Print
Jesus Ordains a Woman
One of the most interesting and exciting stories in the gospels is found in Luke, chapter 13. There we read that Jesus, deliberately and intentionally chose the time and the place to forcefully confront the cultural taboos surrounding women and the church.
The story takes place in the synagogue, which was the church of the day. It was the place where Jews went to worship on Sabbath. In the Diaspora, Jewish synagogues were established all around the Mediterranean world. Not only did Jews worship in the synagogues, but many gentiles who were considered “God-fearers” joined them on the Sabbath day.
But the seating arrangement in the synagogues was not like our churches. Men and women were separated by a barrier. Often there was a lattice-work screen so women could see to the front of the room but they could not be seen. Culture dictated that women were to sit in the rear of the building behind the barrier. They were forbidden to study or to engage in discussions of the Torah. Religious study in Christ’s day was limited to men only.
So on this particular Sabbath day, as was his custom, Jesus went to church.
This meant walking to church as did everyone else in the community. On his way Jesus noticed a women hobbling along with her cane toward the synagogue. He no doubt knew her name and was familiar with her story of being a cripple for the past 18 years.
It is quite likely this poor woman had osteoporosis. Today we take calcium and Vitamin D. We exercise. We know how to prevent this crippling deformity. But these preventative measures were not options in AD 30. This woman had been bent over for 18 years. She could not see the sky. She could not look people in the face. She was deformed and crippled and trapped. It probably did not even occur to her that healing was possible!
Jesus enters the synagogue and takes his seat in the men’s section. He may have been asked to speak or to read from the Torah. He probably heard the woman’s entrance into the church by the tap, tap of her cane on the stone floor. What happened next was extraordinary!
Jesus stood up and in a loud voice called out to this woman. I’m sure a gasp went up throughout the entire building. Jesus was speaking to a woman in the synagogue. Then – and this is the extraordinary part - then he asked her to come to him.
This meant she would have to leave her place behind the barrier in the women’s section and hobble over to the men’s section near the Torah. Another gasp – and I’m sure an undercurrent of murmuring started as she began to slowing make her way pass the barrier to him.
When she came up to Jesus, he did the unthinkable. He put his hands on her. Of course, you say, wasn’t this the way Jesus normally healed people. He touched them Luke, however, specifically and intentionally uses the words, “He laid his hands on her.” Jesus knew exactly what he was doing and Luke knew exactly what he was saying. In the books of Acts, Luke uses this very phrase for the church’s activity in setting apart gospel workers for their task of ministry. (Acts 6:6; 13:3) Thus it is that the gospel of Luke records Jesus bestowing his blessing by laying his hands on her. On the Sabbath. In the sanctuary. In the men’s section.
Openly. Publicly. Unapologetically.
Jesus lays hands on her and says, “Woman – Be free! Be strong again! Be free from your weakness.[1] Be free from all that has bent and bowed you down. Be free from the weight of guilt that you have carried all these years. Be free to be all that you were meant to be!”
Jesus then gives the woman opportunity to speak to the congregants. He commissioned her, a woman, to speak publicly in the synagogue! And she did. She praised God, openly. Standing up straight and tall, looking everyone in the eye, she gave her testimony! She began giving praise to God.
Amazing! Extraordinary! Revolutionary!
Jesus not only physically healed the woman – he affirmed her as a person – as an individual – as a daughter of Abraham! He gave her the same status and recognition as that of a man. Jesus not only healed HER, he was intentionally and deliberately healing ALL womankind of their second class status and restoring to them their rightful place within the worship space.
The Apostle Paul spoke of Jesus as removing the “dividing wall “between Jews and Gentiles. He said, “For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.” (Eph 2:14) That Sabbath in the synagogue Jesus was removing the dividing wall that had separated men and women for centuries. Jesus knew he was going to need the efforts and abilities of both men and women to proclaim his message to the world.
Hallelujah!! Praise the Lord!
But not so fast. The story doesn’t end there. Look what happened next.
The men began to complain! The temple leader was indignant. Against Jesus? No – against her! They did not say to Jesus, why couldn’t you have waited to heal her until after Sabbath. They accused her of coming to him! They accused her of wanting to be healed. She was the one who had broken their taboos. Always blame the woman.
Poor Jesus. He must have felt so disappointed. Do you recall the story of the feast at Simon’s house when the woman washed Jesus feet with her hair – how Simon began to complain. “If you knew what kind of a women she was – you wouldn’t let her touch you.” Jesus knew all about Simon’s past actions and about his sins but Jesus did not openly embarrass Simon. He merely told a story that broke Simon’s heart.
In the same way Jesus patiently responds to these critical men. With tears in his voice, yet strongly and forcefully he confronts their prejudice. “You hypocrites!“ Jesus was not one to mince words. “Men, don’t you untie your cattle and let them drink water on Sabbath? Should not this woman be unbound on the Sabbath and share in the water of life? She is of more value than livestock. She is a daughter of Abraham.”
When Jesus heals persons, he does so indiscriminately. His touch restores wholeness to men, women and children. When Jesus pours out his Spirit, he is no respecter of persons. His Spirit is given to all flesh so that our sons and daughters can prophecy. When Jesus calls a person to feed his flock, neither color nor gender is a consideration. His Body can only add their blessing by the laying on of hands.
| 1 | The Greek word used in verse 12 is “astheneia”. The use of this word elsewhere in the NT does not indicate a physical defect or deformity but is used to indicate physiological or emotional weakness. Paul confessed, “I was with you in weakness and in fear” when speaking to the Corinthians and later he says, “My strength is made perfect in weakness.” 1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 12:9. This word is even used to apply to Jesus himself in Hebrews 5:2, “He himself is subject to weakness.” Or as the KJV says, “is compassed with our infirmities.” |
User login
Recent
- Rescued LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Defender of THE Faith Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Roger S The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- George Tichy Pacific Union Conference Calls Special Constituency Meeting to Authorize Equality in Ordination
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- dl LSU Responds to Biology Professor Lee Greer
- Pagophilus Kinship International Responds to British Union Conference Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
- Fred Eastman Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
- Maggie Ethics, Evolution, and Ben Carson
Newsletter
Organizations
Sat, 09/08/2012
|
San Diego Adventist Forum
Sigve Tonstad, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Religion, Loma Linda
University
Current Issue
Not yet a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Thanks, Donna, for sharing your observations on this story in Luke 13. I particularly appreciate that you capture the reality that Jesus' healing ministry went beyond physical healing—he healed holistically (and still does today!).
I wonder if you're stretching the significance of the phrase epetheken aute tas cheiras ("he laid his hands on her"). Elsewhere the Gospels, this terminology is most used to describe Jesus' healing individuals rather than setting them aside for a specific ministry or task (see, for example, Matthew 9:18. Mark appears to be especially fond of this terminology, note Mark 5:23; Mark 6:5; Mark 7:32; Mark 8:23, 25. Luke also uses it in regards to physical healing, see Luke 4:40. Acts also uses this terminology in reference to physical healing [Acts 28:8]). Of course, we realize that any individual touched by Jesus was, in a sense, commissioned to share the good news of what Jesus had done (except, in a few cases, when Jesus vainly forbade them too). I just think you may stretching the Greek text just a bit to make a valid point.
Of course, as I'm sure you recognize, astheneia ("sickness") is used elsewhere in the NT to reference physical illness or deterioration (see Luke 5:15; John 5:5; 11:4; Acts 28:9 in addition to its use in reference to non-physical humiliation. But again, I think you capture its essence in this narrative quite nicely!
Again, thanks!
God bless,
Sean
Jesus healed her, but he did not ordain her. Not everyone he touched was automatically ordained. And equality does not mean "same". Jesus respected the differences and the complementarity of the two genders.
Fr. Jim,
Complementarity does not meet exclusivity, either. Women have their place in ministering, and are especially fitted for nurturing the "flock" as a mother hen cares for her children. Jesus used the metaphor of the female's abilities more than once.
Ministering is not, nor was never intended to be exclusively a male
privilege but God gives his Holy Spirit to all and each has her own responsibilities.
As some have pointed out here, if strictly following the instructions given in Timothy, there would never be a time nor place for women to teach, instruct, nor ever to read Scripture to a congregation--something quite often a privilege given women even in your church, as I have personally observed. That is not "remaining silent" is it?
The biblical concept of gender is founded on the ancient belief that only men possess “seed” while women are simply like the soil (barren or fruitful) in which the seed of man develops. Man has the power to procreate – which makes him in the image of God, and accounts for his spiritual superiority. This is why man possess virtue, which derives from the Latin word for man – “vir, viris”. On the other hand what we, modern people consider to be a female seed release – is just a woman's uncleanness in the Bible.
I would remind you that the whole concept of the fall and redemption stays or goes along with the cosmological order of gender. Sin came trough Adam because only Adam has seed. Redemption comes trough the seed of Abraham and David. Mary is not to be found in either Matthew's or Luke's genealogy. Jesus is our Savior because he is the Son of Man, not just the offspring of humanity.
Doug was therefore right to notice that polygamy (and, I would add, rape and sexual slavery) is more acceptable to God than insubordination of women. The latter entails a cosmological reversal of the creation order, while the former(s) is (are) just human weakness(es).
If we accept the scientific concept that a woman has seed and power to procreate just like a man, then we will have to go the whole nine yards and re-interpret the whole story of creation and fall. In man and women are equals, the fall is a myth and we are left with a purely existentialist salvation. If modern biology is right against the Bible, the theological consequences are more serious the just women ordination.
Excellent article, Donna. Thank you!
Danna Thank you for showing us the full significance of that encounter. Excellent open display of the equality of gender, to praise, of personage, of witness. Tom
When you have to strain so hard to make the point, it feels shallow and humanistic.
"Jesus not only healed HER, he was intentionally and deliberately healing ALL womankind of their second class status and restoring to them their rightful place within the worship space."
And ever after that day women have been Rabbis and priests.
If it said something like that, you would stand a good chance. However since it doesnt, its embarrassingly weak.
Michael
Thank you Donna! What a beautiful story! Despite human theological arguments, Jesus is still the best picture of God that we have and God is so much bigger than we can even imagine including His love and grace!
Thank you, Donna, for capturing what has been overlooked by two centuries of male leaders. It is as if the word "woman" is embarassing to read or pronounce. Such is the legacy of the church fathers, and the Bible, all written by men--who saw through a glass darkly, overlooking what, to them, was irrelevant.
Donna, Thank you for your excellenht exegesis of the incident to which you refer from Luke 13. As Sean has pointed out, you may be pushing the Greek there by referring to the "laying on of hands" to include the ordination to gospel ministry, but certainly not to witnessing for Jesus from personal exposure and experience, as Jesus did with the demoniac of Gadara (Mark 5 & Luke 8) The reason why I agree with Sean is because the term "laying on of hands" has also been used both in the OT and NT for other than ordination to gospel ministry, as in the story Jesus told of the two debtors where the chap who owed the greater debt "laid hands" on the fellow with the lessor debt to force him to pay back his loan! In the OT on the occasion when Athaliah was arrested to be killed, the Bible states that they "laid hands on" her. Again 2nd Chrin. 29:23 the record states that they "laid their hands" on the goats before sacrificing them and sprinkling their blood on the altar.
To and for me, the two strongest incidents, one in scripture and the other more contemporary is first, your refernce to the wall of partition in Gal.3:28 having been set aside by Jesus. The second is the role of Ellen G.White. Were not two men first called and neither one accepted and God then turned to the weakest of the weak to appoint her to witness as a special messenger before Him in the same role as did Elijah and John the Baptist Matt. 17: 11 to 13.
Still and all, thank you for holding these ideals before us.
Gerald
Donna,
You have portrayed and wonderful warm and gentle spirit in this. Thank you. Well done!
Fr. Jim
Do you doubt that the woman was forever after "set-apart"? She didn't need a collar--everyone knew that God had touched her. Could God give us each such a gift. Tom
Hey that is the way to fight Doug Batchelor's poor Bible interpretation techniques...create the opposing position using just as incorrect interpretation techniques.
Oh and just as some people praise Batchelor's eisegesis we can see people here praising more eisegesis.
I see the lessons are being learned all around...I can't wait for the article where the people who were trying to Kill Jesus on the cliff were really just trying to ordain Him.
(Luke 4:29 KJV) And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Well done, Donna. What consistently surprises me is that male pastors tend to lean towards a male perspective on most everything. And why not: they are men. Is it not possible that women, too, might have a need for the teachings of Christ in a manner that tends to lean towards a female perspective without disturbing the boundaries of Christian male/female rolls? I would relish an open debate between genders that excludes gender biases which instead of "putting down," rather, opens up a discussion that focuses on "Why Not?," Biblically. Thank you Donna for this very insightful interpretation and for stirring up our thoughts.
Ron Linder
For my generation where I live the issue of ordination for women is a non-issue. What many of us find unbelievable is that so many of other generations are getting so caught up in all the hot air about it. Just like it would seem if heaps of church people were getting into major conflicts over whether women should wear pants or not, or whether we should have slavery or not, or whether christians should be socially engaged or not, or what color the church carpet should be.
The "church" is losing us, not because we turn our backs on Jesus but we get tired of last century's games. If we are going to fight battles they will be the ones on the streets, not the one's at home when there is no need to live at home anymore. It's better to grow up and leave the toxic home of childhood and find new homes of safety. I'm not talking of finding a new denomination either - denominationalism is so not where we are at.
Invite us back for dinner one day - we might drop by for a visit if things are better. But until then, bye.
Daniella – Spectrum blog
Thank you, Daniella, for helping to put the conversation in perspective. We as a church waste our energy on controversies and "contentions and striving about the law" (Titus 3:9) and power struggles.
Ordination of women is not an issue anymore, not only for the young, but also for those who clearly see the reality of how Jesus, and even Paul, related to disciples. In these last days we do not have the luxury of making rigid gender, race or cultural distinctions when doing His work.
Is 'edcibinium' suggesting that we add "leadership primacy of the male gender" as a 29th Fundamental Belief? I would like to ask him to locate and share the testimonies from Ellen White that would justify taking such a divisive step, distracting us all from the Gospel work.
"Cibinium" seemed so unusual and intriguing it prompted a word search which yielded "immaterial cultural patrimony". Clever, Ed!
Elaine and Tom, certainly women can minister. But that does not mean they are ordained. Non-ordained minister all the time. All of us are "set apart" at baptism. That doesn't mean everyone is ordained. Of course I speak from the Catholic perspective on this matter. Our concept of priesthood and ordination is quite different from the Protestants. Adventists are going to have to decide this on the basis of their own theology and anthropology.
What's in a word?
Say we end "ordination" and replace with already-in-use "commission' for all ministerial employees of the church.
Won't even have to end the practice of 'laying-on-of-hands.'
How hard can this be?
Cultural practices around the world are comfortably preserved and we once and for all escape 'division' over 'ordination' ...
Maybe we can be creative rather than combative.
Bill Garber
Bill, that's a very creative idea! It's a way out and no one has to loose face over the result. This sounds like a thing King Solomon would do.
I agree, Mike and Bill. But it's a bleak comment on Christianity that some are more concerned about losing face than gracefully accepting women as equal partners in the gospel.
Donna:
Thanks for your reflections on what Jesus did to this woman. Clearly, Jesus was for the liberation of women, as well as all classes of persons who suffered from cultural, religious, and all other forms of oppression. As a Christian, I am also for the liberation of women from every chain that has bound them. As for ordination of women as such, no one has yet made a persuasive case for the non-ordination of women that has convinced me, so I have no reason to support any move to deny woman's ordination - whether by implication and neglect or by explicit denial.
Having said that, I have to also say that your argument for ordination based upon how you freely interpret the narrative is not a sound one. To the contrary, when we equate every act of grace and acceptance Jesus performs in healing and affirming women with ordination for a specific task, we only weaken our case. This is a rather loose way to interpret and apply scripture. I don't think that most people who have reservations about such ordination have problem with the equality of women with men in God's estimation. If we are to rely on scripture to justify the ordination of women to the ministerial role, then, I would suggest that more persuasive arguments in its favor be found.
I agree that on the face of it, Donna's interpretation of 'laying on hands' may be stretching it. But I think some people are missing her point. It was not just the laying on of hands in isolation, it was the context...within the synagogue, calling her out of the woman's domain into that of the man. He could have healed her outside the synagogue later. Instead He chose to blatantly and deliberately oppose the male/female social taboos and place a woman in a role that she was not supposed to be allowed to do. It seems like men through the centuries have decided that their authority is higher than that of Jesus.
"This is a rather loose way to interpret and apply scripture. I don't think that most people who have reservations about such ordination have problem with the equality of women with men in God's estimation." Judson
Isn't that the *only* way that Donna can try to justify WO? WO is an issue that has been already resolved by the Scriptures; not accepting the decision is optional with persons but not with the true church. One wonders how much good might be done if all the misdirected energy devoted to WO were channeled into constructive channels.
"WO is an issue that has been already resolved by the Scriptures."
That is a private opinion unsupported by President Paulsen and many SDA theologians. That there are disagreements implies that it has NOT been "already resolved."
Some may have resolved it in their own minds, but the G.C. has not, and it seems they hold the trump card on this decision, not individuals.
Fr. Jim
I agree. But the Adventist view is congruent for the most part with the Roman Catholic View--they just use different arguments. Tom
"Say we end 'ordination' and replace with already-in-use 'commission' for all ministerial employees of the church. . . . How hard can this be?"
Bill, this would certainly put a new twist to the term "great commission."
Frankly, I like your idea, especially as ordination per se is not a biblical concept.
Unfortunately, men rarely find fault with the system that enabled them to rise to the top.
Fortunately, people of courage and vision still exist in the Adventist Church.
Lovely story. I'm sure Jesue (embraced) her. He knew she was down in her spirit, and couldn't wait.
He (healed).....her.
This didn't emply an ordination.....
Any Minister would take time out to pray, or comfort, or heal if he could, a woman.
Still doesn't use the words Jesus ORDAINED this woman....
Excuse the spelling, I am very sleepy, and Donna, I am not trying to put you down. Jesus HEALED people on the Sabbath. He didn't like the ways of the legalistic Phar.
Take away the title from my article, and you have a story of Jesus being much more radical and outrageous than merely ordaining a woman in the 21st century. Jesus was breaking down ancient taboos for womanhood that had separated all females from worship and from rabbinic studies. I chose the title only for an attention getter.
Obviously, I was not suggesting that Jesus “ordained” anyone in the sense that the word is used today. His “laying on of hands” was in the OT tradition of conveying blessing such as given to the firstborn or the priests.
Ordination today is a two-fold situation. There is the biblical imperative in which the body of Christ recognizes and affirms the Spiritual gifts and calling of God for work in ministry. Today, both men and women are called and gifted. The church deprives itself of spiritual energy when it denies this rite to women.
The second is the organizational credentialing that gives professional certification to work. When a person is hired to do a job, proficiency is demonstrated and educational qualifications are met it is incumbent upon the hiring agency to acknowledge the same by conveying proper certification. When the criteria is met by both genders and only one is professionally recognized then blatant discrimination is in play and Jesus would probably say, “You hypocrites!”
I beieve tht talented, educated, experienced, dedicated women should be recognized and set apart for the purpose of preaching the Gospel and leading a flock by ordination. Ordination is the recognition of such gifts and the commissioning of such person to engage in such actvities with the blessings of the congregation and the Lord.
Be that as it may, certainly women have been given a special gift of conceiving and raising new generations. I think of Hannah and Samuel etc etc. There is multi-tasking for both genders. This debate is built upon ancient rites and biases-nothing more.
Frankly, I believe more men have ben ordain without merit, experience, talent, and skill, or ability than there are women to replace them. Tom
Tom
I used to have a subscription to "Spectrum" when Roy Branson was its editor. During that time the magazine was known to publish professional, reliable, and relevant articles. I did not renew my subscription afterwards because I had an intuition that the magazine was never going to be the same, and that intuition has been confirmed. "Spectrum" has become "The National Inquirer" of the SDA circles.
The article "Jesus Ordains a Woman" by Donna Haerich, an absolute piece of nonsense is ample evidence that the magazine seeks the sensational before everything else. How else would the editor publish such a piece? As a linguist and biblical scholar I tremble with indignation and shame to see how the words of the Scriptures have been distorted to support a feminist agenda.
Richard Davidson's article, "The Bible Suports the Ordination/Commisioning of Women as Pastors and Local Church Elders" published recently is another piece of nonsense or inept scholarship.Davidson claims:"
Those who oppose the ordination of women ultimately base their argument on the creation headship of man over woman. Their case, however, rests on a fundamental misinterpretation of Gen. 1-3.”
Unfortunately, the “fundamental misinterpretation of Gen. 1-3 is his. I have followed this impostor through many other articles published in “Adventist Review,” JATS, and AUSS, and it would take a few volumes to discuss his ineptitude and utter ignorance of the principles of solid Biblical interpretation.
What those who so vocally support the ordination of women have forgotten or have never learned the following:
1. All the writers of the Bible are men.
2. God created man FIRST from the “dust of the earth.”
3. God created woman SECOND, because “It [was] not good for the man to be alone.” The idea, peddled by Davidson that God, not man named the woman is pure nonsense. Davidson would do well to read James Barr’s “The Semantics of Biblical language” and learn how inept it is to base a semantic fragment’s interpretation on the voice of a verb or any other morphological artifact.
4. God created woman to be “a helper suitable for him.” Those who try to make the word “helper” mean something else than a SUBORDINATE have no notion of semantics, and have no idea of the difference between “sense” and “meaning.”
5. Woman disobeyed FIRST God’s command.
6. Woman was cursed to be RULED OVER after the fall. God has not annulled the curse yet.
7. All the tribe leaders in Israel were men.
8. There was no WOMAN PRIEST under the Mosaic law.
9. Females had a lower monetary value than men under the Mosaic law.
10. Jesus chose only men as apostles, although he was surrounded by many pious women, not because “he moved precipitously,” as Davidson claims. To make such a statement about Jesus-God assumes knowledge nobody about Jesus’s intentions, and makes Jesus a frightened victim of the society in which he lived.
11. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit chose two men to complete the group of apostles, in spite of the fact that there were many pious women in that group.
12. Paul states clearly that the man is the head of the woman, and that the woman is man’s glory. He also commands women again and again to submit to their men.
13. Davidson’s claim that Paul’s statement, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” is not “arguing for a creation headship of man over woman,” but “is correcting a false syncretistic theology in Ephesus,” is PURE NONSENSE, or is called otherwise EISEGESIS. How does Davidson know this? He attributes to Paul his own ideas, and pretends to know more that Paul what Paul intended to state in the passage.
14. Davidson claim that “Paul’s counsel for husbands and wives cannot be extended to the relationship of men and women in general,”, and that “husband headship in the home is not equated with male headship in the church” is another piece of nonsense or pseudo exegesis. In this claim, Davidson is ignorant of basic logic. If a husband is the head of his wife at home, how can he be subordinate to his wife in the church?
15. The stones of the New Jerusalem have only male names on them. If this is not due to the creation order, but only to the curse after the fall, why the “equality” between men and women claimed by Davidson restored on the new earth?
This note has been written in a hurry, but I believe I have provided enough evidence in favor of the male leadership, and enough rebuttal to the nonsensical and inept claims and misinterpretations of the Bible in favor of “women’s ordination.”
Eduard
Thank you, Eduard, for your comments. I believe you have "proved" my point well.
Fine work, Donna! Excellent exegesis, edcibinium! You sound much like Eduard, so much so that I wonder if you and he or she are the same person. I hope so! Either way, keep up the excellent interpretations. We need more people like you who stand for the right though the heavens fall. Thank you!
P.S.: I think point #15 by Eduard is a display of the hermeneutical and homiletical power of the opposition to treating men and women equally at its very best. It is difficult--impossible, I think--to surpass it. Greatful I will always be.
On second thought, I think that Eduard's point #4 is even better. Understanding the difference between "sense" and "meaning" is crucial to this entire debate. Once we grasp this, everything else swiftly and smoothly falls into place. Thanks again!
I'm sorry if believing the Bible makes me a hypocrite.....
Genesis,Chapt. 3, verse 12, God was calling Adam, as Adam hid from God. When God ask him how did he know he was naked,......Verse 12.
("The Woman, whom thou "Gavest" me" ) After God made the animals, David R. Larson, God saw man was alone. The animals all had mates. God then put Adam to sleep, and took His rib, and made "his species", a woman. God brought Eve to Adam, and Adam did name her, He said this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. She, shall be called woman".
You put such passion in your story Donna, I know you are hurt because I don't agree with you. I have read "all" kinds of disagreements on these pages, why are some of you so hostle towards me? I'm giving the Bible.....
Woman are important, God gave them the 2nd most important task on the whole earth. The Man, or Minister, to preach and take care of his flock, and Woman to bring a life, a child, into thia world, and God puts that little child into the hands of a Woman. To nurture, and train. He trusts her to teach that child about him. And when this earth passes away, and that little family is with Jesus in the earth made new, it will be that that mother had one of the most important roles in that childs life......
I have often wondered "why" didn't God just make Adam, and then Eve at the same time? Then God could have brought the animals to "both" Adam and Eve, and she could have had the pleasure of helping Adam name them....
God could just of easily made Eve following Adam......
I would of loved to help name them.
didn't anybody recognize this gorilla in the room?
..."the whole concept of the fall and redemption stays or goes along with the cosmological order of gender. Sin came trough Adam because only Adam has seed. Redemption comes trough the seed of Abraham and David. Mary is not to be found in either Matthew's or Luke's genealogy. Jesus is our Savior because he is the Son of Man, not just the offspring of humanity.
Doug was therefore right to notice that polygamy (and, I would add, rape and sexual slavery) is more acceptable to God than insubordination of women. The latter entails a cosmological reversal of the creation order, while the former(s) is (are) just human weakness(es).
If we accept the scientific concept that a woman has seed and power to procreate just like a man, then we will have to go the whole nine yards and re-interpret the whole story of creation and fall. In (if?) man and women are equals, the fall is a myth and we are left with a purely existentialist salvation.
If modern biology is right against the Bible, the theological consequences are more serious the just women ordination"...
Posted above by: edcibinium | 23 April 2010 at 5:10
and the gorilla rampaging in the room threatening to tear down the walls unless they are "repositioned"? in a much "wider" manner to take into account considerable new information we have that the ancients did not.
the entire Bible is based on bad science....which should not be expected in a divinely inspired Word of God.
..."40" daze of rain could cover the entire world;
...Adam could name all the millions of species of animals in one day, including the funky ones down in OZ he had not seen;
...Moses could thrive on top of a desert mountaintop while condensing Hammurabi's laws down to just ten....while neither eating, nor drinking...for "40" daze!!!
...feasting your eyes at a bronze snake on a pole will cure snakebite;
...your unclean women should be sent out of camp for a week each month;
...and they should carry a shovel to bury their waste so God will not have to step in it;
...killing two birds and sprinkling their blood on the affected parts will cure leprosy or mold;
...when attacking ones neighbors to take their land and stuff, soldiers are under the divine command to kill any women who have had sex, but save the virgins (to use)
The underlying problem? the ancients misconception that conception is solely the result of a man's "seed" being planted and growing in the right place...
...in ANY womans oven...
...a slave girl?
...a captured prisoner?
...a beautiful sunbather on a nearby roof?
...a hooker at the gates of Jericho?
...a goldbricking Ruth, or a Matahari Ester;
all these are at the base of the pervasive misogamist culture of the Bible...both Old and New Tests. and it brought to us the concepts of the double standard, oppression of women, inheritance and ownership thru the man's "seed", plus gay bashing.
Onans premature withdrawal punishable by death from God, or planting ones "seed" in a man where it would not grow...was an "abomination to the Lord" due to the fact that no offspring would result from this waste of "seed", at a time that the Israelites needed all the (male) soldiers they could procreate.
need a few more examples of this divinely inspired scientific ignorance?
Jacob got rich cheating his Uncle Laban using the God approved striped stick method of modifying goat conception.
God Himself commanded the Israelites (if you believe the story literally) to "use" captured virgins, with no acknowledgment of how this would dilute the unique genetics of His favorite tribe to say nothing of the inhumane, murderous treatment of one tribe against another..in the name of God.
Jesus ancestry is traced thru several women of questionable repute, which didn't matter to the ancients because nobody knew of the womans genetic part in conception
a literal interpretation of the Bible seems to make the God who allegedly inspired it out to be as scientifically ignorant as His favorite tribe who wrote His biography.
of course, this viewpoint presumes one ignore the gorilla and believes that Biography literally.
and presumes one is unwilling to redefine a few of the old tales as edutainment stories told by ancient, scientifically ignorant, superstitious nomads to their kids around the campfire.
I question the relative significance we humans give to the labels that our earthly religious institutions grant on individuals of any gender involved in ministry. If God has given the talents, had personally called the person, and the individual has shows thru words and actions that they are ministers of Christ, then all any church can do is recognize what God has already done.
Formal ordination in my view is a human institution recognizing God's work in a person and thru a person, and thanking him for it. Does our "ordained" label alter the Spirit's work in a person, of either gender? Does God do more or less because we label an individual as "ordained"?
I really think we're disagreeing about labels and language and not about anything with real effect. I'm a committed Seventh-Day Adventists, and believe that God ordains. My church often recognizes that ordination, and because we're a human institutions, we sometimes get it wrong, so I look more at the person and what God is doing thru them than at the label my church grants on the individual. This is especially important because humans falter, can be led astray, and can fail to mister as they should, even after the label has been granted.
I think our time would be best spent discussing what are the signs and characteristics of an individual ordained by God.
"what are the signs and characteristics of an individual ordained by God?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the future ministers selected by their conference as a future employee and sent to Andrews to complete their education and then placed in a church on a track for ordination? It is similar to a physician who must intern and finish a residency before getting his colleagues to accept him as eligible to practice.
What evidence must a ministerial intern provide to give demonstration of the Holy Spirit? A set number of new converts? A certain number of baptisms which he may not be able to personally perform? What is the criteria for admission into ordination? Is there an anatomical test?
Why are individuals often ordained prior to serving in many capacities overseas? Why are certain business and administrative personnel ordained? IOW, what criteria is being followed that would automatically reject a female?
Donna,
Thanks for this study, I found it helpful. You wrote:
"Men and women were separated by a barrier. Often there was a lattice-work screen so women could see to the front of the room but they could not be seen. Culture dictated that women were to sit in the rear of the building behind the barrier. They were forbidden to study or to engage in discussions of the Torah. Religious study in Christ’s day was limited to men only."
How do we know this? What ancient writings describe these arrangements? If the historical facts of this can be verified it would help answer several NT statements about women.
Don,
Right now I don't have a specific reference - I picked up on this arrangement from several sources over the years. William Barclay's The Ten Commandments for Today and Rachel Conrad Wahlberg's books mention this separation and the exclusion of women from participation. I had thought it was one of those commonly understood facts.
The nascent Church did share Sabbath services with the Jews early on and so this arrangement was probably the norm. As house churches grew, woman were able to take more active leadership roles.
Neroli,
Thank you for "getting it".
Donna
There was a separation of male and female during prayers. Since women were not required to do things that the men were they appear to have usually had their own section as men had particular times they were to be there for prayers and Talmud reading etc. but women could go whenever they wanted. As a meeting place and that is what the synagogue was the community center, it still seems to be directed toward men. In the above story all the woman had to do was go to the front that may I suppose be called the men,s side after all women were not allowed to read the Torah at the meetings but more aptly it would simple be the front, the direction that most people were facing.
--
The second thing that must be understood is the separation of men and women during prayer. According to Jewish Law, men and women must be separated during prayer, usually by a wall or curtain called a mechitzah or by placing women in a second floor balcony. There are two reasons for this: first, your mind is supposed to be on prayer, not on the pretty girl praying near you. Second, many pagan religious ceremonies at the time Judaism was founded involved sexual activity and orgies, and the separation prevents or at least discourages this. Interestingly, although men should not be able to see women during prayer, women are permitted to see men during prayer. This seems to reflect the opinion that women are better able to concentrate on prayer with an attractive member of the opposite sex visible. http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
--
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
Adventist Media and Conversation Blog
The other factor is the role Biblically incumbent on men.
Joshua 24:15
15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
Ordination or no, wouldn't it stick in the craw of women today to be told that their patriarch had decided their religion for them?
Michael
At Old EMC, we had Chapel three times a week from 11 A.M. until noon. Several over the course of four years were critical to my relationship with God. The rest are a numbing blur. Except the one in which the Educational Sec. of the Lake Union Conference was featured guest speaker. I can not recall his theme or his major point. I do recall his ernest delivery. As he came to his punch line he left the lecturn and marched or stalked over to the male side of the chapel and said: "Now Man to Man" and he delivered his thunderous appeal. Then he march or stalked over to the female side of the chapel---raised his right arm and took direct aim at the third row and began: "As---a long pause and then a room full of laughter! I thought incompetence in reasoning died with the echo of that laughter, only to find that those who argue for a male only clergy this side of the Cross have proven me wrong. For shame. God is no respector of persons.
As a G.I. medic, I never heard a wounded or dying man call out for dad---they all cried out for mom or mother or God.
The most poignant lament of Jesus was His cry over Jerusalem when He made the analogy of a mother hen and her chicks. Pastoring is a lot more than proclaiming. It has an lot of mothering connected with it.
None of which is demonstrated in the argumentation in favor of Doug's hypothesis. "What does the invitation of Christ resemble most? "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavey laden, and I will give you rest!"? Or "Softly and tenderly Jesus is Calling"?
Fortunately, I had parents in which the prayer: "Our Father--had great meaning. I also had a mother that hurt as much as I when ever I stumbled and fell.
I still stumble and fall, Thank God both parents introduced me to a God with even more love and compassion than they.
I want someone in the pulpit like Mom and/or Dad who can recommend me to a God of love, A God who was willing to go to the ends of the earth for me. Tom
I just read your article re: Jesus Ordaining Women and have many concerns.
They include:
A. Misstating what the Bible says
B. Adding interpretations to the scriptures that are not stated.
C. Using the Bible to advance NON-Biblical political agendas.
In reading my Bible, I find NO hint of any mention that Jesus ordained this woman in the course of healing her.
Your article states:
"One of the most interesting and exciting stories in the gospels is found in Luke, chapter 13. There we read that Jesus, deliberately and intentionally chose the time and the place to forcefully confront the cultural taboos surrounding women and the church."
This statement of yours that I quote above is quite a leap and it disturbs me that this position would be taken in order to advance a controversial agenda point (women ordination) that is not, in fact, Biblical.
First your article states:
"So on this particular Sabbath day, as was his custom, Jesus went to church.
This meant walking to church as did everyone else in the community.
On his way Jesus noticed a women hobbling along with her cane toward the synagogue. He no doubt knew her name and was familiar with her story of being a cripple for the past 18 years."
A. The Bible does not state that "as Jesus was walking to church, on his way Jesus noticed a woman hobbling along with her cane toward the synagog". Rather it simply states the following:
Luke 13:10: "Now He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath."
Luke 13:11: "And behold, there was a woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bent over and could in no way raise herself up".
* There is no mention of her "hobbling with a cane" as per your article. In fact, the scripture says: (v.11) she was "bent over and could in no way raise herself up".
B. Then it says,
Luke 13:12: "But when Jesus saw her, He called her to Him and said to her, "Woman, you are loosed from your infirmity".
Luke 13:13: "And He laid His hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God".
1. In Luke 13:12 (NKJV):
The scripture says Jesus stated "Woman you are loosed from your infirmity".
I don't see any "ordination" type language from this statement.
Further, your article states that Jesus said:
"Jesus lays hands on her and says, “Woman – Be free! Be strong again! Be free from your weakness.[1] Be free from all that has bent and bowed you down. Be free from the weight of guilt that you have carried all these years. Be free to be all that you were meant to be!”
HUH???? What???? Where do you get all of that ? The Bible doesn't say all that.
It simply states
Luke 13:12 (NKJV) Jesus stated "Woman you are loosed from your infirmity".
2. In Luke 13:13 (NKJV)
The scripture says: "And He laid His hands on her" and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God".
Well, wouldn't you start 'glorifying' God if suddenly you could stand straight up after being healed?
Jesus laying His hands on someone does not 'imply' that He has now ordained them. Nor
is there mention that this lady was instructed to go preach; although I can only imagine she might have told many what Jesus had done for her, as would anyone!
Then your article states:
"Jesus not only physically healed the woman – he affirmed her as a person – as an individual – as a daughter of Abraham! He gave her the same status and recognition as that of a man. Jesus not only healed HER, he was intentionally and deliberately healing ALL womankind of their second class status and restoring to them their rightful place within the worship space."
When you say that Jesus was "RESTORING them to their rightful place within the worship place"... Please explain to me the following:
1. Where in the temple service that women had been given a place to be functioning?
2. What was their 'rightful place'?
3. What was the duties and roles of this 'rightful place'?
4. When had it been taken away?
5. Who took it away?
6. WHY was it taken away?
7. What signaled the point where by Jesus needed to restore it? and,
8. Why does Jesus never mention this 'restoration' or indicate women are to be Pastors / priests?
As a female, I am deeply embarrassed that another female would try to twist the scriptures, not to mention insert theology for which there is no basis, in such a manner as to promote an agenda to promote female ordinations.
Well, this is an excellent illustration of how much we need to know our Bibles backwards and forwards, so we recognize when scriptural error is being promoted, interjected, and used to propogate false agendas.
Thank you, Donna, for re-telling this story. It doesn't get enough press. [Yes, I would tell it differently, but that's not my point here! :)]
To Eduard I would recommend cross-referencing Genesis 3 with Ephesians 5. The Christian man has the privilege of turning the "curse" into the greatest blessing a woman could want. My husband loves me like Jesus would; it is his stated goal. Since the beginning of our marriage, he has prayed that our oneness would mirror God's original purpose in designing and creating marriage. I can say from more than 30 years' experience, submission to that kind of love is no curse!
But Ephesians 5 does not obligate me, as a woman, to submit to any man other than my husband. As his wife, I am to accept my husband's love as demonstrated by his attention and provision, his protection and direction. He is to pour himself out for me even to the point of dying for me if need be, and to keep himself and his outpouring of love only for me. In return, and I am to accept his love and leadership and keep myself and my adoration and deepest respect only for him.
All men are not to rule over all women--unless it's the rule of Christian agape by which all men and women "submit" to each other in the priesthood of believers...or so it seems to me.
Yes, some are gifted to be apostles and some teachers, and so on...and God decides who receives those gifts. It's the job of the church to recognize the gifts and employ them. [And does God promise gifts only to men?]
Far from the "rule" promoted by most men, Christ modeled servant leadership. It is for everyone who calls himself/herself by His name and who has the responsibility of leading or ministering to any other person(s) in any degree or fashion.
Incidentally, a happy wife contributes to a happy husband. If a man loves his wife well, he's really loving himself!--because blessing her enables her to bless him! Peter says how a man treats his wife makes a difference in whether his prayers are answered. Hmmm... That looks more like masculine responsibility than the typically touted male dominance.
Hi Donna and all readers, women and men...
Thanks for this delightful commentary and discussion. It seems to me that a fundamental principle that motivates persons on either side of this and similar issues is, whether God in Christ (and the good news) is bound by the ceremonies, regulations, and even the metaphors of previous revelations. Some readers seem quite nervous to go beyond what was already revealed, whether in the creation story or in the practice of the Hebrew religion. While I admire this conservatism in its desire to preserve what is ethically valuable, I wonder how its rules can be applied to Gentile Christianity at all. As I read so many rules, analogies, and prescriptions applied from ancient times, I say, So what?
As I read the gospel, it is a "new thing". God is free, and the Spirit of freedom has been given to Christians as a community to manage their fellowship or order of service any way they see fit. Certainly the Christian churches of the New Testament era were not designed in any way like the ancient Hebrew economy, but modeled in different parts after synagogues and some non-Hebraic societies. The Pauline churches were not the same in polity and practice as the Jerusalemite, nor the Johannine the same as the Petrine. This diversity was not proscribed by God nor was the freedom of the Spirit curtailed so long as that diversity remained. As soon a single hierarchical system, in which women lost their free status within the church, was imposed by male authorities, the Spirit fled with the faithful "into the wilderness". Read your church history, folks, and don't skip St. Chrysostom.
It seems to me quite clear just to what Jesus was restoring the crippled woman in the synagogue--a life and status of dignity, respect, equality, and wholeness that offended those men in the synagogue whose religion required the subjugation of women in order to be true. Sadly it is still so for many, both men and women who live in fear of male authority, yet the universal love of Jesus includes them all in his salvation.
Graeme
Great piece, Donna. Let the hair splitters and excuse makers descend; you see the big picture. Thank you.
Thank you, Zachary & Graeme, and all of you who have taken time to read my article and respond. I appreciate your comments.
Jesus, of course, did not actually “ordain” a woman as we today understand ordination. As I pointed out previously, the title I used was a come on. Ordination for the gospel ministry would have been impossible in 30 AD as the church did not yet exist! However Jesus did go far beyond the norms of his day, deliberately and intentionally. And he chose the time and place to do it.
So the question may be raised, if Jesus were here now would he proactively do the same today? On what basis would Jesus oppose the ordination of women in the twenty first century? WWJD?
"Ordination or no, wouldn't it stick in the craw of women today to be told that their patriarch had decided their religion for them?"
Which is why that same resuts is felt by modern women today. In the past, women had not choices, they were all made by men "in their best interest."
All men are not to rule over all women--unless it's the rule of Christian agape by which all men and women "submit" to each other in the priesthood of believers...or so it seems to me.
Yes, some are gifted to be apostles and some teachers, and so on...and God decides who receives those gifts. It's the job of the church to recognize the gifts and employ them. [And does God promise gifts only to men?]
Far from the "rule" promoted by most men, Christ modeled servant leadership. Posted by: Virginia Davidson (not verified) | 26 April 2010 at 5:48
Thank you Virginia for your words on target. What you wrote reminds me of Jesus taking the towel washing the disciples feet. He did what none of the disciples wanted to do. So often the Pastor ends up doing what nobody else wants to do or has time to do. It seems like the SDA church is like the disciples in disputing about who will be the greatest, instead of humbly following the example of our Lord. I would say that Hao Ya Jie is doing just that in China.
This has been a most disturbing debate. But nothing compares to this sentence by John Alfke:
"Doug was therefore right to notice that polygamy (and, I would add, rape and sexual slavery) is more acceptable to God than insubordination of women."
This really shows what we are up against! To suggest that rape and sexual slavery have even a hint of acceptance with God is utter blasphemy and is totally unacceptable. To argue against people presenting such views is utterly meaningless - as is the whole debate. Let Doug and his supporters start their own church! Please don't destroy the Seventh-Day Adventist church with this kind of horrible pictures of God.
Any Biblical interpretation that leads to abuse is an evil interpretation!
I wonder why Doug and his ilk didn't point out that "God saw everything he had made, and behold it was very good." Preceded taking a rib from Adam and creating Eve. From there it was down hill all the way! If one is going to build a case--one should make the primary argument first. Even Adam bought that argument--"The woman, that thou gavest me--she!!
Man is still try to gain control--only in Church brother, only in Church! Oh yes also at the Augusta National a Garden of Eden look alike. I guess there are a couple of tree houses in the neighborhood with a crudely lettered sign that says--boys only.
I want everyone to know that I am in charge in my house. I always pick out a product for Betty's approval. I picked a winner yesterday--a new Maytag Refrig. She approved prior to delivery.
Tom
I want everyone to know that I am in charge in my house. I always pick out a product for Betty's approval. I picked a winner yesterday--a new Maytag Refrig. She approved prior to delivery.
Tom
Tom, it sounds like you have some real team-work there! I wish to see the same between Doug Batchelor and the female Elders and Pastors that he works with. (Or may be he refuses to work with them because they are female?)
I also think Bill's suggestion to commision is excellent. Like Judson I found Donna's comments somewhat distracting. Afraid I did not totally get her point until somewhere deep into the comments. Like Virginia I believe that the Bible calls only for submission to my own husband. I keep wondering if those who think all women are supposed to subordinate to all men have considered what kind of chaos any attempt to execute such a plan would be.
Some think we are only discussing labels but it is a whole lot more than that. We are talking about emotional and financial support and also about allowing women to work. A lot of places wont ordain women to anything. Where I live they are relunctant to have women elders and they have taken the words saying to call the elders for prayer to mean men only at annointings. Men only decide if there should be an annointing and if a woman is relunctant to talk to the men about what her physical and emotional problems are, she doesn't get annointed. Women are not included in planning new things or refining old things in the church. Altho the conference can only afford to give us a part time pastor and few of the men like to preach, women speakers are only a last last resort (which means they do not have the opportunity to be systematic in scheduling their sermons and personal life like the men can). If a woman gives Bible studies a man always has to double check it and if there are any questions about whether the person is ready for baptism, she is not included in the discussion.
BTW I am not and never felt called to pastor but I have felt called to the Great Commission. I have never given studies to men, "only" women and children. At one time I wanted to be trained to be a Bible Worker but was told I could not do that and be married. So I did something else for many years. Fortunately my husband has supported my doing church work as in this neck of the woods the officialdom not only does not call women to pastoring, it gives almost all Bible worker jobs to men.
I decided to write only about my own experience. If I wrote about problems my friends, I would be working around the clock for many days.
Add your comment