Concessions
No one disputes that the New Testament commands slaves to submit to their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-24; 1 Timothy 6:1,2; Titus 2:9,10; 1 Peter 2:18). Does this indicate that God endorses slavery? It may appear so, but we need to realize that Paul and Peter were addressing a prevalent situation that existed, not endorsing its practice. God reveals Himself as a "missionary God" (as scholar Gregory Boyd often refers to Him). This being the case, God focuses on the main thing, which is helping people to experience Him. If they do, He can deal with their other issues later.
This is also why God does not take issue with polygamy and therefore accomodated Himself to it. The absence of a direct word of disapproval from Him is not an endorsement of the practice. We have to go back to Genesis to see God's original intention for marriage- one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). Further, lax rules concerning divorce do not constitute approval of such. Jesus helped His first century audience of men who believed in frivolous divorce to understand that God permitted this as a "concession" to their hardness of heart (see Matthew 19:8 NLT). Can you see that the Bible acknowledges that there is such a category?
I repeat, a concession is not an endorsement. Concessions do not represent God's ideal. What other concessions did God make? Understanding these will hopefully help you gain an understanding of God and His ways that will influence your practices.
Some Other Concessions
· Oath taking- a common practice under the Old Covenant (See Deuteronomy 10:20), but upended by Jesus in the New (Matthew 5:36,37).
· Laws of Retaliation- accepted under the Old Covenant (Exodus 21:24), set aside by Jesus (Matthew 5:38-42).
· Patriarchy- the undisputed prevailing system in the Old and New Testaments. Because this is so, we assume that women must submit to men, but the New Testament verses that say this are usually set alongside the verses about slavery, yet we Christians no longer practice slavery, but many expect women to continue submitting to men.
The final concession that I've identified will raise some questions, especially because of what Paul says to Timothy when he tells Timothy that he doesn't permit women to teach or exercise authority over men (see 1 Timothy 2:9-12). The Bible's acknowledgement of concessions helps us to ask, "Did what Paul tell Timothy in his letter to him represent a timeless truth or was he helping Timothy address a particular situation that existed in Ephesus, the city where Timothy lived?" If the former, then why does Paul commonly acknowledge women as "co-laborers?" Priscilla and Phoebe are mentioned by name- see Acts 18:26 & Romans 16:1,2 respectively. He identifies Junia as an apostle (Romans 16:7)! Further, we see reference made to Philip's four daughters who were prophets, the second highest ranking office in the Church (Acts 21:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:28). Priscilla is named with her husband as teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). The calling of prophets is to speak. Apostles, likewise, speak and also lead.
When writing to the Corinthians, as in his first letter to Timothy, Paul is placing restrictions on women, commanding that they be silent (see 1 Corinthians 14:34). Paul has already explained to the Corinthians that women can be expected to pray and prophesy in the church
(1 Corinthians 11:5). So somehow, we are to conclude that they can minister in the church, and yet they are to be silent? There is a lot of conjecture about what was going on to influence Paul to write what he did and there isn't a lot of agreement among scholars as to what he meant. But what is generally agreed on is that we must consider that these restrictions are not to be seen as timeless truths but as culturally relevant teaching that no longer applies to us. All of this relates to our understanding of the necessity of paying attention to historical context.
Next week we will conclude our series with an emphasis on the one hermeneutic principle that outweighs all others.