A while back, I wrote about how Christians should approach the Old Testament Law, paying special attention to the laws that make us uncomfortable.  But the Old Testament does not have a corner on that market.  The New Testament is also filled with commands that can make us just as uncomfortable as the Old Testament Laws.  So just like the Old Testament laws, the modern Christian must grapple with how to handle these New Testament commands.  

This discomfort starts with the Gospels.  In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says it is better to cut off your limbs and gouge out your eyes than for them to cause you to sin (Matthew 5:29-30), right after saying that any impure thoughts are akin to murder and adultery (Matthew 5:21-28) and right before saying that divorce in all cases except infidelity is also adultery (Matthew 5:31-32).  He later said it was easier for a camel (the largest animal most of His contemporaries would have seen) to go through the eye of a needle (the smallest hole most of them had seen) than for a rich person to be saved (Matthew 19:24) after telling the Rich Young Ruler to sell all he had and give his money to the poor.  In our generation in which it is common to spew hate on the internet, cast off all sexual restraint, divorce for reasons other than infidelity, and glorify wealth, all of these commands from Jesus can make us just as uncomfortable as the Old Testament Laws. 

Uncomfortable Commands in the Epistles

The epistles are also filled with such commands.  We are to never seek revenge and instead bless those who curse us (Romans 12:19-21), submit to the government in all cases—including paying taxes and showing respect—except when that submission would be a sin (Romans 13:1-7, 2 Timothy 3:1-2, 1 Peter 2:13-17).  We are also to lay aside our rights if they cause grief to fellow Christians (Romans 14:1-15:13, 1 Corinthians 8-10), be willing to suffer wrong from fellow Christians rather than causing conflict (1 Corinthians 6:1-11), speak graciously to everyone (Colossians 4:6), and not be idle but work diligently (1 Thessalonians 4:10-12, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).  The epistles also tell use to submit to every human institution (1 Peter 2:13), including several commands for slaves to obey and honor their masters—even harsh masters (Ephesians 6:4-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, 2 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18-20), and call anyone who will not provide for his family worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).  We are also prohibited from loving money (Hebrews 13:5-6, James 5:1-6) and showing partiality (James 2:1-13) And we are to stay away from people who call themselves Christians but don’t obey these commands (2 Thessalonians 3:6).  All of this is in addition to explicit commands against homosexuality, extramarital sex, transgenderism, and abortion (as murder), which I have previously addressed generally as well as specifically for both homosexualityand transgenderism.  These are enough to make the modern American Christian squirm just as much as any Old Testament Law. 

Still the New Testament commands that cause the most consternation in the American church today fall into the distinct but related categories of order in the church and gender roles.  The former includes commands to honor and submit to pastors (1 Thessalonians 4:12-13, Hebrews 13:7,17, 1 Peter 5:5)—including adequately compensating them (Galatians 6:6, 1 Timothy 5:17-18) and refusing to entertain unconfirmed accusations against them (1 Timothy 5:19-21).  It also includes conducting worship services in an orderly manner without interruption (1 Corinthians 14:20-39), being careful how we take communion and excluding certain people from taking communion (1 Corinthians 11:17-33), and practicing church discipline, including excommunication if necessary (Matthew 18:15-17).  The latter include exhortations for women to be silent (1 Corinthians 14:34-36, 1 Timothy 2:11) and cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) in church as well as prohibitions against women teaching or exercising authority over men in the church (1 Timothy 2:12).  Elsewhere, what we would consider as “traditional” gender roles are extolled, including calls for wives to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24,32, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1-6) and for women in general to marry, have children, and keep their homes in most (1 Timothy 5:13-15, Titus 2:3-5) but not all cases (eg. 1 Corinthians 7:1-16,25-40).  While the first category causes some discomfort in the church today, the second flies directly in the face of our culture that has been deeply impacted by several decades of feminism.  Therefore, these commands do not merely make us feel uncomfortable but are so countercultural that they can even cause us to question the goodness and wisdom of God.

The Cultural Cop-Out

How do we as Christians today deal with these commands?  Are they like the moral laws in the Old Testament that are binding on all people across time and space or are they more like the civil laws that are only applicable to a specific context?  Many American Christians choose the latter, arguing that some or all of these commands were specific to the context of the church in the first century Roman world and are thus not binding on Christians today.  This view is appealing, since it immediately resolves any conflict between Scripture and culture by allowing us to view them as examples rather than binding commands.  In this way, it is common to assume that the commands regarding head coverings, orderly worship, and silence of women in churches were specifically for Corinth, while the commands regarding slaves and the prohibition against women teaching or having authority over men was for churches in the Greco-Roman world in general.  Therefore, to apply them to our own context we would need to look for the underlying moral laws and then determine how to apply those moral laws to our own situation. 

This view also alleviates the need for us to do the hard work of studying and understanding these difficult passages, which are just as inspired as the rest of Scripture.  Therefore, I often refer to this as the “cultural cop-out”.  It is the path of least resistance, and therefore the path that many Christians take.  But as any soldier will tell you, the path of least resistance is usually peppered with landmines and within range of enemy artillery—and this is no exception.  There is significant danger in this approach.  If we incorrectly interpret these commands as no longer binding, we will actually be disobeying God by not following them.  We would be neglecting the commands of God to the church, which carry greater condemnation than neglecting the Old Covenant (Hebrews 2:1-4).  That is not a risk I am willing to take, so we must be diligent to do the hard work of studying and properly interpreting these passages so that we can apply them to our own context in a way that is not sinful against God. 

Determining Universal vs. Cultural

This type of interpretation is hard work, especially since the same passage can include both universal and cultural elements.  In many of the examples I gave earlier, there are certainly some cultural elements.  After all, every epistle was written to a specific church or group of churches in a specific area at a specific time.  The people of Corinth were different from people in Ephesus and Colossae who were in turn different from the Jews to which Peter wrote—and they all had different issues that the apostles had to address.  Just as we must consider the cultural context of every passage of Scripture, we must be careful not to neglect it here.  Still, all of Scripture was provided to us by God for our benefit even though we are not the original audience.  Every word of Scripture is there on purpose, so while we can and should take culture into consideration with every passage, we cannot ignore any passage because we are in a very different culture than its original audience.

So how can we tell if a command is specific to the original audience or equally binding for us?  Just like moral laws in the Old Testament, New Testament commands are binding on believers today if they are rooted in the unchangeable nature of God.  But whereas moral laws in the Old Testament are relatively easy to spot by statements like “I am the LORD” and references to abominations, the New Testament equivalents are often not as clearly marked.  One way to tell that a New Testament command is universal is if the author uses the example of Christ to back up that command.  Peter does this following his discussion on submission to human authorities in general and slaves to masters in particular in 1 Peter 2 as well as after his commands to husbands and wives in 1 Peter 3.  And just like moral laws in the Old Testament, commands in the New Testament are definitely universal if they are rooted in Creation or the Fall.  Paul’s probation against women teaching or exercising authority over men in the church is rooted in the created order and the Fall (1 Timothy 2:12-15), so it is universal.  Also, if a command in the New Testament lacks any cultural explanation or caveats, it must be considered universal since the ratio of universal to cultural commands in the New Testament is vastly higher than the ratio of moral to ceremonial or civil laws in the Old Testament.  The commands to honor, submit to, and adequately compensate pastors fall into this category, as does the institution of church discipline in Matthew 18.  Use of universal words like “all” and “every” are also indicative of universal commands, such as “all the churches of the saints” in Paul’s discussion of orderly worship (1 Corinthians 14:33).  Based on these criteria alone, the list of cultural commands in the New Testament must be quite small, so we would be wise to assume a command in the New Testament is universal until we can prove that it is cultural.

Difficult Commands: Universal or Cultural?

With that, let’s look at the specific commands that are often labeled cultural rather than universal to see if they are indeed cultural and determine if there are universal aspects to them much as we did with the uncomfortable laws in the previous post.  Much could be written about each of these (and has been in many cases), so I cannot cover them in detail here.  For basically all of the commands involving gender, the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, is a wonderful resource.  This book basically lays out the complementarian view, which states that men and women were created from the beginning (i.e. before the Fall) ontologically equal (i.e. of the same value) but economically distinct (i.e. differing in roles with relation to each other) patterned after the Trinity, meaning that the distinction of gender roles is universal.  The following begins with that premise.

• Orderly Worship (1 Corinthians 14:20-39): This section ends Paul’s discussion on spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14), which addresses the issue of Corinthian Christians dividing over their gifts.  This caused disarray and confusion in the church, so after Paul addressed how to properly use prophecy and tongues in the church, he gives general direction for the worship service, saying that everything should be done “decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40).  While the situation itself was unique to Corinth, the direction clearly was not, as indicated by the inclusion of “all the churches of the saints” and the link to God’s nature in verse 33 as well as his rebuke of them for not aligning with the rest of the churches in verse 36.  Therefore, while the issue itself was specific to Corinth, the command to worship God in an orderly and decent fashion is certainly universal.  This does not preclude people from sharing prayer requests or testimonies in the service, but it does mean that everything that happens in the worship service must be under the authority and direction of the elders.

• Communion (1 Corinthians 11:17-33): This was another issue in Corinth that resulted from the division on the church.  Their divisions and selfishness were so bad that their practice of communion couldn’t even be considered communion (verse 20).  So after Paul reminds them of the institution of communion (verses 23-26), he gives commands regarding how communion is to be practiced.  We must examine ourselves before taking communion to avoid taking it in an unworthy manner and thus incurring judgment (verses 27-29).  There is debate on what exactly is required here, but it at least means that we need to partake of communion very seriously.  It also means that only professing believers should take communion (and their baptized children for those who subscribe to the paedocommunion view).  We must also partake in unity, serving one another (verse 33) since communion is among many other things a sign of our unity.  Therefore, these commands are universal.

• Women Silent in Church (1 Corinthians 14:34-36, 1 Timothy 2:11): Part of the 1 Corinthians 14 section on orderly worship includes a prohibition against women speaking in the church.  A similar command is found in 1 Timothy just before the prohibition against women teaching and leading men in the church.  D.A. Carson addresses the former in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so I will only summarize here.[1]  Since earlier in the book Paul referred to women praying and prophesying in church (1 Corinthians 11:5), this cannot be a requirement of complete silence.  Instead, it could refer specifically to the weighing of prophetic words spoken in the church (which would be a form of teaching).  This fits the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 and aligns with 1 Timothy 2:11-15, so this command does not prohibit women from speaking in church in all circumstances, but going back to the discussion on orderly worship, everything in the service (including when and how anyone speaks) must be under the authority of the elders and be in an orderly way.  But Paul’s comments about the created order and the Fall in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 also mean however a woman speaks in the worship service, it must also be in a way that does not usurp the way that God created men and women in relation to each other.

• Women Teaching/Leading Men (1 Timothy 2:12-15): Douglas Moo covers this topic in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so again I will only summarize.[2]  The fact that Paul appeals to man being created first and that Eve not Adam was deceived means that at least some aspects of this command must be universal.  As a side note, I want to mention that this passage does not blame Eve for the Fall while absolving Adam.  As I discussed in a previous post, while Eve was deceived, Adam was well aware of what was happening and therefore still bears the majority of the guilt for the Fall on top of his responsibility as head of his family.  Along with Moo and most Reformed churches, I hold that this is a universal prohibition against women teaching or exercising authority over men in an official capacity in the church, which would exclude women from being pastors (and I would argue elders).  Some extend this prohibition outside of the church as well, but I argue in the appendix to my leadership paper that this does not preclude women from holding leadership positions over men outside of the church or home except in certain circumstances—namely when their leadership is both personal and directive. 

• Head Coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2-16): Coming just before the section on communion, Paul’s command for women to pray and prophesy with their heads covered while men pray and prophesy with their heads uncovered gives many interpretive challenges and has thus led to varying interpretations.  Thomas Schreiner covers this passage in some detail in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ultimately coming to the conclusion that the requirement for head coverings was cultural but the underlying concept of distinction between men and women is universal.[3]  Paul appeals to the created order, likening the relationship between woman and man to the relationship between Christ and God the Father, which means that the ontological equality and economic distinction between men and women is like that of the Trinity (verses 3-9 and 11-12).  This distinction should be clear to anyone who enters the church (verse 10).  In Corinth and the other churches at the time (verse 16), head coverings were the expected way to show that distinction.  They do not communicate that distinction in our culture, so in the same way we use the civil laws to inform how we apply the moral laws in our own context, we need to show that distinction within our own culture.  However, in one way head coverings do communicate the same thing in our culture.  Men remove their hats during the playing of the “Star Spangled Banner” out of respect.  Therefore, it would be disrespectful for American men to refrain from removing their hats while praying to God.  But as for women covering their heads in church, the majority of Reformed Christians do not hold it as a literal requirement (though there are a substantial number who do).  What I believe is required is what Peter exhorts wives to display: respectful and pure conduct, a gentle and quiet spirit, and fearless submission based on trust in God (1 Peter 3:1-6).  Nevertheless, the fact that head coverings do not necessarily communicate this in our culture does not make them obsolete.  Our culture has so distorted what it means to be male and female that it should be obvious when anyone enters the church that we do not share that distorted view.  It is quite possible that head coverings would help to communicate that, so they are worthy of consideration.

• Headship and Submission at Home (Ephesians 5:22-33, Colossians 3:18-19, 1 Peter 3:1-7): Paul makes clear in both Ephesians and Colossians that the relationship between husband and wife reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church, so husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the Church and wives are to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ.  George Knight explains both of these passages in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.[4]  While our culture finds Paul’s command for wives to submit to (verses 22-24) and respect (verse 33) their husbands as radical, Paul spends more time discussing what was radical at that time: the command for husbands to sacrificially and unconditionally love their wives as Christ loves the Church, nurturing and cherishing them just as they do their own bodies (verses 25-32).  The relation to Christ and the Church makes this universal.  Wayne Grudem addresses the parallel passage in 1 Peter 3 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.[5]  Peter similarly calls for wives to submit to their husbands while trusting in God to take care of them even when their husbands fail, holding up the example of Sarah (1 Peter 3:3-6).  In light of the difficulty of this command, he then exhorts husbands to live with their wives “in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7).  Being rooted in the example of Christ in 1 Peter 2:21-25, this is similarly universal.  As for the following the example of Sarah calling Abraham “lord” (1 Peter 3:6), the fact that this is an example shows that Sarah was displaying these traits in a way that fit her context, so the underlying attitude of respect and submission is universal while using titles like “lord” is not. 

• Gender Roles (1 Timothy 5:13-15, Titus 2:3-5):  There are also passages that seem to require women to marry, raise children, and work at home.  After giving the criteria for honoring specific widows in 1 Timothy 5, Paul says that younger widows should “marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander” (1 Timothy 5:14).  He also tells Titus that older women are to “train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled” (Titus 2:4-5).  Since the 1 Timothy passage comes in the context of widows, this cannot mean that all women must marry, raise children, and work at home.  The widows Paul was referring to in 1 Timothy 5 were in a specific role, essentially employed by the church for a specific ministry which therefore had specific prerequisites just like the offices of elder and deacon in 1 Timothy 3.[6]  Furthermore, Paul commends singleness for both men and women in 1 Corinthians 7.  This means that while there are times in which it is appropriate and for both men and women to not pursue marriage and family—after all, I am writing this as a single man—the expectation is that marriage and family will be the norm.  Within the context of marriage and family, these and other passages commend the distinct and complementary roles of husband and wife stemming from the created order, with husbands focused outside the homeproviding for, protecting, and lovingly leading their families and wives focused inside the home caring for the children, managing the home, and supporting their husbands.  This is certainly not possible in all circumstances and all seasons of life, but is held up as norm to which Christians should strive.

• New Testament Slavery (Ephesians 6:4-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, 2 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18-20): Just like in the Old Testament, slavery is never condoned in the New Testament.  It was simply part of Greco-Roman culture, so all New Testament commands about slavery are written within that context.  Paul (Ephesians 6:4-8, Colossians 3:22-25, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, 2 Timothy 2:9-10) and Peter (1 Peter 2:18-20) both command slaves to serve and honor their masters, while also commanding masters to likewise care for, honor, and even serve their slaves (Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1).  In both cases, Paul is careful to point out the temporary nature of the relationship between slaves and masters.  So he also tells slaves to pursue their freedom if given the opportunity (1 Corinthians 7:21).  He even wrote an entire letter all but commanding a master to free his slave (Philemon).  It was the impact of Christianity (especially passages like these) on Western culture that ultimately brought about the end of the institution of slavery.  Still, while the commands are directed to slaves and masters, they are equally applicable to employees and employers.  I apply these passages in that way in my leadership paper, so while the context has changed the commands are still universal.

God’s Ways Are Greater Than Ours

In the end, this underscores the importance of making sure we draw the meaning out of the text (exegesis) rather than bringing our own culture and meaning to the text (eisegesis).  These commands are so far from our cultural understanding that it is all too tempting to reason that they cannot mean the same thing for us as they did for their original audience.  But they are in the Bible, so we must ask: are we smarter than God?  Instead of questioning God’s wisdom and goodness in giving us these commands, we must trust the wisdom and goodness of God above our own wisdom.  The aforementioned commands seem unreasonable to us because our culture has bought into the lie that we are not only wiser than all generations before us but that we are wiser than God.  Thus, when we too quickly discard these commands as cultural, we insult God, asking with Satan “did God really say…?”.  As far as the heavens are above the earth, so God’s thoughts are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:8-9).  In this case, that means that these seemingly antiquated commands are really for our ultimate good, even though we often don’t see how.  We are no smarter or wiser than Christians of previous generations, and we would be foolishly arrogant to think otherwise.  In the past year, I have read various Puritans and have been amazed at their knowledge and wisdom, especially since they lacked our resources for study.  And that is to say nothing of the Apostle Paul, whose intellect and rhetorical skill rivaled the likes of Plato and Aristotle.  So if we do not presume to be smarter than they were (and we would be wise not to), we should similarly not presume to be smarter than Paul, especially once we consider that the omniscient Holy Spirit was inspiring his words.  As we look around at the apocalypse of broken families, mental health issues, and dying churches, we must acknowledge that our own wisdom isn’t working.  So at the risk of sounding old-fashioned, patriarchal, and even oppressive, we must obey God rather than man, trusting that He gave us these commands for a reason and will bless us for following them as He has promised—whether in this life or the next.  So let’s avoid the cultural cop-out and put in the hard work of studying these difficult passages and rightly interpreting them in order to apply them to our lives in our own context so that we can obey God’s commands rather than neglect them. 

NOTES

[1] D.A. Carson, “Silent in the Churches: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (ed.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2012: 179-198.

[2] Douglass Moo, “What Does it Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority over Men?: 1 Timothy 2:11-15”, in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (ed.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2012: 233-252.

[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies, and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16” in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (ed.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2012: 157-178.

[4] George W. Knight III, “Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church: Ephesians 4:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19”, in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (ed.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2012: 215-232.

[5] Wayne Grudem, “Wives Like Sarah, and the Husbands Who Honor Them: 1 Peter 3:1-7”, in John Piper and Wayne Grudem (ed.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism: Wheaton, IL: Crossway: 2012: 253-272.

[6] Cornelis Van Til, The Deacon: Biblical Foundations for Today’s Ministry of Mercy, Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Heritage Books: 2016: 84-87.