HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES RELATED TO GAL. 3 V 28

WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE

AND TO THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Some years back the first retreat for concerned Pastors was held at Mannum to consider the issues facing the LCA regarding Women’s Ordination. A criticism raised regarding this retreat was that it was sectarian. So I am regarded as “sectarian” for adhering to the authority of Scripture, the Confessions of the Lutheran Church and the Theses of Agreement. I had the notion that all pastors of the LCA subscribed to the first two as part of their ordination vow, and subsequent installation rites, and agreed to the second as the foundation of the LCA. I also had the notion that such vows were taken seriously. Am I wrong in this assumption?

But then Paul arrived in Rome to find that the Christian church was considered a “sect” by the Jewish leaders there. I also recall that Jesus was condemned for being “a deceiver” and “a perverter” of the people. I find the company of my Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles Paul, Peter and John to be comfortable.

I share the following thoughts with whoever wants to listen. The Ordination of Women rests squarely on the following foundation: feminist theology and its demand for re-interpreting Scripture to make it fit feminist ideology; the hermeneutics of casting doubt on what e.g. Paul obviously considered to be God-inspired, and taking texts out of their context.

I suggest that we need to proclaim loudly and firmly that WO places those who proclaim it, outside the LCA, by their actions, not by my judgment. The above method of interpreting Scripture flies in the face of the following:

1. IT IS WRITTEN.

I find it quite astonishing that Pastors of the LCA who have, under oath, bound themselves to adhere to the Scriptures as the sole authority for teaching and practice can proclaim WO as both pleasing to God and required by Him by promoting doubt and taking verses out of context.

· Paul did not deal in such subtleties. He was only too aware of the inspiration by the Holy Spirit of what he wrote. He did not, in a worldly fashion, try to say: Yes, yes, and: No, no, at the same time. (2 Cor. 1 v 17-22)

· So Paul could assure his readers with regard to the certainty of the Resurrection of Jesus and His disciples. (1 Cor. 15 v 3ff)

· So he could assure young Timothy that all Scripture is inspired by God. (2 Tim. 3 v 13-17) See also 2. Pet. 1v20-21)

· So he could assure his readers that he came to preach Christ for their comfort and assurance. (1 Thess. 4v18)

· So he could speak of the certainty that does not make us ashamed. (Rom. 5v5)

· John concludes his Gospel with the comfort and assurance that what he had written was to establish and strengthen the faith which his Gospel had presented. It was a clear: It is written. (John 20 v 30-31; 21 v 24)

· Jesus clearly linked discipleship with knowing the truth and that truth which made free. (John 8 v 31-32)

· Jesus further linked having life with His authoritive: It is written. (John 14 v 19-21; 14v23)

· He linked eternal life in heaven with His own life.

· Finally, the following list of texts (not exhaustive by any means – use your Greek concordance to find more), shows how important the formula (IT IS WRITTEN) is to Jesus and the apostles: Matt: 2v5; 4v4; 26v31; Mark 9v12; Luke 2v23; 7v27; 10v20; 21v33; 22v37; John 10v34; Rom. 9v33; 1 Cor. 2v9; Rev. 22v18-19. Each of these verses confirms the fact of something written in the past, but still in force for today.

· In the light of this, we need to see once again just why the Old Testament prophets again and again referred to this formula –though in different words -- as they delivered messages from God: THUS SAYS THE LORD!

Any questioning of this principle is contrary to our Lord’s evidence and that of the holy Apostles Paul and John and Peter. In fact, it cannot but lead people to question whether what they have sung, believed and trusted in is really to be trusted as they leave this world at the point of their death. A theology of doubt is a devil’s authority, not our Lord’s authority. I seem to hear the same theology of “doubt” with regard to 1 Corinthians 14. which advocates of WO are now proclaiming in the devil who said in the beginning: “Did God really say that?”

2. A QUESTION OF FREEDOM.

Much is made of the “freedom” of the Gospel. Of course the Gospel frees from something, and for something. But as Paul often stated: “Don’t use your freedom as a license to gratify your sinful human nature, or to turn the truth of the Scripture into a lie”. The inspiration of the Scriptures does not give anyone that “freedom”. Your Lord Jesus Christ did not give it to you, nor do the inspired apostles and prophets, to use doubt while claiming to hold Christ as Lord.

· I doubt whether those who advocate a “new” freedom in WO have really understood much about the freedom that Paul speaks of.

· In fact, it sounds much more like the license that Paul condemned because it rejected true freedom in the Gospel. (Gal. 5v13)

· It is maintained that Paul exercised his freedom by abolishing circumcision and therefore restrictions on ordination can also be abolished with impunity. Paul did not abolish circumcision. Jesus did. The covenant established in circumcision was in force until such time as the promised seed of Abraham had come. From then on, it merges into baptism as the new covenant. (Col. 2 v 6-12) I believe that in the present context, v.8 provides some interesting commentary.

· Advocates of WO also tend to confusion between those laws given through Moses to Israel dealing with food, drink, festivals, holy days and new moons on the one hand, and the Ten Commandments on the other. The former have been set aside, now that the reality of God’s Son and the shadows have passed. But the Ten Commandments remain as the holy will of God for all time.

· It has been suggested that Paul unsettled the Ten Commandments. The Church has had to deal with such antinomianism throughout its history. It featured very largely also in the Lutheran Church in the period prior to the adoption of the Book of Concord. Instead, Paul’s declares that he does not nullify the law but rather upholds it. (Rom. 3v31).

· There is very interesting reading about the abiding nature and purpose of the Law in Rom. 7, particularly v.7-25. And especially v.25. It has most definitely not been set aside by some freedom-wielding Paul.

· Clearly there is saint and sinner in every believer. For that reason the law (Ten Commandments) remain so that we may be brought to repentance. Any suggestion, that the Christian no longer sins, because he now has freedom in Christ is foreign to the Bible.

· I suspect too that this principle of freedom to depart from the Scriptures because Paul supposedly set aside so much of it, is being used to allow changes to be made regarding the ordination of women. That principle was publicly proclaimed at the Forum I attended at Horsham prior to General Synod.

· It has been suggested that Luther exhibited a “free spirit” with regard to the Scriptures and would have looked on WO with favourable eyes. He most definitely did not! Instead he showed a spirit which was bound totally to the Word of God. He already stood on that ground at Worms and continued on that foundation for the rest of his life.

· It has further been suggested that one generation later, this freedom was reversed. It was in that period of one generation later that we find e.g. the Formula of Concord. It is precisely the laying down of the Augsburg Confession, The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, the Formula of Concord which became the basis for the preservation of the Lutheran Church and for the establishment and preservation of the Lutheran Church of Australia. Or was that a huge and costly mistake in taking back freedom?

· Add also this: what is stated in the Theses of Agreement became the base for Article II of the Constitution of LCA, District, congregations.

· That suggests that those who claim changes have been made with give us the freedom to do so have forgotten something. They have forgotten the Great Commission in which Jesus bound His disciples for all times to His total authority which is bound up with teaching future disciples “to observe all that He has commanded them”, not just that which refers to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

3. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN DISTINCTIONS.

· It is claimed that the distinctions mentioned in Gal. 3v28 really no longer exist before God because of baptism.

· If that is so, what did those marry who support WO?

· Or has the truth of Eph. 5 v 21- 33 ceased to exist because it is no longer necessary or relevant?

· Male and female will continue to exist in God’s sight until the end of time. After all that is what He created and and why He laid down the principle of Gen. 2 v 24. Or is it being said in reality that marriage is no longer necessary, and in fact has ceased to exist?

· This is also one argument advanced by those who promote so-called same sex marriages. Now I am not for one moment suggesting that supporters of WO favour this. What I am saying is that inevitably one lands in the same camp and that is neither safe nor helpful.

· Clearly Jesus, in refuting the false teaching of the Pharisees on marriage and divorce, went right back to that beginning and reaffirmed what had always been and remains the will of God. (Matt. 19)

· Baptism has not annulled marriage of one man and one woman. If it has, then we had better change the Rite of Marriage in the LCA’s Handbook of Rites. That clearly assumes that male and female most definitely do exist before God who lays down some rather specific duties for the male and for the female in marriage.

· With regard to slavery, just read Eph. 6v 5-9 for starters. Then try a diet of Philemon. Slavery is not incompatible with being a Christian. Clearly though, being a Christian changed how both master and slaves reacted to each other, and how a Christian master or slave treated the non-Christian. It even opened the door for possible freedom.

· On the subject of Jew and Greek, why did Paul write in such detail as he did in Romans chaps. 9-11? It certainly seemed to be very relevant then and now.

· By the way, if the so-called removal of male and female is correct and so important to the ordination of women, why did Paul omit any reference to male and female in Col. 3v. 11? Consider too that Galatians was one of the first letters Paul wrote, and Colossians was written while in prison and therefore much later.

· Could we therefore assume, that Paul changed again, if in fact he had made radical changes at all in Galatians?

The torturous wrigglings to make the Scriptures say what they do not, does no justice to the inspiration and authority of Scripture, or to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. In fact, to try to find ordination of women in Gal. 3v 28 is to drag something in kicking and screaming which has no place there. In fact, it is a perversion of Scripture. If Paul were standing before us today, he would deal with WO as he did with Peter. He would publicly condemn it and all those who proclaim this as another Gospel. So would Martin Luther. Pastors who are called to serve with Word and Sacrament owe it to their Lord Jesus Christ to do so. People who have called Pastors to do so, have a right to expect that they will be served in this way.

Geoff Noller

June 2002