Is it possible that Paul’s words were meant for the congregations he was writing to, in their position, and in those circumstances? If his words were “normative” and applicable to all women in every city throughout the universe and into perpetuity, then women should not speak in church. Ever. Done deal. If however Paul’s words were meant to apply in specific circumstances, then we need to apply his words only when those same circumstances apply today.
A preacher can quote from the Bible down to the very letter. He or she can memorize every Scripture in the entire Word—but if the passages are not properly applied in a way that harmonizes with the original circumstances and intent, they can convey a distortion. This much we can all agree upon. But the central point of this illustration is this: If a preacher teaches in this way, he or she should not be surprised if or when God says, “You haven’t used My words faithfully, and therefore you don’t have My [blessing, anointing, approval, consecration, sanction, consent, etc.] upon the way you’ve chosen to quote me. I will have nothing to do with this message you’re giving.”
As a biblical support for this concept, consider 2 Peter 3:16b—which, although written by Peter, again refers to the writings of Paul, who is quoted as saying that women should be silent in church, never attend service with braided hair or pearls, etc.: “As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” The ESV renders this: “As he [Paul] does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” As for a breakdown of what Peter’s words mean here, let’s look at the Barnes’ Notes commentary:
Speaking in them of these things—The things which Peter had dwelt upon in his two epistles. The great doctrines of the cross; of the depravity of man; of the divine purposes; of the new birth; of the consummation of all things; of the return of the Saviour to judge the world, and to receive his people to himself; the duty of a serious, devout and prayerful life, and of being prepared for the heavenly world. These things are constantly dwelt upon by Paul, and to his authority in these respects Peter might appeal with the utmost confidence.[i]
I can agree that here, Peter is referring to the statements of Paul on these issues listed by Barnes’, and not necessarily to Paul’s words about women. However, if Peter is placing his “utmost confidence” in Paul’s stance on these matters—and, as Scripture proves and strengthens Scripture and all of the Word is “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16–17)—we can safely assume that Peter is placing his confidence in Paul’s teaching as a whole, and not only within this limited list. Barnes’ agrees with this interpretation (as follows), then goes on to explain that Peter was not accusing Paul of a poor writing style that nobody could understand, but simply that the truths Paul addressed are so intense that human minds will struggle comprehending them:
The true construction, so far as the evidence goes, is to refer it not directly to the “epistles,” but to the “things” of which Peter says Paul wrote [this would include all of Paul’s writings]; that is, not to the style and language of Paul, but to the great truths and doctrines which he taught. Those doctrines were indeed contained in his epistles, but still, according to the fair construction of the passage before us, Peter should not be understood as accusing Paul of obscurity of style. He refers not to the difficulty of understanding what Paul meant, but to the difficulty of comprehending the great truths which he taught [i.e., it’s not how Paul wrote, but what Paul wrote, that is hard to understand]. This is, generally, the greatest difficulty in regard to the statements of Paul. The difficulty is not that the meaning of the writer is not plain, but it is either:
(a) that the mind is overpowered by the grandeur of the thought, and the incomprehensible nature of the theme, or
(b) that the truth is so unpalatable, and the mind is so prejudiced against it, that we are unwilling to receive it.[ii]
So far, we have Barnes’ Notes commentary pointing to Peter’s open acknowledgment of Paul’s authority, followed by the suggestion that 2 Peter 3:16 may very well be referring to people’s minds being “so prejudiced against [the proper interpretation of Paul’s writings] that we are unwilling to receive it.” Yet, what Barnes’ says next really drives it home:
Many a man knows well enough what Paul means, and would receive his doctrines without hesitation if the heart was not opposed to it; and in this state of mind Paul is charged with obscurity, when the real difficulty lies only in the heart of him who makes the complaint.… An honest heart, a willingness to receive the truth, is one of the best qualifications for understanding the writings of Paul; and when this exists, no one will fail to find truth that may be comprehended, and that will be eminently adapted to sanctify and save the soul.…
Which they that are unlearned—The evil here adverted to is that which arises in cases where those without competent knowledge undertake to become expounders of the word of God. [In other words, “the evil here” is preachers who stand from a pulpit and speak for God without “competent knowledge,” which Barnes’ exposes to be, in part, a lack of understanding the culture at the time the book was written!:] It is not said that it is not proper for them to attempt to become instructed by the aid of the sacred writings; but the danger is, that without proper views of interpretation, of language, and of ancient customs, they might be in danger of perverting and abusing certain portions of the writings of Paul. Intelligence among the people is everywhere in the Bible presumed to be proper in understanding the sacred Scriptures; and ignorance may produce the same effects in interpreting the Bible which it will produce in interpreting other writings.…
And unstable—… The evil here adverted to is that which arises where those undertake to interpret the Bible who have no established principles…and of course nothing can be regarded as settled in their methods of interpreting the Bible.
Wrest—Pervert—streblousin. The word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is derived from a word meaning a windlass, winch, instrument of torture [streble] and means to roll or wind on a windlass; then to wrench, or turn away, as by the force of a windlass; and then to wrest or pervert. It implies a turning out of the way by the application of force. Here the meaning is, that they apply those portions of the Bible to a purpose for which they were never intended. It is doubtless true that this may occur. Men may abuse and pervert anything that is good.…
Unto their own destruction—By embracing false doctrines. Error destroys the soul; and it is very possible for a man so to read the Bible as only to confirm himself in error. He may find passages which, by a perverted interpretation, shall seem to sustain his own views [in other words, a speaker who twists Scripture to say what he or she wants it to for their own agenda]; and, instead of embracing the truth, may live always under delusion, and perish at last.[iii]
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO:
THEOLOGIAN: JESUS HIMSELF STARTED THE FIRST WOMEN’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT
Many thanks to Barnes’ Notes for this thread. It says it all better than I could have. Twisting Scripture can have eternal consequences. And as far as whether God would remove His anointing from a quote given out of context (including the cultural context!), I think that much is clear. In Peter’s words, such a practice will deliver a speaker “unto their own destruction.” This impression is further emphasized by the next verse in 2 Peter: “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.” Well before a speaker has been “led away with the error of the wicked,” the Holy Spirit’s anointing will have been stripped from the speaker’s teaching, or else the leading away in wicked error could not have happened had it been sanctioned by Him in the first place.
Thus, we can safely conclude that if a speaker intentionally quotes the words of the Bible, God’s Word, out of context—whether that incorrect context is related to a language, cultural, societal, local, or historical issue—the Holy Spirit removes His anointing on that teaching, just as Jenny removed her blessing from Sarah’s misuse of her words in my earlier example…and if the speakers willingly continue down this path, they will “fall from [their] own stedfastness.”
So what do we do?
Because we are applying words written thousands of years ago to a completely different culture and time, we must take a moment to comprehend the process of getting information out of an ancient culture and making it relevant to our modern lives: understanding the “voice” behind the text. There has been a many-decades-long trend of speaking authoritatively about the stories and advice from Scripture without any thought about the background behind the Scripture, and without studying what the words really meant by those who wrote them. People have understandably complained for years that Church leaders take Scripture out of context, and they frequently do, but why does this happen?
For one thing, proper exegesis (interpretation) is not taught to the extent it should be. The backdrop of many verses often is not considered before the words are quoted, and the loss of meaning creates confusion. As I once heard from Minister Mark Chironna, “A text out of context is a pretext for a proof-text.” In other words, we can find biblical “proof” for anything we say as long as the context is missing. The result of this is nothing less than tragedy, and at times it escalates to heresy and blasphemy.
As it relates to the lost or believers who have been jaded by the Church, the misuse of Scripture only renders a greater disregard for any information of the Word that is true. Then, when the facts are later brought up, those burned by the first wave of confusion aren’t interested in being misled again, so they ignore the truth entirely, assuming everything is erroneous. They throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. It is then possible that they might hear a more accurate sermon or witness and close their mind to it because of the damage the misinformation of the past has caused.
This tragedy becomes far worse when other preachers and teachers pick up on the trendy form of ministering and repeat the offense. An entire religious and cultural worldview becomes skewed around popular forms and formulas. Young, sincere preachers stand at pulpits and repeat familiar lessons they’ve learned from their mentors involving verses taken out of context in the first place. As a result, generation after generation becomes so familiar with the newer (but less truthful) concept of the verse that the truth is gradually sapped.
In essence, because of this gradual phenomenon, that old friend by the name of “today’s culture” in fact does become the final authority on scriptural interpretation, which is deliciously ironic, considering it’s the contemporary grievance voiced by those today who say that women ought not to speak in church: They preach against allowing “today’s culture” to blur the lines of what’s right and wrong, but without studying the culture at the time of the original writing, they are only preaching what “today’s culture” has warped the Scripture to mean within the limited worldview of Western Christianity. Again: braided hair? No problem. We can throw that verse out. A woman minister? Never, because the Bible says… Paul’s words about women are incredibly high up on the charts listing misuse. As a disintegrating foundational piece that is serving to crumble the whole, I can see countries all over the world that have been detrimentally affected by this, and billions of women have likely been silenced as a result (though there appears to be no Pew Research Survey that addresses this specifically).
This type of teaching becomes what the world views as “church,” but it means little more to secular minds than an establishment of rituals while the living, breathing Word is cast to the wayside in trade for performance and showmanship. This becomes mounting “evidence” to the lost or jaded that the entire Word—and all the claims therein—is based on the product of wild imaginations.
We have to accept the fact that when the injury of misinformation is piled atop a Church that has for so many years accepted unanointed teaching because it’s the religious ministry practice to which they’re accustomed, we arrive at an equation that spreads distortion like a brushfire. Add to this years and years of the public’s cultural familiarity with and acceptance of the skewed ministry concept, and we arrive at a day when any teaching that challenges that norm is marginalized or written off as the ramblings of a nonconformist radical (or an “apostasy woman”)—despite how much truth might be presented in the message. It’s an age-old social science: When people have largely adopted a way of thinking into their society and slowly built a universal worldview around it, they will not easily receive modifications to that worldview—even when it is based on inaccuracy. They don’t want to hear the truth, because that means letting go of all they’ve known or believed up to that point, so they hold on to what’s familiar, what’s comfortable, always referring to the others in their support group for confirmation of a path that is biblically incorrect.
In each book of the Bible, the “voice” behind the text is comprised of the original author, certainly, but ultimately the true voice is that of God, the first and last Author of His Word. As such, it isn’t just the writer we must know, but the circumstances at the time of the writing, as those details are imperative to understanding the complete message of God.
So, let’s take a minute to go over some standardized study points, and then we will dive into precisely how Paul’s words were relevant in his time, and how that applies to us today.
Questions that Lead to More Accurate Interpretation
The two most important deductions that any reader of the Bible should be making are these: 1) what God was communicating to His original audience through the human writer at the time it was written, and 2) what normative regulations for daily life that presents for us today. By this process of thinking, we have historically concluded which Scriptures apply only to an audience at a particular point in time (restricted regulations), versus which Scriptures still hold a valuable behavior that must be modeled timelessly, throughout all ages (normative regulations).
I once read a story about an American missionary who went to spread the Gospel in Greece. After his first sermon there, which was well received, he made his way to the door of the church to greet his new congregants as they left for home. As is customary in America, he extended his arm forward, expecting to shake hands. His hand was ignored as he was repeatedly approached by full grown men who leaned in for a holy kiss on the mouth. I can’t even imagine the shock the missionary must have felt: the awkwardness of this foreign social situation manifesting right there in front of his wife…
Romans 16:16—as written by Paul—tells believers to “Salute one another with an holy kiss.” First Peter 5:14 gives the same regulation: “Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.” Why? Because in that day and in that culture, that was an appropriate way for a holy man to greet another holy man, and it showed an innocent camaraderie amidst the followers of Christ. Another famously referenced instance of this greeting was from Judas to Jesus on the night of His betrayal (Matthew 26:47–50; Mark 14:43–45; Luke 22:48). The Greek word used here is kataphileo, simply referring to a kiss generically, as opposed to philein, which refers to an amorous kiss. Some parts of the world still treat such a kataphileo greeting as customary, such as the city in Greece the missionary just mentioned traveled to. When this occurs in those specific locations, there is nothing to be viewed out of the ordinary, and it most certainly is not considered a man showing romantic interest in another man. In America, however, especially after the last century’s social revolutions involving the homosexual community, there is almost no setting where a man could kiss another man on the mouth (or anywhere else, like the cheek) without it being taken as a romantic gesture (philein).
As such, we can easily conclude that almost all Western Christians perceive Paul and Peter’s command to “greet with a kiss” as a “restricted” regulation (which is, again, a command or rule pertaining to a specific population of people in a specific time and place) when the verses are analyzed literally. But that conclusion is incorrect. The holy greeting is one that should be seen as “normative” (a command or rule pertaining to all people of every culture and throughout time: a timeless truth), once the intent behind the Scripture is deduced. Today’s fellow believers should greet each other in whatever “holy” way is appropriate to their culture, so long as that greeting does not go against the intent of Scripture elsewhere. In the States, that is almost always a firm handshake and a hearty smile, and since a male reverend showing a romantic gesture to another man would be forbidden in Scripture, our “holy kiss” becomes a “holy handshake.” The intent of the regulation is preserved.
I know that for some, the following review is redundant, but for others, this process is new, so I will say once more: By this illustration, we have quickly satisfied these two items: 1) what God was communicating to His original audience through the human writer at the time it was written (that “fellow believers should greet each other warmly in the way they would have at the time of Paul”); and 2) what normative regulations for daily life that presents for us today (that “fellow believers should still greet each other warmly in the way they do now in their own culture,” assuming that greeting does not oppose the intent of Scripture elsewhere).
One example of a “restricted” regulation would be the sacrifices of animals upon the altar. This practice, for Christians, was ended when Christ became the ultimate Sacrifice once and for all through the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13, 9:13–15, 10:8–18). Another example would be when Paul instructed Timothy to drink wine for his stomach problems (1 Timothy 5:23). Obviously, not all digestive problems today should be treated with wine. (My words here should not be taken as an argument for or against the moderate use of alcohol in a Christian’s home. That is another debate entirely. I mean only to show that Paul’s words to Timothy were not “normative” advice for any believer with a tummy ache throughout all time.)
One major interpretation principle in determining “normative” from “restricted” regulation is called “internal consistency.” This can be viewed from two perspectives: 1) what the Bible says elsewhere on a particular subject, and 2) what a specific author (Paul, Peter, etc.) says elsewhere on a particular subject (whether that be the same letter/epistle, or a different book of the Bible, so long as it’s written by the same author). In order for the Word of God to have integrity, it must have unity within itself. It has to “agree with itself” from all points to be considered true. It cannot “contradict itself.” (Quick note: I know that there has been a raging debate since time immemorial about certain verses contradicting other verses. As a student of the Bible, I have studied many of these so-called contradictions. In every single case, it has boiled down to improper interpretation or a translational hiccup when the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek is forced into the confines of a secondary language, such as English. We studied just now how the Greek has a different word for a casual “greeting kiss” than it does for a “lover’s amorous kiss.” The Greek language also has many different words for “love,” and the English language is once again limited to one word. I do not intend for this book to be a study in every perceived contradiction. I will only state for the record that, once properly understood, the Word does not and cannot contradict itself. When it appears to do so, readers are encouraged to study on their own for answers. For the purposes of this study, the principle of “internal consistency” will be limited to a woman’s role in the Church and among men.)
Keep this principle tucked in the back of your mind as we continue throughout the book, because it is crucial to the words of Paul regarding women.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO:
WAIT… A WOMAN PREACHING IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCH… WHAT DOES GOD THINK ABOUT THAT?!
So, within the process of establishing the original culture in order to draw normative regulations for our modern era, we can ask several questions to help us discover timeless truth. Throughout my college studies, I have found that these are the most important questions to ask when reading any of the books of the Bible:
- What literary genre does the material fall into?
The books of the Bible have been separated into literary genres by many scholars in order to aid study. If we don’t know what genre applies to a text, we can’t understand what the original text was meant to convey. Most popularly, the canonical list of books within today’s Holy Bible fall into eight categories: historical narrative, law, wisdom, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic, Gospel, and letters (epistles, such as that of Paul).
We wouldn’t take in a science-fiction novel involving futuristic medical information the same way we would digest a modern medical textbook at a university. Both books feature heaps of information about medicine, but because they belong to different genres, the material exists for different purposes (one entertains, the other educates). Likewise, we cannot approach apocalyptic Scripture in the same way we would read a historical narrative (one warns, the other informs).
- Who was the author?
In every conversation—whether between myself and someone else, or between two other people talking on television, at church, or wherever—when I hear someone speak, I consider who the speaker is in order to understand the meaning of his or her words. A person’s speech or written works cannot be separated from his or her identity. Two people can be involved in the same cause, but come from completely different angles. Knowing who they are is as important as hearing what they say.
When you listen to a sermon delivered by a pastor you’ve known for some time, you grasp his words better than you would those of a total stranger. You may have heard this pastor share testimonies, make the congregation laugh by telling silly stories about his home life, and open up his heart passions every Sunday. At times, you may even know what he’s going to say before he says it, because you know his personal convictions and you’re used to his oratory style. You’re familiar with him.
All the writers of the books in the Bible were involved in one central cause: bringing truth to the world. But many came from different angles in their approach to this cause. Paul had a different purpose for writing his letters to the early Church than Moses had when he documented ancient history. Knowing what Paul went through on the road to Damascus is crucial to understanding the passions behind his letters. Knowing what Moses went through during the Exodus helps us understand his anger toward the Israelites when he descended Mt. Sinai. If you don’t know the man behind the text, you won’t understand the author’s voice and intentions.
- Who was the original audience?
Just as with the author, the original audience cannot be separated from the purpose of a written text. New Testament letters address the false teachings, anxiety, persecution, and theological confusion of the early Church that was forming from Jews and Gentiles alike throughout Palestine and the rest of the world when Christ was no longer corporeally present to teach. Who these people were is just as important as understanding the identity of the writer. If we simply take in the text without understanding who originally benefitted from the material, we cannot understand how the material was beneficial. As such, we modern readers will find it much more difficult to render that text personally applicable to what we are going through.
- What were the circumstances that made the writing a necessity?
Knowing what was going on in the world or culture at the time of a writing is crucial to understanding the purpose of the writing. We have to consider what is being addressed, and in what social/cultural setting, in order to properly apply those lessons to our own culture/society. Paul’s advice to the churches sprouting up across Palestine after Christ’s ascension may at times seem similar in intent or meaning to the words of an Old Testament prophet just before the Babylonian and Assyrian exiles, but they weren’t addressing the same events. We cannot apply all of Paul’s words to the ancient Israelites, and we cannot apply all of an Old Testament prophet’s words to the early Church of Paul’s day. In the same trail of logic, responsible readers look for how the circumstances of our current modern world or individuals within it parallel the circumstances at the time of the original writing before making assumptions about how verses apply today. (Though this rule is fourth on the list as my college training presents it, for this particular work, it is likely the most important.)
- What was the cultural language style in use at the time of the writing?
This is one of the most important yet frequently overlooked considerations when studying Scripture. Culture is embedded in language, and language in culture. The two cannot be separated. The way we speak in America is different from how Chinese people speak in China, even when the languages are translated from one to another. For example, I might say, “It’s raining cats and dogs outside.” To an American, that means the rain outside is heavy. To foreigners, I have just stated that canines and felines are falling out of the sky. If they take my word as gospel, they will apply some kind of meaning to canines and felines being in the sky—whether literally or allegorically—and, to them, that would never relate to heavy rains. This is an example of an idiom: a group of words that sound like one thing, but mean something else, based on cultural use, acceptance, and familiarity.
From Genesis to Revelation, we find many examples of idioms, rhetoric, grammar fluctuation, syntax variations, and semantics that, if considered outside of their cultural setting, do not mean what the author intended. Since no culture today perfectly operates like those at the time of scriptural writings, it can often be difficult to understand what we’ve read when we dive into the Bible. Therefore, trying to understand the cultural language at the time of the writing seems like a tedious endeavor, but it is well worth the effort when the consequence otherwise is misinterpretation.
- What does the surrounding text say?
Lastly, once we have, to the best of our ability, figured out the genre, author, audience, circumstances, and cultural language (and consulting commentaries is helpful if we get stuck), we must consider what is being said in context—in the verses before and after any passage, as well as farther out—of the whole book’s message.
Take, for example, the popularly quoted Jeremiah 29:11: “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you, and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’” Many well-meaning Christians take this as a promise that no matter what happens, they will eventually be prosperous. But the surrounding text reveals that this verse was never meant to be dropped in a social setting to inspire a climb up the corporate ladder, to land an audition at a major theater, or have an old car come back to life if we just keep sitting on this verse and hoping the clunker will start. Looking at the broader context, we see that the “you” in this verse refers to a collective people: the ancient Israelites. This was a message given from the Lord, Himself, through the prophet Jeremiah about the future of Israel.
However, that doesn’t mean this verse isn’t relevant to Christians today. It absolutely is—more today than ever! If we properly consider the genre, author, audience, circumstances, and cultural language behind the verse, and then consider it within the surrounding text, we come up with the following equation: The “you” in this verse—the parallel of that “you” from the ancient writing to today—is the Church, all the people of the Lord. God knows the plans He has for the collective Body of Christ, the Church; He has plans to prosper the Church. It’s corporate, not individualistic.
Exegesis. It changes everything.
One last reflection before we begin our theological study…
I want to be very careful how I say this, because I do believe that the Word is all truth and nothing but the truth, written through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and is therefore the “God-breathed” Word of our Father. Nothing could convince me otherwise. It is this core belief that has driven me to study His Word in great depth every day I’m alive. However, I believe that the “God-breathed” and “Holy Spirit-inspired” texts were the original words penned by the original authors. Although this is a risky statement to make, because it might insinuate to some that I don’t believe the KJV or some other prized translation (which is not the case), I would like to point out how many other Christians also feel this same way, though they may not have put it into these words.
For instance, in November of 2012, a new Bible translation was released, affectionately called the “Queen James Bible.” The title was “based upon a theory that King James, the British king who commissioned the famous translation of the Bible, was bisexual.”[iv] One article opposing the release of this translation reads, “This new translation, the editors say, will ‘resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality.’”[v] The cover is all white with a rainbow-pride cross. I will not go into the translational differences between the KJV and the QJB, as that is not what this book is about, but I will tell you that there are many heavy discrepancies surrounding how this new translation addresses the original Hebrew and Greek languages. Scores of conservative scholars reacted to the QJB release with vehement rejection.
Many Christians would agree with these scholars that the QJB is twisting Scripture, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was published and now exists for any person wandering a bookstore to find, read, and digest as the QJB translators intended. Does that mean that the QJB is “the Word of God” as He intended it to be when it was written so long ago just because a new translation claims it? No. It means that it’s the “word of” and “intention of” the translators from one language into another.
But with so many translations available, how do we know we’re reading from the right one? Today, a popular answer is to always to stick to the KJV if we don’t understand ancient Greek and Hebrew.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, and it’s excellent advice.
Yet I still believe “the most accurate translation”—and by extension the most “Holy Spirit-inspired translation”—when deciphering the intent of “God’s Word” to us humans isn’t a “translation” at all. It’s the original manuscripts, written by the original authors, in the original languages, as God first delivered it to humanity.
In the following pages, we will address how some words in the ancient Hebrew and Greek were translated into English, and we’ll look at the effects those translations have had on our Church’s concepts of Scripture today.
Under no circumstances am I saying that the Bible—including the KJV translation—is corrupt, untrue, or questionable as it relates God’s intent to mankind.
I only want to stress the importance of taking the original languages into consideration before we hang the entire belief system of Christianity—and all the modern, cultural norms that implies—upon the English (and by default secondary) language.
UP NEXT: Internal Consistency
[i] “2 Peter 3:16 Commentary,” Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, as shared by BibleHub, last accessed July 7, 2017, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/2_peter/3.htm.
[ii] Ibid; emphasis added.
[iii] Ibid; emphasis added.
[iv] John Jalsevac, “Queen James Bible: Publisher Releases ‘Gay-Friendly’ Bible Translation,” December 13, 2012, Life Site News, last accessed July 17, 2017, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/queen-james-bible-publisher-releases-gay-friendly-bible-translation.