As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
I have never heard such an interpretation of Scripture until very recently, but according to the proponent of this view, the mark of God's judgment on America is evidence by women judges, a potential woman President, women CEO's, etc . . .
Not to mention women professors.
I honestly do not understand such a view. If someone says, "But Scripture teaches it, and that settles it," then I simply point out that Scripture also teaches animal sacrifice, Levitical dietary laws, and lunar festivals - but we don't follow such Old Covenant teachings. As Spurgeon brilliantly pointed out:
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, or any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication?
No,because,though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers,
they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned.
The substance is come,and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it."
C.H. Spurgeon (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354
I sometimes wonder if some modern evangelicals pick and choose which shadow they wish to keep calling substance for the sake of their own personal comfort.
In His Grace,
Wade
103 comments:
Don't think I have ever lived under the Old Covenant -- even though there are lessons there for me it was not written for me. It was to One nation telling them what they should be about doing and foretelling of my Lord and Savior. Therefore, I live in the New Covenant. Why so many get upset over the 10 commandants is beyoud me -- Jesus said there were only 2 commandants -- live those 2 and the rest take care of theirself. I learned in the military there is a big difference in the word rule and lead -- Jesus leads me. I do not care what society you live in if a child, woman or man(and it's all men today) rules over it it is probably going to be wicked and evil. So I would say that is true statement. But I look at Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, and others and I say when men rule men it is a wicked society.
Yet Deborah was non normative in the OC. :o)
So, now you dare choose to take away our favorite Holier-Than-Thou bat?
Picking and choosing is what makes "fundamentalism" yet another cloaked form of judgment, a direct derivative of that tasty fruit - the Knowledge of Good and Evil. May we learn the ways of the Father, allowing Him to burn away the chaff that we attempt to hold onto.
I've been led and I've been ruled. I perfer the rule of Christ through regeneration.
"I am not my own, but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death, to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil. He also preserves me in such a way that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, all things must work together for my salvation. Therefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him." -Heidelberg Catechism
Considering some of the things male rulers have done, could women rulers do any worse?
If you eliminate a whole group of people from competing for power there is more chance for those remaining to come into power. Earthly power in its various manifestations, and the seeking for it, is -dare I use the word - seductive.
Jesus spoke of a different kind of power, but for many, even some Christians, being a servant just doesn't seem nearly as much fun. Besides, it's harder to keep women from doing that.
Susie
Strawman... thou hast been beaten once again.
Joe W.
Do you mind stating who makes the following argument instead of just being ambiguous about it? Discussion could be more productive and perhaps stay on topic if the author was known.
"I have recently become familiar with an argument, allegedly based upon Scripture, that the evidence of a 'wicked' society is women ruling men."
Dear Anonymous said...
Don't you think the same argument could be made if commentors like you identified yourself as well?
Seems to me to be the same standard you expect of others.
Steve
Forgot to sign my name before I pushed send. It is Amy.
Now can the question be answered.
Amy
Preach on, brother Wade.
"I sometimes wonder if some modern evangelicals pick and choose which shadow they wish to keep calling substance for the sake of their own personal comfort."
I think you may have just stepped on a million toes. (Give or take a toe or two)
Looking back in history there has been women who have ruled. Mary Queen of Scots for example. Queen Elizabeth the first. Cleopatra. Amina who was a Nigerian queen from 1560-1610. Golda Meir. The list goes on. Read about these women and what they accomplished. I often wonder if the Holocaust, for example,would have happened had their been a woman ruling instead of Hitler.
That should be have been women who ruled.
It is sad, and a little pathetic, and a little ridiculous that no matter what is published on this blog, there are ALWAYS some who want to challenge and argue.
Makes me wonder if there is a backroom filled with cigar smoke where they decide their plan of attack. Sometime the M.O. (modus operandi) is the same as the liberal press of the secular world WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE M.O. OF THE EXTREME RIGHT OF THE FUNDY'S.
Wade, this is a great post and history itself proves it. For those who are going to write and say, "just give me one example", save your breath, do your own homework.
All you have to do is look around the SBC since 1979 or 1879 and you will see thousands of women removed from positions because they were women (Klouda). Now, look at the bigger picture, not just the Baptist box.
Thanks Wade,
Fearing Only God
wtreat
Looking back in history there has been women who have ruled. Mary Queen of Scots for example. "
John Knox called them (Mary and Elizabeth) that 'Monsterous Regiment of Women'. Seems he did not think he had to 'obey' the ruling authorities if they were women. As a matter of fact, he spent some plotting to kill them or their husbands :o)
A now we have a 'Christian' video out called the same thing:
http://www.monstrousregiment.com/
http://www.monstrousregiment.com/
Wade,
My response to your last sentence: "Yes."
Debbie wrote, "I often wonder if the Holocaust, for example,would have happened had their been a woman ruling instead of Hitler."
Debbie due to the fact that I have several friends who are Holocaust survivors and friends who are the children of Holocaust survivors, I implore you to not going any further with this analogy. I could go into all sorts of explanations that you would probably discount anyway. But I beg you ... don't go there.
Amy
Debbie writes, "I often wonder if the Holocaust, for example,would have happened had their been a woman ruling instead of Hitler."
What about these woman leaders?
"Mary I (18 February 1516 – 17 November 1558), was Queen of England and Queen of Ireland from 19 July 1553 until her death. The fourth crowned monarch of the Tudor dynasty, she is remembered for restoring England to Roman Catholicism after succeeding her short-lived brother, Edward VI, to the English throne. In the process, she had almost three hundred religious dissenters burned on the stake in the Marian Persecutions, resulting in her being called Bloody Mary."
"Elizabeth Bathory
(August 7, 1560-August 21, 1614)
Born into a powerful family in Hungary. Married warrior Ferencz Nadasdy. At 14 murdered over 650 virgin girls to bathe in their blood. She didn't just kill them, she tortured them by biting their necks, burning them, biting their breasts, mutilating them, and various other ghastly means.
Her personal assistants were three witches."
"Ilse Koch
Born: 1906; Died: 1967
Known as the Witch of Buchenwald, or “Buchenwälder Schlampe” was the wife of Karl Koch, commandant of the concentration camps Buchenwald from 1937 to 1941, and Majdanek from 1941 to 1943. Drunk on the absolute power rendered by her husband, she reveled in torture and obscenity. Infamous for her souvenirs; tattoos taken from the murdered inmates, her reputation for debauchery was well earned."
History... it is written for all to read.
Joe W.
I'm all for the ladies. Just not those who want to tell me what to do! Ha! Ha!
This is an interesting, thought-provoking post, Wade. I'll have to kick this around some in my mind.
Thanks for your blog. I do enjoy it.
It really does nothing to try to compare atrocities done under male or female leadership; humanity suffers from the same ill whether male or female. Let's not get distracted by heading down that path or take away from the point of the post. Likewise, who makes the argument to which Wade initially refers really seems to be irrelevant. Amy, why do you want to know?
I think the issue for discussion primarily centers around whether female leadership, in and of itself, is inherently wrong, off-kilter, intemperate, out of balance, a manifestation of wickedness in society, and so forth.
For those who have reacted negatively to the post or to some of the comments, do you believe that female leadership is inherently suspect in some way and, if so, how and why?
Sorry, I think I need another cup of coffee, my fingers were working faster than my brain on the last comment. :)
Amy: My husband's family is from German Jewish decent. Many fled Germany at the time of Hitler. The Holocaust should be spoken about. It's not an off limits subject. This post is not the topic of the Holocaust, it was just an example.
JoeW: Point taken. You have well pointed out that there is evil among men and women. However there are many women who have ruled and ruled well, even in scripture. Margaret Thatcher is another I could mention.
Take the Middle East for example, it is women who are beginning to change things there and who are sacrificing their lives and livlihood to do so that I believe are going to turn things around to a possibly kinder nation. It's happening now. I hope I am on topic Wade and have discerned your post properly, if not please let me know.
This seems a little like a straw man argument to me. I have been a conservative Southern Baptist, and one who believes that the Bible teaches complementarian marriage and male headship at church and home.
In my 50 years, I have never heard anyone make this argument.
In this passage, Israel's sin has led them to shame. The concept of being ruled by women was shameful.
There are plenty of passages in the NT that I believe fairly conclusively prove complementarianism and reserve the roles of pastor/elder/deacon for men.
I have never heard anyone use this passage to defend that position.
Why would you raise a weak argument like this? It gives red meat to those who want to ridicule and belittle those who hold to my position (I would guess that was your intent).
But it does little to advance noble argument in the SBC.
But it does little
Debbie -- You misunderstand. Speak about the Holocaust. Shout about the Holocaust. Just don't use the Holocaust in an inappropriate analogy. Debbie, I do more in the area of Holocaust education in evangelical churches than just about anyone. My first master's thesis is on the literature of the Holocaust as it reflects their understanding of God. My heart and mission passion are the Jewish people. I know them. I have cried with them. I have mourned with them. I have argued Jesus with them. Therefore, I know how they would react to this analogy. It would not go over well. Just think about your analogy from the perspectives of those who lived through it. And if you still don't agree, I will have to ask you to trust me on this one. I know that I am right.
Bryan -- I want to know the source of the argument because it is important to know the foundation of the argument in order to properly respond to it. Call me an academician if you like but that to me is just basic in order to form a proper response.
Amy
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Old Testament Author: Henry, Matthew
Isaiah 3:12 12“Those who lead thee (the princes, priests, and prophets) mislead thee; they cause thee to err.” Either they preached to them that which was false and corrupt, or, if they preached that which was true and good, they contradicted it by their practices, and the people would soon follow a bad example than a good exhortation. Thus they destroyed the ways of their paths, pulling down with one hand what they built up with the other. Que te beatificant—Those that call thee blessed cause thee to err; so some read it. Their priests applauded them, as if nothing were amiss among them, cried Peace, peace, to them, as if they were in no danger; and thus they caused them to go on in their errors. 3. That their judges, who should have patronized and protected the oppressed, were themselves the greatest oppressors,
In His Name
Wayne
Amy: I do not agree that it is an inappropriate analogy. My husband has no problem with the analogy as I called him to verify the facts I have mentioned here and told him of my analogy. If anyone should be offended by the use of it I should or my husband and his family. None of who have ever been offended by any use of it on this site nor by me. I feel if anyone has the right to use it as an analogy I doand you missed my point in using it entirely, But thank you for your concern. Now I think we need to get back to the topic of this thread as I will no longer be answering your concerns on this .
Debbie -- I usually let you have the last word because it is usually an exercise in futility to show you the fallacies of your argument. However, this time I can't. It is too important to me and my mission people.
My ultimate point is be careful about using the Holocaust as an analogy. This horrid event is to recent, to unique, and to sensitive to be used as an analogy except when it relates to itself.
I know this is off topic but it is an important lesson that we should all be reminded of on a daily basis as survivors are aging and Holocaust Denial is increasing.
FYI I asked a Jewish friend of mine and this is her response, "I find it disdainful when people use the holocaust in a flippant way. I think this qualifies as one of those situations..."
And this will be my last word on the issue so that the topic can return to the original post. You may have the last word if you choose.
Amy, Excuse me for being stunned but you come here demanding your questions be answered and then tell commenters what is appropriate or inappropriate topics or analogies. My goodness. Who promoted you to Oberfurher of the blog thread? (No lectures)
Discuss content merits and debate your position but please stop with the demands and commands. We are all adults here, I think? :o) (Some may be old enough to be your mamma or papa)
Lucy
"Bryan -- I want to know the source of the argument because it is important to know the foundation of the argument in order to properly respond to it. Call me an academician if you like but that to me is just basic in order to form a proper response."
Actually that is not academic. It becomes personal. Many debate questions are posed with even less information than what Wade gave here.
By the way, I do know of a ministry that uses this verse for such teaching but if I told you the name, the conversation would get mired down and offtrack in all of their foundational belief systems. They are known for proof texting verses to fit their premise. And they make lots of money doing it: Selling a lifestyle.
And, it may not even be the same one that Wade heard this from.
Lucy,
"Cute" attack with the oberfuhrer crack. Go back and read the original comment I asked and did not demand. I also asked (implored to use the exact word and gave reasons why) that Debbie refrain from Holocaust analogies.
It is amazing that asking a question and a request could result in such a response from you.
I would like to respond to the purpose of the post but want to know who said it so that I can be clear in my response. Is that too much to request?
I've also never heard that Scripture used that way before.
But, Deborah (the woman who was a prophet first, not just a judge) also pointed out that if no man led then a woman would get the credit. So the concept that men failing to take up the responsibility of leadership isn't isolated to the passage in Isaiah.
Similarly, though, to the extent that you believe that the role of prophet is roughly akin to the pastor/teacher, the New Testament doesn't unring that particular bell nor do we see an effort to try to do so. So while the complementarian position might be the prevalent position in the Bible, it isn't the exclusive one. And once you admit it isn't exclusive, you have little ground for excluding based on it.
I think there is a lot of pride in both camps on the subject, though. And therefore it's very difficult to have a humble discussion about it. Which is why many nonbelievers would rather have a tooth canal than listen to Christians argue over stuff that they feel is divisive and controlling (with the occasional dash of blatant self-righteousness and hypocrisy thrown in to flavor the pot.)
If only we had enough grace to see it the same way. ;)
Greg Harvey
"It is amazing that asking a question and a request could result in such a response from you."
Repeatedly asking that a question be answered throughout several threads can send a wrong message. In several threads I have seen you lament over and over a question was not answered. Blog owners are not required to answer every question
Did I read you wrong or did you tell Debbie it was inappropriate for her to use the analogy?
Lucy
Corrections:
1. This is how one of my sentences was intended to read:
"So the concept that men were failing to take up the responsibility of leadership isn't isolated to the passage in Isaiah."
The thought being that if a woman (Deborah in this case) who is also a prophet recognized the situation and pointed it out, it added additional weight to the claim. I am not smart enough to guess at what she really thought about it, though, just can point to what she said.
2. Mixed metaphor warning: "tooth canal" started as a tooth extraction and ended as a root canal. Beware oral surgeons that mix their metaphors like that.
Greg Harvey
Greg: I see no pride, it may be uncomfortable to talk about, but I don't think pride is seen on these comments by anyone. It seems a nice way to say let's add this to the list of let's not talk about politics, religion or other things that ruffle feathers. Criticical thinking of the scriptures is necessary. The word pride is used when someone feels discomfort discussing a subject. I say it's time to get over it and discuss what makes some feel uncomfortable.
Amy: One more comment from me on this subject and it is the last. I did not use the Holocaust flippantly. I do think that you are wrong in your attempting to silence me and it is more than a request, you are ordering me where you have no right. My husband's family escaped Germany to Russia because of Hitler. I know how serious it is and for you to accuse me of using this flippantly is out of line. I have tried to be kind to you, but I will be speaking of it from time to time and I do not want the Amy police going behind stopping something I will not stop speaking of or using as an analogy where I see fit. I respect your deep love for the Jews and admire your giving them the gospel, but there is much to learn from this tragic event. It's called critical thinking.
By the way do you know where Hitler learned of some of the methods he used in the Holocaust, from the United States. From us. He learned from our treatment of people in slavery and he learned when we sterilized the mentally disabled in order for them not to be able to reproduce. We were supposedly labeled a Christian nation then. I add this as food for the discussion. It goes back to the question at hand as to whether women ruling is in reality evidence of a wicked society. I hope this is on topic, again if not I can be corrected. I certainly don't want to go off in a rabbit trail.
Read the LXX translation of Isaish 3:12 and other ancient versions and you will note a similar but different word meaning "creditors" is used. (Interpreter's Bible_.
Wade,
Interpreted in context, what do you think Isaiah 3:12 means?
Debbie,
I think I understand where you're going with that comment. So discomfort might indeed be a better word. But the symptom I was pointing to is the unwillingness or inability to acknowledge the heartfelt points the other side makes.
I was trying to illustrate that with the nuances I brought up. I failed to say "here are some nuances that we sometimes trivialize or, perhaps, intentionally overlook." I.e. Deborah is a fully invested leader with all of the power of God behind her both as a prophet AND a judge. Dave tends to ignore that one and you know how Gene looked at it.
Similarly, Dave is correct that the preponderance of biblical teaching seems to strongly favor men in those leadership roles. Yet I've had friends tell me that because God gave them this spiritual gift or that one that the complementarian view is invalidated.
Both positions come across as somewhat more certain than you would expect someone to arrive at through reading the Bible. That appearance of staunchness or inflexibility is what I refer to as pride.
And, yes, I see both sides coming across that the outcome favoring their belief is more important than the relationship between redeemed, regenerate believers. That's why it concerns me.
I realize I also come across as prideful at times, too, even when I know I didn't intend it that way. So you're correct that I may just be misreading the sentiment behind the certainty of the positions. But the concern remains real to me.
Greg Harvey
"In this passage, Israel's sin has led them to shame. The concept of being ruled by women was shameful."
If it was so shameful then why allow Deborah as a Judge? And why was Judah allowed to have a Queen?
BTW: Before you say she was a bad Queen, keep in mind all the bad 'Kings' before and after her. :o)
"Similarly, Dave is correct that the preponderance of biblical teaching seems to strongly favor men in those leadership roles"
Funny, we were just discussing last night if this was a result of sin of the fall or what God intended for all time. We see the same sort of result with polygamy but we don't argue that because there was a lot of it-- it must be ok. :o)
There is no command against polygamy in the OT. (I can't find one) There is no law against women teaching men in the OT, either.
(But there is a law against them teaching men in the Talmud)
Greg Hicks,
It does not mean a woman cannot serve in a position of authority over a man.
Whatever else it means, I'll let you determine.
:)
I agree with Wade's last comments. The NT is clear to me that men should be pastors, etc and that the husband is the head of the home.
However, to my knowledge there is nothing about men ruling over women, except in these specific roles of church and home leadership.
I see no injunction against a woman being a supervisor over a man at work, or being president of the United STates (well - some women...) I would vote for Maggie Thatcher if she could somehow become eligible.
I see no NT teaching that prohibits women from being in positions of authority over men - except in the ministry of the church and at home.
Debbie:
There you go. Two people immediately step up and illustrate the point I was making. ;)
Greg Harvey
"Looking back in history there has been women who have ruled. Mary Queen of Scots for example....I often wonder if...[it] would have happened had their been a woman ruling instead...."
Quite possibly, especially if it were Mary - known as "Bloody Mary" - the woman who put many, many Evangelicals to death. This was one of the reasons Knox reacted with his, 'Monstrous Regiment of Women.' Don't know where in the world you got that "he spent some plotting to kill them or their husbands," Lindon.
So, let's address the elephant in the room. Should a woman serve as a senior pastor if she "feels called"? What do you think, Wade?
I do have a correction to make concerning my husband's family. He came home and informed me that they are German Jews but he had misinformed me of the time his family left Germany for Russia. He told me he got to thinking and they left in the late 1800's for Russia then left from there to America. I apologize for the misinformation. I do believe my point still stands but should not be made based on this error.
"Don't know where in the world you got that "he spent some plotting to kill them or their husbands," Lindon."
Well ONE source I have handy is Stefen Zweig's "Queen of Scots" written in 1935. Published first in Great Britain. (I have a first edition!!)
He even relates that Knox had prepared a sermon 'in which he was to extol the murder as a deed most worthy'. (of David Rizzio, the Queens trusted servant and henchman) As a first step for the conspirators to control Mary.
He even had to flee the country when Lord Darnley, Mary's Husband and one of the co-conspirators, turned on the others because he had been so vocal in his approval of the murder to too many.
There were several other plots (One against Lord Darnley that came later and another against Mary).
There are other sources but I do not have time to go through my books right now and give you the references. Sometimes it is not always wise to rely on 'Reformed' historical literature because it can be very slanted.
Don't think I am defending Mary. She earned her nickname.
"Quite possibly, especially if it were Mary - known as "Bloody Mary" - the woman who put many, many Evangelicals to death. "
Doesn't vengence belong to God?
Did Knox not know that early Christians went to their deaths? Did he not read scripture about being persecuted for his faith? What about obeying the civil authorities? How come we ignore this stuff with our when it comes to Reformed ministers in history?
Just curious.
I think Mary1 Queen of Scots is being confused with Mary1 queen of England. Both histories are getting mixed into one cocktail. These were two different women. Mary Queen of Scots was not nicknamed bloody Mary. At least to my knowledge. Mary1 Queen of England was.
John Knox was preaching against Mary Queen of Scots because of her marriages and she was Catholic.
Back to the topic of this thread however. :)
Thanks Debbie, there are too many Mary's. Yes, I was referring to Queen of Scotts who Knox contended with. Her hands were not so clean, either.
I have heard this passage used in this way, and it's got nothing to do with the *fact* of female rulers/misrulers. Rather it speaks to the *reasons* they are ruling.
Children
Women
The men are absent? Why would that be? To what would that be a reference?
1. Well, when children oppress, that speaks to an inversion of the created order, not in the home, but society as a whole. Children, under no circumstances are to have authority as rulers. "Children" were oppressing. Which children?
Answer: Child rulers. I would also point out that the definition of a "child ruler" in the Ancient Near East,as in the OT law on stoning rebellious children, is quite flexible. Not all references to "children" men "little boys and girls," what we would call elementary or preschool age children or slightly older.
The law on stoning a rebellious child, for example,deals with any child, specifically adult children, who disgrace the family. A child who oppresses as a ruler, would be any ruler of young age that is oppressive.
2. And women rule over them. How? Through those child rulers. There women acting as coregents and counselors and coopting the power of the throne in the highest tradition of the evil houses of the North, following after that whorish Queen Jezebel who certainly set the bar high, did she not,for the very name "Jezebel" has been ruined for every generation since.
Women in the court and their influence is spoken of in somewhat positive fashion in some places. Jerusha, mother of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah was daughter of Zadok, high priest,and a godly woman.
On the other hand, we have the story of Ahaziah, 22 years of age when enthroned, who walked in the ways of Ahab. His mothers name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri. She engaged in a systematic campaign to overthrow the House of David. Jehoram was 32 when he took the throne, and reigned 8 years. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, just as the house of Ahab did, for Ahab's daughter was his wife. Then we have Shimeath and Jehozabad referenced in 2 Chronicles 24. Look it up and see why they are there. As with the Assyrians God raised up to judge Israel (and whom God held accountable for their sins in so doing), so God uses Zabad and Jehozabad to judge Joash.
And that's the point of the passage here. The reference to "women ruling over them" has nothing to do
one way or the other with women in leadership roles and the intrinsic role of women. Rather, Isaiah is making a reference to the history of young rulers who have been influenced by mothers and wives who have followed not after God but the gods of the pagans. We see this in 2 Chronicles, where the Chronicler makes constant reference from the time of Ahab to the insinuation of women from Ahab's family into the House of David. The same pattern appears over and over. It's a repeat of the Sin at Meribah in Numbers - the intermarriage with the Moabite women. It's a repeat of Solomon's women problems - for he let them worship their idols. It's a repeat of Jezebel's role in the life of Ahab. It is, in short, an ongoing problem in the life at court in Jerusalem. This gets repeated even in the NT and is a signal of apostasy. Remember the role women played in the life of the royal court under Herod?
The problem is NOT women for the sake of women - it's what sort of women are involved - women like Jezebel. and Athaliah, not women like Jechiliah, Jerusha and Jehoshabeath. Look carefully at the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Very often, the mention is quick (blink and you'll miss it), but an evil, immature king is connected to a woman who is depicted in the background. When good king is listed,and you see a connection to a female, I would say the presumption is that the author is making a tacit comment that this woman was godly and had posit
ive influence.
I don't believe that women should serve as senior pastors, I haven't seen where women served as elders in the Bible. They served in many other capacities.
However I am interested in what I read in I Cor 14:35 in context with chapters 12-14. Rather than view this as a feminist issue couldn't this be informed vs uninformed. Sometimes the informed become chauvinistic with their privileged status. They remind the uninformed they are informed in subtle ways that hurt.
The uninformed have a right to know and should demand to know.
Chauvinistic people can easily be offended so the uninformed have to be careful not to anger them.
The informed should willingly surrender information to the uninformed. It is better for the uninformed to say "I don't need to know this" rather than hear "you don't have a need to know"
Paul addresses the ignorance of the brethern rather than the ignorance of the uninformed. The informed are the ones apt to hinder or forbid certain things.
Paul expects a great deal of trust by the informed if the Holy Spirit is to direct as He chooses. If the Holy Spirit is resisted it will be the act of the informed.
Preachers minister every Sunday assuming the uninformed are the hinderance to the move of the Spirit. If the Spirit is hindered,as I assume He usually is in American Churches, it is the act of the informed.
Gene, Thanks for that comment. I am printing it out to study deeper. Great stuff.
Go Men Go
Women have been looked down on since Eve. Of course the ones doing the looking are men.
One leader was dying by a woman hitting him with a ‘rock’, and begged someone to kill him to avoid the disgrace of being killed by a woman.
I believe the true MEANING of Isaiah 3:12 is shown by the Living Bible:
“O my people! Can’t you see what fools your rulers are? Weak as women! Foolish as little children playing king. True leaders? No, misleaders! Leading you down the garden path to destruction.”
Dave Miller,
Since you’re the head of the family, is your wife the neck?
Any reference to me being the head of my home, dear Rex, is purely theoretical.
When Women 'Rule' Men Is It A Wicked Society?
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
To me this verse is not saying that a society is wicked because the women rule over them. If that were true then children ruling over them would make the society wicked. That would probally be the best thing! Ruled by children!
When a society is wicked women and children can rule over them even overthrow them.
The SBC may not give it serious credence but if it don't take seriously the cries of the victims of sexual assualt by Baptist preachers they will sink the ship.
They will find themselves in unchartered waters where no galley of oars manned by strong men can go.
Wade,
Is anything in the Old Testament normative?
dwmiii
Dave Miller,
“Nuff-said.”
To anyone,
The Bible says something like: ‘Woe is the nation that has a child for its king.’
I am not trying to be all inclusive here, but I'd say God's love is normative. God's call to love is normative. Obeying God and following His voice/His word is normative.
I have not been to theological seminary and am not as familiar with the LXX, but I am interested in the comment above, which I did a bit of research about, talking about the differing translations of Isaiah 3... Can anyone comment to that? Was it mistranslated to say women and children versus extortioners/financial oppression?
Bryan,
You are correct. The LXX does translate it "baliffs" where children is located in the Hebrew and "those who ask" (it is a participle, seems to be used substantively) for the women.
However, the LXX of the prophets and writings (especially the writings) is not as trustworthy as the sections translated from the Torah. Actually, the Torah should be referred to as the LXX, but the rest should just be called Old Greek.
There is no other textual witness to the LXX translation (e.g., Syriac). Since this is the case, I would be inclined to lean towards the Hebrew (Masoretic) text here.
Just my opinion.
dwmiii
Bryan,
What I mean there by, "there is no other textual witness to the Greek" should also mean, "the other witnesses of the text support the Hebrew."
Thanks,
dwmiii
I think more to the point the question would be does this passage in Isaiah fall under the New Covenant which we are now under?
Debbie,
That question is a good question. What is the Old Covenant?
Would we also lump God being the creator under the Old Covnenant?
I guess, What I'm asking is: If something is in the Old Testament, does it make it part of the Old Covenant?
I would love to dialog about this more! :)
dwmiii
Don't get so caught up in the Old Covenant/New covenant thinking that you miss the bigger picture.
The only way salvation is provided for today is via the New Covenant. For anyone. Jew, Gentile, American, Arab whatever.
See Hebrews 10.
Now when we think of Israel today, we have to realize that as a nation, a people, they still reject Christ. They are a proud and arrogant people that revel in their sin (denying Christ).
If you keep that in mind as you read Isaiah, much of what we have always considered prophecy fulfilled is actually prophecy of that to come or prophecy being fulfilled.
Isaiah 3:12 Children opressors, just think of all those palistinian kids throwing rocks or shooting rockets at them.
There is coming a day in Israel where men and leaders will be scarce. There is also coming a day that He will pour out His spirit on Israel and they will see.
Zech 12:10, Isaiah 32:15, Isaiah 44:3
I think Scripture is Scripture and all of it falls under the OC and the NC.
"The only way salvation is provided for today is via the New Covenant."
What is the real difference between the way people in the OC were saved, Abraham for example, and those in the NC are saved? I thought all were saved by grace through faith in Christ (in OC this was a faith in the Father or that there would be a coming Messiah)
I wish some of you would speak English that can be understood by people like me. I thought the Living Bible was very clear on Isaiah 3:12. I don’t know if you agree, disagree, or considered it as Playboy. How about a simple reply?
Blackhaw and Ezekiel,
This indeed is a fruitful discussion.
So, how did Moses view the New Covenant?
dwmiii
Blackhaw,
Exactly. No difference. And you are correct in saying that all scripture is scripture. It is unfortunate that so many today teach "we are in the NT now, under the New Covenant now so the OT has ceased to be important".
That is why I say to not get to caught up in the OC/NC. Israel got off on a tangent of Idol Worship. There were many attempts to get back to the path through revivals, and good kings. But the Israel today does the same thing their fathers did. Deny Christ.
They are broken off. Will be until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit..."on that day".
Rex: I agreed with your comment and your posting of the version of this verse, it did help clarify. But the chapter is speaking of the judgment of Jerusalem and Judah. What is the actual context of the verse?
Ezekiel said
There is also coming a day that He will pour out His spirit on Israel and they will see.
Sorry, but in the new covenant Israel is the Christian CHURCH. Know more Israel.
In His Name
Wayne
Ezekiel, Blackhaw: We are under the New Covenant. Bought and paid for by Christ's death, burial and resurrection.
That doesn't mean that we throw the OT out, it does mean we are not under the law. All of scripture is relevent because all of it points to Christ. It doesn't mean that all applies to us however. That is why reading in context is important. Thank God it's being preached. Thank God.
Wayne,
We can't say "no more Israel".
If you will take a careful look at Romans 11:1-11, you will see
blood decendants of Abraham and how a remnant of them has been saved.
Then in Romans 11:15-22 Paul is talking to us. Gentiles, spiritual decendants of Abraham through faith. We are now part of the Branch. Wild olive trees grafted in.
Then in Romans 11:23-33 we see "them" being grafted back in.
If you want to use Israel as the Church universally, then you may also see where much of the prophecy written in the OT can also apply to the Church. I think it does.
Getting back to Isaiah 3:12, on a regional small scale, this can be seen as Israel (that little spot of land in the middle) loses leaders and men in a conflict that appears to be intensifying today. So what is left after all the fighting is going to be a lot of women and children. (See 4:1)
On a larger scale, if we carry that prophecy out to include the Church, we see today, a remnant that want to be called by His name (4:1) which in fact is recorded.
(4:3)
If you look at Isaiah 4:4 in the context of Malachi 3:1-3, Ephesians 5:25-26 we see the preperation of the Remnant. The Church. The Bride.
Debbie,
Romans 3:31 (English Standard Version)
31Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
I don't want to start a great debate on the Law but instead would point you to Romans 1-8 for a good read. Paul, I think struggled to explain it, I can't come anywhere close. Some important questions though are who do we serve, sin or righteousness? (See Romans 7:12)
And,
If Christ is truly in us, and we are in him then, how can we disregard the law?
Mat 22: 37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the great and first commandment.
39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets.
With the love of Jesus in you, you can't help but fulfill the law.
Another way to view this is Galatains 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
And Christ fulfills the law.
Before you start sifting too much scripture that doesn't apply to us, see
2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
And
1 Cor 10:11Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
The most important thing is to keep reading and let the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth. The best I can do is point you in that direction. He has all the answers.
ezekiel: We'll just have to agree do disagree. I think we'd better get back on topic.
I know we have strayed from topic but since the discussion has drifted I would like someone to comment on the rich young ruler.
Recently Steve Gaines said the RYR came to Jesus asking "what must I do to be saved?" Is "inheriting eternal life" the same as "being saved"? Of course being reformed I assume that the RYR running up to Jesus, inquiring and Jesus loving him implies election so he is not dead in sins. Maybe he is in covenant with God thru OC.
More opinions, which is it?
Charles
Charles: I'll be your Huckleberry. Yes, inheriting eternal life is equivalent to being saved.
Being Reformed, I assume the text means what it says when the young man "went away sorrowful" because he had great possessions. He didn't inherit eternal life. I also assume the text means what it says when Jesus loved him. God loves the "non-elect."
Rev
"I'll be your huckleberry"
David Crockett said: "This was a hard business on me, for I could just barely write my own name. But to do this, and write the warrants too, was at least a huckleberry over my persimmon”.
The struggle I have here is that the inability of the sinner to respond to God means that the RYR had the ability to respond. The Arminian would say the RYR was given pre-conversion enablement and I would say he had experienced regeneration. However he resisted the call of Christ which confuses me and makes the Arminian happy!
A struggle for me. The RYR came running and knelt before Christ. Something internally was happening in him. This is something I believe a sinner doesn't do. Why? He's dead, spiritually. He neither desires nor seeks after God.
Now I just totally reject the pre-conversion enablement belief as unscriptural.
I also don't believe that God loves the non-elect. The only love I can conceive is that he loves to see them perishing eternally. That seems to be, IMHO, inconsistent with the character of God. Why would God love a non-elect dead man? He loves the elect. So it would likewise be a terrible thing to tell a sinner that God loves him. According to John 3:16 The sinner is perishing. The universal message to sinners is they are perishing. The wrath of God is their doom. The message of the love of God is announced to those who believe upon him.
Well, anyway thanks for being my huckleberry. I've got to rush off to work. Physical labor!
Charles
Ezekiel
The New Israel is the Church of Jesus Christ made up of Believers in Jesus Christ, this body is not a Nation. Jews may be part of this body only if they are Believer in Jesus Christ.
In His Name
Wayne
Ezekiel
This is after the New Covenant, there were people saved by God in the Old Covenant.
In His Name
Wayne
Charles:
Just some thoughts...
The way in which you define "free will" will determine how you deal with this passage (and others). Was the RYR free to make a decision regarding Christ? Yes. And he chose to walk away. Why did he choose to do so? Because he loved his possessions (and himself) more than he loved God. Actually, he didn't love God, which is the problem. He acted according to his desires, which were sinful and selfish.
The call from Christ given to the RYR is the *same* call given to all - repent of your sin and trust Me alone for salvation. This shouldn't be confused with effectual calling. The running and the kneeling doesn't necessarily reflect piety, etc. It merely reflects giving a semblance of honor to Christ through outward actions. Judas did such things for three years. Many people walk an aisle or do "good" deeds or a host of other things. Innumerable individuals follow Jesus with their feet (and their mouths) but not with their hearts.
The Lord does not delight in the death of the wicked. Why would God love a "non-elect" individual? Because He is God, and God is love. How can a loving and merciful God, the God of love, punish an individual for his/her sin for all eternity? Because the very same God is also holy and just. God gives people time now to turn from their sin and to embrace Christ alone for salvation. Those who continue in their rebellion, who refuse to acknowledge God in all their ways, will receive the punishment promised to anarchists.
According to John 3:16 the sinner is perishing, you are correct. According to that same verse, God loves the world.
The message of the love of God in the Gospel -- along with the message of coming judgment -- is announced to all, the blessings of forgiveness are given only to those who receive the message joyfully by faith.
Rev
Why do I get the feeling you don't believe in unconditional election and some sort of universalism?
You seem to be nullifying the word 'election' Do you believe in predestination?
Charles
Oh Charles,
Please don't start a dogmatic campaign over here too. Have you not learned? God's name is not Calvin.
OC
Can't you see there is possibly the sabotage of truth taking place over here. I am afraid there are those who want to make God and His purposes more palatable to those at enmity with God.
And you know all too well how I hated it when AR did that here in Memphis. Seems we can't escape this! Is this problem all over America! OC, just saying.
your friend
Charles
Here is an interesting view on this passage of scripture from Dr. Bushnell:
621. I think we find another case of prejudiced translation in Isaiah 3:12. The word translated “children” in this verse in Isaiah, is a plural masculine participle of the verb “to glean,” “abuse,” “practice.” It is translated “glean” in Leviticus 19:10, Deuteronomy 24:21, Judges 20:45, and Jeremiah 6:9. The word has no translation such as “children” anywhere else in the Bible, and it occurs 21 times. Another word altogether is used for “children,” and “child,” in verses 4 and 5 of this same chapter; the sense seems to have been fixed by the supposed context, to correspond with “women.”
As to the word translated “women”: Two words, without the rabbinical vowel “points,” are exactly alike. One is pronounced nosh-im and the other na-shim. In appearance the only difference is a slight mark under the first letter of the Hebrew word na-shim. The first word means “exactors;” the one with a vowel mark under the initial letter means “women.” The entire decision, therefore, as to whether the word means one or the other depends upon OPTION. Those who pointed the word, evidently thought the nation could sink no lower than to pass under women rulers, and then translated the word “children” to match it. Commentators frequently call attention to the alternate reading. See Adam Clarke on the passage. The Septuagint translates: “As for my people, tax-gatherers (praktores) glean them, and exactors (apaitountes) rule over them.”
622. There seems little in the context to support the translation “children” and “women.” But study the context as regards the other reading. After complaining of the “gleaners,” (that is, “tax-gatherers”) and “extortioners,” they are threatened in the following language: “The Lord standeth up to plead and standeth up to judge the people. The Lord will enter into judgement with the elders of His people, and the princes (“rulers,” masculine, not feminine gender), thereof for ye have eaten up the vineyard (the conduct of extortionate tax-gatherers), and the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What mean ye that ye crush (R. V.) my people, and grind the faces of the poor?” Because of this context, we believe that OPTION took the wrong turn when it decided to translate this verse as it stands in our English version; and that this translation would have had a strong showing up of its sophistries, had educated women been on the last Revision Committee.
Charles:
If you don't want OC thinking you've "hijacked" the conversation, please feel free to come over to my blog and discuss the issues.
In regard to your "feeling," I do believe in unconditional election / predestination and do not believe in any sort of universalism. I'm not nullifying election whatsoever.
Rev
It doesn't bpther me that oc thinks I have highjacked the conversation. We have a wonderful history here in Memphis and I love bantering with him.
I'll check out your blog and discuss.
oc, come on over, tell the gang!
Charles
Rev
I don't believe that the sinner has free will to choose unless he is born again "you must be born again" else you will not have the understanding or desire to turn to God. The regenerate call on the Lord for salvation.
You said: "The way in which you define "free will" will determine how you deal with this passage (and others). Was the RYR free to make a decision regarding Christ? Yes. And he chose to walk away. Why did he choose to do so? Because he loved his possessions (and himself) more than he loved God. Actually, he didn't love God, which is the problem. He acted according to his desires, which were sinful and selfish."
This is just my speculation and gladly say so; couldn't the RYR correspond to a believer in grace who now has freed will whereas before he had no will. Rather than assume that he is unregenerate which we are so quick to say about many who are insincere about their election.
Lately I am seeing a lot of ministers who are just like the RYR. Insincere dedication and no core values leaves them vunerable to issues that overcome their faith inspite of their great success in the ministry.
Perhaps there is a difference between "saved" (delivered from hell) and inheriting eternal life (getting hell out of us/ getting heaven in us)
The alternative is that the majority of preachers are just going to hell! Oh well!
Charles
watching said:
"oc, come on over, tell the gang!"
oc says:
Uh uh. Not bringing the gang. Although they would lay it down. You know I am a loner. Don't need a "gang". I have Jesus. It's me and Jesus.
Now what?
oc
just obey the Holy Spirit
Charles
That's what I do. And it seems to irritate you greatly.
Jussayin'.
o
that greatly pleases me that you obey the Holy Spirit
That which irritates me controls me and I don't believe that you nor I control each other. My sinfulness hinders that which controls me and that irritates me.
Rom 7
just saying
Rev,
I hope you have better progress with Mr Page than I have. I'm hoping you have better people skills than I have, because you are going to need it. Honestly, I think it is a matter of patience. I know I don't have it. Maybe you do.
Some people will just not listen, and they think themselves the fountain of all wisdom. They are willing to send people to hell on the basis of a man made system of theology.
Playing God is a dangerous thing.
He hasn't learned that yet.
Jussayin'.
oc.
Don't need a gang. I have Jesus.
lin
Doesn't it seem that I am winning hands down. oc is giving up! He's crying uncle. I'll let you decide.
As to who has "highjacked" the conversation is a toss up, possibly I have an edge.
Tell the gang I said hello
Charles
oc
come on over to (I don't know how to link)
http://drjamesgalyon.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/jerry-grace-on-the-john-316-conference/#comments
You are right you don't have people skills and Rev does! Tell the gang about this sight. Soon we will rule the blogs, won't we oc?
your friend
Charles
No, you win. You go ahead and rule Charles.
It is evident that you don't want anyone named other than Charles ruling your life. Of course unless it's your dog, Roscoe.
Now I'm gone, because this nonsense has gone on way too long.
Many have tried to help you. And in your arrogance, you won't even consider that you may have a problem.
I'm guessing this blog will also figure out your intent soon enough, and they will also urge you to get help. It's just a matter of time. We've seen it time and time again, haven't we?
Go ahead, tell them about your dog, the prophet. And how God is torturing Adrian Rogers in Heaven.
Brother, you need Jesus.
You need to repent.
It seems men like Paige Patterson place themselves in a position of authority above Christ when he chose to deny a woman her job as a teacher merely because of her gender.
After the resurrection, Jesus appeared first exclusively to women and they were the ones He told to go and tell the Disciples (men) the Good News that He had risen!
I'm guessing Paige would probably have refused to hear them.
Post a Comment