Topic(s): Bible Authority, Bible Study, Denominationalism, Women

Todd Clippard

The text under consideration begins in 1 Timothy 2:8: "I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting" NKJV. This is the first of several verses delineating the varying roles of men and women in the local body. This particular discussion ends at the conclusion of 1 Timothy 3.

The word "men" in verse 8 is gender specific, coming from the Greek aner or andras (Strong's #435). Thayer's Lexicon identifies the word as being "with a reference to sex, and so to distinguish a man from a woman" (p 45). It also has bearing on the maturity of the male, and is used in Matthew 15:38 to distinguish a man from a woman (gunaikos - Strong's 1135) or a child (paidion - Strong's 3813).

In verse 9, Paul begins with, "in like manner also," a reference back to the holy hands i.e., pure lives and motives, of verse 8, "that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works." So Paul makes a clear distinction between men and women.

Now to verses 11-12 -- "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." The phrase "usurp authority" in the KJV implies something different than the text actually teaches. The silence in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is to be carried out "with all subjection." Subjection comes from a Greek compound meaning "under appointment" (Strong's 5293). It is by the appointment of God that women are to learn in silence in the assembly, neither are they at liberty to exercise authority over men in the assembly.

To the Corinthians, Paul wrote, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Cor 14:34). Though this is a different word for silence than is found in 1 Timothy 2:11, they are nonetheless the same though their relationship to Divine appointment. In 1 Corinthians, a woman's silence is said to be with submissiveness in connection with the Divine instruction of the Law, but which law? There is no specific Mosaic injunction for women to keep silence. In 1 Timothy 2:11, her silence is connection with the Divine order of creation and the fall of man (vv 13-14). Thus, one should understand the silence commanded in the law is a reference back to Genesis 2-3, and 3:16 in particular.

A quick look at silence in 1 Corinthians 14:28, 30, and 34. The demand for silence in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not absolute. It must be understood contextually. The Greek word translated silence in verse 34 appears three times in the chapter (vv 28, 30, and 34), and nowhere indicates absolute silence. Rather, the word must be understood in its immediate context.

In verse 28, one who is speaking in a different language is to keep silence if there is no interpreter. The silence regulates his public speaking in a tongue, but not from speaking in a tongue understood by all present. In verse 30, if one prophet is speaking and another sitting nearby receives a word of prophecy, the first is to keep silence (hold his peace) while the second speaks. And in verse 34, the woman is to keep silence in such a way so as not to go beyond her authority. This is consistent with Paul's inspired restriction placed upon women exercising authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (cf vv 11-12).

In answer to your question, I do not believe there is authority for a Christian woman to pray in the presence of a Christian man.

I believe there is at least one situation where a Christian man could sit in on a class taught by a woman, and that is when an elder sits in on a class to make sure what is taught is biblical, and making sure the class is conducted in good order. He is not present to be taught, but to execute his responsibility as a shepherd of the flock.

[ SOURCE ]

Topic(s): Bible Infallibility
Todd Clippard

There is a general misunderstanding, especially among modern pentecostals and charismatics as to the nature of tongues. Those who claim to speak in tongues today are referring to ecstatic utterances made after a so-called personal manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Ecstatic coming form the word "ecstasy" meaning to be beside oneself, beyond reason or self control, given over to extreme and engrossing emotions. Utterances are simply vocalized expressions. Participants in such babbling believe the Holy Spirit has taken over their verbalization and caused them to speak some heavenly language or tongues of angels.

What does it really mean to speak in tongues? In its simplest form, speaking in tongues simply means to speak in an established and understandable language. English is a tongue, as is Spanish, French, German, and a host of other languages one might mention. To speak in tongues, in a biblical sense, is to speak a language one has never studied or learned. Let's look at the first incidence of this kind of tongue speaking in the Bible.

Jesus prophesied concerning speaking in tongues in Mark 16:17, and Acts 2:1-11 is the first reference to men actually speaking in tongues, thus fulfilling that prophecy of Jesus Christ.

Note the connection between the words "tongues" and "language" as seen in this text.
Acts 2:4 "they began to speak with other tongues<"

Acts 2:6 "every man heard them speak in his own language"

Acts 2:8 "how hear we every man in our own tongue?" "language"- ASV, NASB, NKJV

Acts 2:11 "we do hear them speak in our tongues"

We see from this text that tongues are languages. Questions or objections to this observation include the following:

1) "There were only 12 apostles, and there are no less than 15 nations/regions listed in verses 9-11. How could they speak each language?"

2) "The men of Judea were speaking in tongues that are like those spoken among the Pentecostal groups today. It was understood by the hearers in their own language."

We may answer question/objection #1 in the following manner:

That there are more regions listed than apostles in Acts 2 does not necessarily mean that every man did not hear his own tongue/language spoken. For instance, if there were people present at a meeting representing the following nations: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain, France, and Spain, how many languages would need to be spoken to cover all six nations? Three- English, French, and Spanish. Notice that some of the nations/regions listed in Acts 2 are close to one another. It may be the case that some of these nations/regions had the same native tongue as do nations/regions today.

A second answer is that the apostles had the ability to speak in more than one foreign language. If the Holy Spirit could enable them to speak one foreign language, why not more than one? This would be consistent with the promise Jesus made to the apostles in Acts 1:4-8, where they would be able to communicate the word of God no matter where they were.

A response to question/objection #2 may be made as follows:

One must look at the text and see to whom the promise of the Holy Spirit was given.

John 14-16, Mark 16, and Acts 1 indicate the promise was given to the apostles (and later to them who believed their teaching). It was not given to anyone else. If the gift of miraculous understanding was given to the hearers of Acts 2, then why bother to cause the apostles to speak in ecstatic utterances? It would be unnecessary (and illogical) to give the gift to both.

We see from the text of Acts 2:1-11 that it was the Holy Spirit who enabled the apostles to speak in tongues. Now let's look at how this was accomplished. This event is commonly known as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It was prophesied of in Ezekiel 11 and also in Zechariah 12-13. It was also prophesied about in Joel 2:28-32. Peter quoted this passage in Acts 2:17-21.

In Acts 1:5-8, Jesus told His apostles that they would be "baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence", and that the power that would follow would enable them to be witnesses of him "in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." To be able to communicate the gospel to all mankind at that time would require the ability to speak whatever language was spoken by the indigenous peoples.

There are two other specific incidents of tongue speaking which are important to this study. They occur in Acts 10:44-48 and Acts 19:1-7.

In Acts 10, we have the record of the first gospel sermon being preached to the Gentiles, specifically: Cornelius, his household, kinsmen, and near friends- vv. 24-27. Peter described the Holy Spirit baptism upon the Gentiles in Acts 10:47 & 11:17 as occurring in the same fashion as it did on the apostles in Acts 2. In Acts 2:11 and Acts 10:46, we see the action of speaking in tongues - the preaching of the word of God and an understanding of the same on the part of the audience.

In Acts 19:1-7, the twelve men who were baptized by Paul had hands laid on them by Paul enabling them to speak in tongues and prophesy. Not some incoherent babbling as is always the case today.

Finally, Paul speaks of the limited span of the miraculous manifestation of the Holy Spirit; "Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). Though charismatics identify "that which is perfect" as Jesus, claiming miracles were to continue until the Jesus' second coming, the text will not allow for this interpretation. "Perfect" comes from the Greek teleios, meaning "complete" or "mature." It appears 19 times and never refers to Jesus. In addition, it is neuter in gender, that is, it refers to neither a male nor female, but to an object without gender, here, the Scriptures. James described the New Testament of Jesus Christ as "the perfect (teleios) law of liberty" (James 1:25).

Paul wrote of the all-sufficiency of the scriptures, "For all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Peter affirmed the all-sufficiency of the scriptures when he wrote, "According as His divine power hath given us all things that pertain unto life and godliness," (2 Peter 1:3). The Bible is all we need today to produce faith, and to know how to live before God and our fellow men.

Modern-day tongue speaking in no way resembles what we read in the New Testament. As such, it must be rejected as inconsistent with Bible teaching.

[SOURCE]

Topic(s): Bible Authority, Bible Study
Todd Clippard

Note! the entire question as it appeared on the website appears below:

In your statement of faith, you mention that scripture is not open to interpretation. I'm sure you are aware that 2 Peter 1:20 speaks of prophecy. It is written plainly. It is also quite obvious that there are many types of writing in the Bible, not just prophecy. Therefore this verse does not say that all of scripture is not open to interpretation. Perhaps you can share another verse with me that makes it clear that the rest of scripture is not open to interpretation. I was wondering if the statement that scripture is not open to interpretation means that the Church of Christ believes that they understand the entire Bible.

I am not sure of what statement of faith it is to which you refer. The church of Christ has no official statement of faith. We have no earthly headquarters, convention, or creed book. I do know some churches put forth a "statement of faith" which is the equivalent of saying "this is what we believe." However, each congregation is autonomous, so no one church or person can speak for all members everywhere.

However, I can speak on behalf of what I know of most members, based upon 30 years of association and membership within the body. Most of us accept the Bible as Divinely inspired, and thus without error of any kind. Though we believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament (John 5:39; 2 Tim 3:16-17), we hold the New Testament is God's law for all men today (Col 3:17).

Of course the Bible must be interpreted. John began the book of Revelation by saying it was given to him by signs or symbols (Rev 1:1). Obviously, what was given to him would need to be interpreted by those to whom it was given. Paul told the Ephesians, when ye read, ye may understand (Eph 3:4). Reading and understanding requires interpretation. Jesus rebuked the Sadducees in Matthew 22:22-30 by saying, You do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees when He said, have ye not read? (Matthew 12:1-8; 19:4ff). In essence, He pointed out their faulty interpretation of the Scriptures.

In the Bible there are instances recorded where men needed an explanation of the Scriptures. In Nehemiah 8:1-6, the Bible records Ezra the scribe as standing before the people and reading the Scriptures aloud for several hours. In verse 7, several men and the Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law. Verse 8 says So they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

In the New Testament, Philip asked the Ethiopian, Do you understand what you are reading? To which the man replied, How can I, except some man should guide me? So Philip took the Old Testament text (Isaiah 53) and preached Jesus to the man.

2 Peter 1:20 says the scripture is not of any "private interpretation." There is a vast difference between no interpretation and no private interpretation. The point is this - God gave the Bible for all men for all time. The words of the Bible have specific meanings which God intends for us to understand. Jesus said we can know the truth (John 8:32). This knowledge comes from continuing in His word (John 8:31).

The Catholic church holds it hierarchy as the only people capable of interpreting the scriptures. This is the type of interpretation condemned by 2 Peter 1:20. Many other individuals and religious bodies claim to have special insight into the Scriptures, generally through some claim of Divine illumination or direct private Divine revelation. When a person goes on TV or radio and says, the Lord told me what this means or the Lord told me to say this, they are lying.

In connection with private interpretation, let me add to this by saying there is no such thing as two people understanding the Bible differently. If I believe one must be baptized in water to obtain remission of sins, and someone else denies it, both of us cannot be right. One of us (or both) misunderstands the Bible. If I say miracles have ceased, and someone else says men can still perform miracles today, one of us is wrong. It is not that we have a different understanding of the Scripture, one of us misunderstands the Scripture. In either case, and in all other cases of disagreement, the Scriptures must be examined to determine what is right. When we know what is right, then we will know who is right.

[SOURCE]

Topic(s): Bible Authority, Church
Todd Clippard

With so many forms of "Christianity" today, one may ask, "How can I know I've found the church of the New Testament?" With recent estimates showing over 2000 individual religious groups all claiming to be a form of Christianity, this is a valid question, and we can see why one would be confused. However, we can say with absolute certainty that it is possible to find the church revealed in the New Testament. As an illustration to show our certainty, consider the following:

On August 15, 2007, I will have been married to my beautiful wife for 20 years. Let's suppose I decide to take her on a cruise to celebrate our anniversary. Shortly after boarding a ship filled with more than 2000 passengers, we become separated. My wife is a petite brunette. Suppose every other woman on the ship is a petite brunette; am I to despair that I should never find her among so many others? Why, such thinking is ridiculous! Even though there may be many on board who are similar, we all understand that I can easily find her because she is unique among all the others. She has specific characteristics that will allow me to easily distinguish between her and all the others.

The same can be said for the Lord's church. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus promised "I will build My church."
Note the singularity of the church. Jesus did not promise to build His "churches," but rather His "church" (singular).

In Ephesians 5:22-32, Paul teaches us how a husband is to love his wife and how a wife is to love her husband. All through this text, Paul parallels the husband and wife relationship with that of Jesus and His church. As a husband is to have only one wife, and a wife only one husband, Jesus only has one church. In fact, throughout this particular text, there are twelve references to the church, all of which are singular< in nature:

In verse 23 we find "the church" and "the body;"
In verse 24 we find "the church;"
In verse 25 we find "the church" and "it" (a singular pronoun in reference to the church).
In verse 26 we again see "it" referring to the church;
In verse 27 we find "the church" and "it" (twice);
In verse 29 we find "the church;"
In verse 30 we find "His body"In verse 32 we find "the church."

If it is possible for me to identify my wife among thousands of other women, though they share some of her characteristics, then it is equally possible for me to find the church Jesus built though there be thousands sharing some of its characteristics.

[SOURCE]

Topic(s): Bible Authority, Church
Todd Clippard
The text under consideration actually begins back in verse 8: "I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting" NKJV. This is the first of several verses delineating the varying roles of men and women in the local body. This particular discussion ends at the conclusion of chapter 3.

The word "men" in this verse is gender specific, coming from the Greek aner or andras (Strong's #435). Thayer's Lexicon identifies the word as being "with a reference to sex, and so to distinguish a man from a woman" (p 45). It also has bearing on the maturity of the male, and is used in Matthew 15:38 to distinguish a man from a woman (gunaikos - Strong's 1135) or a child (paidion - Strong's 3813).

In verse 9, Paul begins with, "in like manner also," a reference back to the holy hands i.e., pure lives and motives, of verse 8, "that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works." So Paul makes a clear distinction between men and women.

Now to verses 11-12 -- "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." The phrase "usurp authority" in the KJV implies something different than the text actually teaches. The silence in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is to be carried out "with all subjection." Subjection comes from a Greek compound meaning "under appointment" (Strong's 5293). It is by the appointment of God that women are to learn in silence in the assembly, neither are they at liberty to exercise authority over men in the assembly.

To the Corinthians, Paul wrote, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says" (1 Corinthians 14:34). Though this is a different word for silence than is found in 1 Timothy 2:11, they are nonetheless the same though their relationship to Divine appointment. In 1 Corinthians, a woman's silence is said to be with submissiveness in connection with the Divine instruction of the Law, but which law? There is no specific Mosaic injunction for women to keep silence. In 1 Timothy 2:11, her silence is connection with the Divine order of creation and the fall of man (vv 13-14). Thus, one should understand the silence commanded in the law is a reference back to Genesis 2-3, and 3:16 in particular.

A quick look at silence in 1 Corinthians 14:28, 30, and 34. The demand for silence in 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not absolute. It must be understood contextually. The Greek word translated silence in verse 34 appears three times in the chapter (vv 28, 30, and 34), and nowhere indicates absolute silence. Rather, the word must be understood in its immediate context.

In verse 28, one who is speaking in a different language is to keep silence if there is no interpreter. The silence regulates his public speaking in a tongue, but not from speaking in a tongue understood by all present. In verse 30, if one prophet is speaking and another sitting nearby receives a word of prophecy, the first is to keep silence (hold his peace) while the second speaks. And in verse 34, the woman is to keep silence in such a way so as not to go beyond her authority. This is consistent with Paul's inspired restriction placed upon women exercising authority over men in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 (cf vv 11-12). 

[SOURCE]

Topic(s): Bible Authority, Church
Todd Clippard

With so many forms of "Christianity" today, one may ask, "How can I know I've found the church of the New Testament?" With recent estimates showing over 2000 individual religious groups all claiming to be a form of Christianity, this is a valid question, and we can see why one would be confused. However, we can say with absolute certainty that it is possible to find the church revealed in the New Testament. As an illustration to show our certainty, consider the following:

On August 15, 2007, I will have been married to my beautiful wife for 20 years. Let's suppose I decide to take her on a cruise to celebrate our anniversary. Shortly after boarding a ship filled with more than 2000 passengers, we become separated. My wife is a petite brunette. Suppose every other woman on the ship is a petite brunette; am I to despair that I should never find her among so many others? Why, such thinking is ridiculous! Even though there may be many on board who are similar, we all understand that I can easily find her because she is unique among all the others. She has specific characteristics that will allow me to easily distinguish between her and all the others.

The same can be said for the Lord's church. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus promised "I will build My church."
Note the singularity of the church. Jesus did not promise to build His "churches," but rather His "church" (singular).

In Ephesians 5:22-32, Paul teaches us how a husband is to love his wife and how a wife is to love her husband. All through this text, Paul parallels the husband and wife relationship with that of Jesus and His church. As a husband is to have only one wife, and a wife only one husband, Jesus only has one church. In fact, throughout this particular text, there are twelve references to the church, all of which are singular< in nature:
In verse 23 we find "the church" and "the body;"
In verse 24 we find "the church;"
In verse 25 we find "the church" and "it" (a singular pronoun in reference to the church).
In verse 26 we again see "it" referring to the church;
In verse 27 we find "the church" and "it" (twice);
In verse 29 we find "the church;"
In verse 30 we find "His body"In verse 32 we find "the church."

If it is possible for me to identify my wife among thousands of other women, though they share some of her characteristics, then it is equally possible for me to find the church Jesus built though there be thousands sharing some of its characteristics.

[SOURCE]

Topic(s): Bible Authority, Church, Worship

Todd Clippard

Regarding worship, faithful members of the church have "driven a stake" at John 4:24, "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." There are three emphases in this text that must be considered. The first is the word "must," which is translated from the Greek dei, meaning "it is necessary." Therefore, we see our expressions of worship are bound to some pattern or form. That to which our worship is bound is seen in the latter part of the verse, "in spirit and in truth." But what does this mean?

The phrase "in spirit" comes from the Greek pneuma. It appears nearly 400 times in the NT and is employed in a variety of ways. In this context it refers to our hearts or inward being, that which comes forth from the inside (cf Matt 26:41, Mark 8:11, Luke 1:47, John 13:21, etc). Thus, our worship must be done with the proper frame of mind and attitude of heart.

The phrase "in truth" comes from a Greek word that appears 110 times in the NT and is translated "truth" 107 times. It refers to that which is objectively right. But what is the "truth" by which man must worship? Psalms 119:160 says "the sum of Thy word is truth." Also, in praying for his disciples, Jesus said, "Sanctify them by Thy truth, Thy word is truth" (John 17:17). Therefore, as "in spirit" regulates the inner man in worship, "in truth" regulates the outward man, that is, how< he worships.

We would do well to remember that God has always regulated the expressions of man's worship. God respected Abel and his offering (worship), but rejected Cain and his offering (worship). Why? Hebrews 11:4 explains, "By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, and by it he being dead yet speaketh." Romans 10:17 says "faith comes by hearing the word of God." Therefore, Abel's worship was accepted by God because it was done according to the word of God. God will not accept "any ol' thing" as worship, even if done with the best of intentions (Lev 10:1-3).
God seeks true worshipers to worship Him (John 4:23-24). True worship is directed only toward God, and is not done to please men. In true worship, God alone is the audience and worshipers are the participants. What appeals to men is of no consequence. Whatever one believes to be a personal gift or talent is irrelevant. Worship is not a stage for men to parade their talents or receive the accolades of men. By its very definition, worship is not designed to appeal to the "seekers" (a.k.a. the "unchurched"), but rather to honor, venerate, pay homage to, and bring glory to God alone.


[SOURCE]

Topic(s): Bible Authority, Church, Worship
Todd Clippard

Regarding worship, faithful members of the church have "driven a stake" at John 4:24, "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." There are three emphases in this text that must be considered. The first is the word "must," which is translated from the Greek dei, meaning "it is necessary." Therefore, we see our expressions of worship are bound to some pattern or form. That to which our worship is bound is seen in the latter part of the verse, "in spirit and in truth." But what does this mean?

The phrase "in spirit" comes from the Greek pneuma. It appears nearly 400 times in the NT and is employed in a variety of ways. In this context it refers to our hearts or inward being, that which comes forth from the inside (cf Matt 26:41, Mark 8:11, Luke 1:47, John 13:21, etc). Thus, our worship must be done with the proper frame of mind and attitude of heart.

The phrase "in truth" comes from a Greek word that appears 110 times in the NT and is translated "truth" 107 times. It refers to that which is objectively right. But what is the "truth" by which man must worship? Psalms 119:160 says "the sum of Thy word is truth." Also, in praying for his disciples, Jesus said, "Sanctify them by Thy truth, Thy word is truth" (John 17:17). Therefore, as "in spirit" regulates the inner man in worship, "in truth" regulates the outward man, that is, how  he worships.

We would do well to remember that God has always regulated the expressions of man's worship. God respected Abel and his offering (worship), but rejected Cain and his offering (worship). Why? Hebrews 11:4 explains, "By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, and by it he being dead yet speaketh." Romans 10:17 says "faith comes by hearing the word of God." Therefore, Abel's worship was accepted by God because it was done according to the word of God. God will not accept "any ol' thing" as worship, even if done with the best of intentions (Lev 10:1-3).

God seeks true worshipers to worship Him (John 4:23-24). True worship is directed only toward God, and is not done to please men. In true worship, God alone is the audience and worshipers are the participants. What appeals to men is of no consequence. Whatever one believes to be a personal gift or talent is irrelevant. Worship is not a stage for men to parade their talents or receive the accolades of men. By its very definition, worship is not designed to appeal to the "seekers" (a.k.a. the "unchurched"), but rather to honor, venerate, pay homage to, and bring glory to God alone.

SOURCE