Archive - Theology RSS Feed

Allow Me To Explain (50 of 439) – Finger Pointing

The back-story is here. The collection is here. You can subscribe over there. >>>

50. Who was to blame for original sin? 1 Timothy 2:14 vs. Romans 5:12

You know not what you ask …

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

C. Neither of the above!

If we’re really taking the question at face value, since the question is taking the text at face value, the answer is Satan. He did the tempting, and the deceiving, so Satan is “to blame” for original sin.

Or are we asking which of the two people is responsible for the first sin? Or which of the two people is responsible for sin entering the world?

Because the questions have different answers, as clearly explained by the two verses given.

Of course there really is no question, because no one is genuinely asking. There’s just an accusation that the scriptures given contradict one another.

But they can’t contradict, because they’re not really talking about the same thing.

1 Timothy 2:14 recounts the story as a mechanism for explaining to Pastor Timothy (Paul is writing) why women who are deceived are not to teach in the church. (Anyone who is deceived should not be teaching in the church, but Paul is addressing Timothy’s concerns.) A better, more literal, translation of the verse would read:

and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came

We all know the story. Eve was deceived, and so she sinned. That was the point Paul was making in his letter to his prodigy, and so that’s where his example ended. Adam sinned, of course, it just didn’t suit his lesson.

In Romans 5, Paul is contrasting Jesus with Adam.

Adam brought sin into the world, Jesus defeated it.

Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam – as we’re told – was not deceived. Adam sinned willfully. And while God gave dominion of the earth to both Adam and Eve, Adam was the head of his wife, so the dominion was ultimately his to maintain or give away. And he gave it away.

The two verses given reference the same event, but both incompletely, because their purposes are different. If we know the story, and we keep the verses in context, it’s pretty clear.

Give No Offense

I got stuck on this passage at the end of 1 Corinthians 10 the other day:

31 Whether, then you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33 just as I also please men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.

Do I do that?

Of course, the other side of that same coin is that we are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. We preach. We live holy lives. Paul certainly offended some people.

But is that offense-in-the-name-of-truth the the exception, or the rule?

It’s so easy to tell myself that A is A and B is B, and if you don’t like it, too bad. Do I go out of my way to “please all men in all things,” and only shrug at inescapable offense when all else fails? Or do I just do what I’m going to do without considering other peoples’ responses, because I can support it with scripture.

Paul’s talking about eating food sacrificed to idols – something that mature believers, he says, don’t really have to worry about for their own sakes. If it’s going to bother someone else, though, forfeit your freedom in Christ for his sake.

I’m generally pretty quick to preach the freedom I have in Christ. I’m pretty quick to defend it, because,

I tell myself, I’m defending Christ’s sacrifice that paid for it. But am I?

Using PG-13 terms like, “suck” and “crap” are not sin. But if a parent of a student, or someone in our congregation where I minister, thinks it’s inappropriate, I should submit to that.

Our society makes all kinds of excuses, and all kinds of, “You can’t please all the people all the time” posters. Maybe that’s true, but is it a sad reality or an excuse to me? Paul seems to think I should try to please all the people all the time.

Thoughts?

Allow Me to Explain (49 of 439) – Excess Baggage

The back-story is here. The collection is here. You can subscribe over there. >>>

49. Did Jesus tell His apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? Matt 10:10, Luke 9:3 vs. Mk 6:8-9

No

Matthew 10:10
nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.

Luke 9:3
And He said to them, Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.

Mark 6:8-9
He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff – no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts 9 but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.

I could never believe in a God whose followers can’t get their story straight about sandals and staffs. *exaggerated eye roll*  Continue Reading…

Page 1 of 3212345»102030...Last »