Jots & Tittles

24 November 2011 | Donna Haerich

| 41

In Matthew 5, Jesus talks of the importance of little things, things as small as the dot over an i. Lynne Truss in her 2004 best seller makes the same point in the title of her book,” Eats, Shoots and Leaves”. Is this a statement about a murderous dinner guest? Or, sans comma, could it describe the diet of a panda?

Those English majors among us could probably call up many sentences that can be altered by the use of a simple punctuation mark, such as the statement: “A woman without her man is nothing.” With the addition of a couple of punctuation marks, it has the opposite meaning. “A woman: without her, man is nothing.”

As Adventist we are familiar with the importance of the lowly comma in Luke 23:43. Should it be “Verily I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise” or “Verily I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise.” One statement indicates the thief would join Jesus in heaven that very day. With the comma moved, the assurance remains, but the timing is changed. When we point this out to people, we educate them as to the lack of punctuation marks in the early Greek manuscripts.

I would like to suggest that the addition of a couple of punctuation marks in chapter 14 in the book of 1 Corinthians would not only solve a sticky feminist dilemma, it would give clarity and sense to the entire passage. In addition it would vindicate Paul as a great defender and supporter of the role of women in the church. Because of the lack of punctuation in this passage, the apostle has often been given the totally undeserved reputation of not being a friend of women when in fact the opposite is true.

The writings of Paul are often seen as portraying a negative view of women. His writings have been used by the church fathers to support the view that women are to be in subjection to men and that this is according to the will of God. True, he was born in the first century A.D. when the prevailing Jewish culture was that women were legally minors and not expected to participate in life outside the home.

But Paul did have certain things going in his behalf. He was not born or raised in Palestine. Although his mother was a Jew, his father was a Roman citizen and he was raised in the Roman city of Tarsus. As a youth, he would have had the benefit of open association with women. As citizens, Roman women, unlike their Greek and Palestine counterparts did associate openly with men and were included in social gatherings.

And while Paul insists that his theology was formed by many years spent alone in the desert in personal study of the Hebrew Scriptures, he was acculturated into the Christian faith by those who had seen and known Jesus personally.

The New Testament has many passages that indicate Paul was very comfortable in the presence of women. He enjoyed their company and he respected and treated them as equals. Paul had a close and endearing friendship with Pricilla and her husband, living with and working alongside them, mentioning her name first in his correspondence.

After their first meeting in Corinth, the couple accompanied Paul for a time, finally settling down in Ephesus. While there a man named Apollos arrived from Alexandria, Egypt. He is described as eloquent, well- versed in Scriptures and an enthusiastic preacher. It was Pricilla and her husband who took him aside and instructed him more fully in the Way of God. From Ephesus, it appears the couple returned to Rome and planted a church there . Paul acknowledges their work in Romans 16 saying, “Greet Pricilla and Aquila, who worked with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life. Greet also the church that meets in their house.” (Romans 16:3-5)

The book of Romans was carried to Rome by another woman friend of Paul – Phoebe. “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a minister of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you. She has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.” (Romans 16:1.2)

In this chapter he mentions other women he respected as church workers such as Mary, Tryhanea and Tryhosa. Junia, he acknowledges as an apostle, meaning that she had known the risen Lord and been commissioned by him. From her, Paul no doubt leaned of Jesus’ attitude and behavior toward women first hand.

In Acts 16, Paul arrives in the city of Phillipi and when Sabbath came he went “outside the gate by the river, where we supposed there was a place of prayer; there we sat down and spoke to the women who had gathered there.” (verse 13 ) Openly and in public Paul carried on a conversation with the women. It is there he meets Lydia, a tradeswoman from the city of Thyatira. She is obviously quite well to do and is not dependent on a husband. “The Lord opened her heart to listen eagerly to what was said by Paul.” (verse 14) And when she and her household were baptized, she invited Paul and his group to stay in her home during his visit there. An educated, wealthy woman would not have time for a biased and prejudiced Jewish man.

In the book of Galatians, one of Paul’s earliest writings, he makes this foundational statement: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

I believe that most of the “texts” that are used negatively toward women are the result of years of misinterpretation by the generations after Paul who reverted to patriarchical behavior and brought hierarchical systems of government (Babylon) into the church. While most of the problem texts can be resolved by context and careful exegesis, one text especially is easily resolved simply by punctuation alone.

Paul in responding to a letter sent to him from the church in Corinth begins chapter seven by saying: “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote.” (Cor. 7:1) In the Revised Standard Version, the next sentence is placed in quotation marks, indicating that it is one of the questions being posed to him: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” Paul refutes this erroneous thinking by affirming marriage, even going so far as to say, that married women have conjugal rights, and decisions concerning sexual activity are to be shared equally. (Cor. 7:4)

One by one Paul takes up the questions the church has asked in their letter to him. In chapter 11 the question is raised: should women wear a veil when they are publicly praying and preaching? Paul says woman’s hair itself is a covering, but he knows of no such custom in other churches, so leaves it up to them to make up their own minds. But the question itself presupposes that women are speaking out in church services. When asked about speaking in tongues, the question again assumes that both men and women are publically praying and preaching. In fact Paul wishes that all would prophesy as this activity builds up the church. “For you can all prophesy one by one so that all may learn and all be encouraged.”(1 Cor. 14:31)

Now we come to the “problem text.” The larger context is that the apostle Paul is supportive of the work of women in general and approves their vocations as church workers and ministers. The immediate context is that Paul is aware of and approving of women praying and prophesying in church. The internal context of the “problem text” indicates that this obviously is a quotation from the letter Paul has received as there is an appeal to “the law” for authority. Finally by using quotation marks around the two verses, 34 and 35, the subsequent verse 36 now makes logical sense.

Quoting from the letter sent to Paul, 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35 records, “Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

Paul then responds to this question in an explosive manner reminiscent of his response to Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship at Galatia. “WHAT!?!? “ Paul says incredulously. “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” Paul is aghast that they would even raise the question. Paul then goes on to affirm that ANYONE who claims to be a prophet or have spiritual power – Anyone – be they male or female – should acknowledge his counsel. Bottom line: “Be eager to prophesy, do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order.”

Graeme E Sharrock - Thu, 11/24/2011 - 10:19

Hi Donna

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family, and the many mothers who are cooking, cleaning and entertaining family and friends!

Karen Ritz - Thu, 11/24/2011 - 11:34

Excellent Donna! Your articles are always so insightful. Thank you!

Bbbazusa - Thu, 11/24/2011 - 12:48

The Winning Side
--------------------
Donna:

1. Good article.

2. No doubt the same miserable, dogmatic, bigoted crowd will hurl the same dogmatic 'my' truth at you and women.

3. I am not presenting any texts here.

4. I am speaking as one who lives in the world and works with people as in REAL people.

5. Jan Paulsen was my teacher. He is not a Jesuit. And the thick heads who say he went to Tubingen
and hobnobbed with Ratzinger in 'that Catholic place' are just plain thick. Paulsen was in the
Protestant faculty. Duuuuuh.

7. Jan Paulsen is a theologian. Ted Wilson's PhD is in a business plan for outpost ministry.

8. Jan Paulsen says he sees no Biblical reason not to ordain women. Of course because he can actually read and think even in Greek he will be labelled all sorts of things by people who just don't know.

9. Some of the people I see daily are really dim. BUT they are not stupid. They are quiet but move away when the Truth brigade show up.. That is why Ted Wilson has to send his Great Controversies in the
mail, as no one would open the door for him.

10. Donna, YOU ARE ON THE WINNING SIDE. I am male. I love nice women. I love smart women. I love women with class. Especially if they are smarter than me.

So do not be fobbed of by those nitwits who will deny you your birthright. I guarantee you. You are on the winning side.

Pax et Bonum

Edgar

'I am NOT a Jesuit'

odysseusonthestyx - Thu, 11/24/2011 - 16:53

Hear, hear!

I think another part of the problem is the addition of headings, chapter and verse markings... so many times I find marking in places that break the flow, or, change the flow of the books because the locations have been chosen so poorly! Instead of breaking at logical idea points they've lumped together thoughts that completely change our perception of what the author was getting at!

I find it interesting that "the law" comes up in 1 Corinthians 14 after all of Paul's comments about "the law" in his earlier writings, particularly Galatians, and his admonishment that those who try to keep the old law are bound by the whole... which makes me wonder if you aren't right Donna! I know people change their minds over time, I certainly have, but it would seem strange that someone who so fully understood God's Grace and the role of Christ in salvation would then turn around and say that something must be done because of "the law"!

Michaela - Thu, 11/24/2011 - 16:54

Donna - I hadn't even thought of the points you have raised. Sometimes the clearest answers are simple and staring us in the face. You point makes huge sense. Wow! You have made a major part of this letter of Paul's make great sense to me. Not just the bit about women. I'd love to learn more from you. Thanks.

Michael - Thu, 11/24/2011 - 22:10

Paul acknowledges their work in Romans 16 saying, “Greet Pricilla and Aquila, who worked with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked their necks for my life. Greet also the church that meets in their house.” (Romans 16:3-5)

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a minister of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you. She has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.” (Romans 16:1.2)
How were they able to do all that without being ordained?
Or perhaps you can show where Pricilla and Aquila or Phoebe were ordained?

The fact is they were best titled lay leaders.
Perhaps the lesson you should be learning is that title paid no part in their work for Christ.

Short of that if the argument is based on the techniques of writing only then I must point out a few things that are missed.
The first is that Donnas suggestion was as she suggests it would have been prefaced.
The preface would have been something like this;
You have heard it said, "Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

But that is NOT the case. If Paul was emphasizing the point in the way Donna suggests he would have prefaced it not only because of the common usage but also because of the stronger impact it made.
The easiest example would be Christ in the sermon on the mount when he used that turn of phrase no less than 6 times in 23 verses! 6 times from verse 21 to 43.
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder.....
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully .................
31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’.......
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.....
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist ......
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you........

The second point is one of context.. Paul starts in verse 1 talking about the particulars of speaking in tongues. When its useful, when its not. How to tell when it is fake. What worth speaking in tongues is compared to prophesying. He continues on about what new believers will see and think if they were to come in a room and see everyone blathering away and he is concerned about it.
The entire context of the passage is about orderliness, not women's ordination. We have all heard the passages about how God is a God of order and Paul is making this point in how it pertains to worship.
So he gives parameters on how and why speaking in tongues be done. He lays it out and in verse 33 he refers to why this is done. 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. He finishes the part about speaking in tongues and using verse 33 as the referencing transition for the next part begins to speak on the subject of women still under the heading of orderly worship just like he spoke on speaking in tongues.
When Paul completes his instruction he says, 36 Or did the word of God originate with you?

This serves two purposes. First it places their wandering from his instructions in the light that they had no standing to deviate according to their own sensibilities. He was saying Who is learning from whom?
He drives home the point by saying 37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.

Not only does this let them know in no uncertain terms who is giving the instruction to whom but it nails the terms of his input on both speaking in tongues and women in the context that these instructions were the lords command. (37)

Michael

Larry Geraty - Thu, 11/24/2011 - 23:47

Thanks, Donna, for this very sensible, helpful reading. The church is in your debt for putting your exegetical skills to work! Keep it up!

Illuvutar - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 04:11

This is amazing, the world is spiraling towards the next World War, and the self proclaimed remnant last day church is sitting around arguing over a woman's role lol

Martina - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 04:45

Adventism is generally happy to play ridiculous in house wars and games while big issues are facing the world. If we disappeared hardly any one would notice or would care - except for the hospitals. Basically our church thinks its the most relevant, but it is in warped delusion.

Jared Wright - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 14:35

A helpful perspective on Paul is articulated by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg in The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary behind the Church's Conservative Icon.

In it, they posit three Pauls--First, the Real Paul, the Radical Paul. The Paul of the genuine Pauline texts who preached radical inclusivity and freedom. The Second Paul, the Conservative Paul, they suggest, is the work of the Pauline community some time after Paul's death that tamped down Paul's radicalism with a message of obeying masters, submitting, etc. The third Paul is the Paul of the Pastorals--the reactionary or Anti-Paul who called for women to be silent and to submit.

Their project is to reclaim the real, radical Paul as distinct from the inauthentic letters written in Paul's name to neutralize or dilute his radical message.

settembrini - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 15:38

Come on, Donna, you can't turn Paul into a feminist with this unimaginative and childish sophistry.

Scripture consistently assigns a subordinate role to women in worship and in family life. The startling but clear theological reason is simply this: the woman sinned first.

If Adventists, while claiming that the Holy Scriptures "are the ... infallible revelation of His will ... the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history" choose to disregard the apostolic counsel, that is the issue they must deal with; this fatuous and ideologically biased fiddling with punctuation is of no help at all.

But even for those queer folk who call themselves Adventists but don't believe in Scripture, this is pretty poor stuff. Where are our Spectrum theologians and other luminaries when we need them? Larson, Scriven, what do you think of this stuff?

Michael - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 16:06

whether the issue is Homosexuality or any other issue on Spectrum, nearly all hold the position found in Jer.23.

They speak visions from their own minds,
not from the mouth of the LORD.
17 They keep saying to those who despise me,
‘The LORD says: You will have peace.’
And to all who follow the stubbornness of their hearts
they say, ‘No harm will come to you.’

Isnt that the heart of liberalism?

And considering what the majority of readers here like, it sort of puts Jer. 5:31 in perspective.

Michael

Anonymous1 - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 16:49

Michael, "liberalism" as defined in Wikipedia:

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century.

Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.

The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents."

settembrini - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 18:06

Jared tries to help by sending us to a source where we can learn about the "Anti-Paul who called for women to be silent and to submit."

Why, Jared, you could have saved Donna a lot of trouble. Your source shows us how to read Paul without a bit of fuss or bother. Anything we don't agree with we simply assign to the inauthentic trash heap. Voila! The Godian knot is broken and all is clear, and nicely liberal and feminist to boot.

Poor Donna. She must have spent hours tinkering with "Paul's" punctuation, and all for nothing. It wasn't Paul at all.

hopeful - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 18:43

"Scripture consistently assigns a subordinate role to women in worship and in family life. The startling but clear theological reason is simply this: the woman sinned first." --Settembrini

The resurrected Christ's first witnesses & first evangelists tell us nothing of the meaning of the Cross?

____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3

settembrini - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 19:01

Dear Hopeful:

Were talking about plain statements of scripture; not whatever inferences and wishful thinking you would like people to attach to your loaded, and, I presume, rhetorical question. (See previous post.)

If you deny that "Scripture consistently assigns a subordinate role to women in worship and in family life" then deny it in plain English, taking into account that the apostolic counsel that Donna tries to set aside in her article was given long after the resurrected Christ showed himself to those witnesses, and by someone who knew the meaning of the cross quite well, thank you.

Incidently (so you don't jump to conclusions), I revere those women you refer to even above the apostle, but that's off-topic.

Michael - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 19:03

Hopeful
If the resurrected Christs first witnesses & first evangelists had gone to the tomb to welcome him back to life instead of care for the dead body...then maybe.
Other than that there is nothing written that suggests that they were anything other than the first to notice he was no longer in the tomb. Neither is it written that the angel who told them he was risen was there for them specifically. They could have been there with instructions to tell whoever was first the same message.
Also if the message that the women received were to be the total message of his resurrection then it would have been unnecessary for Christ to appear to men and women on 3 separate occasions after that.

There is also nothing written to state that the angels were not there specifically to give the message to those particular women so understand that all I am suggesting is that you might be making assumptions that what facts we possess do not prove your suggestion.

Michael

Maggie - Fri, 11/25/2011 - 19:22

Just a Friday night jot....

"Many remember the spiritual dimension of the weekly cycles of time in a more private way; for example, on Friday evenings, many Jewish people observe the traditional ceremony in which a woman of the house lights the candles and invokes the Sabbath Bride, or Shekinah, the feminine presence of God."
--Rupert Sheldrake

"In Jewish literature, poetry and music, Shabbat is described as a bride or queen, as in the popular Shabbat hymn Lecha Dodi Likrat Kallah (come, my beloved, to meet the Sabbath bride).

It is said "More than Israel has kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept Israel."

http://www.jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm

Your Friend - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 06:29

"The church is in your debt for putting your exegetical skills to work! Keep it up!" Larry

If this is sound exegesis I'd hate to see what you consider poor exegesis. The feminists work at misconstruing Scripture but careful analyses demonstrate the fallacy of exegesis based on feminist culture.

Brenda - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 00:19

Here is another view on relationship between man and women taking in consideration not only jots and tittles but also Hebrew words and letters. I am sure that being a Jew himself Paul was aware of this.
The Hebrew word for fire is aish (אש). God Himself is often in the Bible compared with fire. (Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire. Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire. )

God has created man and woman in His own image and interestingly both Hebrew words for man - ish (איש) and for woman - ishah (אשה) contain in itself letters (אש) that spell fire. Word for man ish has an additional letter י (yod), while ishah contains a ה (heh). Those two letters of the Hebrew alphabet are first two letters of the Tetragrammaton and the spell God’s name Yah. (Psa 68:4 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH.)

So by becoming one, man and women should reveal the divine presence (his name and character in the midst of the fire). Incidentally, love is in the Bible also described as burning fire. Song 8:6 Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame.

Besides man and woman in marriage union, oneness is applied to Jesus’ relationship with Father( John 10:30 I and the Father are one) and Christ and His church. (Eph 5:31,32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.)

In all three cases where there is oneness, there is love and submission.
Wife is subject unto husband and husband loves his wife. Church is subject unto Christ who gave Himself for church. And also Christ is subject unto Father who is the source of all love.
(Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
John 5:30 I can do nothing of My own self. As I hear, I judge, and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of the Father who has sent Me. )

Jesus, our example, was not miserable in relationship with His loving Father, and He didn’t try to make Himself equal to with Him. (Php 2:5-7 For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant) Jesus came to glorify His Father and “God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name Php 2:9
The rule of the kingdom of God is: And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. Mat 23:12

http://www.mikvah.org/article/woman,_man_and_fire

abe thompson - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 09:30

Brenda
For a woman you have an amasing understanding of how the relationship is supposed to work. I congratulate you on your perception and ability to express yourself.

Few today understand that Jesus was and is subordinate to the Father because of the unScriptural Trinatarian doctrine now accepted by SDAs and others.

The desire for some females to be "equal" is really Satanic in orgin because it mirrors the first rebellion against the ordaied order of things.

Having said that what is all the fuss about ordination anyway. The NT makes it clear that a ritual in the church has nothing to do with the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. In many cases the Holy Spirit was evident before any laying on of hands.

This is just a rigamirol people playing church like to indulge in it has nothing to do with ministry or walking in the footsteps of Christ Ahter Jesus baptism the Spirit was given directly there was no ordination ritual.

This argument in the SDA church is like the disciples arguing about who would be first in the coming kingdom while Jesus was om his way to the cross and matyrdom lay before all of them.

settembrini - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 09:32

Brenda: thanks for the quick Hebrew lesson, and the subsequent interesting ideas. Well done. What follows is an answer to your thoughts only in an oblique way.

We perhaps shouldn't be too fast to apply early Old Testament ideas about God to the Gospels and Epistles. Between Moses and the return from the Exile, Old Testament writers show an increasing sophistication and spiritualization of their concept of God. Early Hebrews thought of God as manifestations of, or even menacing creatures of, the forces of nature (fire, as you point out, or the mountain-dweller, or the thunder-voiced, etc.) The later prophets and kings had a much more spiritualized idea of God as the eternal heaven-dweller, still involved in human affairs but not (for instance) thinking of ambushing people on lonely roads or showing them his back. Yes, the later writers use poetic imagery that compares God to nature, but (and this is important) it had become imagery, not description.

At risk of going even further off-topic, I might add that without that development in the Hebrews' ideas about God, it seems unlikely that He (I mean God as Christians understand Him) would have chosen to dwell, as a mortal man, among them and choose a small group of them to establish His church.

Thanks again.

Alle - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 10:05

Abe (abe) you, as a "superior" man, might be taken more seriously if you could at least spell.

David Awdish - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:37

Thanks Donna for a thought provoking piece. It seems to me that by "strict adherence" to the King James english version of the scriptures,we are led to many misunderstandings of the Gospel, and our roles in it.

And, if I may bring a thought over from my post on the SS lesson, Galatians 4:17 exposes the true motivations of those who have a works based mindset, it is to "EXCLUDE". Where as Paul consistently shows that the Gospel is "inclusive" and that the gifts of the Spirit are given to all according to His pleasure.

It is WE who seem to think that the gifts of leadership, ministering, teaching,preaching and so on, are only given to men.

And now we see the arrogance of the works based mindset, that we control who is empowered to work in the church. HAVE MERCY!

@Brenda, thank you for revealing thoughts on the Hebrew. One flesh has a whole new meaning for me now!

God isn't interested in behavior modification, He's interested in life transformation!

abe thompson - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:42

Alle
I am almost physically blind so have trouble with the keyboard however my spiritual sight is as good as ever.

Maggie - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 11:50

Okay...maybe we're done with spelling issues now?

Some of the world's great geniuses couldn't spell, and I recently heard a M.I.T. professor in physics make a grammar mistake.

But feel free to Revoke My Talking Priviledges. lol

Maggie - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 12:02

That should have been "an M.I.T. professor."

I hearby Ultimately Revoke my own Talking Priviledges.

(But, if Ben Bernanke can give himself a waver, so can I....)

Jots and Tittles indeed....

Brenda - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 12:18

Hebrew word pictures coming from ancient script probably used in time of Moses and definitely before Babylonian captivity can give us lot of insight into many biblical concepts.

This look into Hebrew words for man and woman reveals something else. The name of the Hebrew letter Yod is based on yad, the Hebrew word for hand and in ancient script it was a picture of hand (arm). So, practically the word picture of a man is a picture of someone who works in the midst of fire. And woman is someone that comes out of the fire. What a symbolism for Christ and the church.

Also, another great example is the word ashar (alef, shin, resh) - Strongs 833 which means blessed. There are again (alef, shin) letters that denote fire and letter Resh which was in the ancient script represented with the head of a man. The name of the letter is a variation of the common Hebrew word for head (rosh).
So, we have the word picture for blessed as the fire on the head. And that is very well known picture from the day of Pentecost that we find in book of Acts 2:3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them.
Another great connection between the Old and New Testament.

Brenda - Sat, 11/26/2011 - 13:48

Hebrew word pictures coming from ancient script probably used in time of Moses and definitely before Babylonian captivity can give us lot of insight into many biblical concepts.

Tom Zwemer - Sun, 11/27/2011 - 05:33

What if they ordained a woman and she began preaching the Gospe,l plus nothing,, would they defrock her?

Elaine Nelson - Sun, 11/27/2011 - 09:51

Were any of the disciples or apostles ever ordained? Didn't Christ tell them to go and preach the gospel--without formal ordination? When did the rite of ordination begin? If there isn't a prescribed set of requirements how can there be a determined gender that denies women and not men? Surely, the apostles did not have the requisite graduate degrees now usually required that would indicate that the rules have all been made by man, not God.

Elaine

David Awdish - Sun, 11/27/2011 - 10:26

Again, let The Word, (let Jesus), speak.

1Co 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

And again,

Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,
Eph 4:13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

Clearly, The Holy Spirit does this work in the church. If I may be so bold, as to infer, if Jesus says we make of no effect...by or traditions, we make the power of the Holy Spirit to empower the church, of no effect, by our tradition of sexism!

Do we still question, that the much of the leadership of the Church, are Judaizers, that they are not interested in the edification of the church. That they are more interested in keeping the status quo, their traditions, than they are following the Word of the Lord.

God isn't interested in behavior modification, He's interested in life transformation!

frank7 - Sun, 11/27/2011 - 19:38

If the resurrected Christs first witnesses & first evangelists had gone to the tomb to welcome him back to life instead of care for the dead body...then maybe.

***********

The point that you horribly miss, Michael, is that the first witnesses to the resurrected Christ, and the ones who took the message to the male disciples, were women... Mary in particular. Women, whose word and testimony weren't even recognized in 1st century courts, because they were considered mentally unreliable. But, this is who the gospels record as being the first who were entrusted with, and who gave the message of a risen Savior.

Isn't that just like the picture of God that the Bible consistently gives, that the last shall be first, and the first shall be last? Of the God who consistently turns the accepted human order of power on its head, and uses those who are bypassed and disregarded, the so-called, "weak things of this world," to confound the strong.

The original disciples had a very difficult time accepting such a move by God then. Seems like many still have similar difficulties now.

Thanks...

Frank

Carrol Grady - Mon, 11/28/2011 - 18:21

Thoughtful scholarship, Donna - thank you for the insights!

Michael - Mon, 11/28/2011 - 19:11

Frank
I horribly miss nothing.
Is your assumption that Mary and others were leaders in the church (and by extension so should all women) based on the fact that they were going to the tomb to prepare the body for burial, a job that they would have done on friday night except that they didnt have time?
They could have prepared the body after sundown on Sabbath but they didnt. Sundown Sabbath was Sunday in the biblical method of counting time. We know the Roman guards were struck down when Christ rose. The angel was there to tell the first people who came that Christ was no longer there. What if someone else had gone to check on the tomb Saturday night? The angel would have hid.......waiting for the 2 specific women to come? After the previous people had already returned to tell everyone that the stone was rolled away? What if it wasnt Saturday night that Christ rose? What if the other people had only come a half an hour before Mary? Same thing? The angel hides until Mary comes even though the others would have already seen the tomb open and returned to tell others?

Hopeful suggested the fact that Mary had elevated status since as the first passerby at the tomb, the angel spoke to them first.
I think the part that you horribly missed is where I said, "...understand that all I am suggesting is that you might be making assumptions that what facts we possess do not prove your suggestion."

Michael

Elaine Nelson - Mon, 11/28/2011 - 19:53

Bold re-writing of the resurrection story. "What if" and "could" are inserted into the story. Better take up writing novels.

Elaine

hopeful - Mon, 11/28/2011 - 20:22

"The angel would have hid.......waiting for the 2 specific women to come?" --Michael

God just left everything to chance, I guess. Jesus chose the 12 when some fishermen just happened to be around.

Nothing about the Spirit's leading & the Spirit's timing?
"As you do not know the path of the wind ... so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things." Ecclesiastes 11:5

____________________________________________________
"be reverent in behavior, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good" titus 2:3

Roy Binghy - Mon, 11/28/2011 - 21:46

Punctuation was just one part of the puzzle. NT Greek also had no spaces separating words. I know this might be a little off topic, but there's another, less talked about factor: idiom. Take the prevalence of the word 'all'. In many instances it is just there for no apparent reason.
One such instance is Christ’s warning in Matthew 23:3 against the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees: “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but do not after their works: for they say, and do not.” Certainly the Saviour could not have been telling the people to blindly follow every single instruction of those hypocritical leaders. They were already his avowed adversaries, always trying to influence the people against him. Soon they would be rallying all the forces they could to crucify him. And even purely in terms of religious observances, they were the ones of whom he said, “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Here where he says, “All... they bid you observe, that observe and do,” clearly, seems to be another loose usage of the word ‘all’, probably idiomatic of the New Testament Greek. His real message was, those leaders were never to be looked to for any example of godly living.
With that in mind, what's to be made of the 'all' in II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."? Could it be just another purely idiomatic instance?

Royo
Is it really written?

Michael - Mon, 11/28/2011 - 22:30

Hopeful
The point IS that we dont have the information to determine any of those questions. The ones I proposed or equally ,making the inferences you made.
Quote all the generalized texts about the spirit you want, the fact remains the same. The message the angel made was the resurrection of Christ not the leadership status of women.
If the facts of the story hold sway for you, you might notice that the stories that document this hold very different accounts so its not like what happened is indisputable as to who was involved, how many and in what order.

Gospel of John (20:1-18)

This gospel gives the most detailed description of what happened on the morning of the resurrection. It says that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb shortly before dawn and saw that it was open. Thinking that someone had moved the body, she ran and told Peter and an unnamed disciple what she had seen. These two men ran to the tomb, found it empty, and then left the area. But Mary lingered nearby and began to weep. Eventually she looked into the tomb again and saw two angels, who asked her why she was weeping. She told them that someone had moved Jesus' body, and that she didn't know where it was. Then suddenly she turned and saw Jesus himself.
Thus, according to this gospel, Mary Magdalene was the first person to see the risen Jesus. She didn't recognize him initially and thought he was a gardener.
So according to this gospel the Angels did hide from Peter and one other disciple.

Gospel of Matthew (28:1-20)
This gospel also begins its account with the discovery of the empty tomb. But in this version of the story, Mary Magdalene is accompanied to the tomb by another woman who is identified as "the other Mary". After these two women reach the tomb, they see an angel who says that Jesus has risen and isn't there. The angel then instructs them to tell the male disciples that they can see Jesus in Galilee. The two women hurry off to find the male disciples, but on the way they suddenly encounter Jesus himself. He says, "Greetings", and they fall at his feet and worship him.

Thus, according to this account, Mary Magdalene and another woman also named Mary were the first eyewitnesses to the resurrection. This gospel doesn't describe any other encounters with Jesus in the vicinity of Jerusalem. But it says that the male disciples went to Galilee, (as the angel had instructed), and saw Jesus there.

Gospel of Luke (24:1-35)

According to this gospel, several women accompanied Mary Magdalene on her visit to the tomb, including Joanna and Mary the mother of James. After the women find the tomb empty, they suddenly see two men in shining garments standing next to them. These two men tell them that Jesus has risen and left. The women then go to the male disciples and tell them what happened at the tomb. The male disciples don't believe them, but Peter goes to the tomb anyway, finds it empty, and then leaves. Thus, in this gospel's account, NOBODY sees Jesus during the initial visits to the tomb.

But later two of his followers do encounter him during a trip from Jerusalem to a village named Emmaus. One of these followers is named Cleopas, but the other one isn't identified. As they walk toward the village, Jesus joins them and begins talking with them, but they don't recognize him. After they reach the village, they all decide to have dinner together. During the meal the two travelers suddenly recognize their companion as Jesus, but he immediately vanishes from their sight. They then hurry back to Jerusalem to tell everyone what happened. When they arrive, they find the disciples gathered together talking, and saying that Jesus is alive and has appeared to Peter, though nothing is said about where or when this appearance to Peter took place.

Thus, this gospel isn't clear about who saw Jesus first. It could have been the two men who encountered him during the trip to the village, but initially didn't recognize him. Or it could have been Peter, who in the meantime had told the other disciples about an encounter of his own. In either case, this account is inconsistent with those of John and Matthew because it indicates that none of the women saw Jesus near the tomb.
In fact one point is made here in Mark by the women themselves in verse 3 "...and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
So if true what was their plan in any of the versions where the women are first? Roll the stone away themselves?

Gospel of Mark (16:1-20)

The oldest known manuscripts of this gospel don't describe any post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Partly for this reason, many scholars believe that this gospel's original ending has been lost. Whatever the case, these oldest manuscripts stop abruptly at verse 16:8, right after the discovery of the empty tomb. In the last two verses Mary Magdalene and two other women are told that Jesus has risen and is on his way to Galilee, and that his followers can see him there. Thus, if the original ending was lost, the missing part most likely described at least one appearance in Galilee but none in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Later scribes who made copies of this gospel realized that the original ending may have been lost, and several new endings were eventually invented to take its place. The ending chosen for most modern bibles consists of twelve verses (16:9-20) known as the "Longer Ending" or "Apocryphal Addition". This ending says that the risen Jesus made his first appearance to Mary Magdalene. But this was probably copied from John's account and thus is unlikely to be an independent source of information.
The possible loss of Mark's original ending is especially unfortunate, because many scholars think that it was the first New Testament gospel to be written.
So if your inclined to believe Apocryphal accounts...there you go.

First Corinthians (15:1-8)
In addition to what the gospels say, there is also an important passage about the resurrection in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. This passage (15:1-8) specifically says that the risen Jesus appeared first to Peter (who Paul calls Cephas), then to the other male disciples, and then to various other people.

Paul doesn't say where he got this information, but he did know Peter, and he also met some other disciples during his trips to Jerusalem. For this reason, and also because this letter to the Corinthians was probably written at least 15 years earlier than any of the gospels, some scholars think that it may be the most reliable source of information about the resurrection.

So before you go saying others are "Bold (in) re-writing of the resurrection story" Elaine, you should first become more informed about the subject matter yourself. You might also ask your self how much more you know about this story than Paul.

Michael

Tom Zwemer - Tue, 11/29/2011 - 06:12

Michal

One does not have to lecture one with whom you disagree. It adds nothing to your argument. I don't always agree with Elaine. But I can assure you she can have you for lunch any day of the week.

If Christ be not raised the grave is our eternity. Christ came on a rescue mission. Phase one is complete. We live in between Phase one and Phase two. If we believe in Salvation by Christ alone--this inbetween time is given us to learn to live in community with the Grace that rescued us.

There is nothing proprietary about it--no one peson nor no one denomination has an exclusive clain of being the exclusive community. One is not saved by the denominational name on the baptizm certificate.

As for me and my house we believe that the God that made us, that God that redeemed us, and that God is coming soon to take us home.

As to the jot and tittle. Christ fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law for us--male and female. Because of that accomplishment His robe of Righteousness covers us and He presented us to the Father as perfect as the Father. The Father accepts us upon the Finished Work of Jesus our Lord.

Philosophy is the study of man in relationship to the universe. We can say--We are a Child of the King adopted by the blood of the Lamb of God.

This Web site is called Spectrum--acknowledging the wide range of understandings and beliefs within a population of believers. We can say more but we cannot say less that Christ is Lord.

We live, move, and have our being in a community of sinners redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb. Thus institutionalism is merely a scaffolding. TomZ

ViagrAcheter - Sat, 02/11/2012 - 01:15

ACHAT VIAGRA EN FRANCE - http://forum.aruba.com/member.php?u=1280 - VIAGRA EN LIGNE
VENTE DU VIAGRA - 0.55 euro Par Comprime VIAGRA SANS UNE ORDONNANCE VIAGRA ACHETER PHARMACIE Acheter Viagra Original
[url=http://forum.aruba.com/member.php?u=1280]GENERIQUE VIAGRA 100 mg ACHETR FRANCE[/url] - ACHAT VIAGRA LIBRE SUR INTERNET
ACHAT DU VIAGRA - 0.55 euro Par Comprime ACHAT VIAGRA AUCUNE ORDONNANCE NECESSAIRE ACHAT MEDICAMENT VIAGRA GENERIQUE Achat De Viagra Sans Ordonnance
PHARMACIE EN LIGNE VIAGRA
ACHETER VIAGRA PHARMACIE
VIAGRA DISCOUNT EN LIGNE
VIAGRA SANS PRESCRIPTION
VIAGRA EN LIGNE FRANCE
ACHETER VIAGRA EN LIGNE
ACHETER VIAGRA SILDENAFIL GENERIQUE 50 MG & 100 MG EN LIGNE
ACHETER EN LIGNE VIAGRA SILDENAFIL GENERIQUE VRAI
ACHETER VIAGRA GENERIQUE
VIAGRA GENERIQUE SILDENAFIL
ACHETER VIAGRA SUR INTERNET
VIAGRA VENTE LIBRE
VIAGRA POUR LES FEMMES
VIAGRA LE PRIX
VIAGRA JOURNALIER
ACHETER VIAGRA PAS CHER
VIAGRA GENERIQUE EN PHARMACIE
VIAGRA AU MEILLEUR PRIX
VIAGRA ACHAT EN LIGNE
VENTE DE VIAGRA EN FRANCE
GENERIQUE VIAGRA
SILDENAFIL CITRATE 50/100MG
ACHETER VIAGRA EN FRANCE
VIAGRA EN VENTE LIBRE
VIAGRA TOUS LES JOURS
VIAGRA VENTE LIBRE SUR INTERNET
ACHETER VIAGRA PHARMACIE
ACHETER VIAGRA SANS ORDONNANCE
ACHETER VIAGRA EN FRANCE
ACHETER VIAGRA GENERIQUE
ACHETER VIAGRA FRANCE
ACHETER VIAGRA PAS CHER
ACHETER VIAGRA POUR FEMME