CCP

Women of the Bible - The Bibliography

2008-03-19T17:02:00.011-07:00

At times I have cited a few sources in these posts on Women of the Bible, and at time I should have but didn't. Here is a list of some of the more useful material:

Finally Feminist, John G. Stackhouse, Jr., 2005
Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume I, Edited By Carroll D. Osburn, PH. D., 1993
Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume II, Edited By Carroll D. Osburn, PH. D., 1995
Men and Women in the Church, Sarah Sumner, PH. D., 2003
Bobby Valentine’s class on Huldah from the 2003 ACU Lectureships (audio)
Bobby’s Blog: Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet, June 27, 2006
“The Ethical Use of I Timothy 2”, Bobby Valentine
I permit not a woman...To Remain Shackled, Robert H. Rowland, 1991
Mike Cope’s Sermon “Women, Gifts and the Body of Christ”
“Women’s Service in the Church”, a sermon by N. T. Wright (transcript), 2004
Howard Bryan, The Role of Women Class Notes
Women of the Bible, Sue Poorman Richards and Lawrence O. Richards, 2003
The Christian Courier
The Logos Resource Pages
Brooks Ave Church of Christ
Minutes with Messiah

I think it is important to consider the best material from both sides of this debate. Unfortunately, I have not done enough of that myself. Sometimes I find it very difficult to listen to perspectives that are so contrary to my core values. I'm sure people on both sides of this fence feel this way at times, which is why we must approach this material with patience and love. It is not a salvation issue. It is a respect issue, a consistency issue, and a reaching-the-lost issue.

-Keith

Women of the Bible – The Matriarchs

2008-03-13T13:36:00.006-07:00

Background
ECHAD MI YODEA – a Hebrew song sung during Passover contains this verse:

Who knows four?
I know four.
Four are the Matriarchs;
Three are the patriarchs;
Two are the tablets of the covenant;
One is our God, in heaven and on earth.

In Genesis 12-50 we read about the Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (shown with wife Rachel in picture). Their wives are secondary not only in their culture, but also in the story found in Genesis. From 2,100 to 1,800 BC women are viewed as property: first of the fathers, then of the husbands. There were laws that protected women at the time (i.e. The Laws of Eshnunna, The Code of Hammurabi), but even then these laws had a patriarchal perspective. For example, rape was a crime against the father, not the woman, as it deprived him of his “bride price.” Marriage was legal document transferring ownership of the woman from the father to the husband. While these laws seem very sexist to us, many of them were intended to protect women.

Dinah
Nevertheless, women were taken for granted. In Genesis 34, we see that Dinah, the sister of the 12 sons of Jacob, is raped and taken to the home of a young man from a leading family. He then asks Jacob to marry her. Dinah’s brothers were angry because “Shechem had done a disgraceful thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter.” They viewed the crime in terms of how it reflected on their father and their family. Yet there is an interest in their sister as well, since only Dinah’s two full brothers take action against this young man and his family. Her brothers deceive the young man and his family saying they will approve the marriage if the family is circumcised. They agree and circumcise themselves. Dinah’s two brothers then enter their city, kill all the recovering men, and take their sister home. We are never told anything about how Dinah feels about what happened. Had she finally fallen in love with the young man only to have her brothers come and kill him? How was she treated when she returned home? The focus of the story just is not on her.

Tamar
Similarly, Tamar in Genesis 38 is treated with a noted lack of concern. She marries Judah’s son Er, but he is wicked so God kills him. Judah has his next son, Onan, sleep with her to produce a child for his dead brother. He intentionally sabotages the act (Genesis 38.9) so that she will not become pregnant and bear a child whom would get a share of the inheritance. Because of this, God kills him too. The next son, Shelah, is too young to marry, so Judah sends Tamar back to her father to wait for Shelah to grow up. However, when he does grow up, Judah does not give him Tamar. Therefore, Tamar dresses as a prostitute, sleeps with Judah, and steals his staff and seal. When Judah finds out Tamar is pregnant he condemns her to die. She produces his staff and seal and the gig is up.

Tamar is mistreated even by the standards of her society. Neither Onan nor Judah fulfills their obligations to her. She improvises to get the child she is entitled to and Judah is shamed for his actions. Note that while she dressed as a prostitute, she was entitled by the law to have a brother or male relative of her late husband produce a child with her. Judah, on the other hand, sleeps with a woman he think is a prostitute. In addition, she is a shrine prostitute of a pagan God! While he condemns Tamar to death for her alleged prostitution, he receives no such penalty. At the end, God rewards Tamar with twins, while Onan is dead and Judah is disgraced. Society saw her as a second-class citizen, and Judah and Onan took advantage of her low station. God, however, looked after Tamar and punished those who took advantage of her.

The Matriarchs
We find our matriarchs living in this social context. Yet we see something special about the relationship each has with her husband. Let us consider the interpersonal relationships of the Matriarchs and their husbands.

Sarah
Sarah is the wife of Abraham. In Genesis 16, after 10 years in the land, she tells Abraham to take her servant Hagar as produce a child with her. Abraham “listens” to her. The child would be considered the child of Sarah and Abraham. What is interesting is that Sarah takes the initiative and tells Abraham what to do, and he listens to her. Next, Hagar becomes pregnant and despises Sarah. Sarah blames Abraham and tells him to fix it. This time, though, he says it is her problem. Sarah abuses Hagar and she flees, but an Angel tells Hagar to return. She does and bears her son, Ishmael. Finally, Sarah bears Isaac (Gen. 21). She gets angry when Ishmael picks on Isaac and demands Abraham send Ishmael away. Abraham cared for his son Ishmael though and was very concerned. In addition, the customs demanded Ishmael be received as a son. God intervenes and tells Abraham to send Ishmael and Hagar away and that he would watch over Ishmael.
Whatever the culture restrictions on women, Sarah was free to urge, to complain, to initiate, and to insist that her husband take a certain course of action. Their personalities and interpersonal relationship was much more important than the customs of the day.

Rebekah
Rebekah was a relative of Abraham and God identified her to Abraham as the woman for his son Isaac (Gen 24). The servant negotiated with her brothers (her father was dead) on her coming back with him and becoming Isaac’s wife. Laban and Bethuel (her brothers) agreed to the marriage (24.50-51), but when the servant pressed them to let him leave with her immediately, they said:
Then they said, "Let's call the girl and ask her about it." So they called Rebekah and asked her, "Will you go with this man?" "I will go," she said. (verses 57-58)
Rebekah’s brothers respected her decision. If she had said no, we have every indication that her brothers would have honored her decision.

Rachel and Leah
Rachel and Leah married Jacob (the son of Isaac and Rebekah). They were the daughters of Laban, Rebekah’s brother, who tricked Jacob into marrying Leah first, even though he loved Rachel. They stay in their relatives land and spend 20 years working for Laban. When hostility arose between Laban’s sons and Jacob, God tells him to it is time to leave and return to the land he promised Abraham. What happens next is amazing, considering the culture. We would expect Jacob to gather his family and leave, but instead he calls a family meeting! He asks his two wives (even Leah) what they think.
Then Rachel and Leah replied, "Do we still have any share in the inheritance of our father's estate? Does he not regard us as foreigners? Not only has he sold us, but he has used up what was paid for us. Surely all the wealth that God took away from our father belongs to us and our children. So do whatever God has told you."
Then Jacob put his children and his wives on camels, and he drove all his livestock ahead of him, along with all the goods he had accumulated in Paddan Aram, to go to his father Isaac in the land of Canaan. (Genesis 31.14-18)
Jacob valued the input from his wives and they gave him a thoughtful and accurate response. Only after this exchange does Jacob do what God commanded him and leave for the Promised Land. Jacob, Leah and Rachel displayed mutual respect and cooperation, demonstrating more egalitarianism in their relationship than we might have expected.

Conclusion
Despite the restrictions of the day, women were respected and valued by God and the matriarchs were respected and valued by their husbands. The personal relationships involved in these stories transcend the cultural expectations of women and their place in the family.

Mighty Women

2008-02-05T08:53:00.000-07:00

Starting in March I will teach a class called "Mighty Women" at church using the material I've been blogging here. The following is my synopsis of the class:

At a VBS last year my kids sang a song where the boys would sing, “I want to be like Daniel…for Daniel was a mighty man.” And the girls would sing, “I want to be like Ruth…for Ruth was oh so good and kind.” It made me wonder, “Are boys NOT supposed to be good and kind? Are girls NOT supposed to be mighty?” What about our little girls who want to be more like Deborah than Ruth?

This class will examine the leadership of mighty women throughout the Bible. We will focus on the biblical and historical context of these leading ladies as we develop a broad, biblical view of female leadership.

Here is a tentative outline:

1. Introduction
2. Eve
3. The Matriarchs & Miriam
4. Deborah
5. Huldah
6. Esther
7. Mary, Mary and Mary (Nazareth, Bethany, Magdalene)
8. Priscilla
9. Lydia (Euodias & Syntyche and Nympha)
10. Phoebe and Junia
11. Luke & Women
12. Jesus & Women
13. Paul & Women

This is part one of a two-part class. In part one we will attempt to establish a broad view by investigating the lives of specific women throughout the Bible followed by looking at how Luke, Jesus and Paul viewed women relative to their contemporaries. We will not study 1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 14 or Gal 5. Those texts and others will be included in the second class as I don't think they can be understood properly without first getting the big picture.

-Keith

Women of the Bible – Junia

2008-01-21T23:28:00.000-07:00

If you read the NIV your might be wonder who Junia is because this name does not appear in your Bible. Instead, the NIV translation of Romans 16.7 reads:

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Yet the NRSV renders this passage:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me. They are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Junias is considered by most to be a masculine name while Junia is feminine. Two questions are begging to be asked at this point.

Which name is correct and why is there a discrepancy?
Why does it matter either way?

Let’s answer the second question first; it is much simpler. Eldon Jay Epp in “Junia: The First Woman Apostle” answers this question well:

So was this Junias a man who was a prominent apostle, or Junia, a woman? If a woman, Junia’s apostleship opens the door to the highest office in the early church and thus to women’s church leadership of any kind in any age.

Do I have your attention now? A lot is riding on one single name!

And indeed it is. In our discussion on Phoebe I mentioned that whether Phoebe was a deacon or not wasn’t super important in the discussion. Not so here. Consider the position of apostles in 1 Corinthians 12:28:

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Also consider apostles mentioned in Ephesians 2:19-21 or in Acts 15 and other places where the apostles and elders met to decide on major church theology. If Junia is an apostle she is a major source of authority and leadership in the apostolic, first-century church.

One “end-around” argument is that Junia is not “prominent among” the apostles but “prominent in the eyes of” the apostles. The Greek grammar allows for either translation so context must determine the correct translation. First of all, scholarship is on the side of the “prominent among” translation. Most translations and commentaries translate the phrase this way. Furthermore, since when does Paul commend someone by referencing how other people felt about the person? He knew these two well and spent time in prison with them. His own recommendation, like all the others recommendations he gives in this chapter, is quite enough.

So we are back then, to question #1: Which name is correct and why is there a discrepancy? Dianne D. McDonnell in “Junia, A Woman Apostle” says:

Without exception the church fathers in late antiquity identified Andronicus' partner in Romans 16:7 as a woman as did minuscule 33 in the 9th century which records Iounia (Greek for Junia) with an acute accent. Only later medieval copyists of Romans 17:7 could not imagine a woman being an apostle and wrote the masculine name Iounias (Junias) with an s. This later name Junias did not exist in antiquity; its explanation as a Greek abbreviation of the Latin name 'Junianus' is unlikely.

So the NIV rendering of “Junias” was a name that did not even exist in the first century. Wow. I think we could stop at this point and ask for a decision from the jury, but there is more. The female Latin name Junia occurs over 250 times among ancient Roman inscriptions. All the earliest manuscripts (with accents) have Junia. Junias is not even a properly formed Latin name, but would be an irregular form if it did exist. The first know masculine translation of this name did not occur until the 13^th century (Aegidus of Rome, 1245-1316). John Chrysostrom (337-497) said, “Oh! How great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! (Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans XXXI).” Jerome (340-419), Hatto of Vercelli (924-961), Theophylack (1050-1108) and Peter Abelard (1079-1142) all wrote that Junia was a woman. The evidence is overwhelming.

Junia, a woman, was a prominent apostle. She and Andronicus (her husband or brother maybe?) were Christians longer than Paul was. They served jail time with Paul and were related to him (though this could be as distant as being from the same Tribe: Benjamin). Like Phoebe, we don’t have many details of what exactly Junia did, but Paul considers her an apostle. There is no higher authority other than Jesus in the first-century church.

Women of the Bible – Phoebe

2008-01-02T14:03:00.000-07:00

Phoebe was a first-century Christian in Cenchreae, the eastern port of Corinth. We read about her only in Romans 16.1-2, where Paul gives her a comparatively lengthy introduction and accommodation. He goes on to greet 27 people in the chapter, 10 of which are women. Many of the terms he uses to describe the women are significant. He describes men and women as fellow-worker, apostle, first-fruit, fellow-countrymen, fellow-prisoner and beloved, but only women are called deacon, patron, hard-worker, sister and mother. Comparatively, only men are called genuine and chosen. Contrary to some perspectives, Paul highly values the women leaders in the early church.

But Paul’s comments about Phoebe are different from the rest of the chapter. First off, he is not greeting her, but recommending her. Some hypothesize that the reason for Phoebe’s special recommendation is that she was the deliverer of this letter to the Romans. This is supported by the fact that Paul says she is coming to Rome and he wants them to greet her well. While it seems likely that this is the case, we do not know for sure.

What we do know for sure is that Paul uses two words to describe Phoebe that are not used of any other men or women on this list. The first word is διάκονος (deacon) and Phoebe is the only deacon we know by name in the New Testament. This word is generally the center of the discuss about Phoebe. Was she a “deacon” or a “servant”? The second, and probably more informative, word is προστάτις (patron; masc. προστάτης) and its use here to describe Phoebe is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament. If you look for the word “patron” in your English translation though, you will not find it. Previously, most translators have considered that the typical role of a patron in the first century was outside the scope of women due to their social position. (An exception is the NRSV, which translates this word “benefactor.”) Recent scholarship demonstrates that women could and did fill this role in first century Greek and Roman societies.

Phoebe the Deacon

Some consider that Phoebe was a servant, but did not hold the office of deacon. They cite the following passage to demonstrate the “servant” translation: 1 Cor. 3.5, 2 Cor. 3.6; 6.4; 11.15 & 23, Gal. 2.17. It seems more likely that the word should be translated “deacon” (but not “office of deacon”) as it is in 1 Tim. 3.8-13. In addition, the phrase “of the church in Cenchrea” reads more like a title more than a generic description. James Walters (Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol 1: 181) argues that the form of διάκονος also indicates “a recognized ministry or position of responsibility, if not an office.” Another point in favor of this more technical translation is that early church tradition demonstrates that there were, in fact, female deacons.

While many debaters go round-and-round on how to translate the word διάκονος it is not an argument that would yield much fruit even if it were settled once and for all. Why? Because we have no idea what a deacon, whether male or female, actually did in the first century. There is no biblical explanation of the duties and responsibilities of deacons and early Christian writings do not help much either. We do have some second and third century writings referring to women deacons, but they are not very informative. Some referred to female deacons baptizing the women, which makes very good sense because some groups baptized people in the nude. But our verses in Romans 16 say that Phoebe was a “deacon/servant of the church in Cenchrea” not that she was the servant only of the women in the church there. In addition, she served Paul, who was, in fact, not a woman. Finally, translating the word “deaconess” is also incorrect. Phoebe is called διάκονος (masc.) just as those in 1 Tim 3 are called διάκονος.

When we start focusing on the office/non-office issue we loose sight of the Pauline teaching of personal responsibility and action-based giftedness. Paul repeatedly demands Christians to use whatever gifts they have in the service of the Lord. The issue is how to translate διάκονος to give us today the same idea that first century Christians had when they read this part of Paul’s letter. To translate this word “deacon” would lead to English readers seeing Phoebe as “clergy”, holding an official position or office in the church. To translate this word “servant” would be to lessen the role Phoebe actually played. Phoebe was a responsible and effective leader in the church in Cenchrea, but she likely did not hold an office. Whatever it was that deacons in the first century did, that is what Phoebe did at Cenchrea.

Phoebe the Patron

What seems to be left out of many discussions about Phoebe is that she was a patron. This seems to be a more important discussion, because we actually know what a patron is and what patrons did in the first century. Furthermore, we know that there were many female patrons at this time. So what does it mean to be a patron? Richard Saller (Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge: 1982:1) describes patronage as:

First, it involves the reciprocal exchange of goods and services. Secondly, to distinguish it from a commercial transaction in the marketplace, the relationship must be a personal one of some duration. Thirdly, it must be asymmetrical, in the sense that the two parties are of unequal status and offer different kinds of goods and services in the exchange – a quality which sets patronage off from friendship between equals.

A good example of this is found in Luke 7.2-5 where the centurion sent the Jewish Elders to Jesus on his behalf. The centurion had no authority to send Jewish elders to Jesus, but he and the Elders had a patron-client relationship. (He provided a synagogue for them. They petitioned Jesus for him.)

There are many Graeco-Roman inscriptions referring to women as patrons and even more inscriptions recounting the activities of patronage performed by women. This is especially common in Greek cities. Consider the inscriptions about Junia Theodora. This is not the Junia of Romans 16.7, but rather an influential patron in the city of Corinth. She was a benefactor (patron) of the Lycians there. Inscriptions about here were found on a stele by a French archaeological team in 1954. The script dates to the 1^st Century AD and one of the decrees on the stele dates to AD 43 or AD 57. All five inscriptions on the stele honor Junia. Here is the first:

In the fourth year, under the priest Dionysphanes, …the council and people of Telemessos decreed…since Iunia Theodora, a Roman, a benefactress of the greatest loyalty to the Lycian federation and our city has accomplished numerous benefits for the federation and our city … welcomes in her own house Lycian travelers and our citizens…supplying them with everything; displaying her patronage (prostasian) of those who are present…her own love of fame and assiduousness: it is decreed that our city in its turn testify to her according to her deserts; by good fortune it pleases the demos of Telmessos to give honour and praise for all the above reasons to the above-mentioned Iunia Theodora and to invite her, living with the same intentions, to always be the author of some benefit towards us, well knowing that in return our city recognizes and will acknowledge the evidence of her goodwill.
(The inscription is published in Pallas, Bulletin de correspondence hellenique (1959):496-508.)

Another inscription from the same stele shows her in the more wide-spread role of international diplomat:

[She] hasn’t ceased to show her zeal and generosity towards the nation and is full of goodwill to all travelers whether private individuals or ambassadors sent by the nation or by various cities; and has procured the gratitude of all of us by assuring the friendship of the authorities which she seeks to win by every means.

Junia Theodora was a success citizen of Corinth and acted independently of any male leadership. No where is there any indication that Junia Theodora acted as a patron under the authority of a male (father or husband). While Junia Theodora did not hold an “office,” she doubtlessly wielded power and authority and did so in a socially and politically acceptable way.

While we don’t get such a detailed description of Phoebe’s patronage, we can assume it to be very similar to Junia’s. They lived in the same place at the same time! Again, Cenchrea is the eastern port of Corinth. It is very likely that Phoebe and Junia knew each other, or at least knew of each other.

We must also consider that patron could have an even wider meaning. Patron could also mean “rules over” or “governs” or, in more general terms, the “leader” of a group. Could Paul have intended by his use of προστάτις that she was the “leader” or “governor” of the church at Cenchrea? It is possible.

Conclusion

Paul wanted to send a strong message to the Roman church about the quality of Phoebe. He did this by recommending her with two words that first century Christians equated with leadership, respect and trust. These two short verses leave us with many questions, but we see clearly that Phoebe was an important leader to Paul and to the church in Cenchrea. She would likely become so in Rome as well in the very near future.

Women of the Bible – The Women of Philippi

2007-12-22T18:16:00.000-07:00

Lydia, Euodia and Syntyche all lived in Philippi during the first century and contributed significantly to the spreading of the gospel there.

Lydia

Lydia was a merchant from Thyatira in Asia. Thyatira was part of the ancient kingdom of Lydia before it was added to the Roman Province of Asia. Locals likely still referred to it as Lydia and that may be why she is called Lydia, or perhaps “the Lydian lady.” Some commentators suggest that this Lydian lady may have actually been Euodia or Syntyche (Philippians 4.3). Lydia was actually a very common name at the time, so there is no issue with the simplest explanation: that Lydia was simply Lydia.

She came to Philippi as a seller of purple, generally considered a lucrative trade since purple was expensive and a sign of wealth and station. (The purple dye was made from the secretion of a species of mollusk, just FYI.) Philippi was a Roman colony and one of the largest cities in eastern Macedonia along the great east-west Egnation Highway between Rome and Asia.

Lydia was a Gentile, but worshiped God. There was a synagogue in her native Thyatira, so she may have been a long-time seeker of God.

Paul, Silas, Timothy and Luke came to Troas (#9) where the Holy Spirit redirected their route so that they went into Macedonia. When they came to Philippi (#12) they looked for the Synagogue and found Lydia and many women at “the place of prayer.” Lydia received their message about Jesus and she and her household believed and were baptized. (Even though Lydia was an Asian, she was the first convert in Europe to Christianity.) She then invited Paul and company to come stay with her, but they declined. She insisted so they accepted her invitation.

While staying with

Lydia

and continuing to meet at the “place of prayer,” Paul and Silas were arrested after they freed a slave woman from a demon that possessed her. The woman’s owners used her to make money as she predicted the future. They were upset that their source of income had been destroyed.

When the officials found out that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens (and that they had flogged and chained them illegally) they asked them politely to leave. Paul and Silas demanded they escort them to Lydia’s house before leaving town (Acts 16.40). This was likely to protect Lydia and the Christians that met in her home, giving them validity and recognition in the city. Paul shared what had happened with the gathered Christians at Lydia’s house before leaving town. Lydia’s house had become the home base for the Christians in Philippi.

Why did God choose Lydia to establish and lead his church in Philippi? Let us list a few of her characteristics:

she was a woman of prayer
she listened and was eager to learn
she was a worshipper
she opened her heart
she was obedient to baptism
she confessed that she was a believer
she influenced those around her to follow Christ
she wanted to serve
she opened her home
she was hospitable

It was Paul’s habit to seek out and speak in the synagogue when he entered a town. Here we see that he looked for the synagogue then found a “place of prayer.” Did he find what he was looking for or are the synagogue and the place of prayer different things?

W. Derek Thomas (in “The Place of Women in the Church at Philippi”) says:

There does not seem to have been a synagogue a Philippi which was a Roman colony and there were probably few Jews in the place… The absence of a synagogue is suggested by a careful reading of the account of Paul’s first visit to the town. … Generally, upon entering a new town Paul would find the synagogue and use his privilege to address the Jewish congregation. This he did not do at Philippi, presumably because there was no synagogue in the town. Had there been ten male Jews permanently resident there, the quorum required by Jewish law, it would have been enough to constitute a synagogue. It was left to a number of women, probably Jewesses and proselytes, to maintain a limited form of worship and prayer.

This argument hinges on two main points:
1. The use of προσευχή (place of prayer) instead of συναγωγή (synagogue)
2. That no men are present.

For the first point, we must consider what both history and archeology have to say about these Greek words. These inscriptions were found in Alexandria (Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity) and date to 246-221 BC and 37 BC, respectively:

“In honour of King Ptolemy and Queen Berenike his sister and wife and their children, the Jews built the προσευχή.”

“For the queen and the king, to the great God who hears (prayers) Alypos made the προσευχή.”

Likewise, Josephus used προσευχή and συναγωγή interchangeably (Josephus, Against Apion 2.10; Antiquities 14.258; Philo, Life of Moses 2.216.). W. Bauer (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: 713) says, “[Among Jews προσευχή is] nearly always equivalent to συναγωγή.” Therefore, at least some scholars agree that the archeological and historical evidence suggests that these two terms are equivalent.

Now let us look to the issue of no men being present in Philippi. Women were not required to attend the synagogue, yet clearly many did attend.

1When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. "This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ," he said. 4Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. (Acts 17.1-4)

He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18.26)

B. J. Brooten (“Inscriptional Evidence for Women as Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue”, Scholars Press, 1981) argues that women served as leaders in many synagogues during the Roman and Byzantine periods. He cites Greek and Latin inscriptions describing women as “leader,” “elder,” and “mother of the synagogue.” The popular idea that women sat in a side-room or gallery separated from the men in synagogue has no literary or archaeological evidence to support it.

We must remember that we are talking about a Greek city where some Jews live, not the other way around. The Jewish leadership in Palestine likely had little if any influence on these synagogues. For this reason, the lack of 10 men (or a minyan – a quorum of ten males, age thirteen or older, necessary for official synagogue services) was likely not an issue in Philippi. Furthermore, this “minyan” rule was found in the Mishna (part of the Talmud) that was not approved in its finalized form until well after the first century. Even if there was rabbinic influence from Jerusalem in Greek cities, it is very unlikely that they had any strong standardization or homogonous participation so far from Judea.

Lydia served the church and Paul specifically as a Patron. The Patron-Client relationship was fundamental to the spread of the Gospel. Even Jesus benefited from this type of relationship. He was the client of the women who supported his needs as patrons (Luke 8.3). The Patron-Client relationship was not a peer relationship. The Patron provided for the client something the client did not have. This could be a variety of things but often included protection, material support, legal aid, hospitality, opportunities for employment or places for assembly. Her wealth as a dealer of purple allowed her to house the first house church in Philippi and play host to Paul and his companions (at least 3 other men). It seems likely that Lydia would have much to do with the generous gifts given by the Philippian church.

Paul also serves as a patron to the church and to Lydia by returning to her house after his imprisonment. By having the authorities escort him and Silas to Lydia’s house they gave validation to the Christians that met there, protecting them from further attacks from the community. While the word patron is not used to describe Paul and Lydia’s interactions, it is clearly applied sometime in one direction and sometimes in the other. This is an excellent example of Christians taking care of one another’s needs. Given this meaningful relationship, it is odd that Lydia is not mentioned in Philippians. Perhaps this gives more credit to the argument that she was either Euodia or Syntyche.

Euodia and Syntyche

Euodia and Syntyche were also important women in Philippi and their relationship with each other had a large, and sometime negative, influence on the church there. Paul says in Philippians 4.3 that these two women “fought as my side in (spreading) the gospel.” What a mouthful that is. Some say that since they were women they were not ministers of the word in the same way Paul and other males were. This simply cannot be supported by the text and demonstrates forcing ones theology on the Bible rather than letting the Bible form one’s theology. Working “side by side” with someone implies doing the same job. This is not to imply that these two women were equivalent to Paul in every way. They simply engaged in the same ministry work as Paul did in Philippi and were respected, as much as the men, for their service.

Paul also refers to these women as “fellow workers.” Paul uses this phrase to describe several people in various letters. In Romans 16.3, he uses this term to describe Priscilla and Aquila who both served as teachers of the gospel (Acts 18.26). Euodia and Syntyche probably functioned in the same way as Priscilla and Aquila, teaching the gospel to men and women. 1 Corinthians 3:8-10 describes fellow workers as those who spread the message of Jesus (evangelism). In Colossians 4.10-15 Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus are all fellow workers and probably Epaphras (who is from Philippi), Luke and Demas as well by the context. No one would assume for an instant that these fellow workers would be limited to secondary, non-teaching roles. Note we also have mention here of another female house church leader, Nympha, and the church that meets in her house in Laodicea. Finally, Philemon 1.24 again mentions Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke as fellow workers.

C. E. Cerling (“Women Ministers in the New Testament Church?”) argues that “fellow worker” does not equate with “preacher.” I agree. The idea we have of preachers who standup before their congregations and preach each week is a concept that does not map to first century Christianity. There was no separation of clergy and laity. To the contrary, in the first century every Christian had a ministry of some sort. Therefore, we simply have to say that these women served in the same way Paul did, which is probably an even stronger statement of the leadership of these women.

Another argument is that the culture they lived in would not allow such female leadership. We have already discussed that women in Macedonia had many freedoms and this leadership would not have stepped on too many cultural toes.

The conflict between Euodia and Syntyche is of great importance to Paul. In fact, it seems likely that Paul wrote this letter primarily to address their conflict. Throughout the letter, Paul pleads for unity. Philippians is filled with phrases such as “stand firm in one spirit,” “contending as one man,” and make [Paul’s] joy complete by being ‘like-minded, having the same love,’ and being one in spirit and purpose.” Garland (NT 1985: 171) writes:

“Perhaps because Euodia and Syntyche were women, it has been tacitly assumed by many interpreters that they could be only minor players in the plot of Philippians. It is my contention that Paul carefully and covertly wove his argument to lead up to the impassioned summons in 4.2. He wrote primarily to defuse the dispute between these two women that was having disastrous repercussions for the unity of the church (173).”

These two women were of such high standing in the church that their conflict seems to have gathered followers, splitting the church about whatever issue is was. It is also possible that the church had outgrown a single home and perhaps there were house churches at each of these women’s homes; house-churches that were moving toward complete separation rather than cooperation.

Conclusion

As in the ministry of Jesus, women provided material assets to the church in Philippi (and elsewhere). Lydia was part of the merchant class and had the wealth and status that came along with that position. Her house became the center of Christian activity in this community. She was a patron to Paul (and he to her).

Euodia and Syntyche were important members of the church in Philippi. They were “fellow workers” with Paul. Their dispute was causing a major problem in the church in Philippi and Paul wrote this letter specifically to address these women and their conflict. Women in Philippi shared equal status with the men in spreading the gospel. Nothing prevented them from sharing the gospel with both men and women.

Women of the Bible – Priscilla

2007-12-03T12:59:00.001-07:00

Priscilla (also known as Prisca) was a first century Christian woman who, like Lydia, hosted a house-church in her home. Unlike Lydia though, Priscilla is always mentioned with her husband Aquila. The team of Priscilla and Aquila (or Aquila and Priscilla) did great things for Christ, likely hosting house-churches in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, then again in Rome, and then again in Ephesus.

Luke introduces Priscilla and her husband to us in Acts 18. We learn that they came from Rome due to Emperor Claudius expelling “all the Jew” from Rome due to “their continual tumults instigated by Chrestus” (Claudius, 25). Chrestus was a common misspelling of Christ. Paul meets the couple in Corinth as they have a lot in common. Like Paul, they were tentmakers, Jewish Christians, and likely already leaders in the church. (There is no mention of their conversion and if Paul did convert them, they would be his “first fruits” in Greece, not the house of Stephanus, 1 Corinthians 16.15.) Paul stays with them until he leaves for Ephesus, at which time he takes them to Ephesus and leaves them there. Finally, Luke tells us that Apollos came to Ephesus and preached in the synagogue. When our couple hears him, they invite him to their house and “explain they way of God more adequately” to him. Luke does not focus on the subject of the teaching, instead he highlights the wisdom of Aquila and Priscilla in how they instruct Apollos and in the humility of Apollos by his willingness to be taught even though he was a “learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.”

Critics downplay Priscilla's participation and even point out the private nature of this teaching, away from the synagogue. Yet nowhere do we see Priscilla taking a backseat to her husband and this “private” setting of their home was where the church met in Ephesus! Perhaps this was Bible class at the Ephesus Church of Christ (grin).

Others overemphasize Priscilla’s involvement citing name order (Priscilla is mentioned ahead of her husband in this passage). This is an unreasonable position as well.

Which name is mentioned first? Aquila is mentioned first in Acts 18.2 and 1 Corinthians 16.19. Priscilla is mentioned first in Acts 18.18, Acts 18.19, Acts 18.26 Romans 16.3 and 2 Timothy 4.19. Much discussion revolves around Priscilla being mentioned first five times, but it is mostly speculation. What does seem significant is that she is mentioned at all. Other leading men, such as Peter and James (1 Corinthians 9.5) have wives who are not even mentioned at all in most cases, and never by name. The usual way to introduce a family would be to simply mention the husband by name. If emphasis was needed to show his wife was also present one would say, "...and his wife." Mentioning Priscilla, by name no less, is significant apart from the order. Furthermore, there are textual variants on 2 Timothy where Aquila’s name comes first.

It seems to me the balance of the naming order really tells the story here. Priscilla and Aquila were a team. They worked together in every aspect of their ministry in which we know about. This strikes me as very similar to Adam and Eve. Perhaps they were just too busy serving to worry much about who should be in charge or get the glory.

1 Corinthians 16.19 Paul sends warm greeting from Aquila and Priscilla when writing from Ephesus to Corinth. Apollos is also in Ephesus, but is not mentioned to the Corinthians even though he has been in Corinth before as well. Paul also mentions the church that meets in their house, perhaps to share the success the couple has had in Ephesus. House churches were the standard organizational structure for the early church. Priscilla and Aquila were experts at running such a church. They did so in Corinth and now in Ephesus and will soon do the same in Rome. Paul seems to send this couple to cities that require strong local leadership.

Romans 16.3-5 give some strong descriptions of our couple. Only Priscilla and Aquila receive the compliment of being Paul’s “fellow workers” in Acts 16. He uses this same term for Apollos (1 Cor. 3.9) and Luke and Mark (Phil. 1.24). It is likely a term that refers to those dedicated to Christ and leading others (believers and unbelievers) to him. Paul also mentions that they risked their lives for him. It is possible that this is a metaphor, but given the trouble Paul had in Ephesus it could just as likely been real physical danger. The larger influence of our couple is seen in this statement: “all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.” Finally, we find out that Aquila and Priscilla are now in Rome. They are likely running another house church here and reporting to Paul (which maybe why he is so informed on what is happening there, Romans 14 & 15 especially).

2 Timothy 4.19 tells us little more about our couple other than they seemed to have returned to Ephesus after their stay in Rome.

Priscilla and her husband worked closely with Paul, but were also independent church leaders in the 1^st century. Sometimes they followed Paul to a destination and sometimes they preceded him there. In both cases, they coordinated with Paul and received some of his highest compliments for their leadership. Witherington (Women in the Earliest Church, 1920, pg 114) summarizes their activities as follows:

One gets the impression they were two of Paul’s closest and most reliable workers, and it is likely they were involved in a wide range of activities from providing hospitality for Paul to church planting, to teaching and preaching (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; and Acts 18:1-3, 26-28). Clearly they were a major factor in the Gentile mission.

Women of the Bible – Miriam

2007-11-14T08:57:00.000-07:00

Miriam is the first woman in the Bible called a prophet. She lived around 1520-1420 B.C. and was the older sister of Moses and Aaron. Her name means either “MER-eh-um” (loved by Yahweh) or “meer yawm'” (rebellion). Miriam is first mentioned by name in Exodus 15, but tradition holds that she is also the sister of Moses mentioned in Exodus 2, who watched over baby Moses as he floated in the Nile. Tradition also holds that she prophesied that that her parents would give birth to one who brings about redemption for the Jews.

In Exodus 15.20-21, we see Miriam and the women leading the Israelites in praise to Yahweh with dancing, tambourine music and singing. This celebration followed Moses’ Song to Yahweh. Miriam did not just lead a group of women in worship; Miriam led the women in leading the whole nation in worship. She is the first “worship leader” we find in scripture.

We know that Miriam was an important figure in Israel, but we have very few details about her from scripture. While she is described as a prophet, we never hear any of her prophecies. Most people today would describe Moses, and possibly Aaron, as the leaders Yahweh chose to lead His people out of slavery in Egypt. Yahweh includes Miriam in this list as well. Micah prophecies in Micah 6.4:

For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery; and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

Once again, we see that Yahweh has no issue lifting up women leaders, spiritual leaders, even in the presence of competent male leadership. We also see the chronicler list Miriam in his genealogy in 1 Chronicles 6.3. It is quite unusual to include women in a genealogy, which further proclaims Miriam’s prominence during the time.

In Numbers 12 we see Miriam confronting Moses about his wife. The Midianites sold Joseph into slavery in Egypt (Genesis 37.36). Later, we see Yahweh commanding His people to kill the Midianites. Yet, Moses’ wife, Zipporah, is a Midianite. Cush was part of Midia. They were idol worshipers and Zipporah’s father was a priest of this pagan religion (Exodus 2.16). So it may seem that Miriam is somewhat justified in confronting Moses about his marriage, but there a couple of other issues to deal with here.

First, Moses’ wife Zipporah was black. So, we have, perhaps, the first interracial marriage protest. Cush is a region south of Ethiopia and people that come from there are known for being black-skinned. Jeremiah 13.23 says:

Can the Ethiopian [same Hebrew word translated Cushite in Numbers 21.1] change his skin or the leopard his spots?

We also see that Miriam is not happy with her secondary leadership role while Moses is the top dog. While Moses is humble, Miriam and Aaron are acting in a prideful and arrogant manner. Consider the text of Numbers 12:1-3:

While they were at Hazeroth, Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had indeed married a Cushite woman); and they said, ‘Has the Lord spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?’ And the Lord heard it. Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth.

John Piper thinks Yahweh’s response to Miriam may be a play on her racism. He says:

In response to Miriam’s criticism, God does not get angry at Moses; he gets angry at Miriam. The criticism has to do with Moses’ marriage and Moses’ authority. The most explicit statement relates to the marriage: "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman." Then God strikes Miriam with leprosy. Why? Consider this possibility. In God’s anger at Miriam, Moses’ sister, God says in effect, "You like being light-skinned Miriam? I’ll make you light-skinned." So we read, "When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow" (Num. 12:10)

Moses is not punished at all and neither is Aaron by the way. Perhaps Miriam’s name coming before Aaron’s in 12.1 indicates that she was the instigator. Another idea here is that Yahweh is preserving Aaron from contamination since he is the high priest and would be unable to perform his priestly duties if he had leprosy.

The story ends when Aaron pleads for Moses’ forgiveness and Moses prays to Yahweh for his sister. After a week, Miriam is restored (Numbers 12.12-15). Miriam, like her two brothers, dies in the desert before the Israelites reach the Promised Land (Numbers 20.1).

We only get a few glimpses into the life of the prophet Miriam. In one, she is leading all of Israel in worship. In another, she is acting with pride (and possibly racism) and Yahweh rebukes her for it. However, this rebuke does nothing to diminish Miriam’s prominence as a spiritual leader appointed by Yahweh. Aaron was also rebuked and Moses has his troubles as well (Numbers 20.12). Miriam's great reputation in scripture as well as in the oral tradition indicate that she did many other amazing things in the name of Yahweh.

Women of the Bible – Esther

2007-10-29T23:18:00.000-07:00

Esther lived around 475 B.C. and was the Queen of King Ahasuerus, AKA Xerxes, the God-king of the Persian Empire. Esther’s Jewish name was Hadassah. Mordecai was Esther’s uncle and surrogate father. Her name means “star” and she is known for her physical beauty as well as her sweet personality.
The book of Esther does not mention Yahweh (God), which has brought objections to even including it in the cannon. Literarily speaking, not mentioning Yahweh only heightens the intrigue of the fact that Yahweh is in control of the seemingly insignificant events that take place. In fact, a major theme of Esther (as well as the Hebrew Bible) is that Yahweh is delivering his people, the Jews. It would seem that the absence of Yahweh from the book is a literary device designed to highlight His involvement.
Esther lived in a culture that subjugated women. At the beginning of the book of Esther Xerxes’ queen is Vashti (meaning “beautiful woman”), but she refuses to dance before Xerxes’ drunken guests (1.12) which angers the king. After consulting his advisers, Xerxes banishes Vashti from his presence and replaces her as queen. He also passes a law that “all the women will respect their husbands.” According to his advisors, this decree will keep women from following Vashti’s example of disobedience to their husbands.
Xerxes process of selecting a new queen went like this.

All the young, beautiful women would be placed in his harem and undergo a year of beauty treatments before being presented to him.
When selected from the harem, the queen-candidate would spend the night with Xerxes then return to a separate part of the harem.
If he remembered a women’s name and was pleased with her, he could call her back out of this section of the harem to visit him.

Esther 2.15b says, “Esther won the favor of everyone who saw her.” Xerxes finally selects Esther to be Queen. She stays in contact with Mordecai and at his advice hides her Jewish heritage.
Haman, one of Xerxes top advisers, comes to hate Mordecai because Mordecai refuses to kneel down and pay honor to him. Eventually, Haman persuades Xerxes to let him handle all the Jews by wiping them out, one of many attempted holocausts to be endured by the Jewish people. Mordecai finds out about it and tell Esther that she must intervene. She replies that she is not allowed to approach Xerxes. Anyone doing so unbidden is condemned to death unless Xerxes pardons him or her. Mordecai responds:

Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this? (4.12-14)

Mordecai’s statement implies that he believes that Yahweh will fulfill His promise to Abraham and therefore the Jews will not perish at this time. Therefore, Esther tells Mordecai to have the Jews fast for three days, and that she and her maidens will do the same. After the fast, she approaches the King, he welcomes and pardons her and, after several feasts, she delivers her message. Xerxes then has Haman hanged and gives his estate to Mordecai. Haman’s proposed attacks on the Jews are carried out, but now the Jews are prepared and given permission from Xerxes to defend themselves. In the end, the Jews killed 75,000 people that were hostile to them on the 13th and 14th days of the month of Adar. These days became celebrated as the Feast of Purim, as commanded by Queen Esther (9.29-32).

The book of Esther is primarily about Yahweh saving his people and He does this by raising up Esther as their ruler. She was not only ruler over the Jewish people but all others in the Persian Empire as the Queen of Xerxes. She orders men to send messages to Mordecai. She orders her uncle Mordecai (an older male) to gather all the Jews in Susa for a fast (a spiritual activity). Haman falls at her feet and begs for his life. She is in a position of authority and exerts this authority over males. Finally, Esther commands the Jews to celebrate Yahweh’s deliverance of His people in an annual feast commemorating this occasion. Her leadership and authority included both politics and religion.

Some have dismissed Esther as a nonreligious leader. Consider this statement by Tim O’Hearn (Riverside Church of Christ, Albuquerque, NM):

Esther became a queen and was instrumental in saving her people from destruction, but had no religious involvement that we know about from scripture. Women exercised considerable influence in the home (Gen 21:10; Prov 31:10-31). They were just not part of the temple worship. On the other hand, women were instrumental in leading men away from God; think of Eve, Solomon's wives/concubines, and Isabella (Jezebel).

Fasting is undoubtedly a religious activity, which in this case included prayer. What else is Esther waiting for but the prayers of her and her people to be heard by Yahweh? Queen Esther tells the Jews in Susa to fast and, by implication, pray and they do so. Furthermore, Tim categorizes all women as Jezebels. While this gives us great insight to Tim’s perspective, it is irresponsible at best. Consider categorizing all men as untrustworthy spouses because of King David’s infidelity. There are many more men in the Bible that lead people away from God then there are women. Following Tim’s logic, men also should not be allowed to be leaders.

Esther was a gifted leader of Yahweh’s people. He saved his people from genocide through her leadership. She was beautiful (and used that gift to serve Yahweh), but she was also courageous, bold, daring and persuasive. I cannot help but think of the song we teach our children where the little boys say, “I want to be like Daniel” and the little girls say, “I want to be like Ruth.” Perhaps some of our little girls should want to be like Queen Esther as well.

Women of the Bible – Huldah

2007-10-19T22:25:00.000-07:00

Background and Overview
Huldah (2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34) lived during the divided kingdom about 625 B.C. during the rein of King Josiah. Josiah became King of Judah at age 8. His father (Amon) and grandfather (Manasseh) had promoted pagan religions (2 Kings 21). After eight years, at age 16, Josiah began seeking Yahweh and at age 20 we began removing some of the sinful practices from his land (2 Chronicles 34.3). At age 30 he ordered the Temple be restored, since it had fallen into disrepair since the time of his grandfather. During this repair, the book of the law is found.
Hilkiah, the high priest, sent the book with Shaphan, the secretary (i.e. Secretary of State), to Josiah. When Shaphan read from the book of the law Josiah was aghast and tears his robes (Chronicles 34.19). He sent Hilkiah, Shaphan and three other men to “inquire of the LORD” for him and all the people “concerning the words of the book that has been found” (34.21). These men, without discussion or question, went straight to Huldah. Huldah told them several things to say to Josiah and Josiah listens to what Huldah said to do.

Was Huldah a “Real” Prophet?
Traditional hierarchical supporters, who believe men are supposed to rule over women, are not quite sure what to do with this story and try to dismiss it in several ways. Tactic #1 is to ignore it. Many people do not even know who Huldah is. I heard a sermon preached this year on 2 Chronicles 34 in which the preacher skipped right over the Huldah verses like they were not even there and did not mention her name once. Tactic #2 is to dismiss this as “Old Testament” and therefore not applicable as an example to us today. Far too many church of Christers have been influenced by this part of the “Texas Tradition”, simply dismissing everything before Acts 2 as part of the “Old Dispensation.” This is a discussion all to itself, but I will make one inquiry here: What “scripture” is referred to in 2 Tim 3.16-17?

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I will give you a hint; the “New Testament” was still being written and would not be canonized until around 200 B.C. Tactic #3 is to attack the Prophet status of Huldah. We will address this issue briefly.

John Rice (a Baptist) says:

Prophets were not preachers, they did not preach. They did not do the work of a pastor nor the work of an evangelist nor the works of a Bible teacher. To prophesy means to foretell the future. A prophecy is a revelation of the future. A prophet is a man who receives a divine revelation. A prophetess is a woman who receives a divine revelation concerning the future. A prophetess never preached in the Bible. They received brief divine revelation to give to individuals, but were never sent to preach, to address public assemblies as expounders of the word nor do they do the work of a pastor or evangelist.

Bobby Valentine’s response to this quote by John Rice was, “One wonders if [John Rice] ever heard of Jonah or Moses?” This is right on the mark. The Hebrew Bible is full of people called prophets who preached Yahweh’s message to others.

A prophet is one who speaks for God to a specific audience.

Exodus 7.1: Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.
Exodus 4.16: He [Aaron] will speak to the people for you [Moses], and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.

Just as God’s prophets speak for God, Moses’ prophet, Aaron, speaks for Moses. God defines a prophet as someone sent to speak for another.

Amos 7.16: Now then, hear the word of the LORD. You say,
" 'Do not prophesy against Israel,
and stop preaching against the house of Isaac.'

The synonymous parallelism in this verse shows that preaching and prophesying are the same thing.

Jeremiah 1:5-7:

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."
7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you.

Again, God defines a prophet as someone He sends to speak to a specific audience.

1 Corinthians 14.3 contrasts tongue-speakers to prophets and defines prophets as those who speak for God to other people for their encouragement.

These verses are more than examples (and we could find plenty of those), they are definitions of a prophet given to us by God. Sometimes God's message is about future events, but it not limited to that. In fact, it usually is not a prediction of the future but a message about the now. There is no doubt that most, if not all, prophets preached to their varied audiences on behalf of God. Sometimes they quoted Him; sometimes they gave their interpretation of God’s message for the people. In both cases, they preached the word of God.

Given this biblical definition of a prophet, what are we to do with Deborah (whom we discussed earlier)? She was a prophet, and therefore a preacher. So was Huldah. So were Miriam, the female false prophet Noadiah (Nehemiah 6), the wife of Isaiah, and the female false prophets of Ezekiel 13.17-23 (the male false prophets were in 13.1-16). (Please note that being male or female has nothing to do with being a false prophet. A false prophet is a prophet who tells lies instead of the truth. Gender is irrelevant.)
And in the Greek Bible we see Anna, the female prophets at Pentecost (Acts 2), the daughters of Phillip (Acts 21) and the Corinthian female prophets (1 Corinthians 11).
It is impossible to escape the fact that these women preached and did so with God’s approval. Some passages state the preaching explicitly (i.e. Huldah and 1 Corinthians 11) and others express it simply by calling them prophets. The prophetic ministry is analogous to the preaching ministry today. Nevertheless, some supporters of the status quo refuse to accept female leadership.

Here is a letter to the editor published in the Christian Chronicle in 2004:

[Lenny Adams’ article Dealing with the Role of Women] reveals an area of debate that fails to consider the heart of the problem. We’re not saying a great deal about the role of women in the secular realm; this is the heart of the issue. This is the area in which all the problems of leadership originate. But the first question we must answer is, “Does the Bible authorize women to be in positions of authority over men in any area of life?” It is my belief, and one in which I would debate, that women have no Biblical authority to be over men in any area of life. Their subjection role was given at creation and has never changed.

Scripture does not support this stance. I know many Christians who truly believe this convoluted perspective. I love them, but I think they put to much stock in what they have been taught (man-made traditions) and not enough stock in scripture.

A Closer Look at the Prophet Huldah
First we need to understand the importance of Huldah during her own time. We may not hear a lot about Huldah today, but during the reign of King Josiah, she was the “go-to guy”. Jeremiah was preaching during this exact point in time. So were Zephaniah, Nahum and possibly Habakkuk as well. These are names we are more familiar with, yet the King does not inquire of any of these male prophets. He also does not turn to his own male seer, Jeduthun (2 Chronicles 35.15). When Josiah sends “his men” to “inquire of the Yahweh”, they go straight to Huldah.
Who are these men King Josiah sends?

Hilkiah, the High Priest
Ahikam, the son of Shaphan (his son becomes governor of Judea, 2 Kings 25.22)
Abdon son of Micah
Shaphan, the secretary (i.e. Secretary of State)
Asaiah the king’s attendant

These men are the top leaders in the kingdom. They have the king’s ear. Hilkiah is the High Priest! Please notice that neither Josiah nor Hilkiah think the High Priest is the one who should speak Yahweh’s message concerning “this book”. Some claim that the priesthood is analogous to the preaching ministry today. I think not.
We should also consider the textual importance of Huldah. Chronicles and Kings do not mention most prophets. Those that are mentioned, like Jeremiah, are usually mentioned in passing (2 Chronicles 35.25) in one or the other but not in both Chronicles and Kings. Very few (such as Isaiah) are mentioned in both. Huldah is not only mentioned, but she receives almost a page of text in each. Her introduction alone is more text than many kings get!
Most importantly, this Hebrew text is structured into a chiasm. A chiastic structure points to the main idea of a story by building up to it, then unwinding back out using parallel points. Here is the chiastic structure of the Huldah narrative:
A. Introduction (2 Chronicles 34.1-2)
B. Cultic Purification of Jerusalem and Judah (34.3-5)
C. Purification of the North (Northern Kingdom) (34.6-7)
D. Discovery of the book (34.8-18)
E. The Prophecy of Huldah (34.19-32)
D. Implementation of the book (34.29-32)
C. Purification of the North (34.33)
B. Celebration of the Passover (cultic observance) (35.1-19)
A. Formulaic Conclusion (35.20-36.1)
Huldah is the focus of the story. She is the theological and structural center. The structure stresses the authority of the prophetic word and what comes to be “scripture.” The spoken word of God (Huldah), along with the written word of God (the book of the law), dominate this passage.

What exactly did Huldah do?
Huldah does three major things in this story. First, she authenticates/authorizes scripture. Please understand that this is the first time this has ever happened. We discussed earlier that Deborah was the first author of scripture and now Huldah is the first person to declare, with authority, that a writing is scripture (i.e. from Yahweh). This is what King Josiah is asking his advisor to find out. Is this book the real thing? He just got some really bad news (since the people had not been obeying the laws) and he wants to know if it is true. Huldah tells him it is and he believes her.

Second, Huldah interprets Scripture. She says that the people of Judah will be struck with disaster because they have forsaken Yahweh and instead worshiped idols. The book of the law does say this directly. Huldah is “preaching” the message of Yahweh as his mouthpiece (prophet).

Third, Huldah delivers a custom message from Yahweh. She tells the King that since he responded with humility and angst when he found out about the book, Yahweh will suspend his judgment until after Josiah’s rein.

Huldah’s authority is accepted by the King and High Priest of Judah, and then by all “the remnant.” Those that claim her authority was limited to a closed-door session are mistaken. The words of Yahweh as they came from Huldah had authority over all of Judah. Furthermore, there is never a hint that a woman acting in this authoritative role is unexpected or unwelcomed by the men in the story. Her womanhood is irrelevant to the authoritative role Yahweh gave her. Huldah, like Deborah, was married. This also did not affect her role as prophet of Yahweh.

Conclusion
Yahweh used Huldah to lead His people back to Him. She was viewed as Yahweh’s spokesperson and the King’s men went directly to her to find out Yahweh’s will. She authenticated the book of the law, interpreted it in the present context and delivered a personal message from Yahweh to Josiah. The King and his advisers, including the High Priest, accepted her authority. Josiah went on to restore Judah based on Yahweh’s words though Huldah and through the book of the law she validated.

Women of the Bible - Deborah

2007-10-04T13:57:00.000-07:00

Historical Background
Life in Israel was difficult during the age of the judges (~1400-1050 B.C.). Joshua had put down all major organized resistance in the land and divided Canaan amongst the 12 tribes. There were, however, still pockets of resistance and Yahweh wanted these pagans driven out of the land. Judges 1.19 sums up the situation very well:

The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots.

Archeology confirms that the Israelites lived in the hill country. Furthermore, the Israelites did not know how to work iron, but their adversaries (the Philistines) did. This gave these canaanites a military and economic advantage, thus they ruled the fertile plans near the Mediterranean Sea while the Israelites were confined to the hills.

Ehud, a prior Judge, died and Israel fell back into Sin (Judges 4.1). This is the normal cycle for Judges: sin, servitude, supplication, salvation. Deborah continues this pattern as the people cry out to Yahweh (4.3) and he sends them a new Judge: Deborah (4.4). Deborah is unique among judges in that she was also a prophet, and like other prophets, she spoke the word or Yahweh (3.28, 4.6).

What is a Judge?
A judge was a supreme ruler, in the name of Yahweh, during this period. He or she was the spiritual, political and military leader of one or more tribes of Israel, who was raised up by Yahweh (2.16) to save His people. Deborah should be viewed, as should the other judges, as part of this larger context.

Judges tells the story of Deborah twice: in chapter 4 in prose and in chapter 5 in poetry. Chapter 5 was written by Deborah (even though the introduction says “Deborah and Barak”, all the pronouns are feminine-singular). Most scholars think Deborah’s Song (Judges 5) is the oldest writing in the Bible (O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, 1965: 100-101). I find it fascinating that a woman wrote the oldest scripture we have.

We must avoid projecting feminist or anti-feminist ideas into this story. Remember, this is primarily a story about Yahweh raising up a leader to save His people. One mistake that is made by feminists is to diminish Deborah’s introduction as the “wife of Lepidoth.” Instead, they try to translate this phrase as, “a woman of valor.” We must set this story in its proper historical and societal context. This was a strongly patriarchal society, people were known by what family they belonged to and families were named by the patriarch of the family. Introducing Deborah as the wife of Lepidoth is a very standard introduction for this period. Furthermore, it does not diminish Deborah, but rather shows that a wife can be a leader raised up by Yahweh, even in this strongly patriarchal society.

On the other hand, anti-feminists have attacked Deborah on various fronts. Consider David L. Brown's explanation of Deborah:

Yahweh's perfect will is for men to lead, but when men will not assume their responsibilities, Yahweh uses women. The men in Deborah's day were weak and chicken-hearted. Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, proves this to be true. He refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. Deborah had to remind him that Yahweh had said it is time to fight. Deborah had to encourage and challenge him to go. Deborah had to go with him!
"And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go" Judges 4:8
Deborah clearly realized that this was neither right nor natural for her to have the leadership position.

Always beware an author who calls something “clear” when it is not. First, Brown says that the men here were “weak and chicken-hearted.” We do not see either of these points made in Judges 4 or 5. At Deborah’s command, 10,000 men assembled to attack the Canaanites, who had better weapons and who had oppressed the Israelites for twenty years. What is “chicken-hearted” about that? It is not explained why Barak refuses to go without Deborah. Brown (and others in his camp) assumes it is because Barak is a poor leader. Barak is the one who assembles the 10,000 men at Deborah’s command. He leads them into battle and destroys the entire Canaanite army. Barak seems to have a reasonable grasp of leadership. Perhaps it is the huge respect that Deborah had during this time that causes Barak to demand her accompaniment. As Yahweh’s judge and prophet, Barak may have viewed her as a talisman (i.e. the Arc of the Covenant) to be carried before the army to ensure victory. This is just another possible explanation. As I said above, we just are not told why Barak demands this of Deborah.

Second, Brown says that it “was neither right nor natural for [Deborah] to have a leadership position.” Where does this idea come from? Not Judges 4-5. Yahweh raised up judges to save His people (Judges 2.16). Yahweh choose Deborah and I do not believe he made a mistake nor that He would have chosen a male if one of good quality would have been available. Yahweh has no problem using poor-quality men to accomplish His plans (i.e. Jonah).

Some have also attacked Deborah’s prophet status, but she is a prophet by any definition of the word. She speaks for Yahweh (4.6), prophesies the outcome of the battle (4.7, 9) and encourages faithfulness and obedience (4.14). These are normal activities of prophets and Deborah’s gender limits her in no way as a prophet of Yahweh.

Back to the Main Story
At this point, it is worth pulling our thoughts back to the main point of Judges 4-5: Yahweh saves His people. Consider Judges 5.4:

O LORD, when you went out from Seir,
when you marched from the land of Edom,
the earth shook, the heavens poured,
the clouds poured down water.

To reach the battlefield, Sisera’s army had to dismantle their chariots and reassemble them on the flat plain. The rain and mud would have made this difficult and made the chariots bog down in the mud. Yahweh apparently neutralized the technological advantage of the Canaanites and led his people to victory against them. Deborah’s Song is not primarily about Deborah, Barak, or Jael (who killed Sisera by driving a tent peg through his head); it is about Yahweh saving His people.

Summary
God raised up a judge, prophet and military leader named Deborah. She led several tribes of Israel (including all the men of those tribes) as Yahweh commanded her. Barak recognized her authority, obeyed her instructions, and so won the battle at Megiddo. Yahweh was pleased with this and granted victory over the Canaanites. Forty years of peace followed because they obeyed Yahweh’s will.

Charme E. Robarts (Deborah, Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Volume II) profoundly states:

To suggest that Deborah would not have played the role of military or spiritual leader if the men of Israel had been responsible is to make current gender conflicts apply to the ancient setting rather than allowing the text to apply its meaning to the present situation.

For a visual (and somewhat accurate) representation of this story, refer to The Brick Testament.

Women of the Bible - The Fall

2007-10-03T12:01:00.000-07:00

Historical Background and Influence
Before we look at the fall in chapter three let us examine current thoughts about Adam and Eve. I believe there is a stereotypical view of Eve as physically beautiful (that is how she is always painted, see picture from the previous post) but not necessarily too bright. In fact, it is often implied (or outright stated) that the serpent deceived her because she was gullible and dim-witted, at least compared to Adam. Many argue that is why the serpent deceived Eve, not Adam. Let us take a few minutes to consider some very influential early Christian leaders and their view of women.

Tertullian, a 2^nd century church leader (who coined the term “trinity”), told his female listeners:
You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first forsaker of the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not brave enough to approach; you so lightly crushed the image of God, the man Adam; because of your punishment, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.

Augustine (4^th – 5^th century) said:
How could he [Adam] have believed what the serpent said? For the serpent said that God prohibited them from eating the fruit of that tree because he knew that if they did so they would become as gods by their knowing good and evil (Gen 3.5) – as if God begrudged his creatures so great a blessing! That a man endowed with a spiritual mind could have believed this is astonishing. And just because it is impossible to believe it, woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by the superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?

Wow! So, woman is of small intelligence and does not bear the image of God whereas man was impossible to deceive in the garden and has a mind of superior reason. In addition, according to Augustine, woman was created to be deceived since the man could not be. We need to understand that Augustine still has a great influence on Christian theology today. He came up with “love the sinner and hate the sin.”

This negative view of women continued through the centuries and in 1486, Dominicans Kramer and Sprengler used such arguments to justify the Malleus Maleficarum (“Hammer of the Witches”) that led to 300 years of persecution of so-called “witches.”

Consider the artwork that “graces” the entrance to the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Like many other Medieval Christian art, it depicts the serpent as a seductive woman.

It is important to look back at these early Christian influences because we are influenced. It is an incredibly difficult task to realize what we are being influenced by. I encourage you to self-evaluate your own influences in this area. Unless you realize what prejudices you bring to the table, you will be unable to evaluate this material evenhandedly.

Now, let us see if these stereotypes about Eve and women hold up against the text of Genesis chapter three.

A Summary of Genesis 3
First God is conspicuously absent from the scene, apparently for the first time thus far in Genesis. Instead, we have a new character on the scene, the serpent. He is a dominating presence, initiating and concluding the conversation (figuratively surrounding the woman (and man?) with his deceit). His initial question is leading and manipulative, designed to setup his following response. Eve’s answer is accurate and to the point. She is informed and perceptive, taking responsibility to follow the command that, as far as we know, was only given to Adam (2.16-17). The serpent’s response shows that he understands Eve (and likely Adam also) very well. He really hits home when he concludes that if Eve eats the fruit she will become “like God.” It seems Eve is convinced that this is true and takes the bait. Then she hands some to Adam and he eats.

After eating the fruit, they realize their nakedness. Many theories exist on exactly what “knowledge” was gained by eating the fruit. It seems likely this knowledge was to discern for themselves what was right and wrong rather than relying on God to lead them. Thus, their relationship to God is completely altered.

God’s appearance now brings fear to Adam and Eve and they hide, even though He just comes asking questions. Now we see the relationship between the man and woman has also undergone a change. The man immediately blames the woman for giving him the fruit. She responds by blaming the serpent. (This sounds a lot like my 4- and 5-year-olds.)

Some Analysis
Where was the man during the conversation between the woman and the serpent? He was right next to her. The text says he “was with her” (3.6). Not only this, but during the conversation between Eve and the serpent, the pronouns (we and you) referring to Eve, and therefore Adam, are plural. Adam was next to her this whole time. In fact, we have not yet seen them apart since Eve was created.

Whose authority is usurped? God’s authority is usurped and Adam and Eve usurped it. We see no indication that Eve usurped Adam’s authority in any way. In fact, based on our discussion of Genesis 1 and 2, Adam and Eve are peers and partners both assigned equal roles and status by God. God is the only authority we have seen thus far.

Who deceived whom? We do not see in this passage are Eve acting the role of “temptress.” Adam is part of this discussion, albeit a silent participant. He hears the arguments then chooses to eat the fruit. Eve only hands a piece to him. She does not coerce or entice him in any way. The only deceiver is this story is the serpent.

Who is cursed? The serpent and the ground are cursed. God curses neither Adam nor Eve because of this sin. (The ground is cursed because of Adam though.) He explains what will now happen because of their sin, but they are not cursed because of it. In fact, there is no indictment of Eve at all. The serpent’s and Adam’s punishment sections are prefaced by a “Because you have done this” clause. Eve, for some reason, receives no such introduction. God just tells her what is going to happen now.

After God monolog about the results of their sins, Adam names Eve: “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” (3.20) Eve means “living.” This seems to be an honor given to Eve. If she were the primary responsible party for the sinning, why is such an honor bestowed?

A small tangent here: Notice that God provides Adam and Eve with garments of skin to wear. It appears the first sins are followed by the first animal sacrifice. Just food for thought…

Looking Deeper
Genesis 3.16 is quite a challenge to understand. What is the exact syntax of the verse in how 16a relates to 16b? How should 16b be translated? What does desire mean? How does this relate back to Genesis 2? Is God describing what will happen or prescribing what he wants to happen?

A Traditional View
Some say that because the woman led man into this first sin she gets a demotion and the man will now “rule over” her and she will desire him. Likewise, she gets the punishment of pain in childbearing. The question that begs to be asked of this interpretation is why the woman is held more responsible than the man is for this sin?

We have already established that Adam and Eve were there together talking to the serpent. Perhaps when Eve spoke she did so for the both of them; with Adam next to her nodding is agreement. Perhaps he disagreed but did not say anything. Either way, sin is sin and Adam and Eve were both fully responsible for their own actions. Therefore, the idea that God demoted Eve due to the fall is difficult to support.

A Temporary Hierarchy View
Another attempt at explaining this verse is that women’s increased pain in childbearing could indicate that the desire the woman will have for her husband is sexual, thus offsetting the natural desire to avoid this pain. The man ruling over the women, in light of the egalitarian relationship in Genesis 1 and 2, is a consequence of sin, not the will of God. This view sees the hierarchical relationship as a distortion of what God had planned; a distortion that Jesus sets right, as he does all sin.

A Shift in Core Desires View
Others say that women’s pain in childrearing will increase. She will now desire to please men, not just her husband. Men will respond to the need of hers by ruling over her. In essence, she has traded her holy desire to please God for an unholy desire to please males. Again, this is not a curse from God, but rather God explaining what is going to happen because of the sin that has entered the world. Men, likewise, will now struggle and work to succeed in this world. This replaces their holy desire to work to please God. This unhealthy competition for success over other males and over females pushes us further, not closer, to God’s ideal world at creation.

Conclusion
Whatever your view of Genesis 3.16, it must reconcile with the straightforward theology of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. God created men and women to be equal partners, bonded together in community. Whatever the exact consequences of the fall, it is not how God created things nor how He wants them to exist. We may have to unlearn some errant theology before we can accept this point.

Sin destroyed the healthy community that existed in the garden. The people do not become independent from God; instead, it is dreadfully apparent to them now how much they need Him. The knowledge of good and evil enabled them to realize that they were the evil. Their relationship with each other has suffered as well. Equality, mutual concern and care are replaced with desire, struggle and competition. Just as the first people turned away from God and tried to take care of themselves, so will all that follow. Nevertheless, God offers hope. We see hope in the curse he gives the serpent. The woman’s offspring (not the man’s?) will crush this fallen state and redeem the world, bringing us all back to Eden.

For a visual (and somewhat accurate) representation of this story, refer to The Brick Testament.

Women of the Bible - The Beginning

2007-09-24T17:16:00.000-07:00

The Beginning seems like a good place to start, and indeed it is. While the creation seems rather straightforward it has large theological ramifications. The text is divided into three pieces, two accountings of creation followed by the accounting of the fall. (I'll handle the fall in my next post.)

Genesis 1.1-2.3, the creation of everything...a summary
Genesis 2.4-2.25, the creation of humans...a detailed account
Genesis 3.1-3.24, the fall

Now the first accounting of creation summarizes the creation of humans into one verse (Genesis 1.27):
27 So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
While the second accounting gives much detail about the creation of people, this first account boils it down to the two most important aspects of the creation of people.
1. Humans are created in the image of God.
2. Humans were created with two types: male and female.
It is so important that we get these two points that each one is written twice!
In this accounting there is no difference between male and female humans. Both were created by God and both were created in God's image. Both were commanded to rule over the earth and to populate it. They are not in opposition nor indistinguishable, but rather they live in community with one another in common commission and function.

The second accounting of creation focuses on the creation of the humans, leaving out most of the rest of the creation. First, God creates a beautiful garden then He places the man in the garden to watch over it. He gives the man one rule: don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God sees that the man needs a companion and parades the animals in front of the man so that he sees this need as well. Then God creates the woman from the man's rib and the man cries out in excitement at his new companion!

Some claim this second creation story demonstrates men's authority over women. There are four main points to this argument:
1. Man was created first and therefore has dominion over women.
2. Man named woman, demonstrating his authority over her.
3. Woman was created from man's rib, demonstrating her dependence on him.
4. Woman was created to be a helper to Man, indicating his authority over her.

The flaws in these arguments are simple:
1. There is no inherent dominion on the grounds of creation order. The animals don't rule over the people and the fish and birds don't rule over the land animals, yet that was the order they were created in.
2. God commanded the man to name all the animals but God does not give the man the authority to name the woman. On the contrary, the man names the woman (and also himself) out of spontaneous joy at the sight of her!
3. If we apply this rule to man, then he is dependent on and ruled by the dirt he was created from...which makes no sense at all.
4. This is a complete misrepresentation of the word “helper.” This exact Hebrew word is used several times in the Hebrew Bible to refer to God, i.e. God is our helper. If this word “helper” indicates dominance or authority then God would have to be under the authority of those people He was a helper to. Of course, this is asinine.

The fact is the second creation story is really about the woman. She is the climax and the pinnacle of the creation. She gets five verses describing the need for her and then the creation of her. Notice the man gets zero verses! He is just placed in the garden. If there is any indication of superiority in this chapter it is that the woman (who is the only creature who is created from another creature) is the crown-jewel of God's creation.
The fact is, from both creation stories we see a perfect world, just as God created it and intended it. In this world there is no distinction in terms of role or authority between the man and the woman.

The Inspired Word of God

2006-04-27T08:04:00.000-07:00

Discussion Starter:
We're all familiar with 2 Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." What is meant by the word "Scripture" here?

In many/most places in the NT it refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, which makes sense because the NT texts were not compiled and many were not written yet. There are passages, on the other hand, that do refer to NT writings as Scripture. Consider 2 Peter 3:15-16, "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

This brings me to my primary question: What does it mean that the Bible is the "Inspired" Word of God? Did God tell the writers, word-for-word, what to say? This doesn't really make sense as each author has his own style of writing, and, in fact, there are minor discrepancies between different biblical authors. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians 7:10-14 that "not I, but the Lord" says such and such, then "I, not the Lord" says this, that and the other. So he definitely wrote down things that were from himself (Paul) as well as things that were from God.

"Traditionally", we look at the Bible as infallible. Is this a correct view of Scripture if Paul is adding his opinion in when he feels like it?

Finally, the word Scripture (Greek: grafe) means “a writing”. The implication is that these are "writings from God", but that's not what the word means in Greek. So what exactly is a "Scripture"?

Grace and Peace,
Keith

Judas luvs Jesus

2006-04-06T12:47:00.000-07:00

So there's a new codex translated that Natl Geographic is making a big stink over. "The gospel of Judas". Supposedly it states that Jesus and Judas were best buds and Jesus actually asked Judas to betray him. Thoughts? Here's the link: http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/index.html

CCP-Boys - What's the point?

2006-04-04T13:50:00.000-07:00

CCP-Boys,
I thought I'd put this BLOG up as a place where we could share our thoughts about things, especially Biblical things. I have a lot to teach you guys about God, so the sooner we start the better.

I actually have an idea in mind to start. I've been studying a book called THE DEATH OF THE CUSTODIAN. It's available to read online: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wcketcherside/tdotc/

Let's start with a few simple questions:
1. Are we under the Old Covenant?
2. What exactly is the "Old Covenant"?
3. How many Covenants has God made with mankind?
4. How do the books of the "Old Testament" and "New Testament" relate to these Covenants?

More to come...

In Him,
Keith