Shannon Costello

I’ve appropriated another subtitle for this post, this time from a book by E. Luther Copeland. His book deals with the history of an American Protestant denomination. His thesis was extremely intriguing and is not impacted by what I discuss here.

While discussing a fairly controversial subject — women in the church — the author quotes I Timothy 2:9-15 (about women being silent in church, etc.) and then makes the following statements:

…it contradicts other Scriptures, not only the attitude toward women and the ministries of women in Acts but also some of the Pauline teaching. It is in marked opposition to the great principle of the equality of men and women enunciated in Galatians 3:28, though the letters to Timothy and to Titus, the Pastoral Epistles, in which this passage occurs, purport to have been written by Paul. Moreover, this passage contrasts with the teaching and practice of Jesus. In its reference to creation, it gives a rabbinical and literal interpretation of the creation account of the second chapter of Genesis, while ignoring that of the first chapter of Genesis.

1) Copeland suggests that I Timothy 2:9-15 contradicts both Galatians 3:28 and Jesus’ teachings. In addition, he implies a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. While I agree that the Bible (i.e. the Protestant canon) may seem to contradict itself at times, I do not believe that it does in fact do so.

2) Galatians 3:28 does not deny the existence of inequalities on earth but affirms the equality of believers in the sight of God. My place in society is pretty irrelevant compared to that. So I would disagree with the description of Galatians 3:28 as the “great principle of the equality of men and women.” When dealing with a biblical text, it is important to consider context and the main thrust of the passage.

3) Copeland appears to cast doubt on Paul’s authorship of certain New Testament books, which openly claim to have been written by Paul. I feel that claims of authorship within a biblical text are valid.

In another section Copeland speaks of two possible interpretations of the idea that the Bible is “truth, without any mixture of error.” Either the phrase refers to “faith and practice” or it also includes science, philosophy, history, etc. Copeland seems to imply that he would subscribe to the former interpretation but not the latter. So Copeland would then say that he believes the Bible is “truth without any mixture of error” and I would question that, because our interpretations of that phrase differ.

When I was a child, I took all texts literally. As an adult, I realize that Robert Frost probably wasn’t talking about two actual roads diverging in a yellow wood, an idea I refused to accept in junior high.

Some parts of the Bible are clearly not literal, for example, “the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.” Poetry, not science! And yet literal interpretations of that sort of passage have caused quite a bit of trouble…

I think Jonah really was swallowed by some type of big fish…I think the axe head really did float…I think the waters of the Red Sea really did part, leaving dry ground…I think Jesus really did miraculously feed over 5000 people. I think the vision parts of Daniel are figurative. I think the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1 is figurative.

I think that it takes a lot more than a phrase like “truth without any mixture of error” to clearly articulate one’s view of the Bible.