An example from scriptures on why it’s not always the final authority on all matters

For me I look for overall patterns that stretch from the Old Testament into the New Testament.

With this particular case I would say Jesus not throwing a stone at the adulterous woman means this particular issue is closed down. We still address it, but don’t punish it.

For the rest I think it’s a combination of science and theology. Each person will have to draw their own conclusion on it and each congregation will have to decide where they draw the line. For me chromosomes determine male or female and it’s almost always expressed through clear visible physical characteristics.

I do believe based off of scripture there are lines drawn in the sand. But it’s still something I’m studying out.

Like it mostly seems to teach that elders and deacons must be married with with 2+ kids and so on. But I do have some questions about it. Such as elsewhere it uses the phrase deaconess and within that same chapter it throws in this statement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3Fsearch=1%2BTimothy%2B3:8-13&version=NASB&interface=amp

Verse 11 is debated on if it’s deacon’s wife or if it’s deaconess.

1 Like

While I think this case is instructive, (and goes in the direction you here rightly discern, I think), I also think that among the various approaches to scripture, one of the more faithful ones is to view scripture in its broad sense (from 30,000 ft up as it were) in order to discern its overall narrative arc. This would be as opposed to getting out our exegetical microscopes and trying to tease apart jots and tittles of law, which then has us giving the same treatment to the New Testament - thereby striving to replace “Law 1.0” with some ‘new and improved’ Law 2.0. Both approaches miss the point of Christ who literally is the end of law. Not ‘end’ as in the termination of it, but ‘end’ ’ as in the whole purpose of the law in the first place: to lead us to Him. A new and improved N.T. law sidesteps that and would have us thinking that now all we did was step up our game: it just takes a lot more to make God happy now. But that is not the good news of the gospel. God is and has always been the same. Now we are shown that there will be no pleasing God apart from Christ, and our obedience to Christ is the only possible fulfillment of the law. Apart from that [Him] we won’t be satisfying any law set … not unless our righteousness vastly exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees … [and since some among us fancy that to have been a low bar that they now actually have a shot at, I’ll add: "and are perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect" … in other words: nope. Can’t. and won’t, no matter how righteous you think you are.] So just cast aside that impossible burden, and go with Christ instead. His yoke is easy and burden is light.

I guess personally I do believe that he came to fulfill the law, and not abolish it. The law was written on our hearts. The law changed from regulations about things like eating and drinking and was remained only acts of righteousness vs unrighteousness and some laws concerning worship and leadership. How to operate a congregation as the spiritual leader of it.

@SkovandOfMitaze

Nice analysis! I will remember and use it in future discussions outside of BioLogos!

1 Like

@SkovandOfMitaze

This passage is relevant:

Romans 16:1 [Full Chapter]

[ Personal Greetings ] I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae

It’s definitely relevant. But I’ve also heard a bunch of counter arguments over the exact greek word there verses in Timothy and Titus.

https://biblehub.com/greek/diakonon_1249.htm

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.