Bible Question: Your forcing me into a corner I didn't want to go into, but that's okay. Let's take the Book of First and Second Corinthians, we know Paul was trying to correct problems within the church of Corinth. In some cases it is clear there was a unique problem with a specific solution. In other cases the specific problem, is not spelled out yet there is a specific precept or statute given. Many men rationalize what the problem or custom was and then say this precept or statute applies only in that situation. Should this be done? Should we look as some parts of the Bible as merely history and unless we are repeating that history they do not apply to us? |
Bible Answer: Dear EdB, I agree that we should take the word of God literally, but,as you said earlier, any life-directing doctrine should be confirmed by '2 or 3 witnesses.' (Frankly, I prefer 3, if it is a command that places a gender-related burden upon someone) There are several areas of scripture that only give one specific command. Many could be called guilty of 'making the word support their bent,' by mixing command with allegory. Indeed, in the books to the Corinthians, there seem to be some specific commands, with out clearly supporting witness. I believe the Bible speaks to us of 'patterns' of doctrine, supported by more than one scripture. "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us." Philippians 3:17 NASB. I find it interesting to note that many would focus on certain 'single-command' subjects, but most ignore 'baptism for the dead.' Though I agree heartily with the Bible applying to us today, men do not wear 'tunics' or 'outer garments' such as used 20 centuries ago, do we? I never heard of anyone in the early church wearing a necktie. (but we do) As with anything, we can become extreme in our interpretation of right and wrong. Though our Lord is pleased with obedience to His commands, they were intended for the heart, for our attitude toward Him, unless I am greatly mistaken. God wants us to serve Him from the heart, not just through physical obedience to a New Law. Please don't misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that we abandon all propriety and dignity. I am only suggetsting that 'literal' can easily mean 'legalistic.' The Lord was not happy the first time around (OT), why would He desire it afresh in this New Covenant? EdB, Please note that this answer is not directed to you only, but to all the saints of the Forum. I am not assuming that you hold one bent or another, only answering the question you posed. Blessings upon you in Christ Jesus, charis |