Is There Place in Modern Christianity for the God of the Torah?

One of my favorite celebrations of the year occurred a little over a week ago.  The holiday of Simchat Torah or the celebration of the Torah is the day when you finish reading the last part of Deuteronomy and rewind the Torah, the first five books of the bible, back to Genesis 1.  It is a day of dancing and rejoicing over the gift of the very words of God, as embodied in the verses of Genesis through Deuteronomy. But while our Jewish brothers and sisters are rejoicing in God’s word, it seems as if Christian culture of today is often more embarrassed by the Torah than they are interested in reveling in the life that God promises is found within these pages.  While I hope I’m overstating it, the push separate to the “God of the Old Testament” from the “God of the New Testament” hasn’t seemed so strong since the days of Marcion.  This is troubling to me.  The Torah is the foundation of the rest of the book.  If we do not believe what is written in these pages, should we even claim to follow the God we serve?  God reminds us over and over that He does not change (Numbers 23:19, Psalm 55:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).  So why does there seem to be a growing trend in Christianity to say that the “God of the Old Testament”  has now changed from an angry, vengeful God to the loving, accepting, “God of the “New Testament”?  Could it be that we read some of the things God says in the Torah and it offends our modern cultural ideals? Could it be that we are embarrassed of some of the things that the Torah says?  Or maybe only what we think it says?  In my mind when we deny the “God of the Old Testament” we are taking away any and all reasons for us to be Christians in the first place and we bring dishonor to the God that we love.  Let me show you what I mean.

Quite a number of months ago I happened across a clip from Bill Maher’s show featuring Christian author, Ralph Reed.  By drawing attention to this interview, I am not in any way trying to denigrate Ralph Reed, it takes guts for a Christian to go on a show where you know you are going to be belittled and mocked for your beliefs and I greatly respect him for doing so.  My reasoning for highlighting this dialogue is I feel it illustrates the general Christian attitude about the 5 books of the bible that are the foundation of the rest of the story.  I will warn you before you watch, that Bill Maher blasphemes God and uses foul language.  If you do not care to watch I have briefly highlighted the arguments I find so troubling in the coming paragraphs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LUKlA3Z09c

As much as it hurts me to hear Bill Maher cursing God here, it hurts me more that as Christians we cannot answer these accusations or worse we actually think that Bill Maher is correct.  The first item in Maher’s attack was Paul’s advice for slaves to submit to their masters at the time of the Roman Empire.  I do not want to spend a lot of time on it, because you would have to write volumes.  But let’s just say the word slavery is actually in the bible and so is the practice.  However, it was not instituted by God, it was just regulated.  If slave owners in the South had followed the laws of Torah slavery in the American form would never have existed.  First of all the Torah outlaws kidnapping, so stealing people and bringing them over from Africa is out, with the added benefit that all of the slave dealers who did practice kidnapping would have been sentenced to death.  “Slavery” in the bible was set up for people who had no way to provide for themselves.  Although the concept is very different from our culture, people who had no way to provide for themselves or their families could “sell” themselves to someone else, instead of starving.  These slaves were not considered chattel or animals as they were in America. The person who "bought" them had to provide all the necessities of life for them.  They were required by Torah law to have one day a week off (Sabbath) and were included in the list of people God expected his people to bring to Jerusalem at the various festivals and party with. A Hebrew slave was supposed to be set free every seven years.  Furthermore, what Bill Maher nor Ralph Reed apparently knew, was that if a slave, even a foreign one, ran away from his master you were required to help them and shelter them.  Now I’m not going to try and mislead you there are differences in the rules about a Hebrew Slave and a Foreign Slave.  But I will have to go into this at a different time, because it goes beyond the scope of this blog post.  However, my guess is, if you look closely at these laws you will find as ever, that God is always merciful and loving.

Next Bill Maher tries to strong arm Ralph Reed with the claim that the “Old Testament” condemns a woman to death by stoning for the act of pre-marital sex.  What troubles me the most about this exchange is that Reed seems to accept this statement as true, but tries to justify it by explaining to Maher that it doesn’t matter anymore because Jesus changed all that. His acceptance of the "truth" of Maher’s statement, brings about Maher’s next somewhat logical conclusions. He states, “If the bible is the perfect book, written by the perfect guy, why did Jesus need to come along and correct His dad?” Ralph Reed again tries to counter with, “but we are under a New Covenant now.”  Bill follows up, “So it’s the Old Testament Jew God. He’s bad.” Followed by some other very disparaging remarks about the God of the Torah. Fellow Christian we have already established the fact that God DOES NOT change.  Jesus declares that, “He and the Father are one.” John 10:30.  So if what Bill Maher said about your God is true and a girl is under the death penalty for pre-marital sex in the Law of Moses, God has not changed.  Is that the God you serve?  If the God of the Torah is so terrible how can we allow Psalms 119 to even be scripture? Here are just the first two verses of a very long Psalm dedicated to how wonderful God's law is.  "How happy are those whose way of life is blameless, who live by the Torah of Adonai!  How happy are those who observe his instruction, who seek him wholeheartedly!" How could David pen these words?  Let’s take a look and find out.

First of all before we even go into whether or not a girl could be stoned for this offense.  I would like to point out that there are sins that are punished by capital punishment in the bible.  BUT ALL capital crimes REQUIRE two eye witnesses.  This means you have to have two people actually witness the crime for the court to put someone to death, no circumstantial evidence allowed.  How many people would be on death row today if this were the standard in today’s courts?  Another law to note, especially in a capital case,  but also applicable to any case where someone is being charged with a punishable offense, if a witness is caught telling a lie in their testimony, the judgement that they were trying to get the defendant convicted of, would now be turned around on them.  How many modern witnesses would be more careful of their testimonies, if this was a possible consequence in our court system?

So even IF there was a provision for a woman to be stoned for having pre-marital sex, there would have to be two eye witnesses to her act, for judgement to be carried out.  However, we don’t even need to worry about that provision, because a law sentencing a woman to death for pre-marital sex is simply non-existent in the Torah.  Although some of the laws toward women in the Torah, sound harsh when you look at them on the surface, when you dig deeper, you find that they are ALWAYS about protecting women from men who culturally might be able to take advantage of them.  However, in the case of the laws about pre-marital sex you do not even have to dig below the surface, even at face value, they ARE COMPLETELY about protecting a woman from a man that might use her and cast her aside.  Let’s take a look.   “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. ¹⁷ If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.” Exodus 22:16-17.  As we see there is no stoning here…  Only a law to make sure that a man takes responsibility for whom he decides to sleep with.  Even if he does not walk away with a bride, because her Father might be unsure he will make a fit husband for his daughter, the Seducer must pay the bride price so that the girl will be taken care of the rest of her life.  And if her father does consent, husbands were require to provide their wives with food, clothing, and shall we say it?  Sex.  Unlike what many Christians believe about biblical marriage, sex was the woman’s right, not the man’s.   So now that this man has seduced this virgin of Israel, he cannot just cast her off, as we find so many men doing today with the women they are sleeping with.  He must marry her and is required by law to provide all of those things for her the rest of her life even if, in a drastic case she wants nothing more to do with him. How many men would be sleeping around and making babies with many different women if this was still the law today? 

Christians, it is time that we stop being embarrassed about the first three quarters of our bible.  I’m not going to deny that there are laws in given in the Torah that are hard to understand. But it is about time we faced them and tried to understand what they were all about, even if it is scary to our modern sensibilites.  We have already established the fact that God does not change.  Since, Jesus states that He and the Father are one, we cannot separate him away from the Torah.  In fact, Jesus declares in the gospel of John, that if you do not believe Moses you will not believe him.  How many of us are trying to shove Moses under the rug?  The God of the New Testament is the same God of the Old Testament.  If we separate the Old Testament God from the New Testament God, aren’t we just committing idolatry by creating our own God?  We must stand up for our God and His word. Bill Maher in all his blasphemy has a point, if we as Christians deny the God of the Old Testament, aren’t we really just denying the God of the new, because just as the “Old Testament” declares God does not change, Hebrews 13:8 proclaims, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”  Maybe it is time we joined in the celebration of Torah and declare with David, “The Torah you have spoken means more to me than a fortune in gold and silver.” Psalms 119:72

A Case For the Festivals

As I write, I am sitting in my cozy Sukkah enjoying a sleepy fall morning.  Last evening was spent with friends - laughing, enjoying good food, singing, blessing God, and of course feeling silly while shaking the lulav.  This is our third year celebrating the Sukkot, the Levitical feast of booths or tabernacles.  Every different set apart time on God’s Calendar in Leviticus 23, blesses me in a different way. Sukkot in particular, makes me long for the Messianic Age, when there will be no more parting.   This morning while we were cooking our breakfast in the backyard, I daydreamed about how much fun it would be if all of our family and friends had built Sukkot in our backyard and were right now joining us for breakfast.  What a joyous occasion that would be!!

Although we have not personally experienced it, in my research and readings on what the festivals mean to Christians, I have often encountered a unexplainable prejudice toward actually keeping these appointed times. Some Christians actually theorize that if you keep these festivals you are denying Jesus sacrifice for you.  It is often said they are Jewish festivals, not meant to be kept by Christians.  This is a bias that I have a hard time understanding.  I in no way believe that you have to keep these festivals to be “saved”, but I also cannot understand why we, Christians, ever gave up these appointed times of joy.  Take for example the Christian holiday of Christmas, no one believes that you have to celebrate Christmas to be saved, and yet there are not many Christians who do not celebrate this man made day of remembrance.  Why?  Do we do it to be saved?  No!!  Christians celebrate Christmas because they see it as a remembrance of Christ’s birth.  How much more should we take pleasure in what God calls HIS FEASTS?

When God laid out what he called His feasts, in Leviticus 23, most if not all of the Israelites did not know that they pointed forward to a future event. They were simply a remembrance of past experiences. The list begins with the weekly Sabbath, which of course is a reminder of creation and the fact that God rested from His creative activity on the seventh day.  The purpose of Passover/Unleavened Bread was to recall God’s deliverance from Egypt. Shavuot was connected to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, although whether this was a connection made later or at the time of its institution is not really known.  Feast of Trumpets, or what is called Rosh Hashanah today, is called a day for remembrance when God instituted it, although God does not say what you are supposed to remember.  The Rabbi’s later connected it to the day that Adam and Eve were created, and thus on that day God was crowned King of the World.  Yom Kippur does not appear to have any past event connected with it.  However if you do a little math, you find that Yom Kippur lines up very closely with the day that God forgave Israel for their worship of the Golden Calf.  On that day He once again promised that He would go before them into the land, instead of just sending His angel.  We certainly might be able to draw a logical conclusion then, that Yom Kippur might be a day to remember God’s great forgiveness in the past.  Looking at the day through this event, helps explains why Jews today believe that individual judgement for the following year is sealed at the end of every Yom Kippur.  The solemn day of Judgement is followed by a seven day festival of rejoicing that lasts 8 days.  This week too is for remembering.  “Ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year.  It shall be a statute forever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.  Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:  That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths,  when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 23:41-43 From the fact that the festivals began as seasons of remembrance, we can draw the conclusion that even though our Messiah came and gave the festivals greater meaning, this does not mean God meant us to now quit observing them, instead we as Christians have an even greater meaning to keep them.

Admittedly all of these celebrations all had specific Temple worship and sacrifices specified for each festival, because there is no physical temple, there is no way to follow these specific commands.  But with almost all of the times, there are non-temple worship instructions attached to observance instructions, these certainly can be easily followed.  I would also argue that the Rabbis have spent 2000 years studying the festivals and how to keep them without a temple, and while you might not agree with all their conclusions, their deductions are at least are a good place to start deciding how you might observe.  Oh that we as Christians had done the same thing when the temple was destroyed, instead of throwing out God’s festivals and putting our own, or worse some other god’s holidays, in their place.  If we had done this, would we have discovered that maybe we don’t need a temple lamb sacrifice for Passover? Jesus is our lamb.  How much more should this festival mean to us?  Not only that but Jesus seems to point to some future observance or fulfillment when He says on the night before His crucifixion, “With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”  Luke 22:15-16 Jesus is planning on eating Passover with us.  How wonderful is that?  He is our unleavened bread.  How much more should eating unleavened bread for seven days mean to us? He is the first fruits of the resurrection.   The Holy Spirit came down on Shavuot.  How much more should this festival be lauded with joy and celebration?  While different sects of Christianity have different viewpoints on how Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur will be or have been fulfilled, we can all agree, I think, that Jesus is our great high priest serving us in the Heavenly Tabernacle.  Because of His sacrifice, our sins can be not just covered, but blotted out completely when we ask for forgiveness.  How much more should we be humbled before God on Yom Kippur than the Israelites of old?  Also on both Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah there are blasts on the “trumpet” or shofar.  All followers of the Messiah long for the day that Jesus will come again with blasts on the trumpet.  How much more should these days mean to us?  And finally, Sukkot, the set apart week that my family is currently enjoying.  Not only is Sukkot a picture of what Messiah did when he tabernacled here with us 2000 years ago, but also every Christian commentary and even the Jewish ones that I have read, point to Sukkot as a picture of the world to come.  That wonderful time in the future, when we will dwell with God and He with us.  How much more should we build our Sukkahs and wave our palm branches in anticipation of that day?

We as Christians are supposed to be disciples of our rabbi.  When you take a close look at what that means, it is not something to take lightly.  The picture of Middle Eastern discipleship is not just to learn everything the rabbi knows, but instead the goal is much more far reaching.  You are to follow your rabbi so closely that you become WHO he is.  So much so, that when people look at you and they know who you follow, because even though you are still you, everything you do reflects who your teacher is.  My favorite example of how serious this commitment is, to both the rabbi and disciple comes from a throw away line that I have heard from one of my favorite teachers, Ray Vanderlaan.  Talking about this commitment He shares that disciples will even follow their rabbi into the bathroom, because they don’t want to miss how the rabbi behaves in every situation.  There might be a blessing or some other form of behavior or protocol that they need to imitate.  While this is an extreme example, and might be a little too personal to us Westerners, this is exactly the kind of commitment Jesus asks from us, to imitate Him on all levels.  If we find Jesus doing something, we should be imitating Him to the best of our ability.  Not only do we find Jesus delighting in the festivals that were put in place by God, we also find him, in John 10:22-23, celebrating Hanukkah, a man made festival commemorating a great miracle of God.  “And it was at Jerusalem the Feast of Dedication and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon’s porch”.  Hanukkah is translated as dedication in English.  The festivals are another way that we can walk in His footsteps.

Ultimately, the festivals tell the story of the world from beginning to end.  They bring a wonderful rhythm to the life of the believer that cannot be duplicated.   They were designed by God to not only remember past deliverances, but future redemptions.  While I don't believe these festivals are designed to save you, I do think they are designed to teach you about salvation through physical acts.  Because while we live in a Greek thinking world, God knew that deep down inside, we all need physical (Eastern) ways of learning our faith.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all of God’s family started to celebrate these seasons of remembrance together? 

POINT #14. The first seven deacons chosen to administrate the early Christian church were all men.

Post #17 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #14. The first seven deacons chosen to administrate the early Christian church were all men. 

Once again this study has challenged my knowledge of the bible.  Did you know the seven men chosen at the beginning of church are not specifically called Deacons? We will get to why we call them that later in our study.  First of all let’s look at the word deacon and see how it is used in the bible. From Strongs this is the word Deacon in Greek with its meaning:

G1249 διάκονος, diakonos, dee-ak'-on-os

Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.

This word is used 30 times in the New Testament in 28 verses. I am going to list them all so you can get a feel of how the word is used. Ironically enough the first person, other than Jesus, who is called a deacon is Phebe, a woman:

Mat_20:26  But^G1161 it shall not^G3756 be^G2071 so^G3779 among^G1722 you:^G5213 but^G235 whosoever^{G3739 G1437} will^G2309 be^G1096 great^G3173 among^G1722 you,^G5213 let him be^G2077 your^G5216 minister;^G1249

Mat_22:13  Then^G5119 said^G2036 the^G3588 king^G935 to the^G3588 servants,^G1249 Bind^G1210 him^G846 hand^G5495 and^G2532 foot,^G4228 and take him away,^{G142 G846} and^G2532 cast^G1544 him into^G1519 outer^G1857 darkness;^G4655 there^G1563 shall be^G2071 weeping^G2805 and^G2532 gnashing^G1030 of teeth.^G3599

Mat_23:11  But^G1161 he that is greatest^G3187 among you^G5216 shall be^G2071 your^G5216 servant.^G1249

Mar_9:35  And^G2532 he sat down,^G2523 and called^G5455 the^G3588 twelve,^G1427 and^G2532 saith^G3004 unto them,^G846 If any man^G1536 desire^G2309 to be^G1511 first,^G4413 the same shall be^G2071 last^G2078 of all,^G3956 and^G2532 servant^G1249 of all.^G3956

Mar_10:43  But^G1161 so^G3779 shall it not^G3756 be^G2071 among^G1722 you:^G5213 but^G235 whosoever^{G3739 G1437} will^G2309 be^G1096 great^G3173 among^G1722 you,^G5213 shall be^G2071 your^G5216 minister:^G1249

Joh_2:5  His^G846 mother^G3384 saith^G3004 unto the^G3588 servants,^G1249 Whatsoever^{G3748 G302} he saith^G3004 unto you,^G5213 do^G4160 it.

Joh_2:9  ^(G1161) When^G5613 the^G3588 ruler of the feast^G755 had tasted^G1089 the^G3588 water^G5204 that was made^G1096 wine,^G3631 and^G2532 knew^G1492 not^G3756 whence^G4159 it was:^G2076 (but^G1161 the^G3588 servants^G1249 which drew^G501 the^G3588 water^G5204 knew;)^G1492 the^G3588 governor of the feast^G755 called^G5455 the^G3588 bridegroom,^G3566

Joh_12:26  If^G1437 any man^G5100 serve^G1247 me,^G1698 let him follow^G190 me;^G1698 and^G2532 where^G3699 I^G1473 am,^G1510 there^G1563 shall also^G2532 my^G1699 servant^G1249 be:^{G2071 (G2532)} if^G1437 any man^G5100 serve^G1247 me,^G1698 him^G846 will my Father^G3962 honour.^G5091

Rom_13:4  For^G1063 he is^G2076 the minister^G1249 of God^G2316 to thee^G4671 for^G1519 good.^G18 But^G1161 if^G1437 thou do^G4160 that which is evil,^G2556 be afraid;^G5399 for^G1063 he beareth^G5409 not^G3756 the^G3588 sword^G3162 in vain:^G1500 for^G1063 he is^G2076 the minister^G1249 of God,^G2316 a revenger^G1558 to^G1519 execute wrath^G3709 upon him that doeth^G4238 evil.^G2556

Rom_15:8  Now^G1161 I say^G3004 that Jesus^G2424 Christ^G5547 was^G1096 a minister^G1249 of the circumcision^G4061 for^G5228 the truth^G225 of God,^G2316 to confirm^G950 the^G3588 promises^G1860 made unto the^G3588 fathers:^G3962

Rom_16:1  ^(G1161) I commend^G4921 unto you^G5213 Phebe^G5402 our^G2257 sister,^G79 which is^G5607 a servant^G1249 of the^G3588 church^G1577 which^G3588 is at^G1722 Cenchrea:^G2747

1Co_3:5  Who^G5101 then^G3767 is^G2076 Paul,^G3972 and^G1161 who^G5101 is Apollos,^G625 but^{G235 (G2228)} ministers^G1249 by^G1223 whom^G3739 ye believed,^G4100 even^G2532 as^G5613 the^G3588 Lord^G2962 gave^G1325 to every man?^G1538

2Co_3:6  Who^G3739 also^G2532 hath made us able^{G2427 G2248} ministers^G1249 of the new^G2537 testament;^G1242 not^G3756 of the letter,^G1121 but^G235 of the spirit:^G4151 for^G1063 the^G3588 letter^G1121 killeth,^G615 but^G1161 the^G3588 spirit^G4151 giveth life.^G2227

2Co_6:4  But^G235 in^G1722 all^G3956 things approving^G4921 ourselves^G1438 as^G5613 the ministers^G1249 of God,^G2316 in^G1722 much^G4183 patience,^G5281 in^G1722 afflictions,^G2347 in^G1722 necessities,^G318 in^G1722 distresses,^G4730

2Co_11:15  Therefore^G3767 it is no^G3756 great thing^G3173 if^G1499 his^G846 ministers^G1249 also be transformed^G3345 as^G5613 the ministers^G1249 of righteousness;^G1343 whose^G3739 end^G5056 shall be^G2071 according^G2596 to their^G846 works.^G2041

2Co_11:23  Are^G1526 they ministers^G1249 of Christ? (I^G5547 speak^G2980 as a fool)^G3912 I^G1473 am more;^G5228 in^G1722 labours^G2873 more abundant,^G4056 in^G1722 stripes^G4127 above measure,^G5234 in^G1722 prisons^G5438 more frequent,^G4056 in^G1722 deaths^G2288 oft.^G4178

Gal_2:17  But^G1161 if,^G1487 while we seek^G2212 to be justified^G1344 by^G1722 Christ,^G5547 we^G846 ourselves also^G2532 are found^G2147 sinners,^G268 is therefore^G687 Christ^G5547 the minister^G1249 of sin?^G266 God forbid.^{G1096 G3361}

Eph_3:7  Whereof^G3739 I was made^G1096 a minister,^G1249 according^G2596 to the^G3588 gift^G1431 of the^G3588 grace^G5485 of God^G2316 given^G1325 unto me^G3427 by^G2596 the^G3588 effectual working^G1753 of his^G846 power.^G1411

Eph_6:21  But^G1161 that^G2443 ye^G5210 also^G2532 may know^G1492 my affairs,^{G2596 G1691} and how^G5101 I do,^G4238 Tychicus,^G5190 a beloved^G27 brother^G80 and^G2532 faithful^G4103 minister^G1249 in^G1722 the Lord,^G2962 shall make known^G1107 to you^G5213 all things:^G3956

Php_1:1  Paul^G3972 and^G2532 Timotheus,^G5095 the servants^G1401 of Jesus^G2424 Christ,^G5547 to all^G3956 the^G3588 saints^G40 in^G1722 Christ^G5547 Jesus^G2424 which are^G5607 at^G1722 Philippi,^G5375 with^G4862 the bishops^G1985 and^G2532 deacons:^G1249

Col_1:7  As^G2531 ye also^G2532 learned^G3129 of^G575 Epaphras^G1889 our^G2257 dear^G27 fellowservant,^G4889 who^G3739 is^G2076 for^G5228 you^G5216 a faithful^G4103 minister^G1249 of Christ;^G5547

Col_1:23  If^G1489 ye continue^G1961 in the^G3588 faith^G4102 grounded^G2311 and^G2532 settled,^G1476 and^G2532 be not^G3361 moved away^G3334 from^G575 the^G3588 hope^G1680 of the^G3588 gospel,^G2098 which^G3739 ye have heard,^G191 and which was preached^G2784 to^G1722 every^G3956 creature^G2937 which^G3588 is under^G5259 heaven;^G3772 whereof^G3739 I^G1473 Paul^G3972 am made^G1096 a minister;^G1249

Col_1:25  Whereof^G3739 I^G1473 am made^G1096 a minister,^G1249 according^G2596 to the^G3588 dispensation^G3622 of God^G2316 which is given^G1325 to me^G3427 for^G1519 you,^G5209 to fulfil^G4137 the^G3588 word^G3056 of God;^G2316

Col_4:7  All^G3956 my state^{G2596 G1691} shall Tychicus^G5190 declare^G1107 unto you,^G5213 who is a beloved^G27 brother,^G80 and^G2532 a faithful^G4103 minister^G1249 and^G2532 fellowservant^G4889 in^G1722 the Lord:^G2962

1Th_3:2  And^G2532 sent^G3992 Timotheus,^G5095 our^G2257 brother,^G80 and^G2532 minister^G1249 of God,^G2316 and^G2532 our^G2257 fellowlabourer^G4904 in^G1722 the^G3588 gospel^G2098 of Christ,^G5547 to establish^G4741 you,^G5209 and^G2532 to comfort^G3870 you^G5209 concerning^G4012 your^G5216 faith:^G4102

1Ti_3:8  Likewise^G5615 must the deacons^G1249 be grave,^G4586 not^G3361 doubletongued,^G1351 not^G3361 given^G4337 to much^G4183 wine,^G3631 not^G3361 greedy of filthy lucre;^G146

1Ti_3:12  Let the deacons^G1249 be^G2077 the husbands^G435 of one^G3391 wife,^G1135 ruling^G4291 their children^G5043 and^G2532 their own^G2398 houses^G3624 well.^G2573

1Ti_4:6  If thou put the brethren in remembrance^{G5294 G3588 G80} of these things,^G5023 thou shalt be^G2071 a good^G2570 minister^G1249 of Jesus^G2424 Christ,^G5547 nourished up^G1789 in the^G3588 words^G3056 of faith^G4102 and^G2532 of good^G2570 doctrine,^G1319 whereunto^G3739 thou hast attained.^G3877

So we have 7 people listed as deacons in some form or fashion, Jesus, Phoebe, Paul, Apollos, Tychicus, Epaphras, and Timothy. 

It would seem that this word deacon is actually the word most connected with the job of minister. It is the picture of what Pastors are supposed to be doing? Because it appears that the job most associated with this title is that of waiting on tables or being a servant.  So now that we know what deacons do, we can ask the question of why we call the seven men chosen in Acts 6 Deacons.  “In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews^[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. ² So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. ³ Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them⁴ and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” Acts 6:1-4

If you look at the phrase “in order to wait on tables” it is the word, “dee-ak-on-eh'-o

From G1249; to be an attendant, that is, wait upon (menially or as a host, friend or [figuratively] teacher); technically to act as a Christian deacon: - (ad-) minister (unto), serve, use the office of a deacon.”

While the word Deacon means “a servant”, this word means to “act as a servant”.  So these 7 men are Deacons or ministers.  But let’s ask ourselves is this job description something that women are excluded from even today?  Are women not allowed to wait on tables and serve the poor, widows and or orphans?  I don’t think anyone would say that women are excluded from doing this job.  In fact maybe we need more men actually doing the original job of deacon again.  For as you can see, it had nothing to do with mowing church lawns, maintaining a building, or picking up offering.  Instead the word is associated with serving others and most of all making sure that the necessities of life for the less fortunate members of the church were taken care of.

Post #15 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #15 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #12 from the video: Although Jesus desired that women share the good news of salvation, He only called men to serve in the capacity of apostles. 

Using this fact against women’s ordination, I can actually understand. Although I would still say Pastors are still not quite the same as Apostles, Apostles are much closer to the job description than any other occupation mentioned in this video so far.  So if women can be pastors, why didn’t Jesus choose women to be part of his special group of twelve?  To this I have to say, I don’t know.  We do know however, that Jesus did not just have twelve disciples. Were there any women in the larger group?  Quite possibly!!  “³⁸ Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

³⁹ And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word. ⁴⁰ But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

⁴¹ And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

⁴² But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” Luke 10:38-42.  I used to think this story was about Jesus coming to visit and Mary delightedly sitting down at Jesus feet to listen to him, while Martha prepared all the food. Martha gets upset that Mary is not helping and asks Jesus to make her come and help. However, I’m now convinced I’ve been missing something all of these years.  For example, why does the text state where Mary was sitting?  The more I study the bible the more convinced I am, that the bible does not give any extra details for literary effect.  And why does it say, “ALSO sat at Jesus’ feet”?  Who else was sitting there?

Well the whole story changes radically when you know a little bit about Jewish discipleship.  I am indebted to Lois Tverberg and Ray Vanderlaan for this knowledge, although I am not quoting them.  “Sitting at a Rabbi so and so’s feet” is a Jewish idiom that means you are the disciple of the said Rabbi, which means that the other people sitting at Jesus’ feet would be his disciples. That “also” could definitely be important. Now look at the story again.  Jesus has come to Martha’s house. Martha asks Jesus to tell Mary come and help her fill the traditional woman’s role.  And Jesus chides Martha for being so worried and troubled.  I have to say, the thought used to cross my mind when I listened to this story, “here Martha is trying to make her guests comfortable and feed them”, something that is highly praised and exemplified throughout the bible, think Abraham and Sarah feeding the three visitors for one example, “and yet it almost seems that Jesus is scolding her for her sense of hospitality.”  In all honesty I used to wonder why.  But what if you look at it through a new lens, the story could look a bit different.  Mary has possibly been following Jesus for some time, whether she came home before Jesus got there or arrived with him doesn’t really matter.  Maybe Martha has been handling all of the home management for some time. Maybe there a lot of worries and troubles that go along with this management.  Martha’s complaint could be much more about Mary’s choice of being Jesus’ disciple rather than staying home and helping her manage the home. But Jesus affirms that Mary has made the correct choice.

I love this!!  While I would say Jewish women were esteemed in their culture far beyond that of women in the Roman or Greek cultures, I would also point out that women were specifically treasured in their traditional roles of womanhood.  Although it certainly was not the universal view, some Rabbis felt women should not even study Torah simply because it might take them away from their duties of raising a family.  Nevertheless even with these Rabbis, this was not because women were thought incapable of understanding God or following him, in fact Jewish thought from 2^nd temple period onward seems to believe that women are more spiritually minded than men.  Instead this was because Jewish culture, correctly I believe, puts such a high emphasis and importance on Motherhood and raising a family.  However, I do not accept as true that women cannot effectively do both. Apparently Jesus affirms the fact that studying God’s word and following him are just as important for a woman as it is for a man.

That being said, the fact remains women are not included in the twelve and I do not know why. This certainly could be interpreted as a reason to establish male headship in the church, although not in the home, a place in which women of this time were thought to be equal with their husbands. But I also would also point out these facts: Women followed Jesus and financed his ministry.  Mary and Martha’s devotion to Jesus is mentioned more often than that of their brother Lazarus’s. They must have been awesome women.  The resurrection was announced to women first, and it was their job to go and tell the 12.  We know of at least one woman apostle later in the bible named Junia. “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was” Romans 16:7.  Women are the only ones mentioned in Acts 16:13-15 as meeting for prayer on Sabbath in Philippi. All of these facts seem to point so some other reason that the twelve specially set aside by Jesus were male, other than Jesus establishing male headship of the church.  

Post #14 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #14 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #11 from the video: There are seven examples in Scripture of women giving birth in connection with a miracle; all these miracle babies that typified Christ were male children. 

I have had a very hard time writing a response to this “point” against women’s ordination.  I think it is because I am not making a correlation between the two subjects. These are the “miracle births that I can think of in scripture, not including Jesus, since the argument assumed that the children typified Christ, I anticipated his miracle birth was not included. Sarah begat Isaac. Rebekah begat Esau and Jacob. Rachel begat Joseph. An unnamed woman begat Samson, Hannah begat Samuel. The woman of Shunem begat a son. Elizabeth begat John the Baptist.  I wouldn’t say that all of these babies typified Christ, but all of these children were male.

One possible idea you could get from this argument is that women do not typify God, so they cannot serve the church in leadership positions.  I see all sorts of problems that could arise from taking this fact to far, but for now maybe we should talk about why this is a fact.  I believe firmly that men and women were both made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26,27 and 5:2) But when you look at scripture as a whole it states things like; God is LIKE a woman who cannot forget her child compared to; God IS a Father.  Why is this?  Do we believe that God is a man? Dr. Richard Davidson writes in FLAME OF YAHWEH pg. 130, “Yahweh is above the polarity of sexuality and is neither male nor female, and displays within his nature both masculine and feminine dimensions.” So why does God clearly identify Himself AS a man, but LIKE a woman. The bible does not seem to be distinct on this point, but many scholars think it has something to do with God making sure he is not identified with the fertility cults of the nations surrounding Israel. Remember most religions had both male and female gods, Baal and Ashtoreth being just one of many couples, although they do all seem to stem from the same origin. If God had identified himself as a woman and a man how many Israelites would have begun to believe that their God was just like everyone else?  But ultimately although we do not believe God is male, he does identify himself as such.

That being said, are men by themselves a complete picture of God? Remember “the adam” is no longer complete. God separated a side from “the adam”, and made a women. By this, I think we can assume that men carry some of God’s characteristics and women carry some of God’s characteristics. Together they are the complete picture of God. If you take the man or the woman out of the equation, although each man or women are all still made in the image of God, a part of illustration God is trying to portray, will be missing.  Would this not be true in the pastorship, as well as in a marriage, parenthood, the office, or whatever work you are doing?

Post #13 of my critique of the Women's Ordination

Post #13 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #10 from the video: 10. The Old and New Testaments trace the genealogy of Jesus through the male lineage. 

First of all the Old Testament does not trace the genealogy of Jesus, but it does list the ancestry of the Davidic kingly line and many other important genealogies.  Culturally, genealogy was traced through the father particularly when it came to kings.  I can’t think of any ancient culture where this is not true, although there certainly might be one.  It is interesting then to consult the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1.  By all means take the time to read the whole chapter, but for sake of brevity I will only include the verses relevant to what I am saying.  “³ Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, WHOSE MOTHER WAS TAMAR… ⁵ Salmon the father of Boaz, WHOSE MOTHER WAS RAHAB, Boaz the father of Obed, WHOSE MOTHER WAS RUTH… David was the father of Solomon, WHOSE MOTHER HAD BEEN URIAH’S WIFE… Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and MARY WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS who is called the Messiah.”  Now I really don’t know why these women were included in this list, although I have some thoughts on the matter, but isn’t it interesting that Matthew feels as if he must include them?  There is another fact that hits me over the head as I think through this argument, as Christians we believe Jesus’s conception was a miracle. Joseph, the husband of Mary, really had no biological connection to him.  If this is true, Mary is the one who would have to be from the line of David to make Jesus a legitimate king.  I have heard some say that Joseph adopted Jesus and made him the heir.  While this could be true, I do not see any other example in the history of the Davidic kings or the Patriarchs, where someone who was not biologically related became the heir.  So while I’m not leaving out the possibility, ultimately being Christians who believe that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, we must also believe that the line of kingship can be inherited through a women or Jesus cannot be a Son of David, heir to the throne of Israel.

Post #12 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #12 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #9 from the video: All Patriarchal blessings were passed down from father to son. 

This reason this detail was included in the argument against women’s ordination only makes sense to me if the presenters are trying to prove that women have no part in God’s inheritance.  It’s as if they are saying, “Certainly women can be saved, but that is about as far as it goes. All the blessings were for males, females are only necessary because we need them to get more male babies to inherit God's blessings.” I truly hope I am wrong in that assessment.  But since Patriarchal blessings and ordination do not have much in common, I honestly cannot see why you would include this information in an argument against women’s ordination, unless you feel that women do not have a part in blessings from God.  The point is also very ambiguous.  Which blessings are being talked about?  Are they only talking about the blessings that were passed from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to the 13 tribes?  Or were they referring to a firstborn son receiving a blessing and double portion of their Father’s inheritance?  Or are they talking about the way that Jewish parents, both Fathers and Mothers, still today bless their children every Friday night?

If they are talking about the blessings passed down from Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to the 13 tribes, I would say that not all of Abraham’s children were chosen, but only the ones born from his wife Sarah.  Not all of Isaac’s children were chosen, but only the child that was the favorite of his wife.  And while all of Jacob’s children were part of the chosen, only the line from his lesser loved wife was selected to be the one through whom Messiah would come.

If they are referring to blessings of inheritance.  Women too were allowed to inherit land.  In Numbers 27 we come across a story of 5 girls, whose father had died in the wilderness. Facing the possibility that their family would receive no inheritance. They brought their case to Moses, arguing that they should still inherit, even though their father had no sons.  This must have been extremely counter-cultural because Moses does not decide this one for himself, but instead took it to God.  God assures Moses that these girls are in the right and sets this ruling down as a precedent for all generations.

As for the blessings traditionally said by Jewish parents over both boys and girls, this is a tradition that is long standing and shows that in God’s eyes and in Jewish eyes both boys and girls are treasured in their sight

Post #11 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #11 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #8 from the video:  Only men were anointed by God to serve as Kings of Israel and Judah.

PASTORS ARE NOT KINGS!!  I’m not sure exactly what the point of including this fact is, since I hope everyone knows there is no connection between being a pastor, elder, or deacon and a king, unless it is to show that God appoints men to leadership positions.  And that the most important leadership position created in the governing of His people was filled by men. However for this to be a viable argument to prove that only men can be leaders in the church or in their homes, there should be no women chosen by God for leadership positions anywhere in the bible.  And while I admit that these instances are few and sometimes far between, God did choose women to be leaders.

Post #10 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #10 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #7 from the video – The seventy elders appointed by Moses were all male. 

This story comes from Numbers 11.  The Israelites, tired of manna, were longing for the food from Egypt.  Moses is fed up with the people and tells God that the burden He has given him is too much for Moses to bear.  God tells him to bring “70 men, part of the elders.”  The way that this sentence is worded and the fact that the elders of Israel are mentioned quite a few times in the Exodus narrative already, Ex. 3:16, Ex. 17:5, Ex. 18:2, Ex. 24:1 just to name a few, makes me believe that these elders were a group of people already established.  They were already leaders among the people when God sent Moses to deliver them.  God is asking Moses to choose from a group of people who are already male.  Moses didn’t choose 70 men excluding females.  He chooses 70 men from a group of men.  So why does matter?  It doesn’t change the fact that God AND Moses chose 70 men.

I think it does matter and this is why.  God recognizes that we are human and it takes time for us to slowly accustom ourselves to his patterns.  For example Jacob marries two sisters, later on in Torah God makes a law against this practice. Leviticus 18:18.  In Deuteronomy 24:1-3 Moses tells the men who want to divorce their wives that they must give their spouses a divorce document, when they got divorced.  However in Matthew 19:3-9 Jesus explains that this was because their hearts were hard.  Divorce really is not what God desires. These two examples are just a sampling, there are many more examples of the law not being loosened, but tightened as time went on. 

Women were not highly regarded in many cultures of this time period and it doesn’t appear that young nation of Israel was any exception.  Take a look at Israel’s past and you don’t have to look very hard to find crimes against women that horrify us.  Abraham TWICE allows his wife to be taken as the wife of someone else, seemingly to save his life, although I think you could say it wasn’t just his life at stake, but perhaps his whole clan, Genesis 12 & 20.  Lot offers his virgin daughters to the men of Sodom to rape as they please if the Sodomites will just leave his guests alone, Genesis 19. Laban uses his daughters as pawns in a game of chess with Jacob, Genesis 29-31. Simeon and Levi slaughter all the men of Shechem and take all the women and children for themselves, Genesis 34.  Judah vows to burn Tamar at the rumor she is pregnant, when it was he, all along, who was in the wrong, Genesis 38.

My point however, is not to castigate these men, but instead to point out that of course the chosen leaders by the Israelites at this time were all men. That is just the way things worked in that culture. Remember that God does point out that He appointed Miriam as one of the three leaders to bring Israel out of Egypt, Micah 6:4. We might get a clue about how the nation of Israel felt about this fact in this verse, “The people of Isra’el, the whole community, entered the Tzin Desert in the first month, and they stayed in Kadesh. THERE MIRYAM DIED, AND THERE WAS SHE WAS BURIED” Numbers 20:1.  Now compare that epithet to these 2 verses. “When the entire community saw that Aharon was dead, THEY MOURNED AHARON THRITY DAYS, THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRA’ EL” Numbers 20:29.  And ⁷ Moshe was 120 years old when he died, with eyes undimmed and vigor undiminished. ⁸ THE PEOPLE OF ISRA’EL MOURNED MOSHE ON THE PLAINS OF MOAB FOR THIRTY DAYS; after this, the days of crying and mourning for Moshe ended. Do you notice anything different between these three deaths?  Now truthfully I have no idea why the Israelites didn’t mourn for Miriam, but it is interesting that they don’t seem to care that she is gone.

So the question is… Was God setting down a foundational principle when He and Moses chose these 70 men?  Or was he just accepting that the nation’s hearts were hard and would have to change slowly?  Since God never outlawed women in leadership positions and all through the bible we see Him choosing them for many different positions, I think it at least a good possibility that women were not a part of this group, because the nation was not yet ready for women to be leaders on a large scale.

Post #9 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #9 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #6 from the video –  The 12 rulers appointed by Moses, in the wilderness under God’s direction, were only men. 

I am assuming this point is talking about the 12 leaders appointed by God in Numbers 1.  These men are specifically named by God, one man from each tribe.  First of all, while I know that God knows each one of us by name, wouldn’t that have been overwhelming?  To have Moses say to you, “Hey you! God called you. Yes you! By name.” Very awesome!!  But let’s back to our facts.  Numbers chapter 1 is the story of the census. “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one. ³ You and Aaron are to count according to their divisions all the men in Israel who are twenty years old or more and able to serve in the army. ⁴ One man from each tribe, each of them the head of his family, is to help you.”  This census is specifically for counting men of war.  If there is one thing that God did not count women for, it was war.  This definitely seems to be a man’s job.  However even to this job, there was an exception, as indeed we know there was a woman in the bible who led men into battle. So even going to war doesn’t seem to be forbidden to women, if it is needed. It just seems that women are not to be counted when preparing for battle. So our 12 leaders are men, men selected to be the heads of tribes being counted for war, war that God does not expect women to participate in, at least not consistently.  These men were to help with the census and because the purpose of this census is counting men of war, I assume they were to lead the tribe into war. 

Chapter 2 moves on to talk about these leaders, and how they were to help in keeping the camp organized and properly set up around the tabernacle.  And while this chapter seems to be focusing more about organization in the camp, the language is still very much military, a lot of talk of divisions and companies.  Also in Chapter 7 we see these men bringing offerings to the tabernacle seemingly on behalf of the whole tribe.  Now the truth is, I have no doubt that, even though these men do appear to be appointed for military positions, these men were rulers in their tribes both on the battlefield and off.  This would have been very culturally acceptable.  Also because these are MEN, who lead other MEN into battle, I would think they needed recognized authority and leadership back on home ground to command effectively. 

However, this does not prove that a women cannot also be an ordained leader, which is what I think this argument in the video was trying to convey.  For example I would direct the reader to the words of God in Micah, where he is giving testimony against his people.  “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.”  Micah 6:4.  Here God specifically states that He sent Moses, Aaron and Miriam to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt. She is also called a prophet in Exodus 15:20. And while she is not one of the 12 chosen for what seems to be, at least partly, military leadership, God still selected her to be part of a three person team, seemingly above them all.

  listed below: POINT #6 from the video –  The 12 rulers appointed by Moses, in the wilderness under God’s direction, were only men. 

I am assuming this point is talking about the 12 leaders appointed by God in Numbers 1.  These men are specifically named by God, one man from each tribe.  First of all, while I know that God knows each one of us by name, wouldn’t that have been overwhelming?  To have Moses say to you, “Hey you! God called you. Yes you! By name.” Very awesome!!  But let’s back to our facts.  Numbers chapter 1 is the story of the census. “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one. ³ You and Aaron are to count according to their divisions all the men in Israel who are twenty years old or more and able to serve in the army. ⁴ One man from each tribe, each of them the head of his family, is to help you.”  This census is specifically for counting men of war.  If there is one thing that God did not count women for, it was war.  This definitely seems to be a man’s job.  However even to this job, there was an exception, as indeed we know there was a woman in the bible who led men into battle. So even going to war doesn’t seem to be forbidden to women, if it is needed. It just seems that women are not to be counted when preparing for battle. So our 12 leaders are men, men selected to be the heads of tribes being counted for war, war that God does not expect women to participate in, at least not consistently.  These men were to help with the census and because the purpose of this census is counting men of war, I assume they were to lead the tribe into war. 

Chapter 2 moves on to talk about these leaders, and how they were to help in keeping the camp organized and properly set up around the tabernacle.  And while this chapter seems to be focusing more about organization in the camp, the language is still very much military, a lot of talk of divisions and companies.  Also in Chapter 7 we see these men bringing offerings to the tabernacle seemingly on behalf of the whole tribe.  Now the truth is, I have no doubt that, even though these men do appear to be appointed for military positions, these men were rulers in their tribes both on the battlefield and off.  This would have been very culturally acceptable.  Also because these are MEN, who lead other MEN into battle, I would think they needed recognized authority and leadership back on home ground to command effectively. 

However, this does not prove that a women cannot also be an ordained leader, which is what I think this argument in the video was trying to convey.  For example I would direct the reader to the words of God in Micah, where he is giving testimony against his people.  “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.”  Micah 6:4.  Here God specifically states that He sent Moses, Aaron and Miriam to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt. She is also called a prophet in Exodus 15:20. And while she is not one of the 12 chosen for what seems to be, at least partly, military leadership, God still selected her to be part of a three person team, seemingly above them all.

Post #8 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #8 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #5 from the video – Although God called the entire nation of Israel to be a kingdom of priests, only men were appointed to offer the Passover lamb and to later serve as priests.

This point seems to be a remake of point 3, except for one idea.  “Only men were appointed to offer the Passover Lamb.” I have always thought the same thing, men were the ones appointed to slaughter the Passover lamb. I’m not exactly sure where I got the idea.  I was all prepared to completely agree with this point in the video, but then I went to the text, and now I’m not so sure.  I can’t read Hebrew, so I might be missing something somewhere. However, I did follow the advice of the scholars and did the next best thing, get out all your English translations and see how the text varies in all of them to get the complete Hebrew idea.  First of all I’m assuming that this part of their argument is talking about the slaughtering of the very first Passover lamb, since it then mentions that men were “later” appointed as priests.  So let’s look at the story.  It is in Exodus 12.  If you go to Bible Gateway you can pretty much read as many versions as you want. Vs. 3, “³ Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:” KJV or, “³ Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household.” NIV.  In this verse we see a directive that the men are to pick out a lamb on the 10^th day of the month. Okay, we’re good so far. But then God’s directions continue in Vs.6 “⁶ And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the WHOLE ASSEMBLY OF THE CONGREGATION OF ISRAEL shall kill it in the evening.⁷ And THEY shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein THEY shall eat it. ⁸ `And THEY have eaten the flesh in this night, roast with fire; with unleavened things and bitters they do eat it;” KJV capitalization mine.  Here is the NIV, “⁶ Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY OF ISRAEL must slaughter them at twilight.⁷ Then THEY are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where THEY eat the lambs. ⁸ That same night THEY are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.”

It seems to me that although it appears that the men are to pick out the lamb on the 10^th day of the month, the whole community of Israel was to take part in the Passover slaughter of the lambs.  Maybe some would say that the whole community of Israel only included the men, like later censuses. However it would seem that the whole community of Israel included women and children because the verse continues… they are to take the blood.  They are to eat the lamb. They are to eat the meat, bitter herbs, and matzo. We know that the whole of every family participated in these events, not just the men.  So it would seem that women and children were involved in the whole process.  I know if my son (my husband is not a firstborn) was in danger, I would have been there making sure when the lamb was killed, that every drop of blood was caught. I would have been out there in front of the house making sure every drop of that blood was used up on the doorpost. There is no power on earth, unless I had a direct word from God, that would have kept me from being involved, when my son’s life was at stake. I can’t imagine any other Father or a Mother sitting back and not being involved in that process either. 

It is possible we get the idea that only men were involved in this Passover sacrifice, from reading further on in the chapter.  “²¹ Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb. ²² Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. None of you shall go out of the door of your house until morning.”  Vs. 21-22.  I assume that all of these elders of Israel were men, and here Moses is telling them to go select lambs and slaughter them.  God’s earlier words seem pretty clear that the Passover offering is a community event, Moses’ less so. But there are other things Moses leaves out, such as picking the lamb on the 10^th of the month and keeping it until the 14^th.  Is it safe to assume that even though he left somethings out when writing down his communication to the Elders, he still told them everything? Exactly the way God had decreed? I think so. Also even though Moses is only communicating with men here, he is not communicating to all of the men, only the Elders. And we know that ALL families were to offer the Passover Sacrifice.  So unless we believe that the Elders were the only ones involved, I would say that there is nothing in this passage to suggest that men were the only ones involved in the event.  Especially since God’s instructions seem pretty clear in the previous verses.

Post #7 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video

Post #7 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #4 – The founders of the tribes of Israel were all men.

Yes, this is true, no one would deny it, but then again, their mothers were all women, and so was their Grandmother, and Great-grandmother.  This would be a good time to remember the culture of the whole world during the time the bible was written, was dominated by men. Women quite often were looked at as property and thought not to matter much in the overall scheme of things. You can certainly see people in the bible following this point of view, but I’m not sure it was God’s point of view.  I think as the bible was written down, you can see God slowly trying to change this dominating world view.  One example early on of God’s perspective on women, comes from the life of the “Founders of the 12 Tribes” Great-Grandmother.  The story begins in Genesis 11:29-30.  Here we learn that Abram’s wife was Sarai. After this brief introduction, the first detail we learn about her is that she is barren.  We all know the story. God speaks to Abram, tells him to travel to a new land, and provides him with quite a few wonderful promises, including the one promise to make of him a great nation. Abram eventually settles in Canaan permanently, after a trip to Egypt.  He loses Lot to the Jordan Valley. He rescues Lot and brings him back to the Jordan valley.  All of this happening within about 10 years.  All this time he has to be thinking, “How are nations going to come from me? I’m getting pretty old, 86 my next birthday”. And so when God appears to him again, after Lot’s rescue, and promises to be Abram’s shield, the first thing out of Abram mouth is, “² But Abram said, “Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit^[c] my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” Genesis 15:2 Notice who is childless, not we, Abram and Sarai, but I, Abram.  Now I am not blaming him here, he is just thinking like his culture.  The male line is what is important.  The male name has to be passed on.  It seems as if possibly God doesn’t answer him right away, because the very next verse again states, “AND ABRAM SAID, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.” Genesis 15:3 (capitalization mine). Pretty much repeating the same facts he had stated before, again declaring that God had not given HIM any children.  Once again I am not disparaging Abram, I think he was still thinking like everyone else from his culture with regards to an heir.  This time however, God answers him and informs him that he will have a child that is his own flesh and blood.  Notice no mention has been made of Sarai from either party. Next God makes a formal covenant blood path covenant with Abram.  After which Abram, I imagine, runs home and tells Sarai the good news.

Chapter 16 starts out with a very down to earth statement, after this previous absolutely stunning experience that Abram had with God.  It says, “Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children.” Vs. 1. Maybe they tried for a while, but it did no good.  Sarai could still not get pregnant, even with God’s promise. But then the promise wasn’t for Sarai, was it? Only Abram.  God hadn’t promised Sarai anything.  So Sarai did another very culturally acceptable thing.  We know that her Granddaughters-in-law did this very thing, and ended up producing the founders of the 12 tribes. In many ways it was a very self-sacrificing act.  After all God hadn’t promised her an heir. Maybe it was time she got out of the way. She gave Abram her handmaid, so Abram could have a child, as God had promised.   Could this possibly give us some insight into why she gets so upset with Abram when she starts having problems with Hagar and seems to blame him for the whole problem?  Was it because she wished he would have asked God for her to have a child?  I think maybe, this is a possibility.  For contrast look at how Isaac reacts when Rebecca cannot get pregnant. Genesis 25:21, “²¹ And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.”

But back to the story.  Hagar bears Ishmael, again I realize I am skipping parts of the story for the sake of the length of this piece, and everyone seems content for the next 13 years.  The promised child has been born.  Abram has an heir from his seed. Although Abram is content, GOD IS NOT.  The man has an heir but the woman does not.  I love how God brings back Sarai into the story. Genesis 17:15 “¹⁵ God said to Avraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are not to call her Sarai [mockery]; her name is to be Sarah [princess]. ¹⁶ I will bless her; moreover, I will give you a son by her. Truly I will bless her: she will be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”

But Abraham is satisfied with his heir and so he argues with God. Saying things like, “Sarai can’t have a baby, she’s 90. Oh how I wish Ishmael could be my heir”. But God is insistent, it is not just the Fathers of the nation that matter to Him, but the mothers too. God had not just chosen Abram, He had called Abram AND Sarai.  And although He loved Hagar and cares for her and her son He had called Sarai.  This is why we find this verse in Isaiah 51, ““Listen to me, you pursuers of justice, you who seek Adonai: consider the rock from which you were cut, the quarry from which you were dug — ² consider Avraham your father and Sarah, who gave birth to you;” Are you a follower of YHWH? Then you to remember that you are a descendant of the very first COUPLE God called.

Post #6 of my critique of the Adventist Women's Ordination video

Post #6 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT #3a – Only men are ever recorded in the bible as officiating through the offering of sacrifices or called to priestly ministry.

There at least one HUGE problem with using these facts to say that women cannot be ordained.  One massive detail that was left out of this video, THERE IS NO LONGER AN EARTHLY PRIESTHOOD.  And if there was, most or all of the males in our church, like all the women, would be left out.  To be a biblically appointed priest you had to be a descendant of Aaron, not even a Levite would do.  The author of Hebrews goes to great length to point out that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek.  This priesthood is higher than the one of Aaron, but even still the author points out that Jesus would not be a priest here on this earth, because he is not of the line of Aaron. Hebrews 7-8. If Jesus cannot be a priest on earth because he is not of the line of Aaron, I don’t think there are that many pastors out there who would fit the bill.  From this I will draw a natural conclusion.  Since Pastors are not priests, we really cannot use the fact that only men were priests to say women cannot be pastors or ordained as such, since the two jobs are not equivalent.  Now as to officiating through offering of sacrifices, as far as I can tell before the priesthood there is not a recorded example of a women offering a sacrifice.  However after the priesthood was instituted we find no prohibition against a women bringing a sacrifice to the temple.  As far as I can tell, she did not need her husband to take it for her and if I missed something please let me know.  Before God and the priesthood a husband and wife seemed to be on equal footing.  One specific place in the Torah where this is apparent is when directions are given for both a man and a woman to take a Nazarite Vow.  Numbers 6:1-21. This vow seems to temporarily make a common person more holy than normal.  Giving the person taking the vow the closest taste of holiness and being near to God that a non-priest could attain to.  This vow set them apart from the other masses for a certain amount of time.  The directions are the same for both a man and a woman. At the end of the vow, a Nazarite, be they man or woman, had to bring sacrifices to the temple. As far as I can tell by reading Torah and from all the other sources I have read, the person bringing the sacrifice, not the priest, was the one who had to kill the animal. Thus when a women made a Nazarite vow she would have had to kill the animal just like a man. Also I would think that when a woman sinned, she too would have to bring an animal, lay her hands on it, transferring her guilt, and cut the animal’s throat.  My conclusion?  Men and women were both participants in the offering of sacrifices and although women were not allowed to be priests, most men were not allowed to be either.  So even if we used priests in our liturgies, neither men nor women in our church could participate, because they are not of the line of Aaron, unless you are a man and have the last name of Cohen, then you might have a chance. ;-).

Post #5 of my critique of the Adventist Women's Ordination video

Post #5 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT 2B- After Adam and Eve sinned, it was Adam not Eve that God called out to account for the sin, even though Eve was the first to sin.  This is why Jesus came as the 2^nd Adam, to win back the lost dominion and headship that Adam had surrendered to Satan.

There are 2 places in the NT as far as I can find that talk about Jesus being the 2^nd Adam and neither one seem to talk about male headship. In Romans 5:12-21 Paul is using a very rabbinic form of teaching, in which a Rabbi establishes a principle of life that everyone agrees to. While everyone is nodding and agreeing, “Yes, yes that is correct” the Rabbi then gives his audience a kick in the pants by laying out the next axiom of life. If this first thing is true HOW MUCH MORE is this 2^nd principle true. For example ^“28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin.²⁹ Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. ³⁰ If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will HE NOT MUCH MORE clothe you—you of little faith?” Matthew 6:28-30.  Do you see how Jesus starts with a statement everyone can agree with, God makes beautiful flowers.  Then he turns it around and punches you with it.  If He cares this much about how the flowers are clothed, HOW MUCH MORE is He going to take care of you His own precious child.

Paul seems to be using this same type of argument in Romans 5. Vs. 12 says, “¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin.” This is the first principle.  Adam sinned by violating a direct command and sin and death have reigned ever since.  Everyone can agree on this.  Now here comes the punch in vs. 15.  “¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, HOW MUCH MORE did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”  

It seems to me that the point is not Adam was the head of Eve and now Jesus is taking the headship back, although I think you could possibly read that into it, if you were trying. Instead Paul is emphasizing that sin came into the world through Adam since he was the one who broke a direct command.  Because of this sin and death have reigned in the world, but now HOW MUCH MORE through one man, Jesus, will grace reign in the world.

1 Corinthians 15:20-25 is pretty much pointing out the same thing.  However this time the context is the resurrection.  “²¹ For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.²² For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

While male headship certainly could be read into these texts, if you start from that preconceived idea, the context seems to suggest that Adam was the one responsible because he violated a direct command from God.

Post #4 of my critique of the Adventist Women's Ordination video

Post #4 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT 2A - After Adam and Eve sinned, it was Adam not Eve that God called out to account for the sin, even though Eve was the first to sin.  This is why Jesus came as the 2^nd Adam, to win back the lost dominion and headship that Adam had surrendered to Satan.

I think if you are LOOKING for the man to be head over the woman, you can certainly find it in these texts. God does ask the man where he is first.  But on the other hand couldn’t it just be this simple…. Let’s say your children are outside playing and your eldest comes in to get a drink.  Seeing your eldest child, you remind your eldest child that both of your children should pick up their outdoor toys before they come inside.  Later on in the evening, when both of your children are getting ready for supper, you notice that the toys out in the yard are not picked up.  Who are you going to ask about it first?  The child that you spoke to or the child who was out in the yard and never heard your command?  It isn’t necessarily that you put your eldest child in charge of the younger child, it’s just that you had an expectation that your eldest would tell the younger child your instructions.  So when you realize that your commands were not obeyed, your investigation of why the toys were not put away would start with the child you actually talked to.   

Post #3 of my critique of the Adventist Women's Ordination video

Post #3 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT 1C -  Adam names his wife this means Adam had authority over his wife.

Adam does name his wife. But why does this point make a case for male headship? In ancient times bestowing a name on someone or something was a sign that you had authority over them or it.  Here, I believe, Adam is already falling into the new sinful pattern of this post-fall world. Let me be clear, this is my opinion and admittedly this story could also be seen to support Adam following a “God given” directive to “Rule” over his wife.  HOWEVER, THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO UNDERSTAND THIS STORY.  What if God’s words to Eve, “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” was not a divine plan for happiness, but instead a description of what would happen to her and women down through the ages because of her choice.  Through her, sin had taken a hold of man and his natural tendency would be to seek to dominate his wife or females in general.  Look at how the story is set up.  God curses the snake, tells Eve some of the consequences of her sin, does the same with Adam, and then curses the ground.  And BAM!!!  The FIRST action Adam takes when God is done talking, is name his wife. He does appear to give her a nice name, although there is at least one well known scholar and linguist that says the name could have another, not so nice meaning, which would take too long to explain here.  So to the point, God just predicted that husbands would rule over wives and Adam is already trying to show Eve that he is in control.

For me, one bit of anecdotal evidence that my view is correct, is the way the world has functioned for the last 6000 years.  In most cultures, but not all, men have dominated women.  Women have been demeaned, treated as property and abused.  They have been blamed for all the world’s ills.  If male headship was God’s prescription for a happy world, I would think we would have seen female domination, since humans seem to desire to do everything opposite of what God wants.

Next God causes the adam to fall asleep and takes a “rib” to make a women.  This story is the only place where this word is translated rib, everywhere else it is translated side, almost as if God divided the adam in half, although I am not saying that He did.  Now there are two beings that together represent the image of God.  "for this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his wife.