what to think about the other writtings after the gospels

Hi Grateful-Nikki, If I understand your questions aright, they are large, involved, interrelated, and controverted issues here--but also rather natural, especially from a modern western point of view. In other words, the questions say something about you too.

Be that as it may, I urge you to give the matter some time--years, probably, even if you come to some tentative conclusions in the short or intermediate time frame. There are a number of possible unbalanced or even dangerous directions one could go in or get to, and my fear is--granted mine constitutes a cluster of opinions in the controversial areas--that sexual egalitarianism of the modern west, whatever its blessings against abuse and pride of former paradigms (say from the Victorian to the Archie Bunker caricature), also comes with new abuses and new hubris, albeit with new objects and in new directions.

Some for example apply sexual egalitarianism to the Godhead, undoing the doctrine of the Trinity.

Left to its own in secular culture, human nature screws up God's design one way or another and adheres to some forms of divine design in one way or another. 'Tis a blessed-cursed world. And the church in western milieu swims in the culture sea and is affected by it.

In a canonical perspective, recall how Jesus viewed the Old Testament--or at least as much of the Old Testament as in evidence in the Four Gospels. Jesus cited from Genesis, Isaiah, Psalms, and so on in terms indicating He believed such book to be the word of God. Or He referred to large swaths of what we call the Old Testament in terms like "The Law" (in canonical sense meaning the Pentateuch, the books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) or the law, the prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44).

Then at the end of Jesus' public ministry, shortly before His death on a cross, Jesus told His disciples He would go away, but send a Comforter (the Holy Spirit) who would remind them of what He said, guide them into all truth, and teach them what was to come (John 14 & 16). In other words, Jesus virtually predicted a then-forthcoming Scripture canon, a "Jesus canon," like the existing Old Testament.

Yes, there more to it, but I can't write everything here. Jesus also told His disciples to teach their disciples (meaning the church) to do all that Jesus had taught His disciples to obey (Matt. 28: 20). Yes, Paul was not one of the Twelve, but He was an apostle as they were, intended by Jesus to become, with the prophets, the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). And the apostles are guided by the Holy Spirit in writing the New Testament.

Jesus' view of marriage relies in part on the creation narratives (cf. Matt. 19:4-6 with Genesis 1:27 & 2:21-24). In the beginning, God made the male-female in His image. Adam and Eve's relationship was the paradigm for marriage. And Adam and Eve sinned, messing up relationships in marriage as in the rest of life. But the paradigm is still the ideal and basis for moral demands concerning (for example) marital relationships as outlined in the laws of Moses and in Jesus' and in the apostles' teaching.

Christians are to follow the law of Christ (never mind the long discussion on that), and Christ trusted His apostles with His teaching by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The male-female relationship in marriage is egalitarian in terms of ontology (being--in the image of God) and for Christian couples also in salvation, but--despite the controversy to the contrary I don't see how one can escape that this is what the Bible leads one to believe--hierarchical in authority (as also the Son to the Father in the Trinity). The husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. And this spills over into the church as per for example 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 to which you refer.

At the church in Corinth, there is evidence of a licentious tendency among some (presumably from among the higher or more pretentious classes). "All things are lawful for me" is likely to have been a watchword to such folk. Pride and one-up-man-ship was an issue that broke through for example in factional competition: "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos." Applied to female pretensions among such folk (or some of them) apparently was a feeling that they were above the need to submit to the male-female hierarchy. Imagine a daughter publicly criticizing her father's or uncle's prophecy, delivered in the church assembly.

And here for practical reasons I've got to cut off this long but overly brief post. I hope I have given some items of use to you. Certainly there is much here that might constitute a springboard for further of your questions and investigations. May the Lord prosper your desire and will to follow Jesus and His apostles.

Hi Grateful-Nikki, I hope you don't mind if I try to make yesterday's answer a little more full, not complete because there's just too much involved for a few small posts on a forum.

Before getting back to the model of what's going on in 1 Cor. 11 and 14 which I believe representative of the text, I'd like to say a few words about 1 Timothy 2, another highly disputed passage in sexual egalitarianism context (meaning there are many arguments addressed elsewhere on the matter which I cannot raise or refute of support here).

A major basis for Paul's arguing that women in the church (church assembly is the evident context) are to "learn in all submissiveness" and are prohibited from teaching or exercising authority over a man (vv. 11 and 12) is (1) that "Adam was formed first, and then Eve" and (2) "Adam was not deceived, but the woman [Eve] was deceived, and became a transgressor" (vv. 13, 14, cf. Genesis 3).

In other words again, Adam and Eve to Paul, as to the author of Genesis and as to Jesus, form a paradigm for their descendants, the human race. Adam is leader because he was created first, before Eve, meaning that in marriages, the husband is leader of his wife. And this carries over into the church. And Eve and wives are not to teach or exercise authority over their husbands in church setting also because Eve herself was the one deceived by the serpent (not that all women were deceived). Churches are comprised largely of families and families are primarily centered in the husband-wife pair (Paul is also aware of and concerned for widowhood, singleness, and other assorted conditions wrt family, e.g. 1 Cor. 7). A metaphor for the church is the family.

And the pattern of female subordination is supported elsewhere not only by Paul ("wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord," Eph. 5 in a hierarchy pattern that includes also child submission to parents and slaves to masters, cf. also Col. 3) but Peter (1 Peter 3) and probably assumed as you hint in Jewish context of the day. Leaders of the church are called elders (ignore deacons for the moment) and are assumed to be male ("the husband of one wife," 1 Tim. 3, Titus 1), who are qualified to be elders in part only if they manage their own households well.

Of course the nature of male leadership in the marital pair is to be chiefly love for one's wife ("as Christ loves the church and gave Himself up for her," Eph. 5:25), while elders, to whom the flock of God is obliged to submit, function as those who keep watch over souls in the church because they must give an account of spiritual health of the church before God (Heb. 13:17), for elders are to be "not domineering over those in [their] charge, but being examples to the flock," cf. 1 Peter 5:3.

Meanwhile and otherwise, Christian ethics apply to all Christians in all stations of life (bearing the fruits of the Spirit, growing in grace, self-denial and cross-bearing, and so on). Husbands and wives are to be for God and for each other. Elders and church flock are to be for God and for each other as if Adam and Eve had never sinned--or at least that is the ideal all Christians are obliged to strive for daily.

So in 1 Cor. 11 also, when a woman prays or prophecies in church assembly, she is to do so only with a symbol of her husband's or father's authority on her head, for (as many would argue), "her [long] hair is given to her for a covering" (v. 15). What then does Paul mean not many paragraphs later when he writes, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says" (1 Co. 14:33-34)?

At this point (well, as in others before), there are a number of questions that pull for digression which I will here ignore. And there are various proposals as to what is going on. Generally it is accepted that for a woman to pray or prophecy in church assembly, she is not being silent, but speaking. What I think is going on, and what I think stands up to close scrutiny barring other evidence to the contrary (though not without challengers) is that the silence here enjoined on women in church assembly concerns the events of prophecy evaluation ("Let others weigh what is said," v. 29), with avoidance of shame in public (v. 35) as one motivation under assumption of husband and father leadership.

Prophetic utterances in 1 Cor. 14 context were not to be accepted by the church without corporate evaluation. The evaluation would lead to an official position by the church. In this official corporate evaluation, women were to submit to men and remain silent. Imagine the shame of a woman (Paul's perspective) who argues openly in church assembly with her husband over the significance of some prophecy just delivered. And again, imagine a class of urban Greeks in a sub-culture that is pretentious, competitive, and proud.

Or at least the above represents my attempts to understand what the New Testament says on these issues, particularly regarding the silence of women in 1 Cor. 14:33-34. There are many challenges to such readings, notably from sexual egalitarian theologians who disagree with demands for female submission in marriage and/or church, and of course much scholarship that supports the views I represent above while refuting alternatives.

Nor do the views of what the NT says which I here endorse condone abuse of authority or forbid wives and the subordinate from "obeying God rather than man" (cf. Acts 5:29) where there is a conflict between what God demands and what human authority demands. Nor does the above deny many ministry roles to women in the church.

A larger issue, as I think you raise, is how for example the contextually limited situation represented in 1 Corinthians 14 can be taken as normative for the church at large, particularly in our own churches nowadays. One popular way is to say in effect or overtly that the apostolic record as a whole does not oblige the church in anything, but remains merely one stream of tradition among many. But as I think I have implied above, especially in my first post on this thread, one cannot deny apostolic authority of the NT Scriptures without in consequence denying the authority of Jesus who called, taught, and commissioned the apostles.

And then if one accepts 1 Corinthians 14 as part of the normative record for all churches of Jesus, difficult and now divisive attendant issues also arise such as the present roles of prophecy, tongues, and the nature of Christian epistemology (Google that one). But they say not even Rome was built in a day.

P.S. I am glad you are reading the book of Job. Much of it seems repetitive and, making Job's progress perhaps harder to track than the beginning and end of the book. The book also raises questions about evil and suffering that touch on various biblical themes, some of which concern the nature of God. Maybe best to reserve that for another thread(s).

Hi Grateful-Nikki,

Wonderful testimony. Thank the Lord for where He has brought you--and I hope and pray in time your husband and child also.

Again you raise vital and large issues, but ones that again diverge from the thread head. I will risk a brief response under the present circumstances of your being a novice on a forum for novices. But I have my own limitations, not least chronic illness and other matters to which I must attend.

A central issue you raise most recently concerns the relationship of Christ's church to the law of Moses. And again, the issue is debated, often hotly. And again, there are many related arguments I cannot raise here, and again I can best represent my own conclusions (or some of them) as to where I think the NT points.

There are so many sub-directions in which one could head. You will perhaps recall (or note for further study) the author of Hebrews arguing that the Christian is under the New Covenant (chs. 8 and 10 and cf. Jeremiah 31) rather than the Mosaic covenant, but that the Mosaic was a shadow pointing to the reality which is in Christ (Heb. 10:1, cf. Col. 2:17). Yes, typology is involved here, as I hope overlaps with your previous study. I suspect Roman Catholics and mainstream Protestantism would largely agree on many types of Christ in the OT fulfilled in Christ as outlined in the NT, though the typology thing can be overdone in various cases.

Or Paul argues that he is (1) "not under law" (the Mosaic covenant) and (2) not without law (like pagan Gentiles in Corinth), but (3) "enlawed to Christ" (1 Corinthians 9). Or using a Hellenistic (i.e., Greek) image of a rich kid's school guardian (who made sure by disciplining the kid that the kid learned his lessons), Paul writes that the law of Moses was a "pedagogue/schoolmaster" leading us to Christ once we (the people of God moving through history) reached maturity, Israel-to-church (Galatians 3-4). I recommend reading the passages I cite for yourself.

The New Covenant is like and yet unlike the old (Mosaic) covenant, and it is the similarities (like moral laws) and dissimilarities (like a change in priesthood and sacrifice) that is one arena of debate. Sabbath and food laws fall in this arena.

Food laws so far as I can tell have in effect been abrogated (Mark 7:19 & context, Acts 10-11, Romans 14). Discerning the difference between clean and unclean foods was intended to teach discernment in ethical terms (right and wrong), a sort of schoolboy exercise for a time, and to point toward cleansing from sin through the gospel of Jesus. There are of course some who debate that (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists), but read the passages for yourself. Not that the food laws were bad; they were good because they came from God. So whether you eat pork or abstain, do it for God.

The Sabbath issue involves rather more thematic and theological structure, so I will postpone or avoid that other than to note that there are NT indications (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) that the churches met on Sunday, and there is no NT exhortation to keep the Sabbath aside from what may be inferred or not from Jesus' debates with the Pharisees over Sabbath practice. On CF there is a whole forum dedicated to Sabbath and the law, and there you can see how the debate rages and where the major views are. A pivotal point concerns views of Matthew 5:17 and the relationship between the new and old covenants.

I know of no better analysis of Matthew 5:17 and context than Davies and Allison's substantial commentary here. Perhaps at the moment (not least because my energies are dropping) it would be best to summarize the conclusion simply: Jesus' teaching (such as in the six "you have heard it said unto you, but I say unto you's" that follow 5:17) fulfills what the law of Moses itself (not the teaching of the Pharisees) foreshadowed. Jesus brings that which the law "prophesied" (cf. 11:13) in keeping with Matthew's repeated fulfillment language.

Jesus began the Sermon on the Mount by opening His mouth and teaching (5:2) and after the Sermon amazed the crowds by his teaching (with authority, 7:28-29). Later (as I wrote above) after the resurrection, Jesus commands His disciples to teach their disciples to observe all that Jesus (not Moses!) commanded them (28:20). Thus Jesus teaches what the law foreshadowed or prophesied, such that Jesus' teaching is both consistent with the old and also in some Christ-centered way transcends it (e.g., Moses' "thou shalt not murder" becomes "thou shalt not murder and shalt not hate," if you will). Under the new covenant, the law is written on human hearts, as Jeremiah notes.

If that is not entirely satisfying, I have my own remaining questions too, and I must close soon for this post. I will pause a little further to note my joining you in doubt that "we are saved from all punish[]ment for not [o]beying the law," as I think the above makes clear (and assuming I understand you).

However, Paul especially (but not only he) writes of justification by faith alone in Jesus apart from the works of the law (esp. Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3-4). "For by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in His sight" (Rom. 3:20).

It is not that Paul is discouraging good works (he often exhorts Christians to do good works as Jesus and the apostles define them), but he argues that the role of works can never be to justify sinners, for all are sinners whose very works are tainted with sin even in the best of circumstances. We are saved by grace, and not by works, though we are also saved in order to do works in keeping with the law of Christ (cf. Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.).

Jesus died on the cross to satisfy the wrath of God; He was a sacrifice paying the penalty for our sin, entering the temple not made with hands to sprinkle the altar with His own blood (Hebrews again, alluding to Leviticus 16)--so we are declared righteous (justified) as God reckons our sin to Jesus and His righteousness to us (cf. 1 Peter 2:24. 3:18, 2 Cor. 5:21--these verses are important and I would recommend becoming familiar with them and their respective contexts). Thus those who died with Christ are to put to death their earthly nature and live unto God (Romans 6, Gal. 2:20). Then "are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? May it never be!" (Rom. 6:1).

(Roman Catholics have a different view of justification, but again I represent Paul and the NT as I believe it reads, as I think most Baptists also would agree.)

May your love abound more and more, with wisdom and discernment, so you may approve what is excellent and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ ... (cf. Phil. 1:9f ESV).

Grateful-Nikki said:

Oh and ty for prayers for my 3 children and husband.

Click to expand...

We prayed for your 3 children and husband at our small group meeting of church members.

By the way, if you are interested in more, I believe http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/ is usually a theologically safe hub to visit, with many contributing authors and speakers.

My main mentor has been D.A. Carson, a co-founder of the Gospel Coalition. Various churches or seminar organizers have uploaded some of his sermons and lectures on Youtube and Vimeo, if you are interested. He was born and raised in Quebec, though he lives in the US now (when he is not traveling abroad). But in time you may find other favorite mentors.

Or see http://www.alliancenet.org/ as another safe hub, for example including the blog http://www.reformation21.org/ .

And then there's http://www.christianbook.com/ for Christian books--a sort of Christian "Amazon" (though much smaller). Or if you are interested in theologically sound contemporary Christian music (aside from good traditional hymns in hymn books), one couple of songwriter/singers may be found at http://www.gettymusic.com/ . Sorry I don't know French language resources.

All the above may be a bit much for you all at once (and there are of course other sites and people), but if you are looking for some particular topic or item or want to explore, here are some places to search online, and you can bookmark the sites on your browser or the like for reference and reading/listening.

Grateful-Nikki said:

i am a new believer and this question is a question i struggle with. Before becoming a believer I was wanting to read only the gospels. i thought that wathever JC says is right. so for example, the letters are.... well thats what i struggle with. example in letters to corinthians when it talks about marriage or wearing a hat to cover women head out of respect for ministry, they are not what Jesus talked about. so yes i believe that the whole book is God, but paul was a human, and you know the telephone game......

Click to expand...

The way I look at this - which is probably different from the way most Protestants do - is that while the Gospels provide us accounts of the Lord's life and teachings while He was on earth, what He left us was, in fact, the Church, which was founded with a hierarchy of leaders (starting with the Apostles), which, as we see later in the Book of Acts, imposed a certain structure and order. The Book of Acts is, in fact, a history of this early Church, and the Epistles are teachings and instructions to the Church in general (i.e. the "Catholic" Epistles of James, John, and Jude), or to specific congregations within the Church (e.g. the Church at Corinth, the Church at Thessaloniki, the Church at Rome).

Church leaders have never ceased writing for the benefit of the Church. There is, for example, a large body of writings by a group of leaders known as the "Apostolic Fathers" which contains many epistles in the same style of Paul's (e.g. Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians, Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, the Epistle of Clement of Rome). Although these and later writings are certainly useful and helpful for Christian's seeking to follow the Lord, the Church Fathers elected to confine the New Testament canon to those writings which came out of the Apostolic era.

NonTheologian said:

The way I look at this - which is probably different from the way most Protestants do - is that while the Gospels provide us accounts of the Lord's life and teachings while He was on earth, what He left us was, in fact, the Church, which was founded with a hierarchy of leaders (starting with the Apostles), which, as we see later in the Book of Acts, imposed a certain structure and order. The Book of Acts is, in fact, a history of this early Church, and the Epistles are teachings and instructions to the Church in general (i.e. the "Catholic" Epistles of James, John, and Jude), or to specific congregations within the Church (e.g. the Church at Corinth, the Church at Thessaloniki, the Church at Rome).

Church leaders have never ceased writing for the benefit of the Church. There is, for example, a large body of writings by a group of leaders known as the "Apostolic Fathers" which contains many epistles in the same style of Paul's (e.g. Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians, Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, the Epistle of Clement of Rome). Although these and later writings are certainly useful and helpful for Christian's seeking to follow the Lord, the Church Fathers elected to confine the New Testament canon to those writings which came out of the Apostolic era.

Click to expand...

One might add that, so far as we have in existence "NT" manuscripts in Greek (to say nothing of other languages and kinds of evidence) which have come down to us from about the second century onward, there is a strong pattern of circulating clusters of books, notably and especially clusters of the four canonical Gospels together, in areas around the Mediterranean Sea where Christianity was known to have spread.

Another early popular cluster in circulation was the epistles of Paul. In other words, the Pauline epistles were circulated (and copied) by the early churches in the same way that the four Gospels were, and treated on a par with the Gospels. The same made be said for the book of Acts and catholic (or general) epistles, though the numbers tended to be a bit fewer in early centuries and the manuscript story on the whole a bit more complicated. No doubt the manuscripts were read publicly as part of church liturgy. And yes, individual books (like Acts) and fragments of NT books from the period also are still in existence.

In sum, there was a definite interest among churches in written and as-close-to-original-as-possible records of Jesus and the apostles as demonstrated by the copying and circulating of NT manuscript clusters aside from evidence we may glean from the great ecumenical councils like Nicea and writings of the fathers. And yes, an interest in apostolic derivation is evident.

I think you have to look at Paul’s letters as letters, as things written to churches in specific situations. Of course Christ hasn’t changed, but specifics of culture have. Paul was trying to help people see the meaning of Jesus’ teaching for them. Generally if you know the background, you can see that many of his most controversial passages are actually trying to deal with various kinds of abusive relationships.

Paul definitely saw a difference between the sexes. The husband was the heard of a marriage. But when you start looking at the specifics of this, particularly in contrast to pagan attitudes, you find that this is primarily a symbolic thing. Within marriage husband and wife submit to each other, quite an improvement over contemporary pagan practice. As for head covering, in that culture, decent women covered their head. Indeed there were in some situations laws about which women were allowed to use a veil. Paul was simply requiring decent clothing, and equally for all women, not just upper class.

Are you aware that there is controversy over which books Paul actually wrote? If you stick to the undisputed books, you’ll find Paul acknowledging female leaders. And you’ll find that the passages commonly quoted as objecting to that are nothing of the sort. Nothing will turn Paul into a modern feminist. But in context his attitudes were quite positive. Rodney Stark’s work on the growth of early Christianity suggests that Christianity was really good news for women in ancient cultures, because attitudes that look regressive now protected them from some of the most serious abuses.

hedrick said:

... Are you aware that there is controversy over which books Paul actually wrote? If you stick to the undisputed books, you’ll find Paul acknowledging female leaders. And you’ll find that the passages commonly quoted as objecting to that are nothing of the sort. Nothing will turn Paul into a modern feminist. But in context his attitudes were quite positive. Rodney Stark’s work on the growth of early Christianity suggests that Christianity was really good news for women in ancient cultures, because attitudes that look regressive now protected them from some of the most serious abuses.

Click to expand...

There are various items from your post with which I would agree or dispute or seek clarification on, but I will forgo save in one instance because this thread is intended to help novice-in-the-faith Grateful-Nikki, who has in effect expressed some doubt as to the reliability of the NT outside the Four Gospels, particularly the Pauline corpus.

Earlier on this thread I had suggested some broad reasons for trusting the whole of the NT, especially the Pauline corpus--e.g., derivation in Jesus' commissioning/prophecy wrt the disciple/apostles and in the Holy Spirit, and especially wrt Pauline letters, the circulation of the whole Pauline corpus similar to the circulation of the Four Gospel cluster.

Of course each argument for or against Pauline derivation of a given NT epistle (say Ephesians wrt arguments of Greek style) has to be considered at some point, but the matters quickly become too involved for one thread, and at present of dubious help to Grateful-Nikki in my view at least because sufficient reason has been given for trust in apostolic stamp of authority (even if, say, Paul used an amanuensis/"secretary" to pen a given epistle).

Thus the one issue that I dispute here for Grateful-Nikki's sake in response to your post, hedrick, is any implication from claims of disputed authorship within the Pauline corpus or implied divergence on what was accepted of women's roles by the apostles and their trusted entourage (like Luke and Mark, authors of Gospels) either undermines or could be read as undermining the apostolic and canonical authority of the NT epistles whose Pauline authorship is disputed.

What I have in effect suggested above on this thread implies that even the NT books of disputed Pauline authorship (such as Ephesians) are of equal canonical and apostolic authority to the undisputed epistles, the apostolic authority being derived in the Jesus who called the disciple/apostles. In addition, arguments for Pauline authorship at least through an amanuensis (depending on epistle) can still be made.

It may thus for example be doubted that "positive" Paul would have disagreed with what you imply is a "less positive" attitude toward women in epistles of disputed Pauline authorship. Indeed, surely it may fairly be argued that Paul had a ubiquitous positive attitude toward women, say in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, from which epistles I cite above on the topic. I would of course dispute a claim to the effect that internal to itself the canon of the Bible is impossible to harmonize logically and theologically for the church, or that Paul disagreed with "disputed Paul" (assuming there is such a person or persons).

Grateful-Nikki's faith in the Pauline corpus as Scripture for the church is safe, and can be defended at length and in detail given sufficient information and consideration of varied kinds of arguments (many of which have not been raised here).

Grateful-Nikki said:

Thank u look up. Yes as a new believer ull lose me if get too heavy. I was doubting or rather asking how to believe other writing.. I always assumed that whatever Jesus said is! Thats it. Whether they are divinely inspired or not, the other writers wrote to adress the troubles of making a church. So i was wondering whether or not paul or whoever wrote them, how to understand their writtings. I like look ups answer saying emancipation of women has come with its own problems too. And as I realized a long time ago, of all my friends who are very controlling and feminist, so few have made their relationship work. So
....

Click to expand...

Hi Grateful-Nikki--May the Lord grant you strength as a mother of young kids. And yes, I was aware in addressing a concern I have with hedrick's post that I was being a bit more dense and technical at points than you are ready for, but I did make attempts to address you too (as a listener) at many points (successfully or not).

I have tried to argue in various ways that the letters of Paul (and the rest of the NT) are Scripture for the church in the same way that the Four Gospels are--that all are divinely inspired. How a particular setting and circumstance like that evident in 1 Cor. 14 applies to the church today is another matter (and is only one example), or rather the passage raises a set of questions that take us beyond what we have done so far on this thread even if I think there are some transparent applications already too. Each passage has to be read on its own, though the whole hangs together too. A microscope and a telescope (so to speak) are needed to view the Scriptures (even if the analogy is not perfect)--narrow and large contexts need considering. But one thing at a time, while some passages are easier to digest than others.

Grateful-Nikki said:

i am a new believer and this question is a question i struggle with. Before becoming a believer I was wanting to read only the gospels. i thought that wathever JC says is right. so for example, the letters are.... well thats what i struggle with. example in letters to corinthians when it talks about marriage or wearing a hat to cover women head out of respect for ministry, they are not what Jesus talked about. so yes i believe that the whole book is God, but paul was a human, and you know the telephone game......

so please, for a new beleiver, what are we to think of all the rules and regulations given by paul. I know a bit of the context, there was difficulty with women in the ministry.... also the way jewish traditions where, women did not have their place in gods worship. so i do beleive that it was in answer to the problems that women were causing by actually taking to much room in the ministry. and since i beleive that the Bible is divinely inspired, the solutions found were too... but that means that those rules are for that ppl in that time period. lets say where i live its not a problem to have women ministry.... then no need to cover her head. soory if im not going deep enough. im very very new. and in no way mean to teach anyone, i am just putting my thoughts out.

Click to expand...

The whole New Testament is the inspired word of God, including the letters.

Now, with some passages in Paul's letters, it's a bit hard to work out what he's actually saying, and what it means for us today.

In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, for example, Paul is responding to a serious problem in the Corinthian church, but we have only a hazy idea what the problem actually was. It wasn't that women were publicly praying or prophesying in worship services -- that was fine -- it had something to do with the way women dressed. Some people think it involved women dressing like prostitutes in church (and it's a good idea not to do that today either) and some people think it involved married women dressing like single women (thereby publicly disrespecting their husbands, which is also not a good idea).

In any case, I think that there are more important passages in 1 Corinthians than that one.