Although “The Great Commission” is much talked about by “Christian insiders”, not many “normal Christians” know for sure what it is.

This interesting 2017 survey shows that only 17% of churchgoers recognized the term and could explain its meaning.  If given a series of five quotes, the percent rose to 37%, an increase which is no more than you’d expect from random guessing.

So we should start off by quoting the Great Commission, as reported in Matthew 28:19-20 (verse 18 is sometimes included for context, we’ll show it too) (MEV)

18 Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

The essence of the Great Commission is the sentence starting in verse 19 and its completion in verse 20.  There are four components :

• • • Make disciples
    • Everywhere
    • Baptize them
    • Teach them to follow Jesus’ teachings

These are the closing words of the Matthew Gospel, and are perhaps the second to last quoted words of Jesus after his resurrection and before he ascended to Heaven (see Acts 1:6-8 for his very last words, and note that the words in Acts 1 sound almost like another restatement/paraphrase of the words in Matthew 28).

Similar passages can be found in Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:44-49, John 20:19-23 and Acts 1:4-8, although these similar accounts of the Great Commission are sometimes reported in different settings prior to the crucifixion.

There can be no doubt that Jesus wished his disciples to go out and proselytize, and the importance of this is implied by the repeated citing of his wish/command, as well as simply by using ordinary common sense.  Of course this is a good thing to do.  Everyone deserves to be given as full and fair an opportunity to consider the concept of Christianity and to choose to accept Jesus Christ as his personal savior.  Plus, at a more selfish level, we as Christians can reasonably expect a better life here on Earth if we live in a Christian society, and more broadly, in a Christian world.

We don’t disagree with the concept/command, as expressed at the end of Matthew and everywhere else, at all (and, of course, how could we ever disagree with any teaching from Jesus!).  But what does it mean to you, personally?

Does the Bible Name This as The Great Commission?

We should understand that the phrase “Great Commission” was nowhere used in the Bible.

Sure, Jesus does talk about “the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:37-38) and immediately after that, adds a second ranked commandment (Matthew 22:39-40), but these and the ten Old Testament Commandments are more “universal rules for life” than a tasking order such as the “Great Commission”.  But he never described what is termed “The Great Commissions” by saying “this is my greatest instruction and command to you”.

Yes, it could be said that because it was his last words to his disciples, it was especially important – to him and to us – and we’re happy to agree with that interpretation.

But the term “Great Commission” seems to have only started appearing in the 1600s, and was used by missionaries to underscore the importance of their chosen missions, and has been enthusiastically repeated by missionaries and more broadly, evangelists, for that obvious reason, ever since.

Our beef with this is seeing people try to give their preferred type of Christian activity a possibly higher priority and more validation than all the other elements of leading and sharing a good Christian life.  Yes, it is a “commission”, but is it “The Great” commission?  Is it more important than every other form of Christian service?  In both cases, we don’t think so.

Is the “Great Commission” Still Applicable Today?

Even though pretty much the entire world has had missionary visits, usually for hundreds of years, and Christianity is well known, there’s little sign of global trends for the world to become a more Christian place.  Besides which, each new generation of people can benefit from direct interaction with missionaries and other Christian evangelizers/evangelists. On the face of it, there’s as much need now to effectively “spread the word to the world” as there ever has been, and so it would seem the answer is very emphatically yes.

On the other hand, there are some elements of the original Jesus-stated “Great Commission” that may no longer apply in these days.  That’s not to say we shouldn’t still do something similar, but is the specific “Great Commission” still in force?  Opinions differ on that.

As a general issue, some schools of thought – held by people termed “preterists” – believe that some/much/all of what the Bible foretold has already happened.  This is not a widely held view, and we currently have no well-informed opinion that would persuade us to accept such beliefs ourselves, other than to note there are some passages in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile with the concept of “far-future events”.

More specifically, some of the “Great Commission” quotes refer specifically to two factors :

1.  The disciples were in-person witnesses of Jesus fulfilling the prophecies in the Old Testament

2.  The disciples were to wait until they received “power from on high” before setting forth on their commission.

For example, the conclusion of the Book of Luke (Luke 24:44-49) tells us Luke’s version of the final meeting between Jesus and the disciples, adding some more details and omitting others that were in the Matthew version (MEV)

44 He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning Me.”
45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.
46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and accordingly it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
49 And look, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.”

So, do Jesus’ words to his disciples apply to us, too?  Perhaps the best answer is to acknowledge that Jesus’ request to his disciples needs to be updated to reflect current times and our circumstances.  Even if we can’t give witness based on personal interactions with Jesus and personal knowledge of the miracles he worked during his lifetime, we can still report on them as passed on through the Bible, and we can give personal witness of the miracles Jesus has worked in our lives.

To which we’d re-affirm that it is a good thing to share and spread the Good News of the Gospels and Christianity as far and wide as is appropriate and possible.

Does the Great Commission Apply to Everyone?

There may have been more people present than just the eleven disciples when the event reported in Matthew occurred.  The words in Matthew 28:17 (“some doubted”) hint at this. But (and as reported where similar tasking is stated elsewhere on other occasions) it seems the specific commission was given primarily to his eleven (remaining) disciples.  There is no quote anywhere in the New Testament of Jesus issuing the same command to everyone.

Moving now to the present day, we know that we are all given different gifts, talents, and strengths by God, for example, Romans 12:4-8 (MEV)

4 For just as we have many parts in one body, and not all parts have the same function,
5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and all are parts of one another.
6 We have diverse gifts according to the grace that is given to us: if prophecy, according to the proportion of faith;
7 if service, in serving; he who teaches, in teaching;
8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with generosity; he who rules, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

It seems a reasonable inference that the “Great Commission” was handed to the eleven people with the strongest skills and appropriate gifts for that tasking.  Maybe you know you too would be well suited for following the Great Commission, but if that does not sound like you, then you absolutely should not feel any embarrassment at not wishing to follow this.

This concept of different gifts for different people is important.  This is one point where we take gentle issue with some other Christian churches that seek to encourage all their youth to go on missions, whether the individuals are well-suited for this or not.  Is going on a mission character-building and praiseworthy?  Yes, but the effects and achievements of such dedication are greatly variable and dependent on how well suited as missionaries the individuals are.

Some churches, we feel, have ended up becoming unfortunate caricatures of the Christian faith because of their ardent missionary activities.  If a person chooses to take up the responsibility of sharing the Word of God to non-Christians, and to encourage such people to embrace Christianity and make it their own, then we think an inseparable part of that responsibility is to be well trained and well able to do so with positive outcomes.

To restate the “different gifts/different activities” concept, we are told by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, that we all have our parts to play in God’s great plan, and we are all important.   The entire chapter is totally relevant, let’s look at it here (MEV – our comments in square brackets)

1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant.
2 You know that you were Gentiles [pagans], carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led.
3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed!” And no one can say, “Jesus is the Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4 There are various gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 There are various operations, but it is the same God who operates all of them in all people.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for the common good.
8 To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit,
10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 But that one and very same Spirit works all these, dividing to each one individually as He will.
12 For as the body is one and has many parts, and all the many parts of that one body are one body, so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Gentiles, whether we are slaves or free, and we have all been made to drink of one Spirit.
14 The body is not one part, but many.
15 If the foot says, “Because I am not the hand, I am not [a part] of the body,” is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear says, “Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
18 But now God has established the parts, every one of them, in the body as it has pleased Him.
19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20 So there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.”
22 No, those parts of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.
23 And those parts of the body which we think are less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor. And our less respectable parts are treated with much more respect,
24 whereas our more respectable parts have no need of this. But God has composed the body, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacks it,
25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that the parts should have the same care for one another.
26 If one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it, and if one part is honored, all the parts rejoice with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and members individually.
28 God has put these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, and various tongues.
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? [Or, stylistically in each case, “Not all are apostles, are they?” etc]
30 Do all have the gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
31 But earnestly covet [strive for] the greater gifts. Yet I [will] show you a more excellent way.

However You Participate is Good and Valuable

Our point is that each of us doesn’t have to possess and act out the full range of Christian taskings.  God has chosen our gifts, our abilities and skills, and the resources we each have available to devote to our part in his great plan.  If he wished more of us, he’d have given us more to start with.

If you are called to missionary work, then by all means, answer your calling, and you have our respect, admiration, and support.  But maybe there are other ways you can participate that are closer to home, and in making such a choice, no-one should think any the less of you.

Yes, living a good Christian life does have some obligations associated with it.  But this doesn’t mean you must become a missionary, nor does it mean that becoming a missionary is the highest possible calling.  Most of all, it doesn’t mean your life should become onerous and miserable because of your faith.  Absolutely not!

Maybe God has blessed you with prosperity, and you can provide financial support for other people’s missionary activities.  Or maybe there are other ways you can help God’s great plan, closer to home, and perhaps working with the already-Christian rather than the yet-to-be-converted.

In the chessboard that is life, some of us are knights, some are rooks, some are bishops, and so on.  Don’t agonize over what you’re not.  Appreciate and use what you have.  Even pawns – the most common chess pieces, after all – have potentially invaluable roles to play.

A single lady parishioner very much wishes to become a mother and have her own child or children.  Due to work issues, it is hard for her to meet and form a stable long term relationship with a man, leading to marriage and all that follows.

She is in her late 30s and very much aware of her ticking biological clock.  She worries that if she doesn’t soon have children, it will become too late, and sees no obvious traditional pathway leading to marriage and children.  She is also a good Christian, and has been wondering what Christian solution is open to her.  Artificial insemination?  She even went as far as to wonder if I might “assist” her.

I instinctively recoiled back from that request, but it certainly got me to thinking and examining the assumptions generally held about such things (and my own instinctive turning away), and of course, ultimately turning to the Bible, reinforced with prayer, for assistance in understanding its teachings on this matter.

There are other web pages addressing this question, but it seems that many times the answers they offer are based on the personal opinions of each writer, rather than on Biblical guidance.  I’ll try and leave my personal thoughts out of the answer that follows.

First, Understanding the Question/Issue

This is a somewhat special situation.  We are not considering “is it alright for loving couples to have children but not be married” and we are also not considering single women having children due to “carelessness” or other reasons.

Instead, we are focused specifically on if a Christian woman could/should deliberately choose to become pregnant in some way, with no intention of marrying the father, but with every intention of doing her very best to raise the child in a loving Christian home.

To be clear, this would not be an unintended or uncaring consequence of lustful sex.  This is a deliberate desired outcome of procreative sex – or maybe not physical sex at all.  The lady in question views artificial insemination as equally desirable, possibly even more so (other than for the costs and extra complications involved).

There is no clear Biblical answer to this situation that we can find.  But that’s not to say the Bible doesn’t give us some hints.  Please walk through our thought process with us :

God Loves Children

For sure, we all know that God likes to see married couples having children (see, for example, Genesis 1:28 and Psalm 127:3-5), and we also know that having children can bring us great joy, both spiritually and in general.

God also presumably would not want us to make a bad choice of spouse, just so we can then have children within a marriage, especially if the marriage ends up in unhappy divorce.

Some people have gone as far as to say the purpose of marriage is to have children.  That is less obvious – Genesis 2 tells us that God made woman to be a helper for man.  Perhaps a restatement of the claim that “the purpose of marriage is to have children” might be that “marriage is a pre-requisite for having children”?  Or perhaps not?  As we said, the Bible is silent on this point.

But we feel that children should be a positive outcome of a positive marriage, not a mandatory outcome of all marriages.  But we’re now starting to stray a bit off this specific topic, so let’s come back to it, and now look at marriage in general.

Is Marriage Also Good?  Essential?

You would think, right from Genesis in the first two chapters, that God encourages marriage.  Indeed, the phrase in Genesis 2:18 (“It is not good that the man should be alone…”) can have two meanings – either “it is better that a man be with a partner, a woman” or “it is bad that a man not be with a wife/partner”.

In the Jewish tradition, the focus of this phrase was on the “bad” meaning, making the statement into essentially a command that men must marry.  These days, in the Christian faith, our emphasis is more on the optional/personal choice aspect of “it is better to be together”.

Whether it is a command or merely an observation, it is clear that God favors marriage, and that marriage is a holy state.  Surprisingly though, the concept of marriage changed substantially from the early Old Testament times to the New Testament.  In Matthew 19:9 Jesus introduces a new concept – marriage should be a permanent lasting commitment between the two people, something that surprised his disciples (Matthew 19:10).  Prior to that, both in the Roman world and in Jewish circles, divorces were readily obtained and “normal”, plus there is an abundance of examples of men with more than one wife, and/or concubines and other relationships.

Although Jesus introduced limitations on marriage, Paul points out the special holy nature of marriage, as was first introduced back in Genesis, survives through into the New Testament too, in Ephesians 5:31-32.

Now for an interesting bit of “fine print”.  Jesus says (Matthew 19:11-12) that marriage may not be for everyone.  This makes clear that if God’s observation about it “not being good for man to be alone” was indeed a command to marry in the Old Testament for all to marry, that command no longer applies.

This provides a great background from which to appreciate the commentary in 1 Corinthians 7,where Paul discusses the pluses and minuses of marriage, and praises the concept of staying single, although also agreeing that if a person needs physical fulfillment, it is preferable to be married and to obtain that as part of a marriage than to “play the field” while single.

In particular, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:7, presumably talking about his own situation of being unmarried (a theme he continues in verses 32 and 33, for example) (MEV)

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man has his proper gift from God, one after this manner and another after that.

This concept of us each having different gifts can apply to many things.  In this context, it is talking about how some men are destined to marry and some are destined to be single.

So, to answer the question at the start of this section – yes, marriage is good, but not everyone must marry, and we are not thought less of by God if we do not marry.

It could be added that the concept of different gifts could also mean that some of us are destined to receive the gift of children and others of us are not.  But how do we know if we are destined to have children or not?  We don’t know, and all we can do is try the best we can to achieve the good Christian outcomes we wish for, and allow God to then choose which we’ll receive/succeed at.

Is Having Children as a Single Parent (Mother) Immoral?

We can’t find a direct Biblical answer to this question.  But there are Old Testament references to where men had children by single women for various reasons, and God approved of the man, the woman, their act, and the resulting child(ren) – for example, the Genesis 16 telling of Abraham, his wife Sarai/Sarah, and their servant Hagar, and the Genesis 30 telling of Jacob, his wife Rachel, and their servant Bilhah.

Genesis 19 also uncritically tells us the story of Lot, his daughters, and how he fathered two boys with his daughters – boys who grew to found nations, something impossible without God’s favor.

There is also the somewhat necessary situation of Mary’s bearing Jesus.  She was not married to the Holy Spirit.  While it seems that her being pregnant and unmarried was not a socially accepted situation, there was clearly no condemnation in God’s eyes to her or her son!

It was also clearly not an extremely rare thing.  Matthew 1:1-17 tells us of five illegitimate children who were among the Joseph’s ancestors (Mary’s husband).

So, in general terms, it seems the Bible acknowledges the occasional scenario where unmarried women have children, either for special reasons (Hagar and Mary) or just because they simply wanted children (Lot’s two daughters).

Even though the nature of marriage seems to have changed between the Old and New Testaments, it seems that at the very least, there is no universal condemnation of single women having children and there maybe, in some cases, both acceptance and even approval of such acts.

But there are some other Biblical issues to consider as well, in particular, the “duty of care” imposed on parents to look after their children (as obliquely implied in 1 Timothy 5:8).  Which leads to this next question, not directly Biblical in nature, but relevant from the “duty of care” consideration.

Is it Fair on the Child?

While every person, every mother/daughter, and every situation is different, studies seem to suggest, in general, that children raised in single-parent environments do not develop as well as children in positive two-parent households.  Here’s a study looking at single mothers with children they conceived via sperm donor.

This topic has become obscured by layers of “political correctness” whereby it is no longer deemed acceptable to criticize adults in single-parent situations.  Here’s an example of an analysis that tries to see advantages on both sides of the situation, and certainly there are more rigorous studies suggesting that it is bad for a child to be in a situation where the two parents are always arguing/fighting.

But we suggest that, in general, it is both intuitive and obvious that children do best in a loving positive environment with both a mother and father in their lives.  Certainly, a fortunate single parent who tries their hardest can create a positive situation for their child that is better than a worst case two-parent environment, but we’re not certain they can make it a situation that rises to the level of equaling a good (let alone best) two-parent situation.

So, is it fair to decide to have a child in a situation where it will be more of a struggle to give the child the best possible upbringing that we are obliged to strive for?  That leads to the next point.

Motivation and Sustainability

What is the motivation of a woman wanting to have a child?  That might be an unfair question, because it is, for many women, a case of an instinctive urge/desire/need.  As such, it can be said it is a God-given desire to have children that is at the heart of many women’s wishes, and if it is God-given, can it be bad?  (That’s a complicated question with some assumptions within it that deserves a lengthy article all of its own – suffice it to say for now the answer isn’t as obviously “yes, it is absolutely good” as you might guess/hope).

On the other hand, we know of some women with an immature approach to children who want one as a “toy” or plaything, or because “babies are cute” or because all her friends are having babies and she wants to join in.  These are selfish reasons, and are not appropriate reasons to have a child, and because of their weak rather than strong basis, we worry if the woman would be able to sustain her commitment to the child through its entire childhood to 18 (or, as some parents know, with ongoing support needs for whatever reason, continuing well past 18).

The situation that sometimes evolves is a bit like the people who get a puppy because “it is so cute” but then lose interest quickly as the puppy becomes a dog, and its cuteness becomes instead a series of behavioral challenges that an uncommitted dog owner can not resolve.

We also know, in some societies, women choose to have children for selfish economic reasons – either to immediately benefit from generous welfare payments that end up improving the woman’s living standard and situation, or perhaps with an eye to the future, for a time when the mother is older and can benefit from the support of her then adult children.  This too is hard to see as fitting within a selfless Christian framework.

That’s not to say there aren’t good reasons for having children.  Another thing that is deemed inappropriate to acknowledge these days is to note the demographics of which groups in society have the most children – it seems that lower income/less well educated adults have more children than do people in upper income/education brackets.  If we were talking about breeding racehorses or champion farm animals, this would likely be the wrong approach – you breed from the creatures already displaying the attributes you seek to enhance.  So if a person of greater abilities feels a desire to contribute to the ongoing “gene pool”, and/or if a good Christian wishes to bring more good Christians into the world, maybe having children is a way to do this.

Which leads to another consideration.

Another Approach – Adoption

Having children is not the only way to help the world improve the character and quality of its people, nor is it the only way to spread Christianity.

Becoming a missionary, or more practical and achievable for most people, simply becoming active in one’s Church, is likely to be every bit as effective as having a child and hoping to raise it to become a good Christian.

And, in the case of wanting to bring up a positive net-contributing citizen and Christian, there is another way to do that, one which conforms closely to Biblical examples.  Adopting.  We are told that God is very interested in the welfare of widows and orphans (for example, James 1:27).

There are a number of examples of adoption – and the great outcomes that followed – given in the Bible.  For example, Moses was adopted by an Egyptian princess (Exodus 2:1-10).  The prophet Samuel was fostered by Eli (1 Samuel 1-2).  And, perhaps most of all, Jesus himself was adopted by Joseph.  God could have made other arrangements for Mary and Jesus’ care and upbringing, but he chose to have Jesus be adopted by Joseph.

It is a strange situation that adopting is the hardest way to bring a child into your life, even at a time when there are children needing parents and good loving homes.  Any woman can get pregnant simply by way of a casual liaison, and these days there is not only no shame and no aspersions cast when a woman does this, but if anything, there is a degree of encouragement and affirmation, plus potentially even financial rewards.

Similarly, it is very easy to marry, and also easy to get donated sperm, without the need for anything like the costs and screening involved in adopting.

We understand the need to protect vulnerable children, but we don’t understand why any fertile woman not only can but often is encouraged to have children without any matching consideration given to the potential degree of vulnerability that her child might then suffer.

As difficult as it often is, perhaps the most Christian solution for a single woman wanting a child of her own is to adopt.  That is not to say that having a child is un-Christian or forbidden, but in most cases, if feasible, we suggest that adopting is the better approach.

Summary

A decision to have children is all-too-often a self-centered and even selfish decision, revolving around the woman and what she wants, and with way-too-little thought to the act and its lasting consequences.  It should not be so.  A decision to have a child should be based on the ability to create and sustain a positive and loving environment for the child for the twenty years or more that follow, with a deep realization and commitment to all the stresses, strains and struggles this will impose on the mother (and perhaps father and other supporting family members).  (Note – a positive and loving environment is exactly what it claims to be – it is not a synonym for “wealthy and affluent”.)

Some women see adding a child to their life as a way to give their life meaning and purpose that is is currently lacking.  That may be correct, but most likely, if you’ll allow it, your church can offer you plenty of equally or more beneficial ways to add to your life’s meaning and purpose.

Having a child should not be all about fulfilling the parents’ wishes, dreams, and desires.  It should be all about creating a foundation for that child and giving it the best possibility to achieve its wishes, dreams and desires.

Yes, we conclude a single woman can have a child “on her own” if she desires and if she is fairly in a position to do so well, but we do not believe that such a choice is always the best choice to make.

To close, we point you to verses 23 and 31 in this lovely section of 1 Corinthians 10 as a way of encouraging single women to exam their motives and to make an appropriate decision accordingly.  (MEV)

23 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things edify.
24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.

25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no question for the sake of conscience,
26 for “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

27 If any of those who do not believe invite you to a feast, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for the sake of conscience.
28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered in sacrifice to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of him that mentioned it and for the sake of conscience, for “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”
29 Conscience, I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?
30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

31 Therefore, whether you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.
32 Give no offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God,
33 just as I try to please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

This is the second part of a two part article tracing the history of English language Bibles, from the first such Bible (the Wycliffe Bible in 1382, laboriously hand-copied, with each copy taking about ten months to create) to the most recent (online Bibles that are possibly never printed at all).

The first part took us to the King James Version, a bible that was the unchallenged prime English Bible for 275 years, from 1611 until the 1880s.  Let’s start off the second part by looking at how it lasted so long, and why was it then replaced (or at least, attempted to be replaced)?

The Extraordinary Change in the 1800s

We wrote about how stable society had been, for centuries, in the first part.  This stability continued on past the publication of the KJV, and only started to change with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, around 1760.  And then, like a snowball running downhill, all the changes and developments started to pile on top of each other, to accumulate and interact.  The rate of change accelerated, and was no longer evolutionary and slow, and became revolutionary and fast.

There was a cascade of improvements in a number of totally different fields, but which synergistically interacted to create what truly was indeed a revolution – developments in new materials, new energy sources, new machinery, mass-production in factories, and new forms of transportation and communication.

While this is termed the Industrial Revolution, it in turn caused great changes to society in a broader sense – change to all elements of society, of life, and how it was lived.  Change – while not always for the better – was now the constant, and the older and more traditional things were changed from being good to bad.  The passing of time no longer validated but instead challenged things.  The more vulnerable older things began to be attacked by change – sometimes this was a good development, but sometimes changes were made for the sake of change itself.

By the time Britain reached the Victorian era (Queen Victoria reigned from 1837-1901, the period of her reign being termed the Victorian era) the extraordinary growth of the British Empire and of technology in general saw a huge increase in both national and self-confidence and a belief in the supremacy of man being able to triumph against nature and the elements, and of now possessing enormous knowledge and capabilities.  This culminated in such things as the suggestion the Titanic was unsinkable, with so much confidence in its resilient design that it sailed with insufficient lifeboats and liferafts for everyone on board – they were felt to be more for decoration than desperate need.

So, for these various reasons, an outcome of this flowering of so much genuine accomplishment was a belief that modern things were innately superior to older things, and a related belief that old things could be revisited and improved upon.

Such concepts extended also to Biblical scholarship, and in particular, the Greek texts upon which the KJV translation was based.  There never was one single Greek text that was the sole reference work for Biblical translation.  Rather, there translation had always been a two-part process – first, determining which the best source documents were, and then secondly, deciding how best to express the Greek in English.  The KJV scholars had based their translations on the works of Erasmus and what was termed the Textus Receptus, which became the primary source for the KJV translation.

However, since that time (the 1520s), more and more text fragments had been discovered, and it seemed appropriate and in line with the times to revisit the assumptions and choices within what comprised the Textus Receptus and come up with with a definitive series of choices from among the multiplying profusion of different sources.

New Greek Biblical Sources

It was in the 1880s that alternative sources started to be used for Bible translations.  A couple of English scholars – Westcott and Hort – tried to evaluate the varying degrees of credibility and authority between various different source documents, and also came up with what they considered to be two more authoritative sources of original Greek texts, a claim which was at the time not universally accepted, but which somehow has become accepted as mainstream wisdom subsequently.  There are valid reasons to both understand and accept the claim, and also to dispute and reject the claim, which has lead to considerable tension ever since.  Westcott and Hort said their preferred two sources – the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus – were better than the Textus Receptus because they dated further back (to the 400s) and so were less likely to have had errors creep in over the years.

On the face of it, this seems sensible.  One concept is that being written earlier, such documents had been transcribed fewer times and so there was less opportunity for error to creep in.  That seems fair, but it is interesting to note that most of the later (ie middle ages) documents are remarkably consistent with each other – there is no sign of major errors appearing in the later documents.

Simply being written closer to the time of Christ is no guarantee that the documents are more accurate, either in terms of underlying doctrine or in terms of copying accuracy.  Paul was already lamenting the doctrinal errors and outright paganism that was being adopted by some church groups, when writing in his Epistles, between 50-58AD, mere decades after the death of Christ.  So giving preference to these documents based primarily on their age is far from conclusively persuasive.

Other scholars said these two codices were of very dubious provenance, indeed one of them was rescued from the trash where it was due to be burned to keep a monastery warm in winter, and the other was essentially unused in a Vatican archive.  It is certainly true that, where they differ from other sources, the two codices seem to have largely been ignored since their time of writing.

These scholars suggested that while their preferred sources – the “Textus Receptus” were more recent, the fact that there were many more of them (almost 6,000, of varying lengths) and all generally agreeing with each other gave them more self-referential integrity.  This contrasts with these two codices which are more at odds with other source documents – if they truly were authoritative, they’d probably be reflected more closely in other source documents.

We also suggest that documents including sections of the Apocrypha would seem to be of lesser authority than those which stick to the generally accepted canon of texts.  Both these codices include Apocryphal writings, so, by some measures, that would surely detract from their credibility in cases where there are differences between their wording choices and those of the source documents used to create the KJV.

The original work of Westcott and Hort was used as a base by another pair of scholars, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland, to create a new critical edition of the underlying Greek text for the New Testament, known as the Nestle-Aland (NA) Novum Testamentum Graece.  This is sometimes described as the “Critical Text” (meaning “created by the critics”).

Their first edition was published in 1898.  It has been updated over the years, due to new documents being found and new evaluations of the respective merits of each document, and is currently in its 28th edition (NA28).  This document is twinned by the United Bible Societies fifth edition (UBS5) – a version intended to be used by translators seeking to translate into other languages.

While we abhor ad hominem arguments, it might be appropriate to note that Westcott and Hort both denied the concept of Biblical inerrancy, were spiritualists, and evolutionists.  Nestle and Aland were also evolutionists and theological skeptics.  Are these really the best people to be tasked with deciding what original texts to use to create the official source from which English bibles are translated from?

There is one more point to consider as well.  The two Codices were apparently known to the translators who created the KJV.  Those translators presumably evaluated the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and other “Alexandrinus” codices, and rejected them all as being less authoritative than the other texts they relied upon.  For sure, they might have been mistaken about this, but it is wrong to imply that the KJV translators did not know of these sources, with the follow-on implication being that if they had known, they would have used them.  They did know, and rejected them.

The argument continues, unresolved and perhaps unresolvable, to this day as to whether this (NA28/UBS5) version is better than the Textus Receptus (TR).  Making the matter even more complex is the apparent creation of “back-translations” that took the English from the KJV and used it to “fill in the gaps” of earlier documents, which may have then been cited (by other people, unwittingly) as evidence to support the KJV’s superior authenticity.

A third approach has created another “source” in the 1980s.  This is the so-called “Majority Text” (MT) whereby a mere 8% of the over 5700 documents that together make up the Textus Receptus source have been deemed the most persuasive and have been matched together to create a new version of the original Greek, based on which variations are most common.

The concept of “majority wins” is a noble one, and for sure, the thought of working through many thousands of source documents is unappealing.  But “majority wins” is also a concept fraught with problems.  What say an early error was then copied many times, compared to a more accurate version that has fewer surviving copies?  Applying a simple “majority wins” approach would deem the erroneous version the better version.

It is certainly fair to note that the term “Majority Text” is a misstatement of what it is.  8% is not a majority, and one can only guess why the two writers (Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, in 1982) who labeled this selection as being the majority of the text did so, other than as a desire to give their selections more credibility than might otherwise be valid.

English Bibles Subsequent to the KJV

Unsurprisingly, the re-evaluation of what constituted the “best” source documents resulted in new Bibles, combining both different source material and then more modern translations of those documents.  The extended pause in Bible versions, subsequent to the KJV, ended with the release (in Britain) of the “Revised Version“, with the New Testament appearing in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and – giving a clue as to the step back from strict standards of Biblical authority that this new version embraced, an Apocrypha in 1895.

The decision to include an Apocrypha is perhaps a hint that this Bible was diverging from the established Canon and principles, although it could also be argued that the editors and publishers merely wished to be neutral and to provide the full range of source materials to allow people to form their own opinions.

This new Revised Version Bible, while obviously described as a revised version of the long-established and universally accepted KJV, in actuality was based on the a new Greek source text, compiled by Edwin Palmer, that had somewhere between 5,500 and 6,000 changes from the texts used for the KJV for the New Testament (as well as tens of thousands of stylistic changes to update the English).

That is a change per every 1.5 verses of the New Testament, way more than should be described as a simple revision, and we’re somewhat uncomfortable with the way this new Bible tried to cloak itself in the credibility of the universally accepted KJV it then attempted to displace and replace.  The Revised Version was an only moderately well-received work, although while the text was more easily understood, it was not as “inspirational” as the stately KJV version. It was most notable for “opening up the field” to considering new source material other than purely the TR used by the KJV.

This Revised Version was prepared and published in England (and is sometimes referred to as the English Revised Version), at the behest of the Church of England.  Its lack of popularity encouraged American scholars to come up with a “better” and more American revised version, also based on the same WH source, which was published in 1901, and called the American Standard Version.  American scholars had been invited to participate in the development of the Revised Version, but their comments were subject to being overruled by the English (and often were), and so this new version was closer to the form the American Scholars had always wanted.

The ASV was also never very popular, with the KJV remaining the most popular version until 1952.  However, although not popular, it was influential because it formed the base for a number of derivative revised versions, most notably the Revised Standard Version of 1952, which finally displaced the KJV as the most popular Bible version in the US, and was based on the NA text.

The ASV has also formed the basis of the Amplified Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the Recovery Version, the World English Bible, and The Living Bible.

The World English Bible, while also based on the ASV, used the Majority Text rather than NA.

The AMP is an interesting version, because it often shows alternate versions/translations of texts, or adds additional clarification to the text.  The first New Testament version was published in 1958 and complete Bible in 1965.  A revision in 2015 had additional amplification text, and the Bible was slightly renamed to Amplified Holy Bible.  It has been criticized however by some, who say that the suggested alternate words and explanatory meanings are the opinions of the editors rather than true Biblical authority.

The RSV in turn lead to the New Revised Standard Version of 1989 (which claims to be the version most commonly preferred by Biblical scholars), and, in 2001, the English Standard Version, also based on the NA text.

A new Bible translation first appeared in 1978, with an emphasis being to write it in broadly understood modern and more colloquial English.  This is the New International Version, which has become one of the most popular Bible versions.  It has gone through several versions, including an unpopular “inclusive” version that used gender-neutral terms – “human beings” instead of “mankind”, for example.  It is based on the NA text, and its current version is a 2011 update.

The ESV has tried to straddle the gap between the accuracy of the NASB with the more freely flowing and easily readable text of the NIV.  It has gone through three revisions (2007, 2011 and 2016).  There have been only minor changes in the three revisions, and the 2016 edition was initially described rather boldly as being the permanent form that would never change any more.  That rather ridiculous statement was hastily withdrawn and the publishers said they’d continue to make changes based on ongoing discoveries of new text and changes in the English language.

Other translations have gone back to the basic source texts.  One example of that would be what was first the Holman Christian Standard Bible, published in 1999, and subsequently updated and revised, republished as the Christian Standard Bible,, in 2017 (and with minor revisions, mainly to footnotes, in 2020).  Both these two versions are based on the NA/UBS text, although originally the HCSB was planned to be based on the Majority Text, but the death of its general editor (Arthur Farstad, one of the developers of the MT) saw a change in policy.

Another example is the Lexham English Bible, published online in 2010 (New Testament) based on a new SBL Greek version of the New Testament (tracing its origin to the Westcott and Hort text).

New Versions of the KJV

The enduring popularity of the KJV has seen a large number of new Bible versions published that in some way claim to be part of the KJV heritage, whether there be any accuracy in that claim or not.

The first of these was probably Webster’s Revision of 1833, a very light edit of the KJV to update some words and phrases by an American, Noah Webster.  It is little used these days, because newer revisions have eclipsed it.  Another revision was Young’s Literal Translation, first published in 1862, revised in 1887 and (posthumously) in 1888, and then again in 1898.

The first major change was the innocuously named Revised Version (see above), which in truth wasn’t just a revision of the KJV but more akin to a major rewrite, and using different source material.

Four significant new versions, all relying on the same underlying TR Greek, are :

• The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) – this is an updating of the KJV, not a new translation.  It replaces some no-longer-understood archaic words and phrases with appropriate modern equivalents, but in doing so, is careful not to change the original meaning, and also preserves some of the stately “Biblical English” formal language in the KJV.  It was published in 1994.  A slightly differently formatted version is known as the Third Millennium Bible (TMB).
• The Modern English Version (MEV) – This is described as an updated edition of the KJV using a more modern (American) English vernacular, and is based on the same Textus Receptus as the original KJV.  It was published in 2014.
• The New King James Version (NKJV) – this is a complete new translation, but drawing on the same Textus Receptus as the original KJV.  It also includes helpful notes pointing out differences between the TR they are relying upon and the Nestle-Aland and Majority Text versions.  It was published in 1982 and revised in 1984.  It is much easier to read than the KJV, but does not “flow” as easily as, for example, the ESV, and still has some puzzling elements to it.
• The King James Version 2016 Edition (KJV 2016) is a work in progress.  It is also based on the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus, and at this point the New Testament has been completed and is available for download, while the Old Testament continues to be translated

There is only one version of the Bible that features Majority Text as a source, and that is the World English Bible (explained here).

Are Modern Bibles Better?

So, were the changes to the Bible that appeared first in the Revised Version of the 1880s, and then with more and more new versions of the Bible subsequently, a good thing, or changes for the sake of change alone, or even actually bad things?

That is a very contentious question.  We’ll consider it separately, in a subsequent article.  For now, we feel that the differences are minor and the commonalities overwhelming, and for all except “forensic” type Biblical study that few of us ever participate in, the most important thing is probably to get a Bible you enjoy reading and can readily understand, and for key passages, compare a KJV type Bible to a non-KJV type to get two perspectives on what the passage probably should be.

The happy truth is that being a Christian is easy.  Accept Jesus as your personal savior, love God, and, as best you can, live a Christian life.  None of the major translations interfere with any part of that.

This is the second part of a two-part article tracing the evolution and changes in English language Bibles from the first ever English Bible in 1382 and the present day.  The first part covers the period up to the KJV, and can be seen here.

This is the first part in a two part series, and covers the evolution of English language Bibles up until the 1800s.  A second part completes the story through to the present day.

You surely know there are many different versions of the Bible out there, and you also surely know there has never been, right from the time of Jesus until the present day, a single official Bible that has been the unchanging ultimate authority that all modern Bibles are based upon.  The Bible is a consensus compilation of separate works by different authors at different times.

This article is intended to trace the evolution of English-language Bibles.  It is not focused on determining which – if any – is the “best” or “most accurate” Bible.  That’s an important question to answer, of course, and we’ll address it subsequently.  We provide this article first because it provides a background to then understand how to evaluate Bibles.

It is confusing to be confronted with such a wonderful range of so many different Bibles these days.  Depending on how you count them, there is anywhere between 20 and perhaps 200 different versions English language Bibles currently available for sale/purchase – this is not counting all the different formats of each version, but just the versions themselves.  For example, something like the NIV or ESV is available in dozens of different formats, but they all have the same text within them – the differences are in things like extra materials, hardcover/paperback, print size, page size, and so on.  Our article “A Buyer’s Guide to Bibles” looks at these types of issues.

Having so many different Bibles to choose from is a relatively new thing.  For 275 years, there was essentially only one English-language Bible, the “Authorized Version”, also known as the “King James Version” (KJV).  This was first published in 1611.

Even though the English language had much evolved during the 275 years that followed, causing the increasingly archaic language to become more difficult to understand, the KJV remained as the prime source of God’s Word for all Protestant churches, everywhere in the English speaking world.  Many of the Bible translations in other languages were simple translations of the KJV rather than direct translations from “original” documents.

But then something changed.  Or, perhaps better to say, everything changed.  It is helpful to understand how the KJV found itself being supplemented by entirely new Bibles, by understanding the social environment in which this was all occurring.

Note – in the following discussion, we are focused primarily on the New Testament.  It is interesting that the source of the Old Testament is not as controversial as the New Testament (but not something that all scholars and translators unanimously agree upon, either!).

Society Was Essentially Unchanging for Hundreds of Years

Before looking at the changes, let’s first look at the several hundred years prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1760.

Prior to then, development was slow and relatively unchanging – for example, horses and carriages remained the best form of transportation for hundreds/thousands of years, with the only improvements being in the quality of roads for the horses/carriages to travel along.  Communication was by letter – something else also unchanged for hundreds/thousands of years.

Society was equally unchanging – wealthy families kept their wealth for hundreds of years, and there was little movement from one class to another class – if you were born into poverty, that was probably going to be your life.  Many families lived their entire lives in one single house, indeed, entire generations would live in the same house, and most people would never travel more than a day or two’s journey time from their home.  A day’s ride on a horse would be 25 – 30 miles, depending on the nature of the countryside being traveled through.  (Mind you, interesting thought – have you ever traveled somewhere that took more than 48 hours of traveling time?)

The older something was, the “better” it was presumed to be, and the newer something was, the more cautious and wary people were.  Things that had been discovered/determined hundreds of years ago were accepted as settled and with little need to be revisited, revised, or refined.  Yes, there were exceptions, in some branches of the sciences, and there were slow evolutionary trends, particularly in fields surrounding the military.  But these were exceptions rather than the mainstream.

In this environment, no-one ever considered the need to revisit or revise the KJV.  Its creation in the early 1600s was an extraordinary feat of scholarly research, although it didn’t suddenly appear from nowhere.  It needs to be considered in the context of its antecedents.

The Early Antecedents of the KJV

The Books of the Bible were variously written at times prior to either 69AD or 96AD (there’s some doubt about when Revelation was written), and in the case of the New Testament, were written primarily in the Koine version of Greek, the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean at the time, with a very few passages being written in Aramaic. As the message of Christianity spread around the world, it was of course natural, normal, and beneficial for the Scriptures to be translated to the languages of the people in the communities that Christianity was spreading to.  It has been estimated there might have been as many as 500 different language versions of the Bible extant by 500AD.

At the same time that Christianity was spreading in an “organic” growth fashion, there was also a growing centralization of power and claimed authority by the Church in/of Rome, what we now know of as the Roman Catholic Church.  The central nature, power and influence of the Church of Rome was probably as much a result of the power and spread of the Roman Empire at the time as it was for any moral or Christian superiority.

The Roman Catholic Church was a power-hungry organization – charitably this could be described as “keen to continue to grow the spread of Christianity”; another charitable description would be to say that it wished to “quality control” the Christian message that was being spread.  Certainly, even in those early days, there were a large number of different versions of Christian faith, often being combinations of Christianity and previous pagan worship traditions.  So, for perhaps good reasons, the Church of Rome decided to centralize and restrict access to the Bible itself, and in the 600s, issued an edict mandating that the Bible was only to be in Latin, and only priests would be allowed to view earlier and more original sources.

This Latin translation was subsequently criticized during the Reformation period as being unduly favorable to the Catholic church, but with the Roman Catholic “Vulgate” translation restricted, and the source documents unavailable, no-one realized this for over 1,000 years.

Prior to the development of the printing press by Gutenberg in 1440, Bibles were in short supply and expensive, so even if “ordinary” people could understand Latin, they could not find a Bible for sale.  Even if they could find a Bible for sale, the cost would be impossible to afford.  So there was not a great deal of pressure for Bibles.

The demand for English language Bibles was even lower.  In that era, French was the preferred language of the nobility and upper classes, and Latin was the preferred language of scholars and intellectuals.

At Last – An English Bible

Eventually, however, with the developing concept of England as a nation and English as its language, the first English Bible of note, what has been termed the “Wycliffe Bible” (named after John Wycliffe, a distinguished English academic, the person responsible for its creation, and increasingly a critic of some elements of the Roman Catholic church and its doctrines), appeared in the period 1382 – 1395.  This was a great step forward, but was flawed because it was essentially an English translation from the official Roman Catholic Vulgate Latin, and the doctrinal biases remained fully present.

Even though the Wycliffe Bible was little more than a translation of the Latin in the official Catholic “Vulgate” into English, the simple act of doing this was viewed by the church as revolutionary and threatening, and of course contravening the Vatican ruling that Bibles must only be in Latin.  This ultimately resulted in Wycliffe being declared a heretic, and the church decreed all his published works be burned.  Subsequently, under the command of the Pope, Wycliffe’s remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift.  Translation of Scripture into English was made a crime punishable by charges of heresy.  This discouraged further work on English Bibles for some time.

The version of English in use in the 1300s is very hard for us to understand today.  For that reason, the small numbers published, and its lack of scholarly underpinnings, while the Wycliffe Bible was a key point on the road to a definitive English Bible, it was not influential on the new translations that were to follow.

The Roman Catholic dominance of the Christian world started to fray, and 1517 is generally considered to be the start of the Protestant Reformation with the posting of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenburg.  In England, the English Reformation was motivated equally by political as religious issues, due to King Henry VIII wishing to have his marriage annulled, with a series of Acts of Parliament between 1532 and 1534 formalizing the split and the creation of the Church of England with the King as its supreme head on earth.

But the new Church of England was not necessarily very different from the earlier Church of Rome (and even today, some CofE churches are described as “High Church” meaning very similar to Roman Catholic churches), and successive kings and queens were sometimes Roman Catholic or Protestant for the next hundred years or so.

What was formerly somewhere between unthinkable and dangerous – creating a new English language Bible – slowly became increasingly appropriate and even necessary.  But a key English Bible was written and published a bit “too soon for safety”, with its author (William Tyndale) ending up being burned at the stake for heresy in 1536.

English Bibles Finally Free Themselves from the Roman Catholic Vulgate

In the early 1500s, William Tyndale created a new English translation, with the first complete version of the New Testament being published in 1526.  This was a foundational moment, because his translation was not from the Latin/Catholic “Vulgate” Bible, but from so-called “original” manuscripts in Greek and Hebrew, primarily the third (1522) edition of Erasmus’s collation of documents into his Greek New Testament, what has subsequently come to be described as the Received Text or Textus Receptus.

Because Tyndale ignored the Vulgate, and preferred to go back to original source documents as much as possible, the Wycliffe Bible text had very little influence on the Tyndale Bible.  Tyndale’s Bible was the first to be printed on a press in large numbers, and in being so published, became available at a reasonably low cost, being both affordable and available to many “ordinary” people.  It was his Bible and its availability that saw England move to the forefront of the Protestant Reformation of those times.

Every part of the Tyndale Bible was revolutionary, and in particular, where it differed from the Wycliffe Bible was in spurning the Catholic official Vulgate Bible and reaching back to as close to original Greek texts as was possible.  This was due to a growing awareness that the Vulgate was far from a reliable and authoritative source – something that formerly had never even been considered, but which was now expressed, perhaps for the first time, by the renowned scholar (and priest) Thomas Linacre, who became an expert in Greek and compared Greek manuscripts with the Vulgate.  He was surprised and unsettled by the differences he was finding, and wrote in his diary “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians”.

Tyndale’s work was one of the cornerstones of the Protestant Reformation, and an article of his provided King Henry VIII with the rationale to break from the Catholic Church in 1534.  It is estimated that over 70% of the King James Bible was a carry-forward of his translation, and one estimate suggests that as much as 83% of Tyndale’s work was incorporated into the KJV’s New Testament, often word for word.  Without knowing it, much of the time if you are citing a passage from the KJV today, you might be using words researched and chosen by William Tyndale, almost 100 years earlier.

Tyndale’s work, and its reaching back to original sources, was revolutionary.  He changed some key Roman Catholic terms/phrases – for example, “do penance” became “repent”, “church” became “congregation” and “priest” became “senior” or “elder” – changes that struck at the heart of the Roman Catholic organization, doctrine, and ritual.  But his greatest challenge to the established church was that he created a Bible that could be read and understood by everyone, rather than allowing it to remain reserved exclusively for the clergy elite.  Ultimately, he was burned at the stake as a heretic, in 1536.

From his work came the Geneva Bible, published in Geneva and created by English Protestant scholars who were exiled during the reign of Roman Catholic Queen Mary (she reigned 1553 – 1558).  The scholars worked under the general direction of Miles Coverdale (who earlier completed the unfinished work of William Tyndale to create the Tyndale Bible and its successor, the Matthew Bible) and John Knox (a prominent Scottish Protestant), and with influence received from John Calvin.  The New Testament appeared in 1557 and the Old Testament following three years later, in 1560.  This version was the first to add numbered verses, and also the first to include commentary notes, a controversial move that was condemned as seditious by King James when he banned it in 1611.  The Geneva Bible remained popular for a while, even after being banned (perhaps because of being banned!) with its popularity continuing, but diminishing after the publication of the KJV, and indeed it was the Bible the Pilgrims took to America in 1620.

In 1539 a new Bible appeared, significant for being the first ever authorized (by the King) edition of the Bible in English.  It included much of the Tyndale Bible, with additions by Miles Coverdale, who regrettably sourced his translations from the Vulgate rather than from original materials.  He also removed portions of Tyndale’s translation which the Church of England bishops objected to.  This Bible was referred to as the Great Bible – but please understand the word “Great” was referring to its large size rather than any other form of greatness!

The flowering of printing presses and publishing, and of English translations of the Bible, meant that during the 45 year reign of Queen Elizabeth I (a Protestant who reigned from 1558 – 1603) no fewer than 130 different versions of the New Testament were printed (that we know of, today).

The elements of Calvinism in the Geneva Bible, and his concept of replacing the concept of a hierarchical form of church government by bishops (Episcopalian) with a form of church government by lay elders (Presbyterian) were objectionable to the Church of England and its established bishops, and they were keen to replace this Bible and obscure its messages.  The Great Bible was greatly preferable to them, but they also wished to “de-Catholicize” the portions taken from the Vulgate, and so in theory rewrote those passages, although in reality many of them survived with little change in what was eventually published in 1568, and known as the Bishops’ Bible.

Another notable Bible during these times was the “official” printing of an English version of the Vulgate by the Roman Catholic Church in 1582 – the church was acknowledging its weakening status and believed that by distributing its version of the truth, it might be able to reclaim some of its earlier prominence and authority.  But this version was of course still the Vulgate, just in English, and so in places was at odds with the underlying Greek texts and the English Bible translations based on those texts, and was not welcomed by reform-minded Protestants.  Perhaps it is fair to say this edition slowed the loss of Catholic followers, but certainly did not encourage many Protestants to return to Catholicism.

The King James Version

Almost immediately after King James I ascended the throne in 1603, he was approached by a group of Puritan ministers, hoping that a new and Protestant King would have new policies more favorable to their cause.  Most of their requests were denied, but one in particular was accepted by the King – a request to resolve the flood of Bible translations of dubious value and accuracy and to create one official translation.  It should be remembered that the King was not only ruler of England but also the head of the Church of England, and so this was a proper request to him in both his capacities.

There were two reasons for creating a new Bible version.  The first was to create some order in what was becoming a confusing morass of different Bible versions, and to provide an official stamp of approval on what would become the most authoritative and “best” version.  The second reason was the rapid evolution in the English language itself.  Already the English used in the Wycliffe Bible, barely 200 years earlier, was hard to understand, and even the Tyndale Bible’s English was becoming dated.  A new Bible in current English was needed.

As an aside, one of the results of the KJV was perhaps to create and standardize “the King’s English”, and possibly to slow down some elements of the evolution of the language into the future.  There are elements of the KJV in modern day speech, even now, although few people realize where the words and phrases are are using come from – here’s a fun video made up of 100 Biblical phrases strung into a three minute talk.

Responding to the Puritans’ petition and recognizing the need/value in a new Bible, in 1604 King James I commissioned a group of 54 widely respected Biblical scholars (plus some supervisors) to create a new translation of the Bible, based on what they could amass in the form of authoritative source documents, mainly in Hebrew and Greek, but also some of the Latin and English translations too.

They split into six different groups, and had an extraordinarily open and detailed process of writing and editing which in effect meant that every single verse was scrutinized, in different contexts, as many as 14 times, and by 50 different people.  This made the final product very much a consensus work without allowing any one person or persons to unduly influence the final version.  They relied upon the Textus Receptus, but not exclusively.  They also referred to many other source documents, and were further directed by King James, who was keen to not attack the status quo of “his” church too severely, to preserve the wording of the Bishops’ Bible as much as possible, with preference to be given to using the old ecclesiastical words (such as “church” instead of “congregation”).

Their work took seven years (and seven of them died during the process, hence various accounts suggest differing numbers of people working on the project), and in 1611 the Bible known either as the “Authorized Version” or the “King James Version/Bible” was completed.  With the King’s support in both his roles as head of state and head of church, and the unquestionable scholarly authority of the text itself, this quickly became the official English language Bible, displacing all the many current and previous versions.  With Britain’s Empire growing around the world, this Bible spread with it.

Astonishingly, the KJV remained essentially the only English language version of the Bible with any sort of mainstream following for the next approximately 275 years.  While the KJV went through several editions after its initial release in 1611 – 1611 twice, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769, the changes very exceedingly minor.  The edition changes typically were little more than corrections of printer/typesetting errors, and standardizing spelling conventions as English evolved its spelling rules, but they did not alter/add/remove any verses.  The present day KJV texts are based on the 1769 edition.

So, other than these corrections, it has never been revised.  Or, perhaps, better to say, that in recent times, when being revised, it was also renamed.  The history of the KJV subsequent to its first printing is well set out on this page.

Even though the English language had much evolved during that time, making the increasingly archaic language increasingly difficult to understand, it remained as the prime source of God’s Word to all Protestant churches, everywhere in the English speaking world.  Many of the Bible translations in other languages were simple translations of the KJV rather than direct translations from “original” documents.

The Extraordinary Developments in the 1800s and Subsequently

The Bible stability since the publication of the KJV was now about to be rocked and massively challenges.

We continue this article series in a second part that looks at the extraordinary social, economic, and technological changes in the 1800s, and the growth of new Bible translations, partly as a result.

We’ve avoided this question for some years, because clearly we have a vested interest in what you decide about this matter and how you choose to respond.

On the other hand, every other writer typically has the same vested interest, and so much so that we sometimes see egregious examples of churches that even seem to be linking salvation to payment.  We feel compelled to write on the topic and to address some of these suggestions.  You can “safely” read this article because we’re not going to be rudely thrusting our hand into your wallet and greedily pulling all we can out of it, with or without any related promises of a VIP pass to Heaven being given to you in return.

We are uncomfortable with churches that mandate the payment of compulsory tithes as a precondition of being accepted as a member.  Jesus never made his free offer of salvation conditional upon the ability to pay.  Salvation is not for sale, nor is it for the wealthy, only.  Jesus himself did not ask for nor need a lot of money – he was happy to live a modest life that didn’t require inconvenient financial sacrifices on the part of his followers to support, and he loved the poor at least as much as he loved the rich.

So we can start by a reductio ad absurdum analysis.  Parishioners should not be expected to fund outrageously profligate lifestyles of their pastors.  The so-called “mega-pastors” with palatial mansions, servants, chauffeured limousines and private jets – that is uncalled for and if anything, tends to tempt such people away from leading a good life based on simple Christian principles.

Why should a pastor lead a better life than his parishioners?

However, that begs a related question that also must be asked and answered – why should a pastor lead a worse life than his parishioners?  We all should be willing to make sacrifices – or, if not directly “sacrifices”, definitely “life-style adjustments” as part of following our faith.  These range from avoiding evils and temptations that deceptively present as offering pleasure, to, yes, sharing our wealth with more needy people and our church.  Surely it is not fair that our spiritual guides on earth – our pastors and other church support staff – should unevenly carry the greatest burden while at the same time helping us all in our faith.

How much should a pastor be paid?  That’s a subject for another article.  For now we’ll simply say that no matter where the funding comes from, a pastor deserves a fair income that doesn’t require undue sacrifice on his part, which allows him to be a good provider for his family, and enables him to conduct his duties without monetary concerns or constraints.

Of course, a physical church costs money to build and to maintain.  Repairs and maintenance are unavoidable expenses.  Electricity is not free, and so on.  It seems reasonable that, on some basis, the people who use and benefit from a church and its facilities and resources should in turn reciprocate and support its operation.

But how should support be provided, and how much support should be provided by each person?  As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”, and that’s where we feel some churches (and some people) have lost their way.

Some people sit back and passively say “God will provide”.  Ultimately, yes, of course that is so, but on Earth, the method of God’s sustenance is through the goodwill of his followers.  You are enabling, empowering, and yourself participating in doing God’s good work when you support your church.  The way God provides for his church is by giving YOU the ability to support it.  You are God’s tool when it comes to providing for his church.

The greatest difficulties occur when we start to drill down into exactly how much support you should fairly provide.  The good news is that our God is not a greedy God.  He never asks of us more than we can provide.  He may expect us to make some sacrifices, but he is fair in such things.

There’s also another thing we should understand, up front.  The concept of “support” is much more than just money alone.

Supporting a Church is More than just Money

We have experience of living in different societies around the world, and have noticed a very distinctive feature about American society.  In the US, more than any other country we know, there is a reflexive action to respond to any issue, need, or problem, with money.

Sometimes that is a very good thing and to be encouraged, but not all problems are solved by money alone, and some problems are not solved by money at all.

For example, maybe a church most needs people to come to services, to fill the pews, and create the fellowship and warm, affirming “buzz” that is an essential element of a healthy church and congregation.  You could place $100 bills on all the empty seats in the Sunday service, and that would not compensate for having a church full of parishioners, no matter how little they are actually supporting the church with cash.  Similarly, a church fair needs people to come along and participate.  Their presence, in the church building, and at other church events, is supporting and reinforcing each other – and that’s a key point to keep in mind.  Fellowship is a two-way street – we get the blessings of friendship and fellowship in direct measure to the active participation we provide, ourselves.

Talking about the balance between giving and getting, there’s another important measure to acknowledge.  Ultimately, it must be the obligation of a church to support its parishioners in at least equal measure to the obligation of the parishioners to support the church.  It needs to “give value for money”.

This might seem to be a very un-Christian measure, but it is actually a key consideration, not just as an MBA would view a business, but spiritually.  If a church isn’t giving “value” to its parishioners, then there’s a problem – and it is not a financial problem.  More money doesn’t make a bad church good.  It has a leadership problem, and that is solved very differently.  (We could go further and say it seems wealthy churches are sometimes more susceptible to leadership problems than are poor churches, but that too is a topic for another time.)

Must You Observe Four Types of Giving?

Here’s an interesting article, urging you to carry out four types of giving, and not just once or twice, but regularly.  They advocate giving four types of support every week.

Do you need to actually go through four separate and different acts of giving, every week?  The article seems to suggest you should, and separates your giving into four categories :

• Alms :  Money for the poor
• Tithes :  Money for the church
• Offerings :  More money for the church
• Grace :  Still more money for the church

That could become very costly.  Even without putting dollar amounts alongside the other three types of giving (tithing, which we’ll discuss later, is pre-defined as at least 10% – maybe more – of one’s income) clearly you’d be giving a great deal to comply with these admonishments.

So how much should you give?  What happens if you’re not checking off all four of those boxes, above?

How Much Support is Appropriate?

This is a key point, of course.  There’s a huge range of possible answers, and we can still remember back to the collection plate on which one simply placed a coin or two each Sunday as it was passed around.

Mind you, to be perhaps cynical, that was back when many churches were also very wealthy, with major endowment funds that supported a great deal of their work.  Mismanagement and embezzlement has turned some churches, once magnificently wealthy, into empty shells of their former selves, and is shifting focus onto giving from each congregation rather than receiving generous support from central headquarters sources.

Churches also used to have larger congregations, spreading their funding needs over more people.  The matter is made worse by the dwindling congregations for some of the mainstream traditional churches, although we feel they’ve only themselves to blame for their loss of supportive congregations.

In the Old Testament the concept of tithing was espoused and required.  In the New Testament, tithing became one of those unfortunate grey areas –  it is no longer required, but many church leaders were reluctant to forego the income and continue to encourage the practice.

It is certainly true that God loves a generous giver, but are you really being a generous giver if you are being “bullied” and brow-beaten into mechanistically giving 10% of your income every week (to say nothing of ongoing regular “special appeals” for special purposes)?

One of the rationales behind tithing is that everything we earn or get/receive is ultimately a gift to us from God, and everything we need is also determined by God.  This means two things – first, we are not giving God something that he doesn’t already have or deserve, the tithe is merely “his” share now passed on, via us, to his church.  That is the same as if your friend says “Here’s $100, would you give it to my spouse when you meet together, later today”, the money is never yours, even though it is in your possession for a while.

The second thing is that God will not see us suffer from the loss of 10% of our income.  Some people go further than this and reassure us that he’ll make sure the remaining 90% goes at least as far as 100% would have done – maybe he’ll even make 90% go further than 100%.

But that’s a dangerous slope to start sliding down.  If people start being promised that they’ll enjoy as much “wealth” – and possibly more – after tithing, that shifts the motivation for giving from true generosity to venal selfishness – a hope that we’ll be currying favor with the Lord and the more we give, the even more we’ll get in return.  That is the wrong reason to give.  That is like giving a wealthy person a generous Christmas gift in the hope they’ll give you an even wealthier gift in return.

We are promised rewards for our cheerful giving, but the rewards are spiritual and in the afterlife, not in the form of new cars and larger houses now.  It is fair to hope that you’ll not suffer inconveniences as a result of your freely given gifts.  But it is wrong to give because you hope to immediately get more in return.

Who Should You Give To?

Some churches encourage you to give all your gifting to them, and then they’ll apportion it out as they think best.

We’ve never believed that governments are the most efficient form of managing much at all, and we’re similarly unconvinced that churches are always the best managers of money.  A quick glimpse at the recent financial history of the Roman Catholic Church in particular provides ample examples of that.

It isn’t just the Roman Catholic Church that has been enmired in financial ineptitude or scandal.  The same is true of the Church of England in the UK, and, closer to home, the Church of Latter Day Saints in the US – for example, the “$100 billion fund” paid for by tithes and subsequent lawsuit by a prominent Mormon donor to get $5 million he gave in tithes back again due to alleged wrongful uses of his tithes.

Whether it is because a church feels “it knows best” about how to spend your money, and has a broader view of the institutional and international priorities of the overall church, or because they simply want to get as much money from you as possible and to control what is done with it, there is a clear desire on the part of many churches that they should act like a form of “United Way” – you give one single check to your church and then the church will decide, in its “greater wisdom”, how to spend your money for you.

We can see some sense in that concept, but do not completely agree.  There’s an adage that dates back hundreds of years that “charity begins at home”.  This statement has been around for so long it has assumed a degree of authority that may not be entirely appropriate, and it is not originally/directly from any passage of scripture, although perhaps the requirement that we should love our neighbors as ourselves (mentioned in lots of places such as Mark 12:31 and Matthew 22:36-40) hints at that.  (In case you’re wondering who is a neighbor, that is answered, somewhat obliquely, too, in Luke 10:25-37).

Perhaps, with charity beginning at home, and the need to love neighbors, who appear to perhaps be the people you come into ordinary contact with, you should first give to your direct family, neighbors, and your local church – giving to people and organizations in cases where you can understand and see that your money is being wisely spent and not wasted.

We should stress that.  Your first priority is to the well-being of your immediate family, your immediate living environment, and the personal church you directly attend.  Maybe you should not be supporting distant good works in far-away lands when there are problems and issues in your immediate home environment?

Secondly, while the New Testament encourages generous giving, it does not limit who you should give to only to your church.  Giving to a needy person in the street can be as valid an act of Christian kindness as can be contributing to your church’s next overseas mission.

On the other hand, and this is where things become difficult, should you give money directly to the man on the street corner with the cardboard sign?  Would he spend the money wisely?  Maybe you should give money to the local Salvation Army or Soup Kitchen or Homeless Shelter?  (Yes, of course you can give to another Christian organization, such as the Salvation Army, even if you belong to a different church.)

Thirdly, allow God to guide you in your sense of how and where to spread your generosity and gifts.  If God is encouraging you to channel your kindness through your church, then absolutely, by all means, do so.  But if he is strongly signaling you to send some of your support in another direction – perhaps even to some secular good cause that is not directly related to your or any church at all – that too is a good work and a kindness.

Our point in this section is to observe that your gifts and kindness need not only be directed to your church.

Is There a Limit on How Much a Person Can Do to Support Their Church?

Clearly, the answer has to be yes here.  You can’t contribute more money than you have, and you can’t contribute more time than there are hours in the day.  Of course, in reality, you can’t – and are not expected – to contribute all your funds and all your time.

That much is easy to say.  But then it gets harder to clarify.  Is there a minimum amount of money/time/support everyone should give?  Is there also an “average” amount or gently-suggested “guideline”?

We dislike these questions, because they are starting to assume an obligation to support.  At the risk of making a distinction that perhaps doesn’t exist, we are expected to support our church, but we are not obliged to.

There may be times when it is just not possible for you to support your church.  If you are out of town, clearly you can’t participate in services.  If you lost your job, and are living off your savings and perhaps some meager unemployment benefit while searching for a new job, it would be unusual and probably unfair to be required to contribute financially.

Some very kind people are concerned they are contributing “their fair share” and we’ve been asked how much is appropriate.  We understand their desire to set their mind at ease, and we are certain that if we stated an amount greater than they presently contribute, they’d increase their support with pleasure and happiness.

But we come back to 2 Corinthians 9:7.  The New Testament nowhere provides a formula to calculate how much to give.  Instead, it refers to freely and cheerfully giving the amount that you decide in your heart feels right, and specifically says that giving should not be under any form of compulsion.

We can not reconcile a formulistic requirement to give 10% (or any other number) with the passage in 2 Cor (and stated similarly, elsewhere).

Give what feels good, and stop when either the church itself tells you or when it no longer feels good.  This is not a trick to test your limits of what feels good, and there is no wrong answer.  As we discuss further down this article, giving “more” (whatever “more” actually means) does not directly get you any special treatment in Heaven, and should not get you any special treatment on Earth, either.

Is There a Limit to How Much Support a Church Can Accept?

Yes and no.  A local church, serving a local community, has needs and opportunities that are reflected and limited by the size of the community they support.

But we’re unaware of a single church, anywhere, that turns down additional support.  The problem with any unneeded additional funding that is received is that it often ends up going to less and less directly controlled purposes, and becomes less and less “efficient” in terms of value and benefit created by each extra dollar received.  Similarly, we all could spend another $1,000 or even another $1,000,000 if it was suddenly placed in our lap.

But just because we could easily and happily spend an unexpected windfall doesn’t mean we need the windfall or would spend it wisely.  We’d probably spend $1,000 or $10,000 wisely – pay off some debt, catch up with deferred maintenance on our home or car or whatever, that sort of thing.  But by the time we get a sudden unexpected $1 million or $10 million, we start wasting money on extravagant and foolish things.  Is it possible the same concept applies to churches too?  In many cases, it seems so.

There is a temptation for a humble good small local church to grow.  There are so many “obvious” and seemingly good ways to spend extra money.  To get a bigger building, and with more parking.  To open a second church.  To add more staff.  To get fancier uniforms for choir members, pastors, and so on.  To get new church bells, or new audio-visual equipment.  To start funding scholarships and other things.  And so on.

Much of the western world’s ethos is built on growing, on getting bigger, and equates larger size with greater success and greater efficiency.  But this is not always the case, indeed, there are many convincing studies that suggest the larger an organization, the less efficient it becomes.  The concept of “right sizing” is much under-appreciated and over-looked, and we encourage all church elders reading this to search their souls and seek guidance for what their church’s “right size” actually truly is.  We suggest a church’s optimum size is surprisingly small – maybe fewer than 200 people in any given church service, and absolutely/definitely not 2,000 or 20,000 people in a mega-auditorium.

Plus, in addition, when a church finds itself with more money than it directly needs, it invariably starts thinking about engaging in other projects, with not always a great deal of care and thought as to if the projects are truly appropriate.  Maybe they’ll start a radio or television program, or print a magazine.  Maybe they’ll start supporting unrelated unconnected charitable organizations.  Maybe they’ll start funding missions.  Maybe (horror of horrors!) they start to become politically active.

These are not necessarily all bad things.  But they are also not always achievable objectives.  Even Bill Gates and his enormously rich foundation can’t make much impact on global problems such as poverty, health, education, social services, and so on.  That’s not to say it is wrong to try, or to help in a small way, but such issues are complex rather than simple – for example, advocating for childhood immunizations needs to be seen in the context that if a program succeeds, that means there are more hungry mouths to feed as a result; is there also a corresponding growth in food supplies, or has the problem (of allowing people to lead full good lives) simply shifted rather than been solved.

And does simply sending food parcels in anonymous cardboard boxes to impoverished countries in Africa actually advance the Lord’s great plans?  When the people who receive the food don’t even understand where it came from or why?

Does More Generous Support Get You Extra Rewards?

Some religious groups link the level of your generosity with the “benefits” you’ll receive in return.  We hesitate to single out any one such group, because it is sadly common, but by way of example, this organization encourages its supporters with the promise of being prayed for, getting special invitations to special events, and getting special communications from their leader.

Yes, God loves a generous giver, but a generous giver is someone who gives without expecting something in return.

Giving a group money so as to be prayed for is a commercial, not a Christian transaction.  We feel God listens much more closely to the prayers of the person who gives anonymously without expecting anything in return, and to the prayers of people who personally know of that person and their need, than he listens to the “pay for prayer” service with a chorus line of paid prayers reciting lists of people to God who paid to be placed on the list.

This is only slightly changed from one of the key reasons for Martin Luther’s initiation of the Reformation – his objection to the concept of “indulgences” where the Roman Catholic Church levied “fines” on sinners, the payment of which was deemed to then restore a person to a state of grace and with the promise of Heaven returned back to them (and the threat of not going to Heaven being none-too-subtly a consequence if the indulgence is not paid).

We can’t start to imagine the abhorrence that Jesus would feel towards such a practice.  He promised us salvation through faith, not through payments.  It is hard to think of a practice that doesn’t more directly contradict a cornerstone of the Christian creed – salvation is by faith alone.  We recommend you read our commentary about Martin Luther’s 95 theses for more discussion on this central aspect of the Christian faith.

Is a Lavish Fancy Church (and Pastors) a Valid Glorification of God?

Many centuries ago, the most impressive of all buildings were often churches and cathedrals.  Even now, some faiths are keen to build major monuments to their faith.

The extraordinary opulence and extravagance in the designs of these buildings were excused and justified as an attempt to mirror the extraordinary majesty of God and the glory of Heaven as best could be done on Earth, and to provide visible depictions of both these concepts to inspire and affirm Christians in their faith.

We like a beautiful church as much as the next person, and of course we like an inspirational church too.  Some churches really have a feeling of Godliness about them, and by simply being in their presence, we feel a sense of closeness to the Almighty.  But is this really necessary?  Did Jesus command his disciples and followers to construct magnificent buildings?  Were any of the “early churches” enormous in scale and size (no, they weren’t).

We also note that some of the churches we have most loved tend to be small humble parish churches, and in particular, some of the modern mega-churches and cathedrals feel to us as ungodly and remote from Christian worship as is possible.  We don’t sense any relationship between a building’s “grandeur” and cost, and its purpose as a place of Christian worship and fellowship.

That is not to say that it is wrong or bad to build an impressive church and monument to God and our faith.  If you feel moved to support such a project, and if you are already fairly supporting other appropriate recipients with your gifts, then of course, by all means, you can and should do whatever you wish to do with your money.  This is a subtle point – if you wish to make your church echo the greatness of God, then while it is not necessary, perhaps it is fine to do so (as long as you’re not neglecting other higher priority calls on your generosity).  But this is something that should be done from the heart, to glorify God, not as something that comes from your ego, to glorify you and to give you something to boast about.

The concept of highly visible and dominating opulence tended to flow through to the officials of a church, too.  In years past – and sometimes still, now – they would wear expensive clothing, have expensive accoutrements, live in palaces, have large retinues of servants, and be given fancy titles.

But, this reminds us of the attitudes of people who serve the rich and famous.  Too often they confuse their working for the rich and famous with being somehow rich and famous themselves.  If you’ve ever watched Downton Abbey, you’ll have seen how Carson, the butler, while a man from a very common and ordinary background, assumed and expected a prominence, power and respect directly related to that of his master, the Earl.  We’ve noticed it being reflected by the cabin crew in the first class cabin of an international flight – rather than being even more humble and obliging to people who can afford ridiculous sums of money to fly in first class, they take on “airs and graces” of their own.

Such affectations by people who are employed by or work for important people are laughable and totally wrong.

We certainly feel happiness and delight in being servants of the Lord, and we are proud to identify as such by our clothing.  But that does not give us any personal grandeur, and neither does our “office” (ie job-title) convey any automatic rights or status either, just obligations.

We understand that we are in some very small way advocates of the Christian faith and lifestyle, and as such we need and benefit from certain empowering and efficiencies, and also from having a positive image in the communities we work within and serve.  But, that is the key point.  We, both as pastors and parishioners, are serving our communities.  They are not serving us.

For example, a photocopier clearly is an efficiency when it comes to printing weekly church notices to hand out in services.  Some type of musical instruments help the church in its worshipful music.  A car makes it easier for us to travel from place to place.  And so on.  Those are expenditures that make sense.

It is not necessary to take a “vow of poverty” – neither personally, nor handicap the physical church and its functions to only the most basic of features, either.  If something is a “force multiplier” and a tool that helps us and the church we serve become more effective in sharing our message and fellowship among its members, then of course, that is to be welcomed.

So if in a location where it gets uncomfortably hot or cold, by all means, heat or cool the church.  Provide community lounges and rooms for smaller fellowship meetings and activities.  Let’s make our churches the center of our lives, not just a place we dutifully traipse to every Sunday for an hour and then quickly leave again for the rest of the week.

But let’s not make them into monuments to extravagance and wealth.  While God is indeed magnificent and powerful beyond our comprehension, are those the attributes he most wishes to be portrayed?  Is he not also the God of the meek, mild, and humble, is he not the God of love, is he not also kind and accepting?

What Actually is Tithing?  How Much is It?

Tithing is explained in the Old Testament and required the Israelites to give 10% of the crops they grew and the livestock they raised to their tabernacle/temple each year.  Old Testament believers gave of their “first fruits”, the best of their crops.  It is mentioned in passages such as Leviticus 27:30, Numbers 18:26, Deuteronomy 14:24 and 2 Chronicles 31:5.

Old Testament tithing is actually about more than “only” 10%.  There are requirements for multiple tithes to be paid, each one for a different purpose, and in total, coming to more than 20%.

The tithing calculation gets even more complicated.  As explained in Leviticus 27:30, the tithe is to be one-tenth of the goods.  If the tithe is given in money instead, it should be 12%, not 10%.

The concept of giving 10% of crops and livestock – 10% of the “increase” each year, doesn’t directly translate to modern day income.  If you earn, say, $6,000 a month, and have $1,000 taken from that in taxes, and if you have fixed costs of living (home ownership, basic simple food, etc) of $3,000 a month, which number should the 10% apply to?  The gross $6,000?  The net $5,000?  The semi-surplus of $2,000?

Historically, in the Old Testament, the tithe came “off the top” (Deuteronomy 14:24).  So that would probably mean one tenth of the $6,000.

One could become even more legalistic – if one has some shares, and they go up in value, but you don’t cash them in, should you pay a tithe on their increased value when you cash them in or each year as you revalue them?  What if you bought the shares with after-tithe money in the first place – does that mean you are paying two tithes on the money?  What happens if you bought your home twenty years ago for $200,000 and now you need to move, and you sell your home for $750,000 and buy a new home for $800,000 in your new town or city – do you need to pay a tithe on the gross or net profit of your home or can you “roll it forward” into your new home?

We could raise many other questions about the calculation of tithing, and some churches that focus closely on tithing as a source of income doubtless have answers to all these questions, but we’d prefer not to become mechanistic about this, both because we are supposed to give freely and cheerfully (see 2 Corinthians 9:7) and also because tithing is not mandated or required as part of the New Testament Law that we all live under.

The New Testament does talk about the giving of gifts and offerings to the church, and in that respect we can see what Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:1-2) (AMP) :

1 Now concerning the money collected for [the relief of] the saints [in Jerusalem], you are to do the same as I directed the churches of Galatia to do.

2 On the first day of every week each one of you is to put something aside, in proportion to his prosperity, and save it so that no collections [will need to] be made when I come.

This seems to be referring specifically to a fundraising drive for a particular purpose, but there is an underlying principle that stands out – giving in proportion to one’s prosperity.

But we’re not told how to measure prosperity, or what the proportion should be.  Paul does not say “tithe”.  He does not say “10%”.  He could have said this, because the concepts were familiar and common/ordinary/accepted by the Jews, following their Old Testament based laws.  But Paul was addressing “New Testament” Christians, for whom the Law no longer applied.

We could ask God for guidance (James 1:5) and the essence is that our giving should be generous, cheerful, and voluntary.  Perhaps that is why the New Testament is so vague on how the church should be funded – because it wants us to give from our heart, in accordance with our own determination of what is fair and right, rather than mechanistically doing some arithmetic and figuring out an obligation.

What the Bible Says About Tithing

For something so important to so many churches, it is perhaps surprising that there is no New Testament authority to support the concept of tithing.

According to no less a personage than Billy Graham

However, even then the question as to whether to tithe from one’s net or gross income is not answered in Scripture, nor is the question of whether to give it all to the local church or to include other ministries. We feel that such decisions should be based on personal conviction.
Other Christians who tithe do so simply because they respect the Old Testament principle and find it a helpful place to begin in their giving. They do not believe, however, that tithing is a New Testament obligation. It is not mentioned in the New Testament except where it is describing Old Testament practices or in the Gospels where Jesus is addressing people who were under the Old Testament law.

The article then goes on to cite Luke 11:42, which seems to explain that giving money alone is not what God seeks (AMP) :

42 “But woe (judgment is coming) to you Pharisees, because you [self-righteously] tithe mint and rue and every [little] garden herb [tending to all the minutiae], and yet disregard and neglect justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done, without neglecting the others.

This passage is echoed in Matthew 23:23.  Supporting our church is a personal voluntary decision and act of love, not a mechanistic accounting transaction and act of compliance.

Summary

Here is an excellent article that thoroughly analyzes the topic of Christian tithing, and determines that while we are encouraged to freely give, there is no law or mandate that any of us must give any amount at all to our church.  We totally agree.

But, having said that you are not compelled to give to support your church, you should give, but on a voluntary basis, and an amount of your choosing, not a mechanistic 10% tithe.

All churches need to be supported by their congregations.  That’s as obvious as can be, and you shouldn’t shirk from participating at whatever level you feel to be fair and appropriate.

We suggest the best answer to this question can be found in 2 Corinthians 9:6-8 (AMP)

6 Now [remember] this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows generously [that blessings may come to others] will also reap generously [and be blessed].

7 Let each one give [thoughtfully and with purpose] just as he has decided in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver [and delights in the one whose heart is in his gift].

8 And God is able to make all grace [every favor and earthly blessing] come in abundance to you, so that you may always [under all circumstances, regardless of the need] have complete sufficiency in everything [being completely self-sufficient in Him], and have an abundance for every good work and act of charity.

At the time of writing, there is controversy about whether we as Christians should vaccinate against the coronavirus or not.

There always has been a low level of disagreement about vaccinations and even medical treatments in general – both within the Christian community (particularly adherents of the Jehovah’s Witness and Christian Scientist churches), and the “anti-vaxxers” who object on reasons totally unrelated to Christian teachings.  The controversy – within both groups – seems to have become super-charged due to the nasty coronavirus outbreak.

To state our opinion up front, we have no objection, whatsoever, on Christian grounds, to any type of vaccination.  We have some medical concerns about the new vaccines for the coronavirus and the degree of testing they’ve undergone prior to their emergency use approvals (none of the vaccines have been fully approved yet), but that’s another issue entirely, and even then, while we have some concerns, those concerns are diminishing every day because we see another two million Americans and 15+ million in the rest of the world being vaccinated, and so far – touch wood – there have been no significant negative outcomes, just a huge positive outcome – reducing the number of people at risk of the virus.

We are deliberately overlooking all the generic “anti-vaxxer” claims.  Those claims are not based on any claimed Christian values, but on science which may or (more probably) may not be valid.  This article is solely looking at vaccines from the Christian perspective.

We find it difficult to discuss this issue from a Christian perspective because we can’t start to grasp what “vaccines are bad” people say to support their view.  We understand both sides of some of the difficult issues within the Christian world, but we don’t understand the rationale behind not being vaccinated.  So we first had to research why self-professing Christians claim it to be un-Christian to be vaccinated.

We may have overlooked some part of the reasoning advanced by Christians opposed to vaccines.  This is not intentional and feel free to add extra points in reader comments.

Do Vaccines Frustrate God’s Will?

One argument against vaccines is that if God has introduced the virus into our world – and of course, everything that happens is either part of his Plan or else something he permits/allows – then we are frustrating his Plan and his Will by developing and taking a vaccine.

On the face of it, maybe there is some validity in this concept, but if you think carefully about the sentence above, you’ll see a huge contradiction within it.

Yes – everything that happens in this world only happens with God’s permission, including even every act of evil instigated by the devil.  “Everything” includes developing vaccines.  If the virus is part of God’s Will, surely too the vaccines are equally part of his Will.

Are Vaccines an Unnatural Response?

This is only slightly different to the preceding argument.  But what does it mean to be “natural” or “unnatural” (and why is unnatural bad whereas natural is good)?

Is it natural to keep clean?  Maybe running our hands under water is natural, but is it natural to use a bar of soap to aid the cleaning process?  To use shampoo for our hair – I just looked at a container of Pantene shampoo and the ingredient list contains things such as methylchloroisothiazolinone and I’ll wager that no matter how you define “natural”, this is truly not a natural substance.

Sure, vaccines are developed in a laboratory rather than grow on a tree.  But, so what?  It is still all part of God’s creation, created according to the physical and chemical laws he instituted when he developed this world and how it works.  And some things that grow on trees will kill you.  Not everything natural is good, and not everything “unnatural” is bad.

Jesus Cured People with Miracles Rather than Medicines – So Should We?

We don’t deny that a miracle trumps a medicine, every time.  And while we can all aspire to lead a life that emulates his, we can’t expect to be able to invoke miracles at will as Jesus could.

That’s not to say we don’t feel God’s comforting presence and help in every part of our lives, every day, but he makes no promise to us to guarantee us an easy life.  Our rewards are in the afterlife, not in the present (see John 16:33, and our article “The reason why bad things happen to good people“. ).  So while we thankfully accept all he gives us, we also recognize the need to fend for ourselves and care for ourselves.

A healthy person can better participate in and help advance God’s Plan than an unhealthy person can.  We can better share God’s Word and his Plan with other people when we’re in full command of our senses and our health.  Jesus had miracles.  We have a much lesser magic in the form of surgical procedures, antibiotics, painkillers, vaccines, and all manner of other medical procedures.

We also note, in one of the few texts in the Bible that obliquely addresses this topic, when Jesus tells of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) he speaks approvingly of the Samaritan’s actions, when he cared for the wounded man with bandages and salves, and suggested this was a better response than that of the priest who simply avoided the man by crossing the road.

Jesus didn’t say that the Samaritan should just have prayed then hurried on his way.  He praised the Samaritan for showing compassion and mercy, and concludes with the command (Luke 10:36-37 AMP)

36 Which of these three do you think proved himself a neighbor to the man who encountered the robbers?”

37 He answered, “The one who showed compassion and mercy to him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and constantly do the same.”

We are told to show compassion and mercy – to do things, not just to pray, when we care for people in need.  We suggest that administering medicines to our fellow men, and therefore, to ourselves too, is covered by this admonition.

Should We Trust in God?

This is another variation of the flawed argument that taking a vaccine is somehow seeking to frustrate God’s Will, something we know to be impossible.

This variation says we are showing no confidence in God’s ability to protect us if we resort to man-made things like vaccines.  If God intends us to live, we’ll live, and if he intends us to die, we’ll die, according to people who say this.

Let me ask you – do you put on a seat belt when getting into a car?  Do you stop and look both ways before crossing a busy road?  Do you put on warm clothing before going outside in the middle of winter?

Of course we all do all those things, and observe many other cautionary and common sense things too, and it seems there is no difference between those prudent sensible actions and taking a vaccine to avoid becoming infected with a virus, and – equally importantly – to avoid infecting other people too.

Are Vaccines a Tool of the Devil?

We have seen some terribly “out-there” videos claiming via hard-to-follow reasoning that vaccines are a tool of the devil, and suggesting that if we take a vaccine we may be giving ourselves to the devil, making him our master, and turning our back on salvation.

It is not altogether fair to argue against those suggestions by saying “The Bible doesn’t tell us to avoid vaccines” because of course most medical processes were unknown back then, and the flipside of that is the claim “The Bible doesn’t authorize us to take vaccines”.

But that flipside claim is not valid.  We don’t need the Bible to authorize our actions.  The offer of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus also included freeing us from the former Old Testament laws.  Our path to salvation is not via strictly observing all the Old Testament laws, but by accepting the personal sacrifice of Jesus.  We don’t need the Bible to either specifically allow or forbid the taking of vaccines; and because the Bible is silent on this, both ways, we can fairly accept that vaccine use is not an important condition and element of our salvation.

Back to the devil-based fears.  The chances are you have a friend – a Christian friend – who has been vaccinated already.  Did he renounce his faith shortly afterwards?  Has he (or she) changed mentally or morally?  None of the people we know have shown any change in their faith or personality at all, other than for a positive improvement in their view of the future.

Are the Vaccines Made from Aborted Babies?

The same videos that suggest vaccines are a tool of the devil also refer to them as being made from aborted babies, in sometimes very graphic and unpleasant terms.

This is more a factual and scientific issue than a Christian issue, but we can understand how Christians would be concerned at a suggestion that babies had to be killed to create their vaccine.

Happily, there is no reality to these claims at all, and respected religious leaders dismiss such suggestions completely on both medical and faith grounds.  Here’s an excellent detailed discussion on the matter by Dr Russell Moore, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.  The SBC President proudly shared his getting vaccinated on Facebook.  Franklin Graham also advocates being vaccinated.

The Bible Tells Us to Avoid Blood

There are a number of dietary restrictions in the Old Testament which of course no longer directly apply in the New Testament.  There is also a passage in Acts 15 that tells of a discussion at the Jerusalem Council and a letter subsequently conveyed from the Council to the church at Antioch.  This is often quoted briefly, verse 20 or 29, which talks about (Acts 15:28-29 AMP) :

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place on you any greater burden than these essentials:

29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from [consuming] blood, and from [eating the meat of] things that have been strangled, and from sexual impurity. If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Farewell.”

This seems a clear-cut suggestion to avoid [consuming] blood as per the Jewish law.  It has been used as a reason to refuse blood transfusions and other medical procedures too.  But this passage needs to be understood in the context of the previous parts of chapter 15 – remember, any time anyone cites any Bible passage, you should always read what comes before and what follows after, to understand the context and full meaning of the passage.

In this case, when you place those two verses into context, you see that first Peter, then Barnabas and Paul, then thirdly James all spoke on the subject of salvation being via faith alone, and the Council was concerned with how to honor that wonderful freedom we have without upsetting/annoying strictly-law-observant Jews.  It was decided, for practical and political reasons, to compromise and to suggest/recommend Christians avoid flaunting their freedoms in front of Jews, but rather be modest and discreet and avoid giving offense.

These four things cited seemed either to be inconsequential or else obvious things that no good Christian would wish to do anyway, while also being important to Orthodox Jews, and so it seemed a painless sacrifice to make.  (As an aside, we’re uncomfortable with ever sacrificing our faith and principles to appease other non-Christian groups, but that’s a topic for another time!)

The letter from the Council is not a direct command from God or a direct teaching of Jesus, or even a direct statement of one of the Apostles.  Quite the opposite.  It is the outcome of a negotiated and awkward political compromise, moving away from the “salvation through faith alone” doctrine that leading figures in Christianity at the time were telling the Council was the sole and guiding principle for how to lead a good Christian life.

There also seems to be a huge difference between avoiding eating bloody meat from a beast and having a blood transfusion from a fellow human.

We don’t see this passage in Acts as speaking against vaccines or any other medical treatments.

Is Refusing a Vaccine Tantamount to Suicide or Murder?

Here’s an interesting thought in support of being vaccinated.  Largely in the Old Testament there are admonishments against suicide, and it could be said that refusing some types of medical treatments is a form of suicide.

There is no difference between doing something that you know will kill you (taking poison, for example) and not doing something that you know will save you (moving out of a burning building, for example).  Not taking a vaccine when you know there is a risk you’ll become infected with the virus, and a risk that after becoming infected, you might die, is just as much a conscious decision to not do something that might lead to your otherwise avoidable death as is a conscious decision to do something that would also lead to the same outcome.

Now let’s think that through to the next stage.  What happens if we become infected, due to not being vaccinated, and then pass that infection on to someone else, who then dies from the infection.  (Yes, we know that being vaccinated doesn’t eliminate your risk of still getting a mild infection and possibly being somewhat infectious, too, but it does reduce these risks greatly.)  There is a direct link between our decision not to become vaccinated and the other person’s death, and with the chances being that it is a person we are close to, we’re not only causing their death – murdering them – but also failing to honor our family and care for our neighbors.

Does the Bible Actually Advocate for Vaccines?

In the New Testament, we are told to honor God with our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) and to feed and care for our body, just as Christ does the church (Ephesians 5:29).

Isn’t taking a vaccine caring for our body?  Yes, of course it is, absolutely and definitely.

God loves us, and who doesn’t want the people we love to be as happy and healthy as is possible.

How could God not be anything other than pleased to see us using the skills and ingenuity he so generously granted us to develop a response to this virus and to reduce the harm it has been causing us all – not least of which being the harm in making it harder and dangerous for us to enjoy regular fellowship in church with other Christians.

So, from a Christian point of view, please rejoice in the development of vaccines, and if – for medical reasons – you feel being vaccinated is prudent and correct, please do so without any concerns that you are compromising on the principles of your Christian faith.

A Personal Note

When this blog was first started, back in mid 2018, I wrote about topics of interest and importance to me, and based on questions often encountered and issues/challenges present in the Christian world.

These days, I write much less often, and I dare to sometimes feel that I am now writing on topics important to God rather than important to me.  I’ve felt a growing need and sense of mission to write on the topic of vaccines for a month or more.

I had a small personal challenge and asked for God’s help in resolving that challenge, and sensed that writing this article would be a fair quid pro quo.  My personal challenge was resolved, so now I’m fulfilling my part of that bargain.

I do not claim any special insight, enlightenment, or authority at all.  But I hope I’m both pleasing God and helping you in this article.

And now, for the truly last word.  I noticed the Bible verse of the day when going to post this, and thought it a great thought to close on – 2 Corinthians 4:17 (ESV)

 For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison

We were watching a movie the other night.  One of the “bad guys” had just done something terribly bad to the hero’s family, and then taunted the hero, saying something like “You’re a good Christian, let’s see you turn the other cheek”.

The concept of accepting/welcoming violence as a Christian value is one that non-Christians love to misunderstand and to make fun of.  Parts of verses are often quoted at us by people eager to deride our faith.  They say things like “Can I slap you on the cheek, and if I do so, will you then encourage me to slap you on the other cheek, too?” and so on – there’s every chance you’ve been on the receiving end of such mockery, yourself, and felt uncomfortable.

Let’s look at exactly what it means when Jesus encouraged us to turn the other cheek.

As background, the Old Testament was fairly specific on crime and punishment issues, and on war and other forms of national struggle.  Curiously, much of the concepts of justice in the Christian world have extended the Old Testament concepts of appropriate punishment and consequences for inappropriate actions, and of prohibitions (and consequences) for certain actions, rather than the more forgiving nature of the New Testament.

This is curious because, in almost all things, the New Testament and Grace of God through Jesus Christ frees us from Old Testament law.  How can there be punishments or consequences when there are no laws to break?

This question points to a relevant point.  There is a distinction between the laws in our society and imposed by our government, and the conduct of behavior advocated to us by Jesus.  In cases where there seems to be a conflict between Christian behavior and national laws, which one is more important?

You might answer that question by saying “Of course, what Jesus says is most important”, but the question was a trick question.  Sorry for that!  In reality, we have to consider both and coexist and conform (to a greater or lesser extent) with the expectations and requirements of the society we live within (see our article “Reconciling the law of the land with the law of God“), as well as honoring and observing the teachings of Jesus.

We’ll focus this article on what you should do, as a good Christian, if some other person harms you or someone close to you.  Let’s start off with the most oft-cited scriptures on this topic.

The Sermon on the Mount

The section most frequently cited when it comes to how we should respond to enmity and adversity is within the lengthy passage recounting what is popularly termed “The Sermon on the Mount” and most clearly detailed in three chapters of the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 5, Matthew 6, and Matthew 7).

You should be familiar with the entirety of these three chapters, but for this article, we are looking particularly at Matthew 5:38-39 (part of the section headed “Retaliation” in the ESV).  In separate articles, we’ll look at the second part of this section and also at Matthew 5:43-48 (the section headed “Love Your Enemies” in the ESV), and of course, over still more articles, at the rest of this sermon which is packed full of important guidance for what is appropriate Christian conduct in general and in adversity.

Both these two parts are within the section termed “Personal Relationships” in the AMP, and of course these section headings are merely suggested labels by editors and publishers, not part of the actual teachings of Christ.  We often like to use the AMP Bible in our citations but we won’t this time because it “gives too much of the show away”, leaving us little to comment further.  So let’s start by looking at these two verses in the Lexham English Bible translation

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’

39 But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer, but whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also.

So how should we understand what Jesus is clearly telling and teaching to his followers?  While it is our belief that the Bible is intended to be easy to understand, there are some sections that seem a little more remote from “perfectly easy” than others, and these important sections would be a case in point.

To start with, Jesus might be speaking as much figuratively as literally.  Secondly, he is using examples that are familiar to his listeners, and which make sense, but which have not remained obvious over the two millennia subsequently.  That isn’t to say that what he says is impossible to understand, it merely means we need to make a bit of extra effort, or to rely on interpretations where scholars have already made that extra effort for us.

This would be like us saying about someone “He is as moral as Jeffrey Epstein” – today it is probably obvious to most people that we’d be being sarcastic when saying that, because Mr Epstein was credibly accused of an appallingly long list of sex crimes before he apparently committed suicide in a NY jail while awaiting trial, but in ten or twenty years, he’ll probably be totally forgotten.  Another example – “He deserves the same reward for his bravery as Eddie Slovik” – that means nothing to most people these days, but Slovik made a name for himself in 1945 when he became the only US soldier since the Civil War to be executed for desertion.

Understanding the Meaning and Context of This Statement

This is where a Bible such as the AMP can be helpful, with sometimes explanatory comments included.  Even better is a “full-on” study Bible such as the ESV, or a commentary such as by John MacArthur.

We’d like to pretend we know all about every verse in the Bible ourselves, but we absolutely don’t, and we too rely on such sources for guidance.  We are careful to always use at least two commentaries/guides so as to hopefully filter out any biases, and to get the fullest possible understanding of the passage we’re looking at.

From these sources we learn that turning the other cheek has a particular meaning.  A slap is not an act of great violence, but more a form of formal insult.  Striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance.  If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.  An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality.

Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was not weakly submitting, but quite the opposite – he was demanding equality.

Similar points apply to the verses that follow (giving your cloak and going two miles).

The underlying point here is not to retaliate, and not to seek revenge (see also, for example, Romans 12:19).

But there is a world of difference between receiving an insult and staying quiet, as this example teaches us; and being brutally attacked and not defending yourself – of stopping a harmful act while it is being conducted, of preventing a harmful act in the first place, and of subsequently carrying out a similar harmful act yourself against the evildoer, some time later, out of a desire for revenge.

A slap is a short sharp and very brief event.  Once it has been done, it has been done.  But someone beating you up, or raping your wife/daughter, or whatever, that is an entirely different thing.  The Bible does not say “stand aside and let wicked people harm you and your family” and certainly it does not say “after they’ve finished their evil, invite them to repeat it”.

So, what about self-defense?  Is that compatible with “turning the other cheek”?

The first part of answering this question is to restate that turning the other cheek is thought to mean accepting an insult and not reciprocating.  It probably does not literally mean “if someone hits you (whether on the cheek or anywhere else on your body) move to make it easy for the person to hit you a second time”.

How About Self-Defense and Protection of Property, Friends and Family?

So, in the two verses above, we are told to accept and not respond to minor insults.  But what about more serious actions against us, our friends and family, and our property?

This is where non-Christians go off the rails, not only do they misunderstand what turning the other cheek means, but they then incorrectly generalize it to other things as well as minor insults and how to respond to them.  Fortunately, the New Testament does talk about self-defense and protection of property and gives us specific guidance.  Jesus tells us (in Luke 12:39) (AMP)

39 “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time the thief was coming, he [would have been awake and alert, and] would not have allowed his house to be broken into.

We’re given an even clearer indication of what “would not have allowed” means when Jesus says (in Mark 3:27) (AMP)

27 But no one can go into a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first overpowers and ties up the strong man, and then he will ransack and rob his house.

Clearly, the strong man needs to be overpowered (implies a struggle) and bound (to stop the strong man from continuing to fight to protect his house and property) because the strong man won’t passively permit his home to be burgled.

Slightly earlier in Luke, Jesus tells us (Luke 11:21) (AMP)

21 When the strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his belongings are undisturbed and secure.

While this verse is in the context of another point, it seems to be affirming and endorsing the concept of being armed and guarding one’s property.  If the concept of being armed and guarding property is repeatedly supported, it seems likely that guarding one’s family is also a good thing.  Indeed, in John 15:13, Jesus gives a ringing endorsement of putting oneself in harm’s way to protect one’s friends (AMP)

13 No one has greater love [nor stronger commitment] than to lay down his own life for his friends.

It is unclear if this means “peacefully sacrifice one’s own life to save one’s friends”, but it might also mean “risk and potentially lose one’s own life by forcefully battling an evil that threatens one’s friends”.  If one is resisting to the point of risking one’s own life, it is possible that part of the resistance may risk one’s opponent’s life too.

A clue that resistance can be more than passive resistance is given in Luke 22:36 (AMP)

36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money belt is to take it along, and also his [provision] bag, and he who has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

A sword is not a peaceful implement.  If used, it can only do two things – definitely injure, and possibly kill an opponent.  This seems very much at odds with the “conventional wisdom” (usually foisted on us by non-Christians!) that we as Christians must be pacifists, doesn’t it.

What About the Ten Commandments?

One last thing.  What about the sixth of the ten commandments (Exodus 20:13)?  In the King James Version, this was translated simply as

Thou shalt not kill.

That’s about as simple and clear a statement as possible, isn’t it.  It seemed to be a blanket ban on all killing.

But, if that is/was so, it is difficult to reconcile that statement with other texts – earlier, in Genesis (Genesis 9:6) and shortly after in Exodus (Exodus 21:12).  How to reconcile a blanket ban on killing with these two verses demanding capital punishment – killing another person – in response for certain crimes?

The answer is surprising to people who revere the King James version of the Bible as being the most reliable and inspired version (a topic for another article in itself!).  It seems the Hebrew word used – “rasah” – has a specific meaning that refers to unlawful killing or murder, rather than any form of killing at all.  For this reason, it is common now to see the sixth commandment translated with the word kill being replaced with the word murder.  The AMP version helpfully goes further and says

13 “You shall not commit murder (unjustified, deliberate homicide).

In other words, lawful killing is permitted.  Unlawful killing is not permitted.  What is lawful and what is unlawful killing?  Perhaps it is appropriate to accept the standards of the community we live in for guidance on that (see, again, our article “Reconciling the law of the land with the law of God“).

Loving Our Enemies, etc

We’ll certainly agree that we as Christians strive to have peaceful lives free of conflict, and we are also told to “love our enemies” (Matthew 5:43-48).  This love is not in the sense of emotional feeling, but in the sense of selflessly doing things to benefit others – the Greek word “agape” is the underlying word in this context.

Should our love for our enemies be greater than our love for our friends and family?  If we are having to choose between loving and protecting our friends and family, and “loving” our enemies, it seems to us that it is appropriate to place our friends and family first, and our enemies second.

Perhaps another explanation of the loving one’s enemies is in the context of “love the person, hate the crime” – and indeed, that section of Matthew is all about explaining how our enemies are also God’s creation; and as such, deserving of our love.  It does not say “allow/enable their crimes”, it just says to respect and seek out the good in our enemies – to show by our actions that we are forgiving and willing to create peace between us and to change relationships from enmity to friendship.

On the other hand, we are also told to respond to someone wishing to sue us and take our shirt to also give them our cloak (Matthew 5:40).  This seems to be in the context of lawful taking (suing) rather than robbery, and it too may be indicating a form of passive resistance.  If you give a person both your shirt and your cloak, you’d be naked, and at the time, public nakedness was considered to bring shame not just to the naked person, but to the people viewing the nakedness too.

So we don’t see the “give your cloak too” verse as suggesting that we should stand aside as they plunder our possessions.  If a person is desperate for support and assistance, we’d have a Christian obligation to help, but if a person is merely a criminal seeking to profit by stealing from us, that’s a different scenario entirely.

Summary

Turning the other cheek simply means don’t retaliate or seek revenge from a minor insult that creates little personal harm or loss or cost.

It does not mean that you should not protect your belongings, and it does not mean you should not protect your friends (and family).  As we’ve seen in the other verses, of course you should protect yourself, your friends and family, your home and your belongings; you should arm yourself to be more effective in protecting these things, and you should be willing to escalate your response to such threats even to the point where you are risking your own life to do so.

Is the Old Testament still relevant to Christians, or has Jesus’ sacrifice obsoleted some or all of it?

We know that Jesus “rewrote the rules” for what it takes to go to heaven.  He “fulfilled the law” as set out in the Old Testament – the complicated series of procedures and requirements that allowed Jews so comply and qualify for being saved.  Some sources suggest there are as many as 613 different commandments in the Old Testament, but the exact number is a bit hard to tie down (some requirements might be restatements of others rather than entire new commandments).

The verses in Matthew 5:17-18 are often used to illustrate how Jesus “fulfilled the law”, with those two verses sometimes expanded through to verse 20.  We’re all in favor of seeing verses in context, so let’s look at all four verses (MEV)

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.  I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one dot or one mark will pass from the law until all be fulfilled.

19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.  But whoever does and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will in no way enter the kingdom of heaven.

The key concept Jesus tells us here is that he is fulfilling the Law.  It has generally been understood that subsequent to his resurrection, the Law has been fulfilled, allowing us a new path – by accepting his sacrifice on our behalf – to Heaven.

The second two verses (19 and 20) might seem somewhat contradictory and talking against the law being fulfilled, but they can be understood as first (in verse 19) Jesus referring to the consequences of getting to Heaven or not, via observing the entirety of the Law, and second (in verse 20), Jesus points out how very difficult this is.

Unstated but implied and further amplified elsewhere is that Jesus is making it really easy for us to get to Heaven, because he is sacrificing himself on our behalf.  That is his gift, should we choose to accept it – an easier path to Heaven.

Our freedom from the law is confirmed by Paul when he writes in Galatians 3:23-26 (MEV)

23 But before faith came, we were imprisoned under the law, kept for the faith which was later to be revealed.

24 So the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

26 You are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

It is also confirmed in a passage in Romans that is perhaps a bit cryptic (Romans 10:4) so this page of alternate translations helps make it clear what it actually means, with the NIV giving a clear version

Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Jesus marked the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

So does that mean we can now throw away our Old Testaments and focus exclusively on the New Testament?  We think not.  Obviously, the history sections of the Old Testament are still helpful.  The structure of God’s World is still in place.  The “wisdom” as set out in books such as Proverbs and Psalms still remains wise, and worthy of being accepted by us as guidance.

Just because the laws have now been fulfilled doesn’t mean the underlying concepts of good and bad have disappeared.  And, indeed, just because the laws have now been fulfilled does not mean they should all be now ignored.  We’ll agree that some of the previous ceremonial type laws no longer apply.  There’s no need now for animal sacrifices, because Jesus – “The Lamb of God” – sacrificed himself for us.

We are even specifically told that in addition to fulfilling the law, in case there is any remaining doubt, behaviors such as observing the Sabbath no longer need to be continued (Mark 2:27-28, Colossians 2:16).  But can we go out now and, for example, commit murder whenever we wish?  Not if we have Christ in our heart, because such actions are not reconcilable with being a sincere Christian, indeed, nine out of the ten Commandments were expressly or implicitly repeated in the New Testament (all but the requirement to keep the Sabbath).

An Analogy – Cars

Can we offer an analogy to explain how we see this.  Let’s say you own a regular gasoline-powered car, and it comes of course with a manual on how to operate and maintain the car.  Now, let’s say you swap the car for a new battery-electric powered vehicle.

So, does the section in the earlier car’s manual about what type of gasoline to buy still apply?  No, of course it doesn’t.  You’re now using a different means of power to get to your destination.  Does the section about needing to check your engine oil levels, and what grade of oil to use, apply?  No, for the same reason.  Oil is still beneficial for internal combustion engines, but you’ve replaced your ICE engine with a BEV engine.  The same for other sections of the book about radiators and coolant, spark plugs, and so on.

You now have a new manual that tells you how to keep your batteries charged.  That is now of great importance to you, as a replacement for the need to buy gasoline and maintain your petrol-powered engine.

What about other parts of the first manual, though?  The section on tires – that is still the same, isn’t it.  The same for headlights, wipers, suspension, and many other issues.

If your new manual doesn’t talk about keeping washer fluid in its reservoir for your windshield washers, you can probably turn to the section in the older manual and rely on its guidance.  And the section in the older manual which says “Warning, do not operate your vehicle while under the influence of alcohol” – that still fully applies, too, doesn’t it (even if the new vehicle has some limited self-driving capabilities!).

Can you see how this analogy ties in to the Bible?  The Old Testament can be thought of as the older manual for your previous gasoline-powered car.  The New Testament can be thought of as the manual for your new electric car.  Indeed, look at the sizes of the two volumes – as we explain in our article about how many words in the Bible, the Old Testament has about 610k words and the New Testament has about 179k words.  The Old Testament is more than three times the length of the New Testament – something that is obvious to you any time you turn to the opening verses of Matthew and note how far through the Bible it starts.

It is entirely possible that sometimes you’ll come across questions or issues that aren’t expressly covered in the New Testament, but which are mentioned in the Old Testament – either in the form of customs, or as part of the history of what happened to people, and how God interacted with them and their lives.  Should you ignore the Old Testament references?  We suggest not – we suggest that if the New Testament doesn’t give us any clear direct or indirect guidance on a point, then if the Old Testament does discuss the matter, it is probably helpful for us to consider the Old Testament commentary and, assuming it is not something clearly made irrelevant by the fulfilling of the law by Jesus, we should consider adopting it as part of our Christian values.

Another Analogy – Computers

Here is a second analogy to keep in mind as well, particularly when noting laws in the Old Testament.  You could also think of the coexistence of the two testaments as being like the difference between Microsoft’s MS-DOS operating system, and the software that worked within that environment, and now Microsoft’s Windows operating system and the software that works within that environment.

Some things are very different for a Windows based computer, but sometimes you’ll still need to go to a Command window and find yourself back sitting at a DOS prompt and entering DOS type commands.  In both cases, no matter how different the Windows interface, achieving a certain task still involves the same computer elements – a processing unit, memory, storage, display, and so on.

So while Windows has changed how we interact with our computers and complete our tasks, the underlying constants of how computers work remain the same.  They are just presented to us in a different way, and if we reach a point where Windows can’t do what we need, sometimes we can still return to the DOS environment.

Our Policy About the Old Testament

As you’ll see on our page “What We Believe” we state

The Bible is the Word of God, with the New Testament in primacy and supplemented by the Old Testament. While men may choose to explain and share their knowledge of the Bible, the Bible’s plain language is the key and ultimate source of all Christian understanding.  See Proverbs 30:5-6.

The next page, “Our Guiding Principles” amplifies and restates that by saying

Christian people live according to the teachings in the New Testament and more generally those of the Old Testament, and in particular the Ten Commandments.  Being Christian is positive, enjoyable, and life enhancing.  A Christian faith is incomplete without Christian “works” that flow from that faith.

Of course, these are merely our interpretations and beliefs.  They could be wrong.  But we offer them to you for consideration and guidance and hope you may find them helpful.

If you find yourself truly vexed on something to do with the application of the Old and New Testaments to a matter, do what we do.  Research the issue thoroughly, ask other good Christians their opinions and advice, and then prayerfully seek guidance on what best to do.

We find generally the answer is clear, even if it isn’t always what we wish it to be.  And if the outcome is unclear, then you can relax – God isn’t playing tricks on us or setting traps for us.  Do what you think is best, rejoice in having free will to choose, and relax in the knowledge that God will never penalize us for sincerely doing the best we can.

We saw an interesting Twitter discussion recently, responding to the question “Is spending time reading/studying the Bible more important than praying?“.

The question is one of those awkward “trick” questions that contains an obscured assumption within it – in this case, the assumption is that a person is forced to choose between Bible study and prayer.  While the instinctive response to that is to say “both are important and you should do plenty of each”, it is realistic to accept that there are practical limits, even for the most dedicated Christian, on how many hours a day they can spend on these activities.

Perhaps it is a valid question.  Which should you focus on?

Does the Bible Tell Us to Pray?  To Read and Study the Bible?

Yes, the Bible does most definitely exhort us to pray – regularly, often, even almost all the time.  This is very clearly stated in Romans 12:12 – here it is in an extended context (AMP)

10 Be devoted to one another with [authentic] brotherly affection [as members of one family], give preference to one another in honor;
11 never lagging behind in diligence; aglow in the Spirit, enthusiastically serving the Lord;
12 constantly rejoicing in hope [because of our confidence in Christ], steadfast and patient in distress, devoted to prayer [continually seeking wisdom, guidance, and strength],
13 contributing to the needs of God’s people, pursuing [the practice of] hospitality.

This concept is echoed in 1 Thessalonians 5:17, and we’d suggest the next verse, about giving thanks, also implies thanks be given not only publicly but also privately, in prayer.  Here’s the context of the two verses (AMP)

16 Rejoice always and delight in your faith;
17 be unceasing and persistent in prayer;
18 in every situation [no matter what the circumstances] be thankful and continually give thanks to God; for this is the will of God for you in Christ Jesus.

In Philippians 4:6,  we are again encouraged to pray, with the chapter going on to further consider prayer not just in the context of asking for things but as a form of meditation and thanks, as shown here (AMP)

4 Rejoice in the Lord always [delight, take pleasure in Him]; again I will say, rejoice!
5 Let your gentle spirit [your graciousness, unselfishness, mercy, tolerance, and patience] be known to all people. The Lord is near.
6 Do not be anxious or worried about anything, but in everything [every circumstance and situation] by prayer and petition with thanksgiving, continue to make your [specific] requests known to God.
7 And the peace of God [that peace which reassures the heart, that peace] which transcends all understanding, [that peace which] stands guard over your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus [is yours].
8 Finally, believers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable and worthy of respect, whatever is right and confirmed by God’s word, whatever is pure and wholesome, whatever is lovely and brings peace, whatever is admirable and of good repute; if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think continually on these things [center your mind on them, and implant them in your heart].

So, definitely, prayer gets two thumbs up.

What about reading/studying the Bible?  That’s a slightly more difficult topic – it has a clear answer (yes, you should) but the answer benefits from some context.  The Bible as such was not much countenanced, at the time its books were being written, as an integrated complete work, and so we often get expressions of learning from Christ’s teachings rather than specific statements to read the Bible, but what is the Bible if not the means to learn from Christ’s teachings.

There’s also the interesting primacy of “God’s Word” as referenced both near the beginning of Genesis where God’s Word created the world, and at the beginning of John, where God’s Word is equated as being Jesus (a concept repeated in Revelation 19).  God’s Word has power, and the Bible expresses and reflects some of this power.

The other historical aspect of the Bible’s advocacy for reading the Bible (yes, that does seem a circular piece of logic) is that in the Old Testament, the Jews were a very rule-bound group, with formally defined codes of conduct and procedure, and these rules were in large part to be found in the Bible.  It was necessary to study the Bible as a source of the Laws, just like a lawyer today studies the statutes.  But even in the legalistic Old Testament, God’s Word – what we now term Scriptures or the Bible – was more than just a set of dry legal texts.  It is nicely described in Psalm 119:105 – let’s look at that entire section of the psalm (AMP)

97  Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day.
98  Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, For Your words are always with me.
99  I have better understanding and deeper insight than all my teachers [because of Your word], For Your testimonies are my meditation.
100  I understand more than the aged [who have not observed Your precepts], Because I have observed and kept Your precepts.
101  I have restrained my feet from every evil way, That I may keep Your word.
102  I have not turned aside from Your ordinances, For You Yourself have taught me.
103  How sweet are Your words to my taste, Sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104  From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.
105  Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
106  I have sworn [an oath] and have confirmed it, That I will keep Your righteous ordinances.
107  I am greatly afflicted; Renew and revive me [giving me life], O Lord, according to Your word.
108  Accept and take pleasure in the freewill offerings of my mouth, O Lord, And teach me Your ordinances.
109  My life is continually in my hand, Yet I do not forget Your law.
110  The wicked have laid a snare for me, Yet I do not wander from Your precepts.
111  I have taken Your testimonies as a heritage forever, For they are the joy of my heart.
112  I have inclined my heart to perform Your statutes Forever, even to the end.

The New Testament freed us from the mandates of the Old Testament Laws, but not from an obligation to understand God’s Will and Plan.  For example, 2 Timothy 3:15-6 gives us a great exhortation to study all scripture (AMP)

14 But as for you, continue in the things that you have learned and of which you are convinced [holding tightly to the truths], knowing from whom you learned them,
15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings (Hebrew Scriptures) which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus [surrendering your entire self to Him and having absolute confidence in His wisdom, power and goodness].
16 All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage];
17 so that the man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.

In Hebrews 4:12,  we are told how essential, fundamental, relevant and powerful the word of God is, and in 1 Timothy 4:13,  we are asked to devote ourselves to public reading of Scripture – a phrase that combines two separate things – reading of scripture, and public sharing of Scriptures.  Both are important.

This concept is further advocated in Acts 17:2 where we learn that Paul used the Scriptures over three Sabbaths as a basis to convert Jews to Christianity.  In your own experiences, it is almost guaranteed that your personal path to Christianity was guided by Scripture, and if/when you introduce others to Christianity, this is also done using Scripture as a basis for your explanations and sharing, as suggested in 2 Timothy above.

So, yes, the Bible encourages reading itself, and tells us that familiarity with its contents is important.

This brings us back to an apparent equality of importance – prayer and Bible reading/study.  But is this a problem?  Not necessarily.

Why Not Do Both Together?

There is a second obscured assumption in the original question – that it is not possible both read and pray simultaneously.  Simplistically, it might seem that it is not appropriate to try and read a book, any book, while simultaneously having a conversation with some other person.  But that’s not the way in which Bible reading or study should be done.

The Bible is many things for us as Christians.  One of its purposes is as a pathway and focus for our ongoing prayer, and understanding and appreciating the Bible is best done “interactively” – with prayer and dialog with God at the same time.  There’s a great deal of accuracy in an analogy that reading the Bible is akin to what happens when you’re reading a book to a young child.  If done sensitively and well, the child is regularly interrupting your reading to ask you all sorts of questions about the story, and sometimes about wildly unrelated topics too.  Some narrators see such questions as interruptions, and perhaps in a many-child environment like a large classroom, they are.  But if it is just you and one of your children, they are not interruptions.  They are interactions, bonding events, and learning experiences for your child, and small delights for you as you teach your child about the world and the many things within it.

Of course, when reading the Bible, you are now the child, and it is the Holy Father who is the parent.  We dare to suggest that he gets as much pleasure out of interacting with you and helping you to learn about his world as we do with our children.

So, whether you’re reading the somewhat dry and historic narratives in the Old Testament, or the impassioned urgings and advocacy in the New Testament, we suggest you don’t just read it passively as a story or as a textbook, but you read it interactively, talking to God in prayer as you go, and using the Bible as a tool to build your relationship with God, just the same as your children use your story-telling as a bonding experience with you.

It is certainly possible to simply read the Bible to learn its words and simple facts, and it is also certainly possible to pray at any time on any topic without needing the Bible as a foundation for your prayer.  There is nothing wrong with either of these scenarios, especially the direct focused prayer when seeking advice or help.

But, in general, we suggest that you use your Bible study time (as opposed to a simple reading time) to engage with the Master Teacher and Ultimate Author, with God in his three forms.  Break your reading with pauses to consider and think about what you are reading, to marvel, to give thanks, and to re-affirm your own participation; thank God for the greatness that you read about, ask his help to become a strong and faithful follower, and ask him to help you understand any points of confusion.

Immersing yourself in prayer and the Bible are your sword and shield in the daily battle we all fight against the forces of evil and temptation.  Give yourself an abundance of both.

To close, here is a quotation from the great Victorian theologian, Charles Spurgeon, often called “The Prince of Preachers” :

“When asked, ‘What is more important: Prayer or reading the Bible?’ I ask, ‘What is more important: Breathing in or breathing out?’”.

No-one ever said that it is easy to be a Christian and to faithfully follow Christ’s teachings and God’s laws.  The continuing divergence between the “traditional” or “church” values that used to define and underpin our society, and the values, such as they are, of the modern world in which we must live makes it steadily harder to “go against the flow” and to lead a Christian way of life.  Indeed, this divergence seems to be a clear example of the devil at work, trying to sabotage the appeal and moral authority of the church by insidiously countering all the church’s traditional teachings under the guise of various deceptive notions; seeking to steal the moral high ground away from the church in the process.

One of the most difficult issues for many people is the role of women in the church.  Society these days demands we not only accept the equality of women but also the identicality of them.  It is no longer enough to say “women and men are equal, but different”.  Now we have to pretend that all women and all men are identical in all ways.

That claim is no more true than it is to suggest that all men are identical to each other, or that all women are identical to each other; but whereas we can (at least still for now) acknowledge differences between two men and between two women, social pressures try to stop us from acknowledging the difference between a man and a woman.

This has been taken as a “fact” that therefore “requires” churches to change their earlier prohibitions on women as priestesses.  There is no reason not to have women as priestesses, we are told, because women are identical to and equal to men in every way, and because to say otherwise would be shamefully sexist.

But churches should not answer to or bend to social whims.  If we do that, we change our source of authority from the unchanging and almighty God to that of fickle fashion and social values.  Our authority is God’s law and His instructions in the Bible.  Times change, but Biblical Truth does not.

That is not only an obvious and universal truth, but it serves to introduce an important point.  The role a woman should play in a church is not about “women’s rights” and neither is it about “male chauvinism”.  It is nothing more and nothing less than simply interpreting God’s Will as shown in God’s Word, the Bible.  As soon as people start reaching beyond the Bible to justify their opinion (on any matter) with other non-Biblical sources, they are going “off the reservation”.  Let’s not overlay this discussion with unhelpful emotion and unrelated issues.

I should add one more introductory comment.  We all know many devout and very holy women; many able and excellent women who add enormous value to the churches they belong to and the congregations they attend, support, and assist.  That’s a comment that bears repeating and restating – women and their efforts are an essential and key ingredient of the success and lifeblood of any Christian community.  Finding the best way to empower women to continue to add value and contribute to their congregations and churches is both common sense and good sense.

We also have to observe that you don’t have to research too far to find appalling examples of incompetence, venality, deception, and every other form of sin on the part of male priests.  Clearly some women have excellent qualities, and equally clearly, some women feel a strong calling to the priesthood; while on the other hand, the simple gender issue of someone being male in no way guarantees their appropriateness and success as a priest.

So what is the appropriate Christian view of this matter, and what does that mean for the role of women in the church?  Should churches treat men and women not just equally but identically when it comes to filling leadership and spiritual roles?  That is indeed a trend in some church groups.

Some people, in discussing this fraught issue, pick a few verses from the New Testament, and either cite them to support their view or explain why they don’t contradict their view, and then perhaps add some other non-Bible-based reasoning and reach a conclusion.  While we agree with the primacy of the New Testament as our source for all we do, and while we cringe when people then start reaching out and incorporating secular/social issues and views, in this case, we’d like to start at the very beginning to put everything into an overarching and consistent context.  And you surely can’t get much closer to the very beginning than chapters two and three of Genesis.

The Role of Man and Woman in Genesis

The Bible tells us, right from the very first pages of Genesis, that men and women are not identical.  In chapter two we are told (AMP)

7 then the Lord God formed [that is, created the body of] man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being [an individual complete in body and spirit].

followed by

18 Now the Lord God said, “It is not good (beneficial) for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [one who balances him—a counterpart who is] suitable and complementary for him.” 19 So the Lord God formed out of the ground every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 And the man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper [that was] suitable (a companion) for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and while he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man He made (fashioned, formed) into a woman, and He brought her and presented her to the man. 23 Then Adam said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Are men and women perfectly equal and identical at this point?  That is not immediately obvious.

The concept of a woman’s purpose being a helper does not seem to suggest complete equality, but does not necessarily imply subservience either.  Being fashioned from Adam’s rib has an unclear connotation; and being joined and becoming one flesh might seem to indicate that together they are superior to each individually and that the together form a more integrated whole, while not requiring that both parts of the joined entity be equal.

We note in the ESV Study Bible commentary it suggests that God’s commanding to Adam, prior to Eve’s creation, to work and keep the Garden of Eden gave Adam authority over everything in the Garden of Eden, including, once created, Eve.  Is this the first indication of the relative roles of man and woman?  Possibly, albeit via a weak line of reasoning.

The ESV commentary continues by observing, for verse 2:18, that a woman is not man’s clone, but man’s complement.  Equality is not a necessary part of being a complement, and neither does equality mean identicality.  John MacArthur’s commentary supports this when he says “The words of this verse emphasize man’s need for a companion, a helper, and an equal. … Woman was made by God to meet man’s deficiency.”

We come now to the serpent.  The ESV commentary for Gen 3:2-3 wryly notes “even at this stage, [that] the woman views God’s instructions as open to human modification”.  John MacArthur suggests the serpent approached the woman because she was weaker, needed the protection of her husband, temptable and seducible.  Both comments might be objectionable to some, and you’re welcome to decide for yourself why the serpent approached Eve rather than Adam.

In the aftermath God says to Eve (Gen 3:16) (AMP)

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth;
In pain you will give birth to children;
Yet your desire and longing will be for your husband,
And he will rule [with authority] over you and be responsible for you.”

The phrase “your desire and longing will be for your husband” is sometimes translated differently.  In some versions, for example, the ESV, the phrase is rendered “your desire shall be contrary to your husband” although it is footnoted as having both interpretations.

That this subjugation was intended as a consequence and punishment for the woman’s heeding the serpent is a humbling thought to us men – our authority over our wives is not necessarily meant to be a blessing and boon to them!  Some might say it is not a blessing or boon to men, either!  We’re actually going to be coming to that issue, not as a joke, but seriously, in just a few more sentences.

We’d also point out that being made responsible for our wives is a sacred duty and holy obligation (which we’ll see, later on in the article, when we look at Ephesians 5:25-33).

The ESV Study Guide commentary sees significance that when God returns after the fall from Grace, He first sought out Adam and addressed him, this being something they interpret as God viewing Adam as the leader and person in charge.  That’s another weak point but still a point of note.

The ESV then gloomily prognosticates, in commentary on 3:16, “there will be an ongoing struggle between the woman and the man for leadership in the marriage relationship.  The leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall have now been deeply damaged and distorted by sin.  This especially takes the form of conflicting desire (on the part of the wife) and domineering rule (on the part of the husband). …. Thus one of the most tragic results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God is an ongoing, damaging conflict between husband and wife in marriage, driven by the sinful behavior of both in rebellion against their respective God-given roles and responsibilities in marriage.

In verse 3:17 there is an interesting additional point (AMP)

17 Then to Adam the Lord God said, “Because you have listened [attentively] to the voice of your wife, and have eaten [fruit] from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’; ….

Adam’s sin was in part that he followed his wife, rather than God.  This perhaps forms a fundamental part of why women are not to be spiritual leaders.

John MacArthur says “The woman sinned because she acted independently of her husband, disdaining his leadership, counsel, and protection.  The man sinned because he abandoned his leadership and followed the wishes of his wife.  In both cases, God’s intended roles were reversed.”

The key takeaways we see from Genesis start from the obvious but very relevant point that God didn’t create a second man as a companion for Adam.  He could have done this, and made us hermaphrodites, or given us asexual reproduction, or in some other way avoided the need for two different sexes/genders.  He could have also, of course, made three or any other number of genders that were all needed in some complicated way for reproduction.  But he did none of these things.  God created a woman.  The two creations – man and woman – were designed to be complementary, and stronger together.  The concept of complementary always means “different” and never means “identical”.

God designated the leadership role in the relationship to the man.  At first, the relationship between man and woman was to be harmonious, but after The Fall, it was to be less harmonious and therefore less amenable to equal/joint decisionmaking, and would require a leader (and God’s help) to be positive and fulfilling.

It is hard to think of a way that a man would be the leader in a marriage but the woman would be a leader in spiritual worship.  After the Genesis coverage, the Old Testament is largely silent on the role of women as spiritual leaders (probably because there’s no need to say any more), although there are mention of a handful of women prophetesses.  Certainly there were some strong women cited in the Old Testament, such as Moses’ sister, Miriam.

Jewish law and lore has followed this prime point in Genesis and has been slow to acknowledge equality between men and women.  Much like in the Christian Church, it is only in the second part of the 20th century that the concept of women as rabbis or Talmudic Scholars started to be considered and in some cases allowed.  Traditional Torah law has a ban on women as judges.

We can distinguish between the role of a prophet/prophetess and the role of a spiritual leader or preacher.  A prophet/ess is a conduit for God to pass a message through.  That person doesn’t “add value” to the message, they merely relay it.  They are not necessarily any more an authority on the message as a news reader is an authority on the news item he or she is reading.  There is honor in being chosen as a prophet of course.  Spiritual leaders and preachers however need to be authorities on their topics, and to actively lead rather than passively inform.

Did the New Testament Change These Roles?

Did these roles survive into the New Testament, the freeing of Christ’s followers from the laws of the Old Testament and the formation of the new Church?  That is of course the ultimate question.

We answer that in two parts.  Firstly, are the respective roles of man and woman as shown in Genesis a law or a statement of nature?  If the latter – which we suggest to be the case, then they are more likely to survive into the New Testament.

Secondly, the roles of men and women appear to be clearly repeated/restated in Ephesians 5:22-33 (AMP)

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as [a service] to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as Christ is head of the church, Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives should be subject to their husbands in everything [respecting both their position as protector and their responsibility to God as head of the house].

These first three verses are very clear, and while the next set of verses talks about men, they are also helpful to feature as well, so the totality of the obligations placed on both husbands and wives can be seen.

25 Husbands, love your wives [seek the highest good for her and surround her with a caring, unselfish love], just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify the church, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word [of God], 27 so that [in turn] He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy [set apart for God] and blameless. 28 Even so husbands should and are morally obligated to love their own wives as [being in a sense] their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own body, but [instead] he nourishes and protects and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members (parts) of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined [and be faithfully devoted] to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery [of two becoming one] is great; but I am speaking with reference to [the relationship of] Christ and the church. 33 However, each man among you [without exception] is to love his wife as his very own self [with behavior worthy of respect and esteem, always seeking the best for her with an attitude of loving kindness], and the wife [must see to it] that she respects and delights in her husband [that she notices him and prefers him and treats him with loving concern, treasuring him, honoring him, and holding him dear].

This passage not only shows that women are not being relegated to a subservient and insignificant role, but almost exactly quotes from Genesis, and in doing so, clearly affirms the situation established back in Genesis still applies.

So the New Testament continues the gender-based roles in a marriage.  How does that then apply to the Church?

Before we even look for guidance on that question, we can guess.  It would be difficult for the roles in a marriage to be the reverse of the roles in the Church.  How can a man lead his wife and family if the wife leads her husband in spiritual matters?  There is no exception specified in terms of the husband’s leadership “except in the case of religious matters in which case they shall have equal say”.  Unless we say that spiritual matters are relatively unimportant and only a small part of the totality of a family, it seems reasonable that the man’s role as family leader extends to spiritual issues as well as other issues too.

Now we come to the main two texts that are viewed as supporting the notion that men are to lead the church.  Both were written by Paul, firstly in his first letter to the Corinthians, where he says quite emphatically (1 Cor 14:33-40) (AMP)

33 for God [who is the source of their prophesying] is not a God of confusion and disorder but of peace and order.

As [is the practice] in all the churches of the saints (God’s people),

34 the [e]women should be silent in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but are to take a subordinate place, as the Law says. 35 If there is anything they want to learn [that is, if they have questions about anything being said or taught], they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a [f]woman to talk in church. 36 Did the word of the Lord originate from you [Corinthians], or has it come to you only [so that you know best what God requires]?

37 If anyone thinks and claims that he is a prophet [a true spokesman for God] or spiritually astute [filled with and energized by the Holy Spirit], let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 If anyone does not recognize this [that it is a command of the Lord], he is not recognized [by God].

39 Therefore, believers, desire earnestly to prophesy [to foretell the future, to speak a new message from God to the people], and do not forbid speaking in unknown tongues. 40 But all things must be done appropriately and in an orderly manner.

AMP Notes
(e) When used elsewhere in the New Testament, in specific reference to a woman (cf Eph 5:22; Col 3:18; Titus 2:4, 5; 1 Peter 3:1, 5), this word refers to a married woman, so these admonitions (vv 34, 35) may be directed primarily to the wives of believing husbands.
(f) Paul does not comment on unmarried women; they probably have to abide by the prohibition against speaking out in church as well, and ask questions outside the service.

We also note that Paul’s comments in this first letter to the Corinthians builds on those earlier in that letter when he said (1 Cor 11:3, 8-9) (AMP)

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head (authority over) of every man, and man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ.

8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.

Paul’s comments in chapter 14 didn’t come out of nowhere, nor were they a specific narrow comment about a specific narrow thing.  Clearly they are part of a more general commentary about the overall roles of men and women.

Some years later, Paul writes to his student, Timothy, and says (1 Tim 2:9-15) (AMP)

9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and discreetly in proper clothing, not with [elaborately] braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but instead adorned by good deeds [helping others], as is proper for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with all submissiveness. 12 I do not allow a woman to [c]teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet [in the congregation]. 13 For Adam was formed first [by God from the earth], then Eve; 14 and it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was led astray and [d]fell into sin. 15 But women will be [e]preserved (saved) through [the pain and dangers of] the bearing of children [f]if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control and discretion.

AMP Notes
(c) The early church evidently followed Jewish practices in religious education. In Israel, mothers taught their daughters, and it was the father’s responsibility to teach his sons in all areas, including religious education. So Paul’s prohibitions here are consistent with the practices of his day.
(d) Lit “has come to be in”.
(e) This is considered one of the more difficult verses in the NT to interpret. Part of the difficulty is that the Greek verb rendered “preserved” is literally “saved,” which could refer either to physical preservation or to salvation. Some expositors interpret the verb as referring to the blessings of a woman’s role as wife and mother, especially in regard to raising godly children. However, the wording of the verse seen here reflects the interpretation that Paul is speaking, in broad terms, of protection from the dangers of childbirth.
(f) The blessings on a woman are the result of her adherence to the virtues listed.

These are not complicated statements, are they.  They seem simple and straighforward, with no exceptions or qualifiers.  Here’s an article that looks at the specific words, their context, and their meanings, and ends up with the same interpretation as if you just simply read the verses and applied the plain obvious meanings to the words.

We also see that Paul distinguishes between women performing good deeds and helping others (which they are of course welcome to do), and women not to teach or exercise authority over men.  The former does not then empower or allow the latter.  They are two separate issues.

There’s also another important point to these verses.  Some people have tried to marginalize what Paul said in either or both these two passages, suggesting he was referring only to a very specific set of circumstances and not trying to make statements that apply to all women, everywhere, and forever into the future.  But Paul’s reasoning is tied not to a specific event/time/place.  It is linked directly to Genesis – women were created second and fell first.  That is a universal and unchanging truth.

People who believe women should be priests have struggled to redefine the words and to make them into the opposite of their plain meanings.  Here is one such example.  We immediately note that the article opens with two quotes – one from an ordinary person, not from the Bible, and we always feel that’s a very weak way to start off any lesson on the meaning of scripture.  The other quote is from Acts, and refers to the end times, at which point we are told that women too will then prophesy.  The quote (Acts 2:17-18) and the way it specifically then includes women seems to further reinforce that women currently (because these are not yet the last days) are not given the gift of prophesy.

Does Galatians 3:28 Empower Women to be Priests?

The article goes on to quote Paul’s letter to the Galatians (3:28), and we’ll quote a few more verses to put it in broader context (Gal 3:26-29) (AMP)

26 For you [who are born-again have been reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, sanctified and] are all children of God [set apart for His purpose with full rights and privileges] through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union with the Christ, the Anointed] have clothed yourselves with Christ [that is, you have taken on His characteristics and values]. 28 There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority]. 29 And if you belong to Christ [if you are in Him], then you are Abraham’s descendants, and [spiritual] heirs according to [God’s] promise.

This is usually interpreted to mean exactly as it says – we who have been reborn in Christ are all equally members of the Kingdom of God.  It does not say that we can all hold equal office in a church on Earth.

It might also be helpful to look at the timing of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.  It is believed to have been written in about 48 AD.  This was before he wrote both the first letter to the Corinthians (about 53 – 55 AD) and his first letter to Timothy (mid 60s AD).

So, whatever Paul said in Galatians would be clarified or superseded by his subsequent writings, rather than vice versa.

The ESV Study Bible commentary says “this does not imply that there are no distinctions in how these groups should act, for Paul elsewhere commands slaves and masters differently (Eph 6:5-9) and husbands and wives differently (Eph 5:22-33).”  John MacArthur puts it clearly when he says “This verse does not deny that God has designed racial, social, and sexual distinctions among Christians, but it affirms that those do not imply spiritual inequality before God.  Nor is this spiritual equality incompatible with the God-ordained roles of headship and submission in the church, society, and at home.  Jesus Christ, though fully equal with the Father, assumed a submissive role during His Incarnation.”

The fact that we remain different in our earthly lives is also strongly reinforced in Romans 12 (see below).

The rest of the article tends to revolve around the writer’s opinions and views of what is right and fair, not what the Bible simply says.

Was Phoebe a Priest?

Another argument sometimes offered in favor of allowing women to be priests is a phrase in Romans 16:1-2 (AMP)

1 Now I introduce and commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess (servant) of the church at Cenchrea, 2 that you may receive her in the Lord [with love and hospitality], as God’s people ought to receive one another. And that you may help her in whatever matter she may require assistance from you, for she has been a helper of many, including myself.

The word used to describe Phoebe is sometimes rendered as servant (eg KJV, ESV) or sometimes as deaconess, often with the word servant offered as an alternative (AMP as above, NIV).

If the meaning of the word is “servant”, then this does not support a claim that Phoebe is a priest.  The balance of verse 2 shows she is a “helper of many”, which could imply priest/priestess, or could imply many other roles.  The word “helper” has also been translated as “benefactor” (NIV) or “patron” (ESV) which tends to not imply priest/priestess, because surely there are better ways of describing a priest than as a benefactor/patron.

But what if she truly is a deacon/deaconess?  What does that mean?  What is a deacon?

A deacon seems not to be an overseer or priest, because in several places, deacons and overseers are separately referred to (see, for example, Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8).  Deacons are not priests, they are supporters of priests – the word “deacon” comes from a Greek word group “diakanos” meaning “servant”.  Originally, deacons carried out fairly menial tasks (Acts 6:2-3), and over time came to be trusted with additional duties, including the handling of money, but they were not priests.  Paul distinguishes between overseers, who must be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:9) and deacons, who have no teaching requirement mentioned.

So it doesn’t really matter what Phoebe’s formal job title was – deaconess or servant or benefactor.  All such titles do not imply she was a priest.

More Thoughts and Issues

We’ve several times seen the suggestion that because women had less education than men in Biblical times, this was a temporary restriction based on their lack of knowledge.

We’re always very uncomfortable when people add extra overlays of interpretation to clear Biblical statements.  God meant the Bible to be our handbook for the ages, and it seems reasonable to believe that in general, he meant it to be therefore applicable and relevant for all times.  Paul doesn’t say “for now, because women have less education…”.  He makes blanket statements with no qualification.

Even if it is fair to consider external issues, education is not one of the stated requirements of elders and overseers (see above citations in 1 Timothy and Titus).  They have to be able to teach, but don’t have any requirement for formal education – many of Jesus’ disciples probably had very little formal education.  God’s restriction imposed in Genesis was nothing to do with education.

We’re also not even sure about the accuracy of the claim that women were less educated than men.  It seems more likely that most men and most women all had a similar and very basic education.  If Paul’s ban on women was due to their lack of education, why is education not a requirement for anyone who wishes to teach/lead a congregation?  Why did he not also ban uneducated men?

Some people have pointed to the many good works done by women in service of the Church.  We acknowledge and appreciate all such good works, and will rush to be among the first to thank and celebrate the value women and their service bring to the Church.  But applying that sort of reasoning to try and go around God’s clear wish reminds us uncomfortably of the speciousness of Eve in her discussions with the serpent back in Genesis.  Nothing changes God’s clear requirement that women not be placed in positions of spiritual authority over men.

Clearly women have many and valuable roles they can fill, but that doesn’t mean they should fill all roles.

This article considers some of the other reasons advanced by people who believe women should be allowed to be priests, and comes up with rebuttals to those reasons and interpretations.  Here’s another good discussion on the topic.

So What Can Women Do?

We do not want any part of what we have said to be seen as denigrating women, neither in general, nor in the sense of the vital contributions they can make to our churches.

We agree there are many roles that women can fulfill in the church, other than spiritual leader or elder over men, and we further acknowledge that many women were active in their churches back in Biblical times.  It seems they can teach other women and children about “what is good” (Titus 2:3-5) but not men.

As discussed above, they can be deaconesses in the sense of supporting the work of the spiritual leaders and elders, but not having authority over them.

Can they do anything in the church or are they prohibited from all duties, tasks, activities, and assistance?  The answer seems to be clearly yes – there are many things they can do.  Women can be deaconesses, and deacons/deaconesses have many supportive roles to fill – their original purpose and still what should be their main purpose is to be productivity enhancers and “force multipliers” for the ordained priesthood.  In this context, a church could be compared to a school.  A school has teachers’ assistants, librarians, technical resource officers, caretakers, administrators, and many other people, as well as formally accredited teachers.  Only the formally accredited teachers can teach in a school, and while a church usually has a less clear and formal accrediting (ordaining) process than a school and its state accreditation requirements for its teachers, it seems the concept is similar.

And similar to how non-accredited teachers can sometimes teach “after-school clubs”, we acknowledge that women can provide spiritual guidance and leadership to other women and children, and possibly general commentary to men too.

Which leads to the prohibition on talking.  Can they “talk” in church at all?  We don’t want to now do what we’ve seen others do and argue against the plain words in the Bible, but we wonder if the concept of “talking” as expressed in Paul’s two letters isn’t more in the sense of “chattering” and questioning – possibly even arguing – rather than in the sense of formally sharing information (but not spiritual leadership).

Our sense, unsupported by anything other than a sincere belief, is there are ways that women can indeed present material in a church.  For example, a woman deaconess could report on the work of her group, and advise of future plans.  If a woman is the church treasurer, she could report on the state of the church finances and the ongoing fundraising plans.  And so on.  We know that Jesus had women convey news to the church – of his resurrection no less, and it seems that the woman Phoebe, mentioned above, was entrusted by Paul to carry his letter to the Romans.

There is one more role we have thought about at great length, and prayed for guidance over.  We can not speak authoritatively on this point, and so offer it to you for your own consideration.  Can women have missionary roles?

Our sense is the answer to this question is probably yes, although with some constraints and limitations.  Up to the point where a person chooses to accept Jesus, becomes saved, and joins a church, we see opportunity for women to contribute and participate in missionary roles, the same as men.  In terms of introducing the Word of God, explaining and advocating the concepts of Christianity, and modeling a good Christian life – we feel these are all roles a woman can fill as ably as a man.

Our Thoughts

Perhaps you shouldn’t even read this section, and we shouldn’t write it, because our thoughts don’t really matter or count for anything when aligned against the Word of God.  And neither do the thoughts of any other commentator, nor their opinions of what is best and fairest.

We see, and have documented above, a common thread running through the entirety of both the New and Old Testaments where, for reasons explained in Genesis, men and women have different roles in the family and in the church.  We see the very plain language in the New Testament that prohibits women from leading worship in the church, and we see it repeated twice, implied elsewhere, and nowhere contradicted.

More positively, Paul tells us in Romans 12 that God has given us all gifts, no matter if we are men or women.  But Paul also tells us we don’t all have identical sets of gifts.  Instead (Rom 12:4-8) he explains we all have differing gifts that complement and reinforce each other’s gifts. (AMP)

4 For just as in one [physical] body we have many parts, and these parts do not all have the same function or special use, 5 so we, who are many, are [nevertheless just] one body in Christ, and individually [we are] parts one of another [mutually dependent on each other]. 6 Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to use them accordingly: if [someone has the gift of] prophecy, [let him speak a new message from God to His people] in proportion to the faith possessed; 7 if service, in the act of serving; or he who teaches, in the act of teaching; 8 or he who encourages, in the act of encouragement; he who gives, with generosity; he who leads, [or “without ulterior motives”]with diligence; he who shows mercy [in caring for others], with cheerfulness.

This concept is echoed in 1 Cor 12.

It is not for us to judge one gift as better or inferior to another gift because God in his infinite wisdom has bestowed his selection of gifts on each of us.  It seems God has chosen to withhold the gift of spiritual leadership from women.  This does not make them inferior to men in any way, it just gives them different purposes and methods of serving in His Grand Plan.

We should all encourage and enable everyone to understand and best use the gift they have been blessed with.