Biblical manhood and womanhood

^{From Exodus 35,}

^30(AG) Then Moses said to the people of Israel, "See, the LORD has called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; ³¹and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with^(AH) skill, with intelligence, with knowledge, and with all craftsmanship, ³²to devise artistic designs, to work in gold and silver and bronze, ³³in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, for work in every skilled craft. ³⁴And he has inspired him to teach, both him and Oholiab the son of Ahisamach of the tribe of Dan. ³⁵He has^(AI) filled them with skill to do every sort of work done by an engraver or by a designer or by an embroiderer in blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen, or by a weaver—by any sort of workman or skilled designer. ESV

³⁰ Then Moses said to the Israelites, “See, the LORD has chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, ³¹ and he has filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills— ³² to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, ³³ to cut and set stones, to work in wood and to engage in all kinds of artistic crafts. ³⁴ And he has given both him and Oholiab son of Ahisamak, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others. ³⁵ He has filled them with skill to do all kinds of work as engravers, designers, embroiderers in blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen, and weavers—all of them skilled workers and designers. NIV2011

I thought after reading the ESV that men were doing the embroidery. But after reading the NIV2011, I came to think that both men and women are "skilled workers and designers," and the women were doing the embroidery. I am not quite sure. Any ideas?

Women did have a role producing trade goods and artefacts. They were not restricted to reproduction only. Even though I do know how to spin, weave and embroider, (not terribly well, but I have tried them all) - these activites take a significant commitment of time, space and funds that I don't actually have. I don't recommend them now in lieu of a "job." Boring, I know, but that's my experience.

It is important to understand that there was never a time in the Bible when men were considered to be created to work and produce goods, and women were not. Women were always producers and designers, as well as mothers. That is just the way it was. No matter how hard you try, a woman who stays home with her children, is on the periphery of the economy, a consumer and not a producer. That is not biblical. I understand why women are at home with their children, and I am not critizing it - I just don't know how to reconcile it with the model of womanhood in the Bible, where women were driven to create and produce goods, as well as children.

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I still have my first piece of embroidery that I did at the age of four. It is a small petit point pattern of a box full of kittens. Hence my affinity with the curmudgeonly Roger Moore in this film.

Women's work or men's work

I had been thinking about what women did in the Bible, and now I can't figure out whether weaving and embroidery were women's work or men's work. Two relevant passages are Exodus 35 and 36, and 2 Chronicles 2. I am getting a little worried that the hours I spent embroidering in the past, was practicing men's work. On the other hand, women spun and dyed, especially purple, producing important trade goods that were often lumped in scripture with gold and silver.

There was likely no time in a biblical woman's life that she did not produce income earning goods, even if only in barter. The urge to work is God-given and not a product of femininst ideology. I am not sure about embroidery, however.

Denny Burk on the NIV2011

Denny Burk has become the voice of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on translation. Here is his latest critique.

I find it fascinating that he writes,

The new NIV adopts feminist translations of key verses

He then proceeds to cite 1 Tim. 2:12 and Romans 16:7. And yet the NIV 2011 follows in the tradition of Calvin's commentary and the King James version in these two verses. Here is Calvin,

Salutate Andronicum et Juniam, cognatos meos et cocaptivos meos, qui sunt insignes inter Apostolos, qui etiam ante me fuerunt in Christo. Romans 16:7

Docere autem muliere non permitto, neque auctoritatem sibi sumere in virum, sed quietam esse. 1 Tim. 2:12

To tell you the truth, I am not sure why Denny Burk does not compare the wording of the NIV 2011 with the King James Bible, Luther's Bible and Calvin's Latin translation. He would see that Luther did not hesitate to translate the word used for "human being" in Greek with a word used for "human being" in German. I see no reason why such instances in English find themselves in Wayne Grudem's list of "inaccuracies."

Denny also claims that the generic "he" pronoun is understood today. That may be so, but here I have listed those preachers who did not understand that the masculine pronoun in English does not translate a semantically masculine pronoun in Greek, notably Russell Moore, who wrote,

Male headship is strictly defined in Scripture as the opposite of a grasp for power. The headship of men in the church and home is rooted everywhere in Scripture in protection and provision. This is why the apostle Paul calls the man who will not provide for his family "worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim 5:8 ESV).

In fact, this passage contains no reference to a "man" or to an implied "he" at all. I have been thinking that this verse has been reinterpreted to fill a felt need. Certain complementarians may have felt that there ought to be a verse in the Bible which states that the man is the provider, and so this verse has been brought in the fill the gap.

I don't want to be unkind to Denny's review, but I do wish that the CBMW would be open to review.

Is the Bible sufficient?

I want to thank those who vote me into the top 10 biblioblogs. I heretofore promise that, to the best of my ability, I will attempt to keep the Bible and women, sometimes separately and sometimes together, as the recurring theme of this blog.

Tonight, I want to write about the National Geographic article on child brides. It will make you cry, whoever you are. Here is the part which relates to my view of the Bible,

"If there were any danger in early marriage, Allah would have forbidden it," a Yemeni member of parliament named Mohammed Al-Hamzi told me in the capital city of Sanaa one day. "Something that Allah himself did not forbid, we cannot forbid." Al-Hamzi, a religious conservative, is vigorously opposed to the legislative efforts in Yemen to prohibit marriage for girls below a certain age (17, in a recent version), and so far those efforts have met with failure.

Islam does not permit marital relations before a girl is physically ready, he said, but the Holy Koran contains no specific age restrictions and so these matters are properly the province of family and religious guidance, not national law. Besides, there is the matter of the Prophet Muhammad's beloved Ayesha—nine years old, according to the conventional account, when the marriage was consummated.

Just because something is not in the scriptures, does that mean that it is okay? Is it right and proper to allow girls under 18 to marry? But Jesus did not rail against this, nor Paul either. Isn't it right and proper to grant a divorce to a woman who has been beaten by her husband, even if such an allowance is not in the Bible?

Sure, we here in the west would say that the Koran is not sufficient, but is the Bible sufficient? Perhaps what I mean is, is the Bible explicit enough? I don't think so.

On the other hand, the Bible clearly articulates the ethos that we should love the one next to us as ourselves. We should love our fellow human being as ourselves. We should treat our husband or wife in such a way as to give them the happiness they desire, at the same time respecting our own dignity and integrity. We should care for those who lack food, education and health care, at the same time guarding our own power and ability to be helpful, to provide.

These are the big questions, the ones I am struggling with. The Bible is not sufficient, we need to interpret the Bible through the prism of the command of Christ. Ironically, this command is also found clearly articulated in all the great religions.

The Inverse Danvers Statement

I find this to be very cleverly done. I know it may seem to be ridiculing this belief, but I hope that it is not seen as cruel, but just as an alternative look at how scripture could be selected and prioritized. No sin in that, surely.

However, I am not sure if one very important verse is used to advantage. 1 Tim. 5:14, says, in the most literal translation possible,

"I am minded, therefore, that the younger ones marry, bear children, be head of the house, - giving no single occasion, unto the opposer, as a cause of reviling;" (adapted from Rotherham)

Here is the inverse Danvers Statement, and here is the original Danvers Statement.

Origen on Phoebe

Daniel Kirk has blogged briefly about Origen's commentary on Romans 16:1-2,

Romans 16:1-2 reads:

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is also a minister of the church at Cenchreae: that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and that you help her in whatever matter in which she may have need of you. For she has been a helper of many, including myself.”

Upon which Origen commented as follows:

This passage teaches with apostolic authority that women are likewise appointed to the ministry of the church. (Origen, Comm. Rom. 10.17.2)

I responded with this comment,

I think it is likely that prostatis refers back to ezer in Genesis, although that is translated as beothos.

What is really interesting is that Christ was addressed as prostates and boethos in Clement. These two words βοηθος and πρστατης are used as titles for Christ alongside “saviour” and “high priest.” Here is how the words were used in 1 Clement 36:1.

Αυτη η οδος, αγαπητοι, εν η ευρομεν το σωτεριον ημων, Ιησουν Χρστον, τον αρχιερεα των προσφορων ημων, τον προστατην και βοηθον της ασθενειας ημων.

This is the way, beloved, in which we found our salvation; even Jesus Christ, the high priest of our oblations, the champion and defender of our weakness. tr. Charles Hoole 1885
This is the way, dearly beloved, wherein we found our salvation, even Jesus Christ the High priest of our offerings, the Guardian and Helper of our weakness.tr. J. B. Lightfoot.

Along with examples of women as an apostle and prophet, I fail to find that the scriptures place women beneath men in the church.

Here is an article I wrote a couple of years ago on this topic.

Banker to the Poor

This book is on my "to read" list. I mention it today, because I want to recognize the essential role of those men who champion women's empowerment and access to equal resources. Even though I strongly believe that women are to help other women, in a man's world, women do experience validation through the support of men. In fact, it is probably impossible for women to take on an expanded role in many domains without the acquiesence and encouragement of at least some men.

Mitt Romney

A provocative article,

To many voters, Romney and Huntsman therefore raise a thorny question: is it wrong to oppose candidates because you dislike or fundamentally disagree with their faith? Some would call that bigotry; others a matter of personal judgment. Either way, when voters explore LDS theology, a good portion seems to decide that the basic premise of the faith is so stupendously unlikely that the judgment of anyone who buys into it is fundamentally flawed.

Latter-day Saints believe that in 1827, Smith, a farmer's son from upstate New York, experienced a revelation in which Moroni (the angel from Salt Lake City's temple) appeared and told him to dig a hole in a local hillside. He apparently discovered a book made from golden plates inscribed with illegible hieroglyphics. By using some diamond-encrusted spectacles and occasionally peering into a hat that had a brown rock in the bottom of it, he mysteriously found himself able translate these elaborate symbols. The result, when the golden plates were fully transcribed, was a new scripture: The Book of Mormon.

Mormons study this text in tandem with the Old and New Testaments, as a sort of third holy book. While the Bible is set largely in the Middle East, Smith's creation tells a history of the Americas from 600BC to roughly AD400. It posits that, after his resurrection, Jesus visited the continent for a period of weeks or months. The fundamentals of how their church is organised and the moral code by which members are expected to live are outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants.

When first written, a good portion of the Doctrine and Covenants was devoted to an endorsement of polygamy, which Mormons practiced energetically during the first 60 years of their church's existence. Other bits railed against tea, coffee and alcohol. But in time, the polygamous lifestyle began to attract criticism. Fortunately, Latter-day Saints believe that the covenants can be amended whenever the church's serving president announces that God has instructed him to make an alteration.

Such an event occurred in the 1890s, when Utah wanted to join the US but was prevented from doing so because of hostility towards polygamy. Essentially, the church announced that God decided suddenly to declare the practice immoral (the roughly 30,000 surviving polygamists in Utah are members of fundamentalist sects). It occurred again in the 1970s, when society became uneasy about a Mormon doctrine that banned people of colour from the priesthood; again, God authorised a change that opened it up to "all worthy males".

On a spiritual front, Mormons are encouraged to follow a moral code akin to evangelical Christians, who believe abortion, swearing and sex outside of marriage is bad news. The faith is focused around family life and three-hour church services each Sunday are presided over by a lay ministry of male patriarchs. Provided members pray regularly and follow the church's moral code, they expect, after death, to spend eternity in a multi-tiered Heaven, alongside their extended families.

Do Romney and Huntsman buy into this? We must accept that they do. Is that a big deal? Some theologians believe so. A religion which still accepts the possibility of divine inspiration can present conflicts of interest for a head of state. "If you're a mainstream Christian, you can say that you simply believe in the New Testament, God has said all he's going to say. In the LDS, that isn't the case," Kathleen Flake, a professor of US Religious History at Vanderbilt University, said. "They believe the leader of the church today still literally speaks to God."

What would happen, therefore, if a church leader instructed a Mormon president to nuke Iran? In theory, the president would have to push the red button. What might occur if a Mormon president conducted foreign policy according to instincts derived from his faith? On paper, given the church's belief that Jesus visited the Americas, he would set great store by the concept of American exceptionalism. Most pressingly, can a man who belives in the fundamental truth of a Victorian story that revolves around gold-detecting angels and buried treasure do the most important job in the world? In 18 months, we may find out.

Fighting Poverty

If we were half serious about fighting poverty, we would make women the major decision-makers for the family. This is what the research says. I cringe when I read it, but I don't dare contradict it. This does not mean that those who want to keep men in the role of major decision-maker for the family wish to promote poor nutrition, illiteracy and poverty. They are rather promoting the notion that it is more godly to try and change the way men make decisions, than to shift decision-making over to women.

However, microfinance is a powerful tool to shift resources and decision-making for those resources over to women. It can be done. Christianity sometimes changes the way men make decisions, and sometimes it doesn't. It is an iffy proposition.

Here are Kristof and WuDunn on this topic,

WHY DO MICROFINANCE organizations usually focus their assistance on women? And why does everyone benefit when women enter the work force and bring home regular pay checks? One reason involves the dirty little secret of global poverty: some of the most wretched suffering is caused not just by low incomes but also by unwise spending by the poor — especially by men. Surprisingly frequently, we’ve come across a mother mourning a child who has just died of malaria for want of a $5 mosquito bed net; the mother says that the family couldn’t afford a bed net and she means it, but then we find the father at a nearby bar. He goes three evenings a week to the bar, spending $5 each week.

Our interviews and perusal of the data available suggest that the poorest families in the world spend approximately 10 times as much (20 percent of their incomes on average) on a combination of alcohol, prostitution, candy, sugary drinks and lavish feasts as they do on educating their children (2 percent). If poor families spent only as much on educating their children as they do on beer and prostitutes, there would be a breakthrough in the prospects of poor countries. Girls, since they are the ones kept home from school now, would be the biggest beneficiaries. Moreover, one way to reallocate family expenditures in this way is to put more money in the hands of women. A series of studies has found that when women hold assets or gain incomes, family money is more likely to be spent on nutrition, medicine and housing, and consequently children are healthier.

In Ivory Coast, one research project examined the different crops that men and women grow for their private kitties: men grow coffee, cocoa and pineapple, and women grow plantains, bananas, coconuts and vegetables. Some years the “men’s crops” have good harvests and the men are flush with cash, and other years it is the women who prosper. Money is to some extent shared. But even so, the economist Esther Duflo of M.I.T. found that when the men’s crops flourish, the household spends more money on alcohol and tobacco. When the women have a good crop, the households spend more money on food. “When women command greater power, child health and nutrition improves,” Duflo says.

And here is a contrasting message from True Woman,

God never intended for us to have to run it all, ladies. His intent was for us to follow our husband’s lead in willing submission. To be sure, any wise husband will want to utilize his wife’s gifts and strengths for the good of the family, but the role of final decision maker and leader for the family rests with the husband.

Some cultures are more matriarchal; and in these cases wives must work hard to resist that natural inclination to take the ball and run with it. We need to empower our men to lead by encouraging them where we see sparks of leadership potential. And we must work hard not to criticize when their efforts at leading fall short. This can be especially difficult if your husband has never accepted the mantle of leadership before.

One thing I felt strongly from the stories in Kristof and WuDunn's book is that as the women gained power and earned money, their husbands treated them better and gained self-respect at the same time - that is everyone benefitted from empowering women.

It is important that the money be given as a loan requiring investment and control. If the money had simply been donated, the husband could co-opt it.

Biblical Womanhood

I enjoy reading posts from Carolyn, Rachel, and Mary, with their diverse insights into biblical womanhood. It got me thinking about it in more concrete and down to earth terms. What do I think biblical womanhood is?

First and foremost, I think it is caring for others, fulfilling one's God-given and natural responsibility to protect and provide. But first one has to care for oneself, one's own health and well-being in order to do that. So the best part of the past four years has been about getting back on my feet. It's still a struggle some days, but it's okay.

But I blog about that theme quite a bit. Its the overriding theme of this blog. Being a woman means that, like men, we take care of others. And that's another theme - to have more feeling with men rather than in contrast to men.

However, today I was thinking in more concrete terms. What kind of physical activities belong with historic biblical womanhood. And here is a great site to give us insight. It opens,

Work, especially food production, was necessary for survival. No one was exempt. Most of the population worked in their village or on the land around it - even children worked beside their parents in the fields and in the home.

When the grain had been winnowed, it had to be ground to separate the hard outer shell from the flour. In earlier times, and in many small communities, this work was done by women. They ground the grain into a course flour using a pestle and mortar, before preparing the dough and baking it.

For Proverbs 31, it adds,

• keeping herself physically and mentally strong and fit
• giving religious instruction to her children: she was their first teacher
• gathering food and assembling a varied and healthy diet for the members of the household
• administering the finances of the family and overseeing the family business
• buying investment property wisely
• supervising investments then re-investing the profits
• performing charitable work and caring for the poor
• organizing and supervising the tasks of all servants
• overseeing the emotional and physical well-being of all the members of the household
• being available at all times to anyone who needed her.

Women were largely responsible for production of clothing in all stages of manufacture. They
* shared responsibility for tending the animals in the flock
* sorted and carded the wood after the goats and sheep had been shorn
* spun the wool into lengths of fabric
* grew and harvested flax for linen
* dried the flax
* carded and spun the flax into either fine or coarse linen strips (linen produced by the Egyptians could be woven finer than the fabric in a modern handkerchief).
* prepared dyes of various colors. in the flock
* sorted and carded the wood after the goats and sheep had been shorn
* spun the wool into lengths of fabric
* grew and harvested flax for linen
* dried the flax
* carded and spun the flax into either fine or coarse linen strips (linen produced by the Egyptians could be woven finer than the fabric in a modern handkerchief).
* prepared dyes of various colors.

I confess - I was intensely interested in some of these crafts at one time. I was raised to sew all my own clothes, knit, embroider and bake bread, etc. so that was nothing new. But as a young adult, I learned to card wool, spin it, dye it with beautiful lichen-based dyes, knit and weave. I don't have the leisure time for this right now, but I know their appeal.

However, the biblical woman worked in the field, cared for animals, spun, wove and sewed, made tents, pitched tents, folded tents, fed the family and produced goods for trading. Whew.

Co-providers

Here is a comment I recently made on Denny Burk's blog. Of course, I think it is supremely silly to try to raise a child without others knowing its sex, but I can't think that that will last very long! But Denny wrote,

God’s design for us as sexual beings has implications for how we rear our children. For instance, I have a little boy, and it falls to me to teach him how to be a man—how to lead, to provide, and to protect. It is my responsibility as a parent to guide and shape his character as best I can so that he will be a protector of women, not an abuser of them. I am to model for him that sometimes being a man means going without so as to provide for others. I am to teach him that working and earning a living is a part of what it means to be the provider God has called him to be.

And that's great! Amen to that. But women have to earn a living also. Women in the Bible all worked to provide for their families. Much of the time they needed a man, because only men could own property. Not always, but most of the time this was so. However, women always worked. They were shepherds and farmers, spinners and weavers, potters and prophets - women worked to provide for their family.

Anywaaaaay .... I wrote,

I really want to speak to some realities that women my age were not well prepared for. More than half of women my age are the major providers for their own family, both children and parents. This is due to divorce, death, injury, unemployment, illness, financially risky behaviour and many other real life factors.

At the same time, we women, unsupported financially by men, must invest for our own pension, provide major funding for our children’s university education, provide housing for aging parents, create trust funds for severely disabled children, care for spouses and siblings where necessary.

Being able to provide is a major issue, the most important thing we do. We are all on a crash course, back to work, learning to invest wisely, creating the kind of profile that enables us to provide for those we need to care for.

Many recently published books demonstrate that this is an international tendency – women provide.

On the one hand, it is a very necessary message that men need to provide and protect … I applaud that!

On the other hand, the reality is that women also provide and protect in very real ways, they devote every waking hour to providing for their family in the same way that men to, by providing financially and with guidance and leadership for children, parents, etc.

We, women who are primary providers, want men to show an understanding of our common humanity, men recognizing women as fellow providers, as fellow human beings,fully responsible leaders in the family, this is what women want – they just want recognition for what they are already committed to doing.

So, yes, men and women are different. However, we were both created with equal ability to protect, provide and lead.

May we be friends, us men and women. Can't we accept each other as friends and colleagues, as those who share the same worries and concerns, the same burdens for family, for our neighbours, for others around the world. Ideally, yes, there would be a couple, a man and a woman, but if we are not so blessed, let us be content to be friends, not ever excluding each other from intimacy and burden-sharing.

Beautiful for her husband?

Rachel Held Evans, also here, Tim Challies and Mary Kassian have been blogging about whether a biblical woman needs to keep herself outwardly beautiful for her husband. I don't see any reason why we cannot discuss matters of grooming and hygiene on the internet, but I think they are best treated in a more segregated forum. It has the feel of a woman's magazine, and I can hardly think of any way to associate this kind of thing with the Bible.

Rather, a Christian woman thinks of her home and children, and she cares for those less fortunate than herself. If she thinks also of pleasing her husband, that is only a wordly distraction from filling the day with those things that please God.

Kassian writes,

Human sexuality is a parable —a testimony to the character of God and to His spectacular plan of redemption through Jesus. This spiritual truth is so magnificent that God chose to put it on display permanently. Everywhere. Men were created to reflect the strength, love and self-sacrifice of Christ. Women were created to reflect the grace and beauty of the Bride He redeemed.

We need to be clear about this. This kind of theology has no origin in the Bible. In the Bible men and women are both "beautiful." Among those called beautiful are Sarah, Rachel, Joseph, David, Abigail, Abishag, Absalom and his daughter Tamar, and Esther. Also the king of Tyre. Ezekiel 28. The lovers in Song of Solomon call each other beautiful.

In the Bible, men and women are both called strong and mighty. Ruth and the woman of Proverbs 31 are both chayil, that is "mighty." In Proverbs 31 the woman also has strong arms.

But Mary Kassian writes,

I believe that men are “wired” to be attracted to beauty in women because our Heavenly Bridegroom desires the beauty of His Bride.

But the scripture says,

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Proverbs 31:30.

However, there is a spiritual beauty, the beauty of holiness and compassion. This is what makes us desire God.

One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to enquire in his temple. Ps. 27:4.

A proper view of Christian sexuality does not require men to be the lords and redeemers of women, and women to reflect sinful lost souls. On the other hand, a healthy sexuality is one where each partner nurtures the other, and shelters them with their love.

Half the Sky

Half the Sky by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn should be required reading for anyone writing about the role of women. Kristof and WuDunn write about sex slavery, gender violence and injury and death due to child-bearing.

While the authors commend the presence and dedication of those conservative Christians who provide assistance of various kinds to women on an international level, they speak unequivocally for true gender equality. They write,

"Empowerment" is a cliché in the aid community, but it is truly what is needed. The first step toward greater justice is to transform that culture of female docility and subservience, so that women themselves become more assertive and demanding. As we said earlier, that is, of course, easy for outsiders like us to say: We're not the ones who run horrible risks for speaking up. But when a woman does stand up, it is imperative that outsiders champion her, we also must nurture institutions to protect such people. Sometimes we may even need to provide asylum for those whose lives are in danger. More broadly, the single most important way to encourage women and girls to stand up for their rights is education, and we can do far more to promote universal education in poor countries.

Ultimately, women like those in Kasturba Nagar need to join the human rights revolution themselves. They constitute part of the answer to the problem: There will be less trafficking and less rape if more women stop turning the other cheek and begin slapping back. (page 53)

If you don't think that standing up for your own rights is modeled by the apostles in the scripture, then you may have forgotten Acts 22.

The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.

²⁵And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?

²⁶When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman.

²⁷Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea.

²⁸And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

²⁹Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.

³⁰On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.

The Bible is full of women who demanded their rights, women who petitioned judges and kings, women who pleaded with God for a child, who deceived and seduced in order to bear a child. Unfortunately, there are few tales of women resisting violence. There is no story in the Bible of a woman simply refusing to live a life of violence. Or have I missed that?

Women were created to imitate who?

On the CBMW blog Mary Kassian writes,

Human sexuality is a parable -a testimony to the character of God and to His spectacular plan of redemption through Jesus. This spiritual truth is so magnificent that God chose to put it on display permanently. Everywhere. Men were created to reflect the strength, love and self-sacrifice of Christ. Women were created to reflect the grace and beauty of the Bride He redeemed.

We need to understand that men and women are both in equal measure created to reflect strength, love and self-sacrifice. Anyone who does not understand this has misunderstood the most fundamental reality of being human, as well as the significance of believing in humans as created in the image of God. Nothing is more fundamental to human nature than having the strength to care for those we love. This is what it means to be created in the image of God.

While I believe that a sense of grace and beauty, an aesthetic awareness and desire to create beauty is given in equal measure to men and women, I do not believe that the basic daily function of men is impaired if they are not encouraged in this direction. However, women who are taught that they do not have the same potential for strength, love and self-sacrifice, are being mislead in a basic way.

I am so sorry to read these things. I am so sorry that young women are being taught such doctrines. My heart goes out to readers of this teaching. The Bible does not attribute strength or the ability to provide to men over women. This is not to be found in the Bible. On the contrary, in Proverbs 31 we read of the eshet chayil, which literally translated is the "mighty woman." I don't think a literal Bible translation actually exists. It is too bad.

Order of Service for the Royal wedding

Here is the order of service for the Royal wedding. Today, in front of 2 billion people, the natural heir of the King James Bible was read aloud. James Middleton, brother of Kate Middleton, read from Romans 12 in the New Revised Standard Version. From today on the standard has been established that the scriptures addressed brothers and sisters equally. From today on, those who read the word of God, those who hear the word of God, will expect to hear "sisters" along with "brothers."

Perhaps the most beautiful thing about this wedding was the sense of equality and friendship between brothers, between brothers and sisters, between bride and groom. There is perhaps no other phrase which is so evocative of Christian love between members of the opposite sex, as the phrase "brothers and sisters."

But did the Greek scriptures contain that phrase? Yes, they did. The Greek word adelphoi, had already been used to refer to another couple, a couple not blessed with happiness, but a couple who were both brother and sister from birth, and husband and wife (although there is no evidence that this union was consumated.) Cleopatra and Ptolemy were called adelphoi, that is brother and sister.

When the apostle Paul used this word adelphoi, he was using a word that that had the accepted usage of "brothers and sisters." From Saint Paul to the Royal wedding, from adelphoi to "brethren" to "brothers and sisters", the tradition is unbroken.

The Liddell, Scott Lexicon is widely accepted by Bible scholars as the most authoritative lexicon of ancient Greek, including New Testament Greek, and it has recorded the meaning of adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" at least back to 1871. (Previous lexicons were from Greek into Latin.)

a promise to obey the Holy Virgin

Don't take this as some kind of endorsement, but I do think that there was a loss of metaphorical female authority in the Reformation. Martin Luther's vows are described as follows,

"I, brother Martin, profess and promise to obey the Almighty God and the Holy Virgin, and you, brother Winand, prior of this monastery, in the name of the vicar-general of order ... and to live without property and in chastity according to the rule of St. Augustin ... unto death."

From page 136 in Young Man Luther.

David Norton on Pagninus

I have contended for some time, that no translation in the Reformation was "from the original languages." Over the last few years, I have been surprised that so little attention is paid to the two most influential translations which precede the first translation into English not made from the Vulgate. They are Erasmus' Latin translation of the New Testament, and Pagninus' Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible. Most printed Bibles in Greek and Hebrew had a Latin translation as either an interlinear or as a parallel column. Translators into English usually worked from a text which had a Latin translation, usually derived from or influenced by these two translations, Erasmus and Pagninus.

David Nortion who has written The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today wrote,

The Hebrew and Greek were often printed with other versions, notably Latin versions. These were of great use for translators, for Latin was the international vernacular of scholarship. The polyglots, the Complutensian and Plantin’s Antwerp polyglot (1569–72), included other ancient versions with sometimes interlinear Latin translations. Erasmus’s NT had his Latin translation, the Novum Instrumentum, in a parallel column.

Sanctes Pagninus’s extremely literal Latin translation, Veteris et Novi Testamenti nova translatio (1528), was highly influential, not just its literal Latin translation of the OT (other versions superseded its NT), but also because of its extensive use of rabbinic sources. Translators in several languages found their teacher in Pagninus. Coverdale was one such; the Bishops’ Bible translators were instructed to follow Pagninus and Münster ‘for the verity of the Hebrew’, and the KJB drew on Pagninus for some readings.6 Sebastian Münster had published an annotated Latin version of the OT, printed alongside the Hebrew in 1535 which also drew extensively on rabbinic sources. Though his translation did not have the enduring success of Pagninus’s, his annotations were long valued.

The Zurich Latin Bible of 1543 included a new translation of the Apocrypha, and a revised version of Erasmus’s Latin NT. The latest of these influential, annotated, Jewish-influenced Latin OTs was the work of Immanuel Tremellius and his son-in-law Franciscus Junius. It included translations of the OT, the Peshitta NT and the Apocrypha. The main new Latin version of the NT after Erasmus’s was Beza’s (1557); both included annotations and were frequently reprinted.

Presentation often enhanced the value of these versions, for they were usually presented as cribs. Ways of highlighting the connections between the Latin and the original languages were developed. The Complutensian Polyglot tied the words of the NT to the Vulgate by using superscript letters: the reader had only to glance from the Greek in the left column to the Latin in the right to see which word represented which.7 Interlinear texts were even easier to use. After the publication of Pagninus’s translation, 1528, few, perhaps none of the translators would have found themselves working from the original languages alone, aided by nothing more than grammars and dictionaries, and never would they have found themselves working without an already vast knowledge of the text in their heads: most knew the Vulgate intimately.
From the unknown first Hebrew writer to Beza, all these men contributed, directly or indirectly, to the KJB. Many more, especially continental vernacular translators such as Martin Luther and the makers of dictionaries, grammars and concordances, should be added, but this is sufficient to give a sense of the books the English translators worked from.

What Jimmy Carter said

I was in a rush this morning so I did not cite Carter, but here is what he said. It is worth reading the full article. I have not seen an actual transcription of his speech or interview, but this gives a good idea. Here are a few paragraphs. First, he does explicitly mention Christians, not just religion, any religion. He centres out the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. He said,

“In Christian communities, as well, there is gross discrimination against women. Our people at the Carter Center believe that women should be treated equally in the eyes of God and that includes Islam and also Christianity and other religions. But, as you know, [in] the Catholic Church, they practically worship the Virgin Mary, but won’t let a woman be a priest,” he added. ...

“The discrimination against women on a global basis is almost attributable to the declaration by religious leaders in Christianity, Islam and other religions that women are inferior in the eyes of God, and this gives men a right to abuse women, whether it’s the husband beating up his wife or depriving a woman of her basic rights,” he added.

Meanwhile, in his keynote address Carter said his own Southern Baptist Convention leaders ordained, in recent years, that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors, chaplains in the military service, or teachers of men.

He said they based this on a few carefully selected quotations from St. Paul and also the book of Genesis claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin. Carter said this was in conflict with his belief that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

The former president said this view that God considers women to be inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or tradition. Its influence does not stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. Women, he stated, are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths creating an environment in which violations against women are justified.

It is worth pointing out that Carter is explicitly saying that it is the selection of passages which discrminates against women. There are only two verses usually cited to restrict women from ministry. And yet there are many examples of women who are clearly leaders in ministry. There are many verses about treating others as you want to be treated, about esteeming others greater than oneself, about submitting one to another.

This is the point. It is not the Bible per se, or relgion itself, but it is the way the Bible is used. It is the choice that people make to focus on two verses at the expense of other verses, verses which state that both men and women will prophecy, that say both men and women proclaim the good news.

The two verses, 2 Tim. 2:12, and 1 Cor. 14;35 both pose difficulties of interpretation. In the case of the former, the translation has been altered. It used to say that a women may not be the lord of the man, or usurp authority, but now in many recent translations, it says that a woman may not "exercise authority." Who selected this text and changed the translation? That is what Jimmy Carter is talking about.

Jimmy Carter blasts religion

I hereby confess that I read about this on Kurk's blog, and did not link back to him, since I was rushing out to work.

Jimmy Carter has spoken out again. In case some don't understand how he attributes wife abuse to religious leaders, let me cite Bruce Ware on this topic,

The very wise and good plan of God, of male headship, is sought to be overturned as women now, as sinners, want instead to have their way, instead of submitting to their husbands, to do what they would like to do, and seek to work to have their husbands fulfill their will, rather than serving them;

and their husbands on their part, because they are sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is, of course, one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged, or more commonly by becoming passive, acquiescing and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches.

in a sermon at the Denton Bible Church, June 22, 2008. According to Ware, men ought to assert their leadership, and women ought not to challenge this. Otherwise who knows what may happen. Since Ware and others claim women are designed for submission under men, I do think one can say that this implies that women are designed for the inferior position. It has something to do with carrying weight on our hips. But what about women who don't carry weight on their hips? What about men who do?

brothers and sisters

This is from the Liddell Scott Lexicon printed to be used in schools in 1879 in the United States for those preparing to go to university. How is it that so few people actually believe that the first and most literal meaning of adelphoi truly is "brothers and sisters?"

On Women

There have been a myriad of posts about women in the bibliosphere over the last week or so. I have also just finished reading Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and it has lead me to think a lot about what we should be doing in the west in order to foster better circumstances for women in other countries. I found one answer in Daniel Kirk's thoughtful review here and here of Half the Church by Carolyn Custis James.

I had been thinking that perhaps women have it so well in the west that we should just be grateful for what we do have, and concentrate on how one can contribute to improving things for women in other parts of the world. I was thinking that perhaps continuing to fight for equality in the context of the North American church was trivial in comparison to what is going on elsewhere. Perhaps even counter productive. However, Daniel Kirk writes,

As James’ own stories show, failure to ordain women, failure to treat women as equal, is not good news to women. The church in North America will fail to be the champion of justice for women as long as it continues to teach, preach, and embody the very patriarchal system that creates the injustices she has denounced around the world. This book is about the unimpeachable, biblical importance of women–but, I fear, only for the 2/3 world “out there”, not the 1/3 or the 1% who are subjected to the power of patriarchal systems here at home.

So perhaps, on the other hand, it is important to continue to champion equality in the church for women here in North America, as an important factor which can influence equality for women elsewhere. Perhaps, if the church in the west recognizes women as truly equal, rather than uniquely destined for submission, we can rise above Islam in a significant way. I don't want some man in another country saying to his wife "see, even in America, women have to submit."

Craig is offering a giveaway copy of Half the Church. Go here for the rules. I know most of them are impossible for me but have a try.

In the same week, TC has also blogged about women preachers, and Jennifer mentioned her own post on this topic. If you are a woman in ministry, or hoping to be so, this post is for you. I hope that Shirley and Jennifer read each others blogs. No one brings more passion to this topic than Shirley.

At the same time, the issue of female bibliobloggers has come up again. Kurk has blogged about it here, here, here and here. Rod of Alexandria starts a campaign for more women bibliobloggers. I also shake my head in bewilderment as I see my name among the top ten bibliobloggers by vote again. Thank you so much. You know who you.

Why not choose the ESV for your church

If someone were to ask me which translation to use in an evangelical church today, I would suggest either the NRSV or the NIV 2011. I am guessing that the latter version would have more appeal, as the NIV has been for some time a popular choice among evangelicals. However, recently there has been an upswing of interest in the ESV as the more accurate translation. In my view, this is not the case.

The way I see it is that the ESV, like the RSV and the NRSV, has maintained the general style of the King James Bible which is still familiar to and respected by many. Although the ESV has the style of the KJB, it does not communicate gender in an accurate manner. If someone truly wants a Bible in that tradition, I would heartily recommend the NRSV.

However, I am aware that many people would rather have a Bible that is more closely associated with the evangelical community than the NRSV, and the NIV certainly is. So the NIV 2011 is really a perfect choice at this time.

Here are some passages where there is a significant difference in the way gender is treated in the ESV and the NIV2011.

1 Tim. 2:12

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ESV

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. NIV 2011

There are three different ways that this verse has been translated. First, it occurs as the Latin equivalent of "to be the lord of" in the Vulgate, then "usurp authority" in the KJV and now "exercise authority" in the ESV. There is no reason to think that the word had the positive connotation of "to exercise authority" and so the NIV 2011 is closer to the KJV and to the original meaning than the ESV. Women need to have whatever authority is commensurate with their responsibilities in exactly the same way that men do. Neither men nor women should use authority in a negative way, or domineer over the other.

2 Tim. 2:2

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. ESV

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. NIV 2011

The Greek word in this verse translated as "men" is actually anthropos, which means, quite simply, "people" or "human beings." There is no justification at all for the ESV to use the word "men" in English here. This kind of pattern is repeated throughout the ESV, where a word that means "people" is translated as "men." The ESV hides from the reader that the word in Greek means "people."

1 Tim. 5:8

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. ESV

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. NIV 2011

The Greek word which is translated as "anyone" means what it says - anyone. It does not refer to a male only and in the Greek of this passage, there are no masculine pronouns or masculine indicators of any kind. This verse does not refer to men as the providers in the home, but assigns equal responsibility to both men and women. The NIV2011 avoids the misunderstanding often caused by the masculine pronouns of the ESV.

In addition to this, the Greek word adelphoi was translated in the King James Bible as "brethren." However, in Greek this word applied to the brothers and sisters in one family. In reality the word always has meant "brothers and sisters." This is a more accurate translation of the Greek.

Romans 16:7

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. ESV

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. NIV 2011

There is no evidence to suggest that Junia was not an apostle. It is better to stick with the historic understanding in both the Latin Vulgate and in the King James Bible, that Junia was an apostle.

May I commend to you the NIV 2011 or the NRSV, and gender inclusive Bibles in general, which do, in fact, reflect the Greek of the original in a better fashion than our traditional Bibles do.

Blogging heaven and hell: 8

Mike blogged about Robin Parry's book The Evangelical Universalist and mentioned a couple of his main points. However, I feel that a few more could be touched on. Parry makes several claims. One is that scripture passages disagree - we have scriptures on both sides of this debate. It is simply a matter of which verses one decides to give priority too. Parry argues that four key texts teach universal salvation.

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. Rom 5:18

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22

and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Col. 1:20

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil. 2:11

Parry goes on to argue that these texts do not disagree with the teaching of the Bible on judgement and hell, if we understand that hell does not last for ever. Judgement is corrective and restorative, rather than eternal and destructive. Parry acknowledges that it is retributive, but comments that it is both retributive and restorative at the same time. One example of this would be in 1 Tim. 1,

Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

Justice is both being handed over to Satan and it is corrective. A similar but clearer statement is made in 1 Cor. 5:5,

hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Second, Parry argues that God's justice must accord with our sense of justice. Here I divert from Parry and explain in my own words what I think he is saying.

We must think of God as a moral and ethical being. If we saw someone doing something that would lead to their death, we would forcibly prevent them from doing this action. We would forcibly prevent someone from committing suicide if we could. How much more then should God forcibly prevent us from doing something that would send us to an eternity of torment.

We would not stand by and watch our own children commit suicide and simply say that they had chosen it. If we cannot pattern our most loving and ethical relations after our sense of who God is, then of what value is our understanding of God.

So for Parry, universal salvation along with a consuming and corrective judgement for sin, best suits the scriptures and best meets what we understand the Bible to be telling us who God is.

The last point for Parry is that universal salvation best fits the metanarrative of the Bible. He sees the Bible as being composed of three central narratives. The first is the fall of humanity from immortality, the second is the exile of Israel, third is the death of Christ. Christ rises from the dead, Israel is restored o the land and humanity is saved from eternal death.

I would add to this that a strong argument for universal salvation is that in the Hebrew Bible there is no direct teaching of eternal conscious torment. If in fact, Old Testament sinners were punished with eternal conscious torment, it would have been without being warned of their fate. It appears that they were simply told that they would be destroyed.

So my question is whether Christ came to bring salvation to the few and eternal conscious torment to the many, or if he came in order that all may be saved.

I have a strong concern that this is a matter of exegetical stalemate, and I regret to see evangelicals presented with the notion that only one side of this debate is valid and tenable. I am personally agnostic on this issue, but I was impressed by the passages that Parry presented and the coherence of his argument.

Blogging heaven and hell: 7

Although it seems that this topic will tear us apart, will cause one half of us to excommunicate the other half, it is not so. There is also a drawing together, a communal recognition of what it means to be human.

As humans, we do not know what happens after death, and as humans we have pity for those whose life on earth is utterly devoid of comfort. We are constrained on the one hand by our own ignorance, and and on the other hand by pity for those in misery, for victims of the tsunami, victims of poverty and disease.

Dave Ker writes,

Making confident assertions about the afterlife is the ignorant declaiming on the unknowable. We might hope things are a certain way, or fear they’re another but at the end of the day we stand on the wrong side of the wall trying to describe the scenery on the other side based on what we can see around us.

That’s why we need to think seldom, and speak even less, on the subject of hell. Or Sheol. Or Gehenna. Or Abraham’s bosom. Or Paradise. Or Makarios.

Later he paints this picture, evoking both our compassion and ignorance,

A woman sits on a filthy grass mat in a dark and smoky hut. She is wailing because her child has died. Ants swarm beneath the mat and she keeps brushing them off the rag that she has wrapped around her. The husband is gone. He comes back only often enough to take any money she might have earned and beat her. He infects her with AIDS during the visit. Soon she will die too. Her body will probably be wrapped in that same tattered and filthy mat and carried to the burial grounds. From the time she was a child to her death in misery she has carried wood, carried water, squatted by a stinking fire, been sexually assaulted as a child, never touched a pillow, or a bar of scented soap. She’s haunted by fears of the night. Or witchdoctors. Of evil spirits. Of curses and wild animals. My question is this: could hell be worse? When she died and found herself in a place of torment would it be that much different from her short life of misery? She has not called on the name of the Lord. She has not said the sinner’s prayer. She has not believed on the one whom she has not heard. She’s doomed. And she is not alone. This planet groans with billions like her.

Bob writes,

I do think there is everlasting fire. The hope is a marvel. But the fire is one as God is one. There is not a fire of wrath in hot red darkness and a second fire of love too bright to look upon, but a single consuming fire and non-consuming fire that is one love. How that love works out in our lives is a complex and inexplicable thing that perhaps can only be known, like the white stone, by the one to whom it is given. This is a gift of a name worth having.

So we should preach heaven and hell but not in a trivial linear
fashion. There is a place where they meet - in the death of Jesus. The fire is a consuming fire and also a fire of recreation too bright to see at once but inviting a face to face engagement. A human's mind should be better than 'its own place that makes a hell of heaven and a heaven of hell'. A single self presented as a living offering will find it becomes proven, informed, inflamed,
by the prayer of the Spirit who gives life to a mortal body. This is prayer worth being known in.

Kurk and Rod blog about the famous sermon by Jonathon Edwards, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" --

Blogging heaven and hell: 6

There have been a series of posts on Rob Bell on Denny's blog, on Jesus Creed and on many other blogs. I have also read with fascination Tim Keller's views on hell. And Kurk responds here.

But I want to add that in a coercive church atmosphere, the men suffer much more than the women, concerning beliefs and doctrines. A woman is silent, and sheltered in many ways. If her husband allows her to be queen to his king, in the home, then she is safe. But the husband has to have a doctrinal position in the church. He is subject to spiritual abuse. I have to admit that I find hell an equal opportunity weapon, and men suffer from it just the same as women. But the exegesis is different. I know how exegesis sends women to hell. I know how exegetes send women to hell. I am not so sure about the men.

It has been fascinating to watch how grown men, who should have other things to do on a Saturday night, stick handle women into hell, with a few clever passes. But some of us got the slap shot. Then there some players who were caught for high sticking. And the pious referees, were happy to hand out penalties but they never ever took a puck and said to that puck, you are a human also, you deserve to be a player.

But it seem to me that it is by a different and more varied process, that many men are also stick handled into hell. They don't play by the rules, that's it. Woe to them also. They start out as potential players, which women never are, they are the pucks. But the men, they start out as players, and them some of them find they can't stomach the rules, and they are demoted.

So, I won't claim that women are unique in their suffering.

Blogging heaven and hell: 5

I used to hear when I was young that it couldn't hurt to preach hell. This is how it went. You tell someone that the consequence of doing something wrong, is spending eternity in hell. You tell people that if they accept Christ as Saviour and believe the Bible is the word of God, they will not go to hell. So now, how can that hurt. You have won someone to Christ and it doesn't really matter if hell exists or not. They are better off as a Christian in this life anyway.

So that was the theory. But I don't actually know anyone other than us kids, that is I don't know any adults, who became Christians because they were afraid of hell.

But I do know that hell had an enormous effect on my life nonetheless. And here is how. I remember being told on more than one occasion, "If you don't believe that a wife has to obey her husband, then you don't believe in the Bible, and you will go to hell."

On the one hand, I had a normal brain, and should have been able to shrug this one off. On the other hand, the belief in hell is very powerful, ingrained into us as young children, it is a significant weapon of coercion. We can see already by the comments that the concept of hell has an enormous hold over people.

And for me, the fear of hell, had a power for wrong in my life. So finally, I just decided that I had to be strong enough to brave hell. I had to stand up to hell and face it, and deny the coercion of hell. Hell, get thee behind me, and all that.

Suppose that someone is told they must do something or they will go to hell, and that something that they feel they must do destroys all chances of them having a normal healthy life on earth. Then suppose there is no hell. They have been cheated out of a normal life and have gained absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, there are many priests and pastors, going happily to heaven, who are pedophiles and rapists. So why would anyone else want to be in heaven anyway? We have enough of that here.

But you say, a univeralist believes that rapists and pedophiles will be in heaven anyway. Well, to tell you the truth, I don't know how heaven will be organized. I do know that even if there were a hell, it is not my business to decide who goes there. Or who goes to heaven. But judging from the thoelogians I know, I really don't want a part of their heaven.

So, simply put, there is very little that I have been told about heaven or hell, that makes any kind of sense to me. I am happy not to have a doctrinal position on this, as long as nobody is coerced into doing something inherently unhealthy out of fear of hell.

My only point is that I suspect very much that there is an exegetical stalemate about whether hell is a real place or a metaphorical state. That would be my best guess, and if that is true then a wide range of beliefs on hell should be welcome within evangelicalism.

Blogging heaven and hell: 4

In the tail of the comet of blogposts on Rob Bell, Mike has recommended what he considers to be a better read. I can't be the judge of that, but this one is available to me in the local library. The Evangelical Universalist was written by Robin Parry, but he published it under the name of Gregory Macdonald.

The issue at stake is not actually whether universalism rather than traditional theology is true, but rather, whether universalism can be brought under the umbrella of evangelicalism. Can this be treated as an intramural debate or not?

I contend that it can. At first, I had some doubts, but I am convinced that there is an exegetical case to be made for universalism. It can be derived from the text. For starters, the Hebrew Bible lends itself to the interpretation that there is no afterlife. The Christian scriptures introduce the notion of the resurrection, although this was already present in writings from the preceding two or three centuries. The question, then, is whether Christ not only offers eternal life for his own, but if he also threatens hell, a fate which was unknown in the Hebrew Bible, for those who reject him, or who have never heard of him.

I am sure that we could argue this forever, and it is not something that I expect to resolve. However, I would like to share with you this quote by Robin Parry, page 35,

If a traditional interpretation of a passage and a universalist one reach hermeneutical stalemate, then reason would lead us to prefer the universalist interpretation.

I could also offer this parallel statement,

If a traditional intepretation of a passage and an abilitionist one reach hermeneutical stalemant, then pity would compel us to prefer the abolitionist one.

But I can hear you answer back, not at all. In the case of the abolition of slavery, we live with the results. However, in the case of universalism, we don't know if we are condemning some to hell because we have failed to preach hell.

On the other hand, I argue back, the threat of hell keeps many people in painful and unhappy circemstance that they might otherwise escape. Whether hell exists or not, the threat of hell can cause a lot of suffering in this life.

I was raised to believe that the unversalist was the same as an atheist, but I argue now that it is not.

around the bibliosphere on women

There have been quite a few posts on women in ministry lately. Michael Kruse offers this great video on Junia.

Out of Ur had a series recently and Daniel Kirk blogged about it here. Joel wrote about women and the scriptures and Kurk picked that up and expanded on it - but I can't find that post. Kurk is back to prolific blogging. I need to head off and read his latest.

Blogging heaven and hell: 3

There have been some great contributions to this discussion - my thanks to commenters, etc. Here goes. Bob McDonald has blogged on Psalm 21. This passage provides a counterpoint to my blogging about the watery "deeps,"

When you appear for battle,
you will burn them up as in a blazing furnace.
The LORD will swallow them up in his wrath,
and his fire will consume them.

Read Bob's translation and post on this passage here. To me, it appears that both floodwaters and fire are metaphors for destruction, in the same way that living water and flames of fire are metaphors for life.

Kurk comments,

For a (Jewish) translator of the Greek New Testament such as Willis Barnstone, the changes in meaning are significant. Barnstone, for example, translates Matthew 16:18 as follows:

And I tell you that you are Kefa the rock
And upon this rock I will build my church,*
And the gates of Gei Hinnom will not overpower it.

*Here's Barnstone's footnote:

The Greek words ἐκκλησία (ekklesia) and συναγωγή (synagogue) mean an “assembly,” “gathering,” or “congregation,” and both words can refer to “synagogue.” However, ekklesia (except in the Septuagint Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) is normally translated church, while synagogue is the common word for “synagogue.” Here, in Yeshua’s prophecy, the intentional futurity of “I will build my church” is contrasted with the old Jewish tradition represented by Gei Hinnom, [in this context] the Hebrew word for “hell.” Yeshua’s dramatic message is that he will build on a rock the new church that will overcome the old synagogue, and that Christian heaven will overcome Jewish hell. In his lifetime there was no Christian church, and Yeshua preached in the synagogues. For the observant Jew to say that he would “build a church” is an anachronism, revealing not his voice but that of churchmen many decades later when a Christian church as a building and institution did exist. The superimposition of later terminology, theology, and history on the figures of Yeshua and his followers remains the essential dilemma of the New Testament.

Mike makes an excellent recommendation of the book The Evangelical Universalist. I have been reading through The History of Hell on google books. The section on univeralism starts around page 233. Eric recommended The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds, by Alan E. Bernstein. There is a video from Out of Ur, and a very meticulous series by Randy Olds on Hell.

Blogging heaven and hell: 2

I can tell already that this could be my longest blog series ever, and one I may never get to the bottom of. I invite other bloggers to enter into the spirit of this series. I want to supplement the theological discussion of heaven and hell with some old fashioned references to the text, word studies, one might say, but organized loosely around the theme of death in the Hebrew Bible.

I hope that anyone who is interested would join in. This is not a doctrinal study and if we don't come up with a payoff or a doctrinal product at the end of this, I can live with that. But I have noticed that Peter and Kurk are back blogging, so I hope they will join in, and put their formidable language skills to work on this.

I have become convinced reading through the Psalms and other passages in the last few days, that the afterlife was far from fiery for the ancient Hebrews, but was rather dark and watery. While "springs" of water are life-giving, the "depths" are death and destruction.

מְצוּלָה

Deliver me out of the mire,
and let me not sink;
let me be delivered from them that hate me,
and out of the deep waters.

Let not the waterflood overwhelm me,
neither let the deep swallow me up;
and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me.
Psalm 69:15-16

For Thou didst cast me into the depth,
in the heart of the seas,
and the flood was round about me;
all Thy waves and Thy billows passed over me.
Jonah 2:3

מְצֹלוֹת

Thou hast laid me in the nethermost pit,
in dark places, in the deeps
Psalm 88:6

He will again have compassion upon us;
He will subdue our iniquities;
and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
Micah 7:19

Blogging heaven and hell

I can think of no better topic than the one that is on the tip of everyone's fingers. Is there a hell, a place of eternal, conscious torment? Or can we say with Rob Bell that "Love Wins?" And I am not suggesting that there are not a dozen ways to nuance the question. Probably the best place to follow the standard evangelical response is on Justin Tayor's blog.

I don't imagine entertaining the debate here, but I was curious about the biblical basis for the belief in a traditional hell. Three posts on Mike's blog seem like as good a place as any to look for heaven and hell in the Hebrew Bible. I hope to look at the Septuagint and Christian scriptures later.

Mike introduces the topic here, and discusses first the possibility of an eternal paradise for the righteous, and a fiery afterlife for the wicked. I found Mike's posts very informative overall and I would like to return to them. But for now I wanted to see if there was only a fiery hell or also a watery hell. Here are his thoughts on hellfire in the Hebrew Bible,

What about the element of fiery punishment? Well, if the above holds true, that wouldn’t be viewed as any sort of reward. There is also fire in Sheol according to Prov. 30:16. Job 31:12 *may* suggest there is fire in Sheol (cf. Abaddon in Job 26:6). (See also Psalm 140:8-10). Granted, we do not have descriptions of sinners being burned in torment, but the essential elements are there. I think it is fair to say that the kernel elements of the fiery hell of the NT and Second Temple Judaism are present in the OT.

I started this post before the tsunami, but I was already thinking of the waters of death. Water, just as much as fire, is hell on earth. If some verses suggest a fiery afterlife, then others refer to a wave or flood.

For my soul is full of troubles,
and my life draws near to Sheol.
I am counted among those who go down to the Pit;
I am like those who have no help,
like those forsaken among the dead,
like the slain that lie in the grave,
like those whom you remember no more
for they are cut off from your hand.
You have put me in the depths of the Pit,
in the regions dark and deep.
Your wrath lies heavy upon me,
and you overwhelm me with all your waves.
Selah

Your wrath has swept over me;
your dread assaults destroy me.
They surround me like a flood all day long;
from all sides they close in on me.
Psalm 88

Therefore snares are around you,
and sudden terror overwhelms you,
or darkness so that you cannot see;
a flood of water covers you.
Job 22

Those who were my enemies without cause
have hunted me like a bird;
they flung me alive into a pit
and hurled stones on me;
⁵⁴ water closed over my head;
I said, ‘I am lost.’
Lamentation 3

Why worry about "hell" when death is with us, death brought by water and flood, as well as by fire.

No women Bible scholars?

Apparently, according to the ESV Study Bible, there are no women qualified to write commentary on the Bible. This came up in a comment on my post a couple of days ago. Marg has taken up this point in her own post. I also found her story of moving towards biblical equality to be very compelling - and amusing. Thank you, Marg.

International Women's Day

In keeping with today, I offer the amazing journey of Seminary Mom, a long list of links from Cheese Wearing Theology, the very popular Rachel Held Evans, a new blog Women in Theology, an old friend Jane Stranz, the well-known make feminist Hugo Schwyzer, and the eclectic Political Jesus.

From Kurk Gayle, "some history out of Toronto, Montreal, and back to Vancouver."

And I have also read about Sisters in Service on Kassian's blog.

The biggest question on my mind in regard to women in the world today, is whether the subordination of women in a particular Christian sub-culture in the west, has a negative spin-off effect for women in other countries. Or is it possible that feminism has an equally negative effect? If declaring that women should have equal participation in decision-making is not a positive thing for women, why is it an integral part of World Vision's policy?

So this is what I am wondering. Does it matter on a global scale whether or not Christians in North America consider women as equal participants in decision-making?

Eugene Peterson on women preaching

TC has posted a rather nice quote from Eugene Peterson, on his mother's preaching style.

Then she would preach. She was a wonderful storyteller, telling stories out of scripture and out of life. She elaborated and embellished the stories. Later in life when I was reading the Bible for myself, I was frequently surprised by glaring omissions in the text. The Holy Spirit left out some of the best parts. Occasionally she would slip into an incantatory style that I have heard since only in African American churches, catching a phrase at its crest, riding it like a surfer gathering momentum, and the receding into a quiet hush. The Pastor: A Memoir, p. 29

I remember listening to an audio file of a Regent forum with Peterson, Fee, Waltke, and Packer on women in ministry some time ago, but I don't think it is available now. However, I have found an interview of Sandra Glahn with Peterson which suggests that his mother did go back to preaching after being silenced by a man citing 1 Tim 2:12 to her.

I grew up in the Pentecostal church where [women preaching] was not unusual. It was pretty common. But my mother struggled with it from time to time because sometimes somebody would come through and read her the verses from Corinthians or Timothy. At one point she quit preaching and teaching because somebody had done this to her. But then she just couldn’t quit. And she told me once, “I don’t feel disobedient when I’m doing this. I don’t feel like I’m grieving the Spirit. It’s when I’m quiet and silent and shut up that I feel like that.” So I don’t know. I have colleagues who are world-class exegetes. Some affirm equality of women in ministry and others don’t. They’re all master exegetes; they’re all working with the same text. So I have a lot of respect for these people in their attempt, their determination, to honor the Word. I can certainly respect them. For some, at least the ones I know, it comes out of no sense of male chauvinism or superiority or ego, but an honest attempt to honor the Word of God. I know not everybody comes out of this, but some do and I honor that. Yet my personal experience is so different, and the shaping of my life has been so different. I could read these verses I think just as accurately exegetically. So I guess it’s one of the things we’re involved with in [this] century that’s different.

Blogs I enjoy

I was unaware that there was a top ten list of biblioblogs by vote, but when I saw the list, I had to agree that among them were blogs that I read regularly. There is a somewhat artificial bounaary around what is a biblioblog and what isn't and some of the most popular blogs don't show on this list. For example, Jesus Creed, is a major force in the blogworld, and probably just taken for granted. I do read it but I prefer James McGrath's blog, which is very open to a wide variety of Christian experience. And lately I have been reading Rachel Held Evans. These are all blogs with a wide appeal. I hope you find something to enjoy. Daniel Kirk has a good post on the women in ministry topic, with a thoughtful thread.

I have taken up a new topic in my reading, on tenderness, more about how I got to that later. But a quote for the day is the following,

Tenderness, far from being a sign of weakness, is a touchstone of transformation and the gateway to it. Toughness, on the other hand, is a symptom of stagnation, of having to pay more and more to stay the same.

Harold C. Lyon.

There may be just as much to disagree with as to agree with in this short citation, but at least it is taking me into a conversation I want to have. I would argue that we all need both toughness and tenderness, but one without the other is not worth having.

An alternate view of complementarity

"A closely related framework that provides a guide for the effective use of tenderness is the principle of complementarity embodied in the concepts of yin and yang. Yang, with its aggressive, controlling character, or yin with its soft, yielding character may appear in either analyst or analysand. When the analyst comes to recognize the analysand in a state of yang, the analyst's unexpected move into yin may destabilize the analysand and overcome resistance.

This principle of complementarity allows the analyst to avoid the trap of over-reaction or counter-reaction and to retain or restore a balance within. An analysand whose energy has been expended in yang may be drawn easily into yin by the softness or gentleness of the analyst. ... At that moment, the analyst follows through with the focus and concentration of the hard interpretation that represents the return to yang for the acquisition of insight and consolidation of new learning.

In the ongoing, dynamic process of analysis, the analyst's deepest aim is to restore the patient's flow, complementarity, and harmony. In time this allows the analysand to regain contact with the central self, to heal the split between hard and soft, and become a resilient adult, grounded and living in the present. For those whose life experiences have created hard, tough exteriors, it is the analyst's tenderness that allows the experience of softness to re-emerge and fosters the integration of the elements."

Taboo or not Taboo

scattered thoughts

Here is a response to the concerted effort on the part of some to get me to understand that complementarianism should be tolerated. Yes, I want to play in the treehouse, ... and then sometimes I forget that there is a treehouse.

Rod writes an exemplary post on Rob Bell and weaves it into other issues. I appreciate the depth of this post.

And back to something that came up on Mike's blog. Are women just whiners? Clearly I think not, and resent women being called that. On the other hand, to be perfectly honest, I do not feel that I am worse off than all the men in the blogosphere. Not at all. I am only worse off in one characteristic, which unfortunately had some serious consequences.

But in other ways, I live a life of privilege. I have a job, and I received a decent education. I was raised in a stable and happy family. These are huge advantages. I am grateful for these things, and my spare time, my extracurricular effort in life, goes not to biblical studies, but to staying in school after the bell and being available to tutor those who come for extra help in reading. That is my delight, my gift back to others.

This blog, on the other hand, is a place to come when my therapy piggy bank is empty and I need to rant.