were gorging and imbibing to the point of getting drunk (11:21).

Paul made it clear that this meal was not about satisfying your hunger; that can be done at home (11:22; 34). Instead, this meal is about honoring the death of Jesus (11:26), and recognizing that this is not an act designed for the individual, but for the whole body (11:21;33); if they eat and drink without recognizing the body, they're eating and drinking judgment to themselves (11:29). So they need to wait on one another, so that they won't come under judgment (11:33-34).

The focus here is love for each other, as opposed to selfishness.

Then we move to chapter 12, where we see hints that the same selfishness we saw in chapter 11 in regards to eating the Lord's Supper is also going on with spiritual gifts, with the members thinking "my gift is better than yours". Paul says there are different gifts, given to each person by the same Spirit according to the Spirit's will (12:4-11). Just because you're not an "eye", that doesn't mean you're not part of the body; you may be an "ear", serving just as valid of a role (12:16-21). And even the less-mentionable roles are needed (12:22-25). He starts to wind down this section by saying that God intended there to be no division in the body, but that each member would have the same concern for each other (12:25). He finalizes this section with an appeal to desire the greater gifts, but that the better way is yet to be explained (12:31).

In chapter 13, Paul explains that the better way is love. Some day, the "greater gifts" of prophecy and supernatural knowledge will cease (13:8-11), when we have all the answers (13:12), but even then, faith, hope, and love continues, with the greatest of these being love (12:13).

He then finishes up his discourse on Spiritual gifts by giving practical guidelines for how those gifts should be used (all of chapter 14), finishing up with a command to be eager for the types of gifts that better foster love such as prophecy, while not forbidding the other gifts such as speaking in tongues (14:39).

Throughout these chapters, love is Paul's overall theme.

Notice that Paul is not concerned with teaching his readers when prophecy and supernatural knowledge would cease. Instead, his concern is to say that our focus should not be on the gee-whiz special effects of Spiritual gifts like prophecy and supernatural knowledge, which will cease when they've finished their job, but rather on faith, hope, and love, which will remain, with love being the greatest.

The question is, have these special-effects gifts finished their job?

Many Christians would answer "Yes", equating the finishing of their job with the completion of the New Testament, largely based on their understanding of these gifts as only having the purpose of confirming the apostles' message which we now find in the New Testament.

But as mentioned above, that's not the only purpose for the gifts. We still have at least five other needs which would be enhanced via miraculous spiritual gifts.

Not to mention that I don't see clearly, face-to-face, knowing fully as I am fully known (1 Cor 13:12).

Conclusion

The arguments that miracles have ceased are two: 1) we don't witness them, making us think they must not happen, and 2) Scriptural objections.

Of the three recognized Scriptural objections, the first two are invalid, and the third is questionable.

In conjunction with the New Testament indicating that the Spirit gives gifts to each believer for the Spirit's purposes, it is reasonable to be cautious of using the questionable third objection to those gifts as being the final word on the matter.

On (Not) Reading the Bible

Sheri writes:

I decided that I could not say that I valued God's Word if I haven't even bothered to read it all. In church, we read the same passages over and over again, which is why we can all recite them together. Join me..."I am not ashamed of the gospel...He that believeth and is baptized...And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you...study to show thyself approved..." What about the rest of it?

Excerpt from Timothy’s First Letter to Paul, and Paul's Response

Thinking about the role of women in Christianity, a friend of mine came up with the following hypothetical letter to Paul from Timothy, which letter we don't have a record of, and Paul's response.

Ephesus, where Timothy lived (1 Tim 1:3), was the headquarters of the cult of the Roman fertility goddess Diana (in Acts 19 it's the Greek "Artemis"), a town in which the women often dominated, especially in religious settings. In light of this, my friend's hypothetical letter below seems to make sense. Neither she nor I are saying that's how it was, but it's interesting enough I wanted to pass it on.

===

Excerpt from Timothy’s First Letter to Paul

Now, Paul, I need to ask you to address some problems we are having with the women in the congregation. I realize that we are all one in Christ, that there is no Jew or Gentile, no male or female, no slave or free. And I realize the Holy Spirit has given the gift of prophecy to women as well and that they are free to teach as they are being led. But we have some women in the congregation who are extremely outspoken about teachings that are contrary to Christ’s will and they refuse to submit to His truth, specifically with regards to the equality of men and women. Instead, it often becomes a screaming contest where the loudest woman “wins”. It is breaking down the congregation, not building it up. I understand the culture many of our women come out of, where temple prostitutes violently dominate men and degrade men for a living. Where the goddess is “worshiped” through sex and female domination and where children are aborted and pregnancy is a curse. This is what these women see every day in the street. Some of them even WERE temple prostitutes. But instead of turning away from this culture, some of the women are trying to bring this culture into our congregation! They not only teach violent domination of men, they also practice it, proudly and outspokenly! They try to degrade men all the time. They teach outright that Eve was formed first, then Adam and that Adam was the one who was deceived and sinned, not Eve. They also teach, as the temple prostitutes believe, that becoming pregnant and bearing and keeping your child condemns you to hell. Please help me untangle this mess. Maybe they will be more inclined to hear and submit to the truth if it comes directly from your pen.

Paul's Response, in 1  Tim 2:11-15

Dear Timothy,

Please find below my response to the issues you are dealing with.

Now, Paul, I need to ask you to address some problems we are having with the women in the congregation. I realise that we are all one in Christ, that there is no Jew or Gentile, no male or female, no slave or free. And I realise the Holy Spirit has given the gift of prophecy to women as well and that they are free to teach as they are being led. But we have some women in the congregation who are extremely outspoken about teachings that are contrary to Christ’s will and they refuse to submit to His truth, specifically with regards to the equality of men and women. Instead, it often becomes a screaming contest where the loudest woman “wins”. It is breaking down the congregation, not building it up. 

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

I understand the culture many of our women come out of, where temple prostitutes violently dominate men and degrade men for a living. Where the goddess is “worshipped” through sex and female domination and where children are aborted and pregnancy is a curse. This is what these women see every day in the street. Some of them even WERE temple prostitutes. But instead of turning away from this culture, some of the women are trying to bring this culture into our congregation! They not only teach violent domination of men, they also practice it, proudly and outspokenly! 

I do not permit a woman to teach [violent domination] or to practice violent domination* over a man; she must be silent.

They try to degrade men all the time. They teach outright that Eve was formed first, then Adam and that Adam was the one who was deceived and sinned, not Eve. 

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

They also teach, as the temple prostitutes believe, that becoming pregnant and bearing and keeping your child condems you to hell. Please help me untangle this mess. Maybe they will be more inclined to hear and submit to the truth if it comes directly from your pen.

But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.


*Noteworthy: the word used for “to have authority over” is “authentein” – can be translated as “domination [with a violent connotation]” as well as several other possible translations. It does not occur in any other place in the Bible.

The Promises to Abraham

There were several promises made to Abraham, made on several occasions (see "Summary of Promises" section below), but the basic promises boil down to three:

• I will make of you a great nation, kings, uncountable offspring
• I will give you the land
• I will bless the nations of the earth through you

These three promises are seen when God first starts making promises to Abram (see "Gen 12" section below), and when God confirms the covenant with Isaac (see "Gen 26" section below).

Although these promises were made at various times there were two specific covenant ceremonies:

• Genesis 15 (the cutting of animals)
• core stipulations:
• land, great reward
• uncountable offspring from his own loins
• Abram believed this promise and his faith was credited as righteousness

• Genesis 17 (the cutting of foreskins)
• core stipulations:
• land
• uncountable offspring from his own loins
• covenant to be confirmed with Isaac

Notice that although both of these ceremonies include the promise of land and of uncountable offspring, neither includes the promise to bless all nations. However, when God confirms the covenant with Isaac (see "Gen 26" section below), it includes the blessing of all nations.

Summaries of Promises:

Gen 12:1-3, 7 (the initial call of Abram)

• I will make you a great nation
• I will bless you
• I will make your name great
• You will be a blessing
• I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who treat you with contempt
• All the peoples on earth will be blessed through you
• I will give this land (Canaan) to your offspring

Gen 13:14-17 (Abram & Lot split, dividing the land)

• I will give you and your offspring all the land you can see
• I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth - uncountable

Gen 15:1-21 (faith credited as righteousness)

• Your reward will be great
• Eliezer not to be your heir, but a son of your own loins
• Uncountable offspring
• Abram believed this about his offspring, and God credited it to him as righteousness
• You will possess this land
• the animal-cutting ceremony in response to "how will I know I will possess this land?"
• Your offspring will be enslaved & oppressed in a foreign land for 400 years
• I will judge that nation; your people will go out with many possessions, returning here in the fourth generation
• You will go to your fathers in peace
• Covenant summarized in v 18 as "I will give this land to your offspring"

Gen 17:2-26 (circumcision given)

• I will establish My covenant between Me and you
• I will multiply you greatly
• You will become the father of many nations
• Name changed from "Exalted Father" (Abram) to "Father of a Multitude" (Abraham)
• I will make you extremely fruitful; nations and kings will come from you
• Covenant is everlasting throughout your offspring's generations to be yours and your offspring's God
• To you and your offspring I give this land, and I will be their God
• This is my covenant: you and all your males to be circumcised
• Your wife's name changed from Sarai (a form of "princess"?) to Sarah ("princess") (the meaning of the name seems less significant than the change itself)
• Sarah will give you a son, next year
• I will bless Sarah
• Nations and kings will come from Sarah
• Your son through Sarah will be named Isaac ("he laughs")
• I will confirm my covenant with Isaac
• Ishmael will also be blessed
• I will bless him
• I will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly
• He will father 12 tribes
• I will make him a great nation

Gen 18:9-19

• In a year, Abraham's wife will have a son
• Abraham to become a great and powerful nation
• All the nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham

Gen 26:2-5 (Covenant confirmed with Isaac)

• I will be with you and bless you
• I will give all these lands to you and your offspring
• I will confirm the oath I swore to Abraham
• Uncountable offspring
• Land given to offspring
• all the nations of the earth will be blessed by your offspring

Gal 3:1-29 (We are children of Abraham by faith)

• those who have faith are Abraham's sons
• Scripture saw:
• that God would justify the Gentiles by faith
• God told the Gospel to Abraham, that all nations will be blessed through him
• Therefore, those who have faith are blessed with Abraham
• The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed
• That seed is Christ
• And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed

The covenant made with Moses and his people, which God "made with [them] when [He] took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer 31:32) is separate and apart from any previous covenants/promises, including these promises to Abraham. It "came 430 years later, [and] does not revoke a covenant that was previously ratified by God" (Gal 3:17). This covenant, made with Moses, "was added because of transgressions" (Gal 3:19), and was temporary, to last only "until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come" (Gal 3:19). But the promise to Abraham still stands: "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29).

Note, there were two laws given for circumcision: one for all of Abram's seed, given as a part of the promises/covenants with Abraham; and one for the subset of Abraham's seed known as the Jews, given as a part of the later and temporary and faulty (see below) covenant of Moses. So the Jews had two laws insisting on circumcision; their cousins, the Ishmaelites (from Hagar) and the children of Keturah (who may have intermingled to become the ancestors of today's Arabs - Book of Jubilees 20:13), only had one such law.

Regardless of whether circumcision is required of us as part of the promise (it is required, because we are now Abraham's seed; it is not required, because what's important is faith, not the letter of the law), Paul's point in Romans 4 is that Abraham's righteousness came by faith, prior to any work (i.e. circumcision) done on his part. James, in James 2, adds that "faith" is useless if it's merely an academic acceptance without a life-changing acceptance.

The faulty covenant, replaced by the more excellent ministry, was not those promises made to Abraham; the faulty covenant was the temporary one that was added because of transgressions, the covenant which God made with the ancestors of the House of Israel when He took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. The writer of Hebrews cites Jeremiah 31, explicitly defining the faulty covenant (Heb 8:7) as "the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by their hands to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Heb 8:9, citing Jer 31:32).

Is Jesus Against Defensive Violence?

The easy passage to cite when addressing the question of using violence for defensive purposes is Matthew 5, wherein Jesus says:

^{HCSB Matt 5:38} “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. ³⁹ But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. ⁴⁰ As for the one who wants to sue you and take away your shirt, let him have your coat as well. ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

And here's another popular passage:

^{HCSB Matt 26:50} ... Then they came up, took hold of Jesus, and arrested Him. ⁵¹ At that moment one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword. He struck the high priest’s slave and cut off his ear. ⁵² Then Jesus told him, “Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword.

Another:

^{HCSB John 18:36} “My kingdom is not of this world,” said Jesus. “If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I wouldn’t be handed over to the Jews. As it is, My kingdom does not have its origin here.”

And yet another:

^{HCSB Eph 6:12} For our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.

So at first glance, it seems pretty obvious that Jesus was all about submitting to those who might bring violence against us.

But there's another way to look at Jesus.

I think we've mistaken Paul's words in Ephesians 6 that our fight is not against flesh and blood to mean that we should never fight against flesh and blood enemies. But Paul is saying nothing more than what Jesus told Pilate: his issues, his kingdom, our core purposes, are not of this world. And they aren't. But that doesn't mean we should sit by doing nothing while innocent people are abused by others. After all, Jesus said that if his kingdom was of this world, then his disciples would take up arms and fight (John 18:36). Jesus is not against violence for earthly reasons; it's just that his concern at his trial was not about earthly concerns. And Paul is likewise saying that our core concern is not about those things on earth, but in heaven. But there is no prohibition here of taking care of earthly concerns; that's just not to be our core focus.

In fact, Paul focused quite a bit on taking care of earthly concerns, trying to make sure the poor had some financial relief, and even going so far as to make sure his crew had an accountability partner (and perhaps body-guard?) when carrying large sums of money (2 Cor 8:16-21).

Earlier, before Jesus was arrested, he did have concern for earthly matters, including self-defense, as it applied to his disciples as he was about to be arrested. Just after his last supper (Luke 22:35ff), he asked the disciples if they had lacked anything when he had earlier told them to not take normal traveling equipment (change of clothes, money, shoes) the first time he sent them out. After they replied that they lacked nothing, he then instructs them, "Now I'm sending you again, but this time you need to go prepared, with money, a suitcase, and a weapon, even if you have to have a garage-sale in order to buy that weapon" (v. 36).

Earlier he had told parables of strong men protecting their possessions with violence as examples of expected behavior (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21).

And even before that, he had said through the prophet Jeremiah:

^{HCSB Jer 22:3} This is what the LORD says: Administer justice and righteousness. Rescue the victim of robbery from the hand of his oppressor. Don’t exploit or brutalize the foreigner, the fatherless, or the widow. Don’t shed innocent blood in this place.

(Notice the command to rescue victims from robbers; also notice that the last command is to not shed "innocent" blood.)

Further, Jesus did not "turn the other cheek" when he found God's Temple turned into a mini-mall: he took the time to collect and assemble the materials to make a whip, trudge back into the Temple, and drive the marketers out, with violence (John 2:14-16).

Nor did he humbly submit to the evils of The System when it devours widows' houses or when it makes a proselyte twice as fit for hell as the hypocrites who converted him, but rather forcefully upbraided these evils (Matt 23:14-15).

So whatever Jesus meant by the phrase, "turn the other cheek", it seems he didn't mean we should be passive in the face of evil.

So what did he mean?

I find the following to be of interest:

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans; Jews.

We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. It is important to ask who Jesus' audience is. In every case, his listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor. Rather, Jesus is speaking to their victims, people who have been subjected to these very indignities. They have been forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and by the guardians of imperial occupation.

Why then does Jesus counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of power to humiliate them. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how can he now hit the other cheek? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes himself an equal, acknowledging the other as a peer. But the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality.

The second example Jesus gives is set in a court of law. Someone is being sued for his outer garment. Who would do that and under what circumstances? Only the poorest of the poor would have nothing but an outer garment to give as collateral for a loan. Jewish law strictly required its return every evening at sunset, for that was all the poor had in which to sleep. The situation to which Jesus alludes is one with which his hearers would have been too familiar: the poor debtor has sunk ever deeper into poverty, the debt cannot be repaid, and his creditor has hauled him into court to wring out repayment.

Indebtedness was the most serious social problem in first-century Palestine. Jesus' parables are full of debtors struggling to salvage their lives. It is in this context that Jesus speaks. His hearers are the poor ("if anyone would sue you."). They share a rankling hatred for a system that subjects them to humiliation by stripping them of their lands, their goods, finally even their outer garments.

Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their inner garment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Put yourself in the debtor's place; imagine the chuckles this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, beet-red with embarrassment, your outer garment in one hand, your underwear in the other. You have suddenly turned the tables on him. You had no hope of winning the trial; the law was entirely in his favor. But you have refused to be humiliated. At the same time you have registered a stunning protest against a system that spawns such debt. You have said, in effect, "You want my robe? Here, take everything! Now you've got all I have except my body. Is that what you'll take next?"

Nakedness was taboo in Judaism. Shame fell not on the naked party but the person viewing or causing one's nakedness (Genesis 9:20-27). By stripping you have brought the creditor under the same prohibition that led to the curse of Canaan. As you parade into the street, your friends and neighbors, startled, aghast, inquire what happened. You explain. They join your growing procession, which now resembles a victory parade. The entire system by which debtors are oppressed has been publicly unmasked. The creditor is revealed to be not a "respectable" moneylender but a party in the reduction of an entire social class to landlessness and destitution. This unmasking is not simply punitive, however; it offers the creditor a chance to see, perhaps for the first time in his life, what his practices cause--and to repent.

Jesus in effect is sponsoring clowning. In so doing he shows himself to be thoroughly Jewish. A later saying of the Talmud runs, "If your neighbor calls you an ass, put a saddle on your back."

The Powers That Be literally stand on their dignity. Nothing takes away their potency faster than deft lampooning. By refusing to be awed by their power, the powerless are emboldened to seize the initiative, even where structural change is not possible. This message, far from being a counsel of perfection unattainable in this life, is a practical, strategic measure for empowering the oppressed. It provides a hint of how to take on the entire system in a way that unmasks its essential cruelty and to burlesque its pretensions to justice, law, and order.

Walking the second mile

Jesus' third example, the one about going the second mile, is drawn from the enlightened practice of limiting the amount of forced labor that Roman soldiers could levy on subject peoples. A soldier could impress a civilian to carry his pack one mile only; to force the civilian to go further carried with it severe penalties under military law. In this way Rome tried to limit the anger of the occupied people and still keep its armies on the move. Nevertheless, this levy was a bitter reminder to the Jews that they were a subject people even in the Promised Land.

To this proud but subjugated people Jesus does not counsel revolt. One does not "befriend" the soldier, draw him aside, and drive a knife into his ribs. Jesus was keenly aware of the futility of armed revolt against Roman imperial might. He minced no words about it, though it must have cost him support from the revolutionary factions.

But why walk the second mile? Is this not to rebound to the opposite extreme: aiding and abetting the enemy? Not at all. The question here, as in the two previous instances, is how the oppressed can recover the initiative, how they can assert their human dignity in a situation that cannot for the time being be changed. The rules are Caesar's but not how one responds to the rules. The response is God's, and Caesar has no power over that.

Imagine then the soldier's surprise when, at the next mile marker, he reluctantly reaches to assume his pack (sixty-five to eighty-five pounds in full gear). You say, "Oh no, let me carry it another mile." Normally he has to coerce your kinsmen to carry his pack; now you do it cheerfully and will not stop! Is this a provocation? Are you insulting his strength? Being kind? Trying to get him disciplined for seeming to make you go farther then you should? Are you planning to file a complaint? To create trouble?

From a situation of servile impressment, you have once more seized the initiative. You have taken back the power of choice. The soldier is thrown off-balance by being deprived of the predictability of your response. Imagine the hilarious situation of a Roman infantryman pleading with a Jew, "Aw, come on, please give me back my pack!" The humor of this scene may escape those who picture it through sanctimonious eyes. It could scarcely, however, have been lost on Jesus' hearers, who must have delighted in the prospect of thus discomfiting their oppressors.

Some readers may object to the idea of discomfiting the soldier or embarrassing the creditor. But can people engaged in oppressive acts repent unless made uncomfortable with their actions? There is, admittedly, the danger of using nonviolence as a tactic of revenge and humiliation. There is also, at the opposite extreme, an equal danger of sentimentality and softness that confuses the uncompromising love of Jesus with being nice. Loving confrontation can free both the oppressed from docility and the oppressor from sin.

So Jesus is not teaching us to be passive in the face of violence; he's teaching us not to get sucked into an unwinnable escalation of conflict, an eye-for-an-eye seeking of vengeance, to use our brains to accomplish what our brawn won't or can't.

If we understand Jesus' teachings to be not that of passive non-resistance, but of wily disarmament, and if we understand his and Paul's emphasis on the next world to not exclude paying some needed attention to this world, there is no longer any conflict with Jesus' instruction to carry a self-defense weapon when traveling, or his Old Testament instruction to stand up with whatever it takes to rescue victims from robbers.

Jesus does not say "Be a door-mat"; he says, "Do what brings peace, disarm the aggressor, which requires wisdom and cunning and courage and self-sacrifice, and sometimes even physical strength".

More Scripture?

The Biblical writer and apostle, Paul, writes:

^{HCSB Col 4:15} Give my greetings to the brothers in Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her home. ¹⁶ When this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

We consider the writings of Paul to be inspired. He considers his writings suitable to be read to the churches. He sent a letter to the Colossians, of which copies have survived to the present day. He sent a letter to Laodicea, which has been lost.

What if a copy of the letter to the Laodiceans were to be found in the buried ruins of a first-century library tomorrow? Would we consider it as scripture? Would we add it to our existing Bibles?

Just food for thought.

Pilate Replaced Herod with Jesus

You'll recall that at the time of Jesus' arrest, Herod was the reigning king over the Jews. Even though he was king, Herod was still subject to his own superior authorities, such as the local Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, and ultimately to the Roman Emperor, Caesar.

When the Jewish police and religious authorities arrested Jesus, they set up a kangaroo court and convicted him to a death sentence, but being under Roman rule which reserved the death penalty to Roman courts, they then took Jesus to Pilate to push injustice through the Roman court system.

Pilate, recognizing the affair as being of local Jewish concern, sent Jesus to the lower court of King Herod, rather than wasting the higher court's time on a minor matter.

Herod, however, couldn't get anywhere with Jesus, and sent Jesus back to the higher court of Pilate.

Pilate couldn't find any justification for the death sentence, so he tried various methods of calming down the Jewish rioters and releasing Jesus, even going so far as to beat Jesus to fatal lengths, which technically wasn't a death sentence, but was so in practical terms. Jesus was at this point a dead man walking. As such, he was presented bloodied, weak, and dying, to the rioters as "the man" (John 19:5).

But even that wasn't good enough for the rioters; they wanted him crucified, tortured, hanging from a cross for expected days. So they pressured Pilate more, and inadvertently scared him with the magic words "Son of God" (vv. 7-8).

So Pilate took Jesus back into the governor's headquarters for further questioning, becoming even more convinced that he simply must get Jesus released. But nothing he did satisfied the rioters.

His final attempt was to depose Herod, and make Jesus the king of the Jews. The next time Pilate presented the dying Jesus to the mob, he announced, "Here is your king!" (v. 14). (This can't have made Herod happy, even though Jesus' reign would be short-lived due to his almost-certain impending death from his earlier beating.)

But even that was not suitable to the mob; they wanted Jesus crucified, and they rejected Jesus as king, announcing they had no king but Caesar (v. 15), which just a few hours prior would have probably been considered by the Jews to be treasonous language.

So Pilate gave in, and had Jesus executed by crucifixion. But he still had the last word; on the cross, Pilate affixed a sign that said in three languages, "Jesus the Nazarene, The King of the Jews" (vv 19-20).

What Pilate probably did not intend, and what probably riled the Jews up even further, is that this phrase, as I understand it, in (Englicized) Hebrew, is rendered:

Yahshua Hanatzoi Wehemelech Hayuhadim

 From a distance, the first letters stand out: YHWH

Pilate has just declared Jesus to be YHWH God, King of the Jews.

When the Jews object to the sign, wanting it changed, I can just see the smirk on Pilate's face as he responds to these trouble-makers: "What I have written, I have written" (v. 22).

Same ol', same ol'

I got into a discussion the other day with a young man, 10-ish or so. He's in a Sunday morning Bible class that mixes 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders together. At one point he informed me that he doesn't like Bible class, because "they talk about stuff he already knows", because the class is oriented for the third-graders.

Hmm.

When a Doctor Turns Evil

I have a friend, Jen, who has a multitude of health issues, one of which is magnesium depletion.

Her general practitioner referred her to a specialist, a Dr. X, to look into this issue. The first thing Dr. X did was have a med-port inserted into Jen's chest, so that the bi-weekly infusions could be done without tearing up the veins in Jen's arms.

Normal mag levels are 1.5 to 2.5. Below 1.0 is critical.

After the first infusions and subsequent testing, it was determined that Jen would need weekly, rather than bi-weekly, infusions.

So one day a week, Jen would go in to have her levels measured, and then the next day she would go in for 2 to 4 hours of infusing.

After a while, Jen wondered if they were just going to keep giving her infusions or find out what was causing the depletion. Dr. X told her that he doesn't do research; that's her GP's job.

But that's why the GP referred her to Dr. X! Dr. X is supposed to be the specialist. So she gets referred to him to find out what the problem is; he just puts a port into her chest requiring a traumatic (and dangerous; they snipped a vein in the process, requiring cauterization, causing a significant amount of blood loss) operation, doesn't bother to pursue what the cause of the problem is, and then without warning or, I believe, justification, does the following.

What Jen didn't know, and what Dr. X's office didn't tell her, is that if she missed (or even rescheduled prior to the appointment!) three appointments for any reason, she would get "fired" as a patient of his.

Once, her son had a conflicting appointment with his doctor in Fort Worth, 3 hours away. She rescheduled her appointment to keep his. Strike one.

Another time, her GP insisted she come in to see him at the same time as one of her infusion appointments. Being a good patient, she rescheduled her infusion to obey her GP. Strike two.

A third time, her son again had a conflicting appointment with his doctor in Fort Worth, so she again rescheduled. Strike three.

But it's okay for them to miss appointments with Jen, without warning, and without rescheduling in a timely manner. She went in on one of her days to get her levels measured, to find that the office was closed that day, even though she had the appointment card they had given her in her hand. It was nearly another week (for a total of two weeks without a treatment) before she could get in again.

Because of her three strikes, she got fired.

Dr. X's office sent her a certified letter saying they were severing ties with her, that they would provide service to her for 30 days, and that they would help her find another doctor, suggesting at one point that it might require Jen to drive to Fort Worth or Lubbuck (both 3 hours away) twice a week. This is without any warning whatsoever. None.

They did not help her find another doctor. Her husband found one for her, and made an appointment for her for the next week. In the meantime, she had an appointment with Dr. X in the present week. She went in to have her levels checked; they were now at 0.7, sub-critical. But when she called to check on her infusion appointment the next day, Dr. X's office told her that since she now had a new doctor, they were completely severing their relationship and would not honor her appointment.

She has a level of 0.7, heart-attack levels, and has 7 days to go before her appointment with her new doctor, and Dr. X once again, without justification in my view, refused treatment to her.

I have no word for Dr. X's actions except "evil". I believe he has committed sin against Jen, numerous times. I'm reminded of several Biblical injunctions against such evil, such as:

^{HCSB Isa 5:20} Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who substitute darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who substitute bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
²¹ Woe to those who are wise in their own opinion
and clever in their own sight.
²² Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
who are fearless at mixing beer,
²³ who acquit the guilty for a bribe
and deprive the innocent of justice.

and

^{HCSB James 4:17} So it is a sin for the person who knows to do what is good and doesn’t do it.

and

^{HCSB Micah 1} Woe to those who dream up wickedness
and prepare evil plans on their beds!
At morning light they accomplish it
because the power is in their hands.
² They covet fields and seize them;
they also take houses.
They deprive a man of his home,
a person of his inheritance.
...
⁹ You force the women of My people
out of their comfortable homes,
and you take My blessing
from their children forever.
...
Aren’t you supposed to know what is just?
^3:2 You hate good and love evil.
You tear off people’s skin
and strip their flesh from their bones.
³ You eat the flesh of my people
after you strip their skin from them
and break their bones.
You chop them up
like flesh for the cooking pot,
like meat in a cauldron.”
...
 ⁵ This is what the LORD says
concerning [those]
who lead my people astray,
who proclaim peace
when they have food to sink their teeth into
but declare war against the one
who puts nothing in their mouths.
⁶ Therefore, it will be night for you—
...
you ...
who abhor justice
and pervert everything that is right....

I believe Dr. X has abhorred justice, chopping Jen up like flesh for the cooking pot, while he sits back and proclaims peace.

Evil.

On the meaning of the word "Repent"

• most common Greek word translated as "repent" in NT is metanoeo (other common word is metamelomai). From meta (change, alter) and noeo (perceive, understand). Etymologically, the word means "change your mind". But word meanings can change (think "football" (as in American football), which refers to a non-ball shaped "ball" that is mostly handled by hand rather than by foot). (Extra credit: Where in the Bible is discussed the throwing of a ball?)

• does not simply mean "change of mind" in all contexts. Contextually, it might mean:

• change your mind
• Luke 16:30-31 repent = convince
• Luke 17:3-4 repent = a claim of change without the actual change of action
• Acts 8:22 repent = thought in heart
• Acts 17:29-30 repent = turning from ignorance, from thinking divinity is like gold, silver, stone, man-made image
• Rev 2:15-16 repent = letting go of a certain teaching

• change your mind to such an extent that you change your life
• Matt 3:8 & Luke 3:8 & Acts 26:20 repentance demonstrated by deeds

• change your actions
• 2 Cor 12:21 repent from evil works
• Rev 2:20-22 repent of her immoral ways
• Rev 9:20-21 repent of murders, etc
• Rev 16:9-11 repent of what they had done

• other similar meanings within the word's semantic range of meaning?

Pentecost Not at the Temple?

I've always thought that in Acts 2, when Peter and the others were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and Peter preached the first sermon, that all this took place in the Temple. But just now I've read the first few chapters of Acts specifically asking that question, and I'm surprised to find that the text indicates that it took place at the disciples' "hotel", not in the Temple.

A Look at Biblical Covenants

A fill-in-the-blank look at some Biblical covenants:

CovenantsAndMandates.pdf

The Cutting of an Ancient Covenant

In Genesis 15 we read of YHWH making a solemn covenant with Abram. The covenant ceremony involved sacrificing five animals (a 3-year old cow, a 3-year old female goat, a 3-year old ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon), cutting in half all but the birds. These animal pieces were then laid opposite of each other, and the blood allowed to drain and pool between them.

According to speaker Ray Vander Laan (RVL), who has spent time in the rural areas of the Middle East, this ceremony is still conducted today. The significance is that each of the two parties involved in the covenant would then walk through the blood draining from the animals, symbolically stating that if he failed to keep his end of the bargain, the other party has permission to stomp the covenant-breaker's blood into the ground.

RVL continues, saying that the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch are both symbols for the God of the Bible.

God had promised to Abram to make of him a great nation, to give him all the land in the area, and to bless the nations through his seed (this last item being cited by Paul in Gal 3:8 as being "the gospel"). For his part, Abraham's role was simply to live in God's presence and "be perfect" (Gen 17:1), which of course, obviously, was sure to result in a broken covenant on Abraham's part.

So when it was time to perform the covenant ceremony, God passed through the split animals as a smoking fire pot; then when it was Abram's turn to pass through, God took Abram's turn, passing again as a flaming torch.

In essence, God was saying, "If I fail to keep my end of the bargain, you may stomp my blood into the ground. And if you fail to keep your end of the bargain, you may stomp my blood into the ground." At that moment, God sealed the fate of his son Jesus to be killed at the hands of men.

We see the same type of covenant ceremony in Jeremiah 34. When YHWH gave the Law of Moses on Mount Sinai centuries earlier, one of the provisions was that if any member of the community sold himself into slavery (a common practice for those in poverty), he was to be freed in the seventh year (Ex 21:1; Deut 15:12; Jer 34:14). But the Israelites had not been keeping that practice, and YHWH condemned them for not keeping it, saying:

^{HCSB Jer 34:18} As for those who disobeyed My covenant, not keeping the terms of the covenant they made before Me, I will treat them like the calf they cut in two in order to pass between its pieces. ¹⁹ The officials of Judah and Jerusalem, the court officials, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the pieces of the calf ²⁰ will be handed over to their enemies....

Unity, not Uniformity

It's good to remember that despite what seems to be the message coming from many pulpits, unity does not mean uniformity. The first form of the first-century church was exclusively Jewish, with Torah-obedience demanded. The next form, beginning within just a couple of decades, was a mixture of Torah-obedient Jews and non-Torah-obedient Gentiles: two groups having vastly different styles and practices, but united in spirit as a single group. Paul makes it clear in Romans 14 that we can have differences, even on issues which one side may believe very strongly about as being "core".

At Least Three "Gospel"s

• 1 Cor 15:1-8 : it is the death, burial, resurrection, appearance of Christ

• Gal 3:8 : it is that all nations, not just Israel, would be blessed through Abraham

• Matt 4:17,23 : it is that the kingdom of God has arrived

If You're Going to Church to Worship, You're Going for the Wrong Reason

I often hear it proclaimed from the pulpit that we gather "at church" to worship God. And that sounds so God-honoring that we never bother to question whether it's Biblical.

But looking at the New Testament, I see that worship is a life which is "set apart" (sanctified is the big word), not an hour or three which are "set apart".

Although we refer to our assemblies as worship, or service, or worship service, the New Testament never does so. Instead, what it calls service is presenting your bodies as a living sacrifice, being not conformed to this world but being transformed by the remaking of your mindset (Rom 12:1-2). The New Testament defines pure religion as tending to those in need, such as orphans and widows (James 1:27; cf Matt 25:31ff).

You might think this is fine, as individual worship, but that our assemblies are for the purpose of worshiping God as a group ("corporate worship"), and that the New Testament demands that we assemble on the first day of the week for this corporate worship.

Except, that's not what the New Testament teaches.

As mentioned above, you never find the New Testament referring to Christian assemblies as worship. Nor do you find it stated anywhere that the assemblies are for the purpose of worship. The closest you get to that is one implication that the assemblies are for taking the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20).

But even in this instance, Paul berates the assemblers because they are neglecting each other. The context demands that the Lord's Supper is more about one another than about Jesus.

Shocking, yes, I know. But read the text (remember that in those days, the Lord's Supper was in the context of a big communal meal, a "love feast" as Jude puts it (Jude 1:12)):

verse 20 - You're coming together to eat the Lord's Supper, but you're failing in this.

v. 21 - because you're feeding yourselves rather than looking after the hungry person

v. 22 - can't you fill your bellies at home?! you despise the church of God because you shame those who don't have the ability to fill their bellies at home. I'll not praise you for this!

v. 26 - when you take the Lord's Supper, you honor his death

v. 28 - but you need to examine yourself; if you're not paying attention to the Lord's body (those who are going hungry because of your selfishness), you're not worthy,

v. 29 - and thus you're bringing condemnation upon yourself

v. 33 - therefore, when you come together to eat, wait for one another, so no one goes hungry

v. 34 - if you're not getting enough food for your own stomach at the Lord's Supper gathering, then go home to eat, rather than coming together for condemnation.

Also, we see in 1 Cor 14:15ff that it's fine to pray and to sing, to worship, in tongues. Such is perfectly acceptable worship. Just don't do it in church! (At least, without an interpreter.) Why? Because the purpose of assembling is not to worship, but to build up one another. If you pray in tongues, you "verily givest thanks well" (v. 17), but the other assemblers get nothing out of it; "the other is not edified" (v. 17).

The purpose of the assembly here in 1 Cor 14 is not to worship; rather, "When ye come together ... Let all things be done unto edifying" (v. 26). Notice that the scripture does not say "let all things be done to worship God".

And again, in Hebrews 10:24-25, we find the writer warning us against forsaking the assembling. But note that the purpose of this assembling is not to "worship God", but rather to "provoke one another unto love and to good works..., exhorting one another".

Even in Acts 20:7ff, which is usually used as a proof-text for assembling and taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, we see that the emphasis was not on worship, but on Paul speaking to and with the disciples, a focus, not on God, but on "one another". (It might be noted that after he lectured (v. 9) one kid to death (v. 9), he changed his style to discussion (v. 11). Maybe we should pay attention to this. It might also be noted that the only mention of "breaking the bread" in this passage takes place after midnight, which means they started meeting on Saturday night if they were using the Jewish reckoning of time, or they didn't actually eat the Lord's Supper, if that's indeed what is meant here, until Monday, if they were using the non-Jewish reckoning of time. Either way, there are issues in this passage which make it unsuitable as a proof-text for taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. Evidence, yes; proof, no.)

Traditionally, our assemblies have had the core purpose of focusing on God. But in the New Testament, the explicit core purpose of our assemblies is to focus on building up one other. Therefore, that should be the explicit core focus of our assemblies.

You might respond that we should do both (worship God, and edify one another), and I agree; we see that happening in the New Testament. But unless someone can provide a Biblical reference showing that our purpose for assembling is to worship God, we speak unBiblically when we claim that as our purpose.

ACTION ITEMS:

1) Stop proclaiming that our purpose in assembling is to worship God, unless you can back it up with Scripture.

2) Stop designing our assemblies with a focus on worshiping God instead of a focus on building up one another. Include worship, absolutely; that's who we are to be as a people. But stop neglecting the weightier matter of focusing on each other. Ignoring the ones around us for an hour in order to "worship God" does not fulfill the task of each of us edifying others, no matter how well we sing in worship to God. Nor does one man's generically-impersonal sermon fulfill the task of edifying one another. Edifying one another means speaking to one another, in music, in a teaching, in a revelation, in a tongue, in an interpretation, in discussion of what has been said (1 Cor 14:26, 29), not facing the back of someone's head for an hour.

Lay By In Store...

Stephen Lord writes to the Church_Of_Christ group in Yahoo! Groups:

One [way to "cross the line" with regard to tradition in my view] I glean from Mk. 7--when a custom becomes sacrosanct, untouchable, confused with God-given doctrine and made a test of "soundness" and "fellowship". Example: we often hear how "God commanded that we lay by in store as we have prospered every first day of the week." No he didn't. The proof-text for that non-doctrine is 1 Cor. 16, wherein Paul is not speaking of a regular offering to support the work of the local church, but rather a "special contribution" for the poverty stricken church in Jerusalem (cf. Rom. 15; 2 Cor. 8-9). Once Paul arrived, that collection would cease, and he plainly said in 2 Cor. 8:8 that this collection was not a command. There is nothing wrong with providing the opportunity for assembled believers to share their material blessings on a regular basis, but it is not a command of God that we do so every Lord's Day assembly. Therefore, those who insist that taking up an offering is a required component of the assembly, one of the "authorized five acts of worship" that allegedly validate an assembly and make it pleasing in the eyes of God, have crossed the line from harmless custom to harmful "vain worship".

Sorry Pop; I'm Stickin' With My Wife

Maybe Adam felt guilty for not teaching Eve more completely. After all, when the serpent tempted her, she revealed she misunderstood the command, for she told the serpent (Gen 3:2):

We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, "You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.”

whereas in reality, God had said nothing about touching the fruit; He had just forbidden the eating of the fruit (Gen 2:17).

Maybe it wasn't guilt (maybe Eve just wasn't paying attention in class that day), but rather empathy. Maybe it was just extreme love. Or maybe it was some other motivation we can only guess at. But the result was that when Eve came to Adam to offer him the forbidden fruit, he knowingly chose Death in order to be with his wife rather than with his Parent, God. The apostle Paul wrote (1 Tim 2:14) that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived...".

It's ironic, I suppose, but God established that it should be this way. After forming Eve from Adam's rib, He stated (Gen 2:24):

This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.

Eve was deceived; Adam chose. He left his "father" and "mother" and chose Death in order to stand by his wife.

If that action had not have destined the rest of us to pain and death, we might would have thought he was honorable for doing so. Consider his other option: letting her wither and die while he continued on in perfect health. I have no idea how that would have worked out, but we'd see his actions as a bit selfish in that case, I suspect.

Could it be that God saw that Adam made decisions based on what was best for his wife, and saw that Eve was more prone to making decisions based on emotional issues (what is pretty - Gen 3:6), and this is why He said that her husband would have the rule over her (Gen 3:16)?

I don't know; I'm just thinking out loud.

Breastplate of Righteousness, Helmet of Salvation

Many Christians are familiar with the Ephesians 6:13ff passage urging us to put on the whole armor of God:

Take up the full armor of God... the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of preparation of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, the sword of the Spirit.

The context of this passage is that our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against worldly darkness and the spiritual forces of evil. Our job is to resist the dark evil, to stand firm, clothed in full spiritual armor, praying at all times in the Spirit.

But since we're not very well versed in the Jewish Scriptures, we fail to realize that Paul probably had in the back of his mind, and intended to remind his readers of, a passage in Isaiah 59:17, in which context God looks around and sees the evil in the world, and taking it upon himself to put on the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation and the robe of vengeance, then goes out to repay fury to his adversaries and recompense to his enemies according to their deeds.

In Isaiah, God is wearing the armor, and takes physical vengeance on evil-doers. In Ephesians, we, on God's side, wear our own set of armor, but not the robe of vengeance, and our battle is not physical but spiritual.

I think Paul's readers would have connected these two passages; I think maybe we should also.

Celebrating Christmas?

In my church culture growing up (and even recently in a Wednesday evening sermonette), it has been stressed that Christmas is not to be celebrated by Christians as a Holy Day, as it's not Biblically authorized, coming instead from a mingling of pagan celebrations and Catholic traditions.

Okay, if you don't want to celebrate Christmas in honor of Jesus' birth, I have no problem with that. Romans 14 makes it clear that people are going to come to different conclusions about such matters:

^{HCSB Rom 14:5} One person considers one day to be above another day. Someone else considers every day to be the same. Each one must be fully convinced in his own mind. ⁶ Whoever observes the day, observes it to the Lord. Whoever eats, eats to the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; and whoever does not eat, it is to the Lord that he does not eat, yet he thanks God. ⁷ For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Paul continues that we should not offend one another in these issues, and that we are to get along, not looking down on one another over "doubtful issues" (v.1), saying that each of God's servants stands or falls before the Lord, not before us criticizers (v. 4), and that "stand he will! For the Lord is able to make him stand" (v. 4).

He finishes up this chapter with:

²¹ It is a noble thing not to eat meat, or drink wine, or do anything that makes your brother stumble. ²² Do you have faith? Keep it to yourself before God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³ But whoever doubts stands condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith, and everything that is not from faith is sin.

This last line is often paired with Romans 10:17 ("faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God") to conclude that anything we do in a religious sense must be authorized by the written Word of God, but I believe that's mixing two different "faith" definitions. The Romans 10:17 faith is a faith that brings us into a saved relationship with Jesus; the Romans 14:23 faith is a confidence that we are not condemning ourselves by what we approve (v. 22), specifically in the realm of disputable matters such as eating of certain meets or observing certain holidays, etc, which Paul plainly states is okay either way so long as it's done in honor of the Lord.

Now, one final point:

^{HCSB Luke 2:10} But the angel said to them, "Don't be afraid, for look, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people: ¹¹ today a Savior, who is Messiah the Lord, was born for you in the city of David. ¹² This will be the sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped snugly in cloth and lying in a manger."

The written word of God said that the birth of Jesus is good news of great joy for all people. Then these angels broke out in joyous praise, followed by a party-attitude of the shepherds, the old man Simeon, and the old woman Anna. Should we not also be allowed to have a party-attitude about the birth of Jesus?

If so, when? Every day? Once a month? Once a year? Twice in a lifetime? How often, and when, does the Scripture tell us to celebrate the birth of Jesus?

It doesn't.

But it does tell us that his birth is worth celebrating, for all the people, not just for those immediately involved. It seems to me that the frequency and timing has been left up to us.

But if you don't want to, that's between you and God, as Romans 14 says. On the other hand, if you do want to, that's between you and God, as Romans 14 says.

1 Corinthians 16:1-2

^{HCSB 1 Corinthians 16:1} Now about the collection for the saints: you should do the same as I instructed the Galatian churches. ² On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save to the extent that he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come.

What the Bible Says	What We Claim
Addressed to the churches of Galatia and Corinth (v. 1) (and presumably Macedonia - 2 Cor 8:1)	Addressed to all churches
Not a command (2 Cor 8:8)	A command
For the specific purpose of financially helping the saints who were in poverty (v. 1; 2 Cor 8:14)	Mostly used for institutional purposes rather than personal financial relief of the saints
Had a definite completion (2 Cor 8:10-11)	Never-ending.

^{HCSB 2 Corinthians 8:1} We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God granted to the churches of Macedonia.... ³ I testify that, on their own, according to their ability and beyond their ability, ⁴ they begged us insistently for the privilege of sharing in the ministry to the saints.... ⁶ So we urged Titus that, just as he had begun, so he should also complete this grace to you.... ⁸ I am not saying this as a command. Rather, by means of the diligence of others, I am testing the genuineness of your love. ... ¹⁰ Now I am giving an opinion on this because it is profitable for you, who a year ago began not only to do something but also to desire it. ... ¹¹ But now finish the task as well, that just as there was eagerness to desire it, so there may also be a completion from what you have. ... ¹³ It is not that there may be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality — ¹⁴ at the present time your surplus is [available] for their need, so that their abundance may also become [available] for your need, that there may be equality. ... ¹⁸ With [Titus] we have sent the brother [who] was also appointed by the churches to accompany us with this gift that is being administered by us, ... taking this precaution so no one can find fault with us concerning this large sum administered by us.

So what's the point? We should not be making the claim that "We are commanded in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 to give every first day of the week...".

Use it as an example. Make inferences if you like. But don't claim that it's a command to us for an on-going practice of paying the church mortgage and staff salaries.

Role Reversal

At the end of Mark 1 we learn about a leper who met Jesus. Being a leper, he had to stay out of town, far away from people and civilization.

Jesus, going from town to town to teach and heal, meets this leper, and heals him, telling him to keep quiet about it.

Yet the former leper doesn't keep quiet; he goes and tells everyone, so that Jesus is no longer able to openly enter any town lest he be mobbed by the crowds. Instead, he has to stay out in the wilderness.

Before the healing, Jesus went all over, while the leper had to stay in the desert, away from the towns.

After the healing, their roles were reversed, the leper went all over, while Jesus had to stay in the desert, away from the towns.

Thanks to Daniel Egan (http://tinyurl.com/74k8lyj) for this insight.

Hershey's Chocolate Air Delight Kisses

Mmm, the TV advert makes them seem so wonderful; let me go spend my money to buy half the chocolate at the same price.

Oh, wait. Half the chocolate? For the same taste? And the same price? Am I being manipulated by marketing?

Well, if I were to buy this product, yes, yes I would be. But I'm not falling for it.

Marketers. Pfft.

Surprising Realizations

* The Bible does not say that Jesus fell while carrying the cross.

* Abraham's wife, Sarah, was protected from the sexual advances of Abimelech. Why aren't other women so protected? Perhaps because it was important that Sarah be the mate of only Abraham in order to be the mother of The Promise?

* The popular song says, "We bow down, and we crown you the king", but really, there is no scriptural indication of anyone but God ever crowning Jesus as king. Humanly-speaking, we can crown him king of our own lives, but it's not a scriptural phraseology.

Israel Couldn't Sing, So They Put Away Their Instruments

Wow! I've never noticed this before.

^{HCSB Psalm 137:1} By the rivers of Babylon—
there we sat down and wept
when we remembered Zion.

² There we hung up our lyres
on the poplar trees,

³ for our captors there asked us for songs,
and our tormentors, for rejoicing:
"Sing us one of the songs of Zion."

⁴ How can we sing the LORD's song
on foreign soil?

I'm familiar with the idea that the synagogue assembly arose during the time of the Exile, with verse 2 above indicating that non-Temple singing became non-instrumental at this time. But when I read this for what it says, rather than for what I'm looking for, I see something I've never seen before.

The captors asked the Israelites to sing songs of Zion, but they were too broken-hearted to do so, so they put away their instruments.

Notice that they did not put away their instruments and then sing non-instrumentally. They put away their instruments because they couldn't sing. Had they been able to sing, they would not have put away their instruments.

Wives, Submit to Your Husbands

^{HCSB Eph 5:22} Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord...

All my life this has been interpreted for me to mean that wives were to be submissive to their husbands. And that is true, in context.

Look at the previous verse:

²¹ submitting to one another in the fear of Christ.

So we are all told to submit to one another, but then wives are singled out as needing to be submissive to their husbands. Why? Is it because women need more instruction than men in being submissive to one another?

Let's look at one more aspect of the context. This letter was written to the people in the city of Ephesus. Ephesus, as you'll recall from Acts 19 (and from extra-Biblical history), was the headquarters of the cult of Diana/Artemis. This was a matriarchal town, in which the women were the priests; the women were the government officials; the women wore the pants in the home. These women who were converting to Jesus had spent their entire lives believing that women were to be in charge.

Paul was telling these Ephesians to submit to one another, and emphasizing to the women that the Christian culture was different than that to which they were accustomed, and to stop lording it over the men.

This background may also have bearing on the instructions written to Timothy, who was the church leader in Ephesus at the time (1 Tim 1:3):

^{HCSB 1 Tim 2:11} A woman should learn in silence with full submission. ¹² I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.

Humming As Communication

It's been said that humming does not communicate, as does actual speech.

I disagree. It may usually communicate nothing, but if I hum the tune to "Amazing Grace" (or the theme from "The Flinstones"), that will put ideas and images and even words into your head.

Granted, that communication is dependent on a shared culture, and so does not communicate new information the way speech is able to do, but humming is not always or entirely void of communicative value.

Just an observation.