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.

Post #2 of my critique of the Adventist Women's Ordination video

Post #2 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT 1B Adam’s authority over the garden is emphasized by the naming of the animals.

I would agree Adam was showing dominion over the animals, when he named them, but in many ways I would say that is just a side point to this story.  Look at the way God sets up the narrative.  God warns Adam not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and then for the first time, declares something to be, “NOT GOOD.”  "18 And the Lord God said, IT IS NOT GOOD THAT MAN SHOULD BE ALONE; I will make him a help meet (Ezer Kenegdo) for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND A HELP MEET FOR HIM. 

God starts the account by warning Adam about the tree, then asserts that he needs a help meet. Why all of a sudden does the story jump to the naming of the animals?  What does this have to do with the help meet and the tree.  I think our clue is the last line of the quoted text.  Adam looked at all the animals and realized none of them were his mate, his equal, his Ezer Kenegdo as the Hebrew puts it. Although I understand others will see this story differently, it seems to me that this is the point of the story.

Also less you should see the help meet as someone who is a servant type relationship, ezer kenegdo means “helper who is opposite”, the word Ezer H5828 is only used 21 times in the Old Testament, at least according to e-sword’s search. This word is often used to describe how God helps us.  While not definitive since it is also used for human help, it could point to Eve not being just an ordinary helper.

Post 1 of my critique of the Adventist video against women's ordination.

Post #1 of my critique of the Women's Ordination video listed below: POINT 1A – Because Adam was formed first from the dust of the ground, Genesis clearly shows he was the one appointed to care for the garden. - Certainly by just looking at the English version of the bible this appears to be correct.  However when you look at the Hebrew it gets a bit more fuzzy.  The bible does say that God creates Adam first but when you realize that this word also means human or humankind things aren't quite so clear, "26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:26-27
That word man in these verses from the KJV is in Hebrew Adam.  Why don’t the verses say Adam then? Because they would then have to read, "God created Adam in his own image, in the image of God created him: male and female created them.” If you take this just on the Hebrew you get the idea that God created him Adam, Male and female he created them.  Adam is both male and female.  I’m not saying that the man Adam is both a male and a female, just that word Adam is applied to both male and female when authority is given over the earth.
In Genesis 5:1-2, it is even clearer that GOD names Male and Female Adam.  “5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
² Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”