Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[Barrd]

Common sense also tells us that spit and mud into the eyes of the blind man does not produce sight (as Stan pointed out), axeheads dont float, staves dont turn to snakes and rivers dont part for people to pass through. If you are looking for a book of common sense, then the Bible is not for you.


You are demeaning the Word of God because you do not understand it. In the days when Moses wrote these laws, slaves could be killed without thought or concern of the owner. In fact, the Israelites experienced that for 400 years. God actually was telling them that everyone had value, even slaves (which was not the common understanding).

““When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.” (Exodus 21:20, ESV)

““When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.” (Exodus 21:26, ESV)

“When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.” (Exodus 21:2, ESV)

““You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge, but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.” (Deuteronomy 24:17–18, ESV)

Clearly, the OT Law does not promote or encourage abuse of foreigners or slaves. In fact, compared to other laws, like the Code of Hammurabi, slaves had no value and there was no punishment for mistreating or harming them, unless the owner lost money as a result of someone harming his slave. However, in the Law we find God regularly reminding his people that they too, were once slaves and warns them of punishment for oppression or killing other people. The law dealt with how to punish people for varying circumstances and situations that was common in the ancient world. No other law was ever like it in the way it did not give preference to the rich and even sought justice for people who had previously been seen without value or rights. Most of all, the underlying theme of the law was to love people and treat them as you would want to be treated. Every Jew who was taught the Law understood this to be the primary foundation of it: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. The Law was good, is good and is from God. The fact you think it is evil shows that not only are you ignorant of history, but also of basic Bible doctrine. There is no point in me continuing this conversation since we cannot agree on basic concepts of what constitutes Scripture.

The same God that wrote "Thou shalt not kill" also says, "well, if it's just a slave...and as long as it takes a day or so, I'll overlook it. After all, it's your money." And you seriously don't see the discrepancy there?
I have to tell you, WW...if you honestly believe that God directed jealous husbands to have the priest give their wives filth from the floor mixed with holy water to drink, in order to test her fidelity...I can't see that your Christianity is much different from Mohammed's Islam. I suppose I'm lucky to be allowed in the same sanctuary as men, then...since I am just a woman.
I'm quite disappointed in you, my friend.


In my worthless female opinion, it is demeaning God to insist that He wrote these laws. It is maligning His character to say that He could write these laws that drip with bigotry. You know, there are other ways to take God's name in vain other than using His name as a curse. I do not call myself Ms. Gates, for instance, because I do not belong to a family named 'Gates' (more's the pity.)

Yes, I understand that it was a different time, and that mores were very different. But God had chosen a people for Himself out of the world.
The underlying theme of the law was to love people and treat them as you would want to be treated...hmmm. Obviously, the Jews who had been slaves wanted to be freed. I seriously do not think that they wanted to be beaten so severely that they died. This seriously ought be be a no brainer...

But you are right...there is no point in continuing this conversation.

God bless you, WW...seriously. You're a good guy and a good Christian. I do believe that. I just think you have a bit of a blind spot. Not really serious, since we live in a society where no body is allowed to beat anyone with a rod at all, for any reason...

 

[StanJ]

In my worthless female opinion, it is demeaning God to insist that He wrote these laws. It is maligning His character to say that He could write these laws that drip with bigotry. You know, there are other ways to take God's name in vain other than using His name as a curse.

This is emotional blackmail Barrd, and as you obviously don't believe it, you are using it as a false premise to try and support your personal POV, which has no other support, other than your opinion. How is it you always seem to justify your opinion OVER God's written word when it proves you wrong?

 

[Barrd]

This is emotional blackmail Barrd, and as you obviously don't believe it, you are using it as a false premise to try and support your personal POV, which has no other support, other than your opinion. How is it you always seem to justify your opinion OVER God's written word when it proves you wrong?

First of all, I do believe that those laws are dripping with bigotry and hate, and I do not believe for one second that they came from God's heart.
Although you are quite right, I do not believe that my opinion is worthless just because I am female.

Stan, of all the people I know, you'd be the last one who ought to be talking about "emotional blackmail", or how someone else seems to justify their own opinion OVER God's written word.
I am referring, of course, to our earlier clash over gay marriage...didn't you accuse me of "vilifying" homosexuals by referring to God's written word that states that the sin of homosexual sex is an abomination? In your personal opinion, since we live in a secular nation, we must not only accept gay marriage, but actually facilitate it, as I recall...

But that was a different argument in a different thread. In THIS argument, personal opinion counts for nothing...and God's Word is final...as long as God's Word is interpreted as you think it ought to be...
Yeah, got it...

Wait...my opinion still counts for nothing.
I'm beginning to detect a pattern, here...

 

[StanJ]

First of all, I do believe that those laws are dripping with bigotry and hate, and I do not believe for one second that they came from God's heart.

So you don't believe ALL scripture is God breathed?

Stan, of all the people I know, you'd be the last one who ought to be talking about "emotional blackmail", or how someone else seems to justify their own opinion OVER God's written word.
I am referring, of course, to our earlier clash over gay marriage...didn't you accuse me of "vilifying" homosexuals by referring to God's written word that states that the sin of homosexual sex is an abomination? In your personal opinion, since we live in a secular nation, we must not only accept gay marriage, but actually facilitate it, as I recall...

That's just obfuscative deflection Barrd. Try to stay ON topic please. My point was clear which you admitted to above. This is OFF the topic, and you recall WRONGLY.

But that was a different argument in a different thread. In THIS argument, personal opinion counts for nothing...and God's Word is final...as long as God's Word is interpreted as you think it ought to be...
Yeah, got it...
Wait...my opinion still counts for nothing.
I'm beginning to detect a pattern, here...

It is already interpreted Barrd. You either accept it or you don't. Deflection doesn't work with me, as you well know.

 

[Barrd]

So you don't believe ALL scripture is God breathed?

I do not believe that God breathes out hatred and bigotry.
Nor do I think that "all scripture" necessarily refers to the Bible as chosen by the Council of Nicea. I suspect that there is quite a bit more God breathed scripture than we have in our Bibles.

That's just obfuscative deflection Barrd. Try to stay ON topic please. My point was clear which you admitted to above. This is OFF the topic, and you recall WRONGLY.

No, I'm not trying to cloud the issue, Stan. I'm just sayin'....As my dear ol' Daddy would say, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. You don't mind putting your opinion above God's written word when it pleases you to do so...(gay sex IS an abomination, according to God, and it is not "vilifying" anyone to say so)...

ON topic, I do not believe that those laws came from God. I truly do, with all of my heart, believe that to insist that God did write such bloody nonsense as that is maligning the character of God. God never wrote those shameful laws. They came from the same mind that thought that paying Dad a sum of money might make up for raping his daughter, for instance.

It is already interpreted Barrd. You either accept it or you don't. Deflection doesn't work with me, as you well know.

I do not accept your interpretation, Stan...or anyone else's who insists on making God a hate filled bigot.
Haven't you figured it out, yet? Even if every other Christian on the planet believes something, that doesn't make them right.
If sheer numbers count...well, two thirds of the world don't even believe in Jesus Christ.
And Islam is growing daily....

 

[StanJ]

I do not believe that God breathes out hatred and bigotry.
Nor do I think that "all scripture" necessarily refers to the Bible as chosen by the Council of Nicea. I suspect that there is quite a bit more God breathed scripture than we have in our Bibles.

Not quite Barrd, but please ANSWER the question. Do you believe the Bible as we know it, is the inspired word of God? It's a simple yes or no.

No, I'm not trying to cloud the issue, Stan. I'm just sayin'....As my dear ol' Daddy would say, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. You don't mind putting your opinion above God's written word when it pleases you to do so...(gay sex IS an abomination, according to God, and it is not "vilifying" anyone to say so)...
ON topic, I do not believe that those laws came from God. I truly do, with all of my heart, believe that to insist that God did write such bloody nonsense as that is maligning the character of God. God never wrote those shameful laws. They came from the same mind that thought that paying Dad a sum of money might make up for raping his daughter, for instance.

The Bible has never been directed at unbelievers Barrd, just as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 5. Your continual efforts to cloud that issue is the only thing that keeps you from seeing the truth of it. Exactly which parts of the Bible do you think are NOT inspired/breathed of God?
Paid indulgences were from the RCC, not the Body of Christ. Please stop comparing apples to oranges.

I do not accept your interpretation, Stan...or anyone else's who insists on making God a hate filled bigot.
Haven't you figured it out, yet? Even if every other Christian on the planet believes something, that doesn't make them right.
If sheer numbers count...well, two thirds of the world don't even believe in Jesus Christ.
And Islam is growing daily....

It's not mine Barrd, it's what the Bible teaches, but please show us what parts are NOT of God IYO.
More deflection Barrd. Stop bringing up strawmen.

 

[Barrd]

Not quite Barrd, but please ANSWER the question. Do you believe the Bible as we know it, is the inspired word of God? It's a simple yes or no.

There is nothing "simple" about that question at all, and I can't really answer it with a simple yes or no. There's something in there about "testing the spirits to see if they be of God"...this is sort of the same thing.
Do you believe that Jesus is the reflection of God? Do you believe that God is love? I believe both of those things.
Do you think Jesus could have written either of the laws under consideration? Tell me...could the Jesus of the Gospel of...say, John...could the Jesus of the Gospel of John have written the law about beating your slave with a rod, and if it takes him a day or so to die, then you are in the clear, because, meh...it's your money?
How could Jesus say "Love your brother as I have loved you" if He also says "I will beat you with a rod, and if you die, that's fine, because you belong to me."...Doesn't quite work, does it?

Could the same Jesus Who wept at the sight of Mary's tears when Lazarus died...could that Jesus have written the law that says to give the woman suspected of adultery water with dirt mixed into it, and if she doesn't get sick, she's innocent?
Does Jesus say "My sheep know my voice and they follow me...but if I suspect that they have turned away to follow another, I will give them dirty water to drink, to see if they get sick."
No, I do not think so.

The Bible has never been directed at unbelievers Barrd, just as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 5. Your continual efforts to cloud that issue is the only thing that keeps you from seeing the truth of it.

So, how does an unbeliever become a believer, then, Stan? Not by reading the Bible?
Is there some other Book that they read, then, that will teach them about Jesus Christ?
How can an unbeliever know what sin is, unless he reads about it in the Bible? How will he know what redemption is...heck how will he even know he needs to be redeemed, unless he reads it in his Bible?
How can he ever become a believer?

Exactly which parts of the Bible do you think are NOT inspired/breathed of God?

You don't want much, do you, Stan? Try to understand me. God is love. His Book is about love. Jesus is the Personification of God...He is God's Son, of the same essence as God. As He told Philip, if you have seen Him you have seen the Father.
If you have seen Him, you won't have any problem recognizing His hand in the Bible...and you will also recognize those lines that did not come from Him.

What is of Love, is of God.
What is not of Love is not of God.

Paid indulgences were from the RCC, not the Body of Christ. Please stop comparing apples to oranges.

Who said anything about paid indulgences?

That is not what this law is about.
Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
Exo 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

First of all, Dad cannot buy his daughter's virginity back, no matter how much money this guy gives him.
Notice...nobody seems to care what the girl thinks about it. Least of all God...if, indeed, He wrote this law.

Oh, but wait!

Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Here, God says "kill them both"...well, only if they were in the city. If they were out in the country:
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
Deu 22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

So, here, at least, God is willing to give the girl the benefit of the doubt. Cool...

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Whoa, wait. Isn't that where we started? Sorta the same...but different.

Was God by any chance, drinking when He wrote this stuff?

It's not mine Barrd, it's what the Bible teaches, but please show us what parts are NOT of God IYO.

I guess mine forgot to teach me that interpretation.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, Stan. You're a pretty bright lad...I'm sure you can figure it out.

More deflection Barrd. Stop bringing up strawmen.

? You are the one who said "It's already interpreted."
So, which interpretation do you think I ought to accept? Catholic? Baptist? Methodist? How about Church of Christ? Or Church of the Nazarene? Maybe you think your own church has the "right" interpretation?
Or maybe I need to choose a well known evangelist? Oral Roberts? Joel Osteen? Benny Hinn? Jimmy Swaggert? How about Joyce Meyer?
Tell me, Stan...whose interpretation is the correct one?

 

[StanJ]

There is nothing "simple" about that question at all, and I can't really answer it with a simple yes or no. There's something in there about "testing the spirits to see if they be of God"...this is sort of the same thing.

It IS simple Barrd, despite you not being able or willing to answer. Your onerous responses just show you get lost in the details, or you want to lose others?
You'll notice I don't bite. I live my life by the KISS rule...Keep It Simple Stupid. Faith does not require that we be convinced, just that if convicted we agree with God and His Word. It's why we are told to CONFESS Jesus. It confirms we AGREE with God that His Word is absolute, despite our own rational.
Seems you've never got there?

 

[Born_Again]

Barrd. I'm mildly impressed you are still running back and forth with Stanj. Stanj, likewise.

But, based on what I have read in this thread, I have never been so jaw dropped from such terrible theology. Not to mention, such a terrible misunderstanding of the word of God and what's in it. That being said, I have gone over this numerous times so Im not about to start in on why its wrong, but sheesh.... Heresy is putting it lightly at best.

 

[OzSpen]

It is, Barrd. And we are called to live out such obedience and submission to Christ in different ways. Last I checked, no Christian church I ever attended segregated men and women...so I dont know how you think the Church is behind Israel in relation to their worship at the wailing wall. You are overstating your case. No one has ever argued for segregation or that women had no value or were not able to use their gifts. Again, you are doing the whole, "If I cant have everything, then you are saying I can have nothing." That is not what anyone has argued here. I will never be able to have a baby. I will never be able to feel a life grow within me and give birth to another human being. That does not mean that I am less than a woman because God has made it such that I cannot do this. It is not my role. It is not God's design. God has a design for things and He has made it clear to us in the Scriptures. If you reject the Scriptures as authoritative, and continue to argue that Moses, not God, came up with the Pentateuch, then I think you are in a very dangerous place and you should really find a strong, Bible-believing church that can help you grow in your faith and knowledge of the Lord and his Word.

WW,

I accept the whole OT and NT as authoritative and from God. However, what seems to be happening in this discussion is that we are skipping around or over these difficult passages in the Pentateuch that do state some strange things when understood by my Western mind.

Therefore, could the better way of dealing with this controversy be to address specific Scriptures and try to understand, (1) their meaning, and (2) contextual understanding?

I see this happening too often with thoughtful young believers and unbelievers. They come across something difficult in Scripture and mature age believers don't help them deal with the difficulties. I'll take an example from an email link that came to my PC yesterday. It took me to this article where there was this comment (I give part of the statement):

Edie S., United States, 2 February 2016

Several years ago, my son, who was brought up in the Church and as an adult became an atheist, asked me if I believed in the first chapters of Genesis. I said I did and he then asked several important questions. I had no anwsers. I told him I had enough proof the bible was true that my faith was not affected by every question I could not answer, that God was capable of doing it and went into how you could see a Creator's hand in all of the universe, plus quoted 2nd law of thermodynamics, etc.... (Are there other valid interpretations of Genesis? Creation Ministries International, Lita Cosner 2016)

I sent a reply to this article (comment online), quoting what Augustine of Hippo said in The City of God that he did not know how long the days of Genesis 1 were (Book 11, Ch 6). What I wrote was censored, as confirmed in an email from the organisation. CMI would not accept my opposing view in citing Augustine. I had said not a word about my own understanding.


I have not been following this thread closely. What are a couple of difficult OT passages that are causing some to stumble over the authority of Scripture?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The same God that wrote "Thou shalt not kill" also says, "well, if it's just a slave...and as long as it takes a day or so, I'll overlook it. After all, it's your money." And you seriously don't see the discrepancy there?
I have to tell you, WW...if you honestly believe that God directed jealous husbands to have the priest give their wives filth from the floor mixed with holy water to drink, in order to test her fidelity...I can't see that your Christianity is much different from Mohammed's Islam. I suppose I'm lucky to be allowed in the same sanctuary as men, then...since I am just a woman.
I'm quite disappointed in you, my friend.


In my worthless female opinion, it is demeaning God to insist that He wrote these laws. It is maligning His character to say that He could write these laws that drip with bigotry. You know, there are other ways to take God's name in vain other than using His name as a curse. I do not call myself Ms. Gates, for instance, because I do not belong to a family named 'Gates' (more's the pity.)

Yes, I understand that it was a different time, and that mores were very different. But God had chosen a people for Himself out of the world.
The underlying theme of the law was to love people and treat them as you would want to be treated...hmmm. Obviously, the Jews who had been slaves wanted to be freed. I seriously do not think that they wanted to be beaten so severely that they died. This seriously ought be be a no brainer...

But you are right...there is no point in continuing this conversation.

God bless you, WW...seriously. You're a good guy and a good Christian. I do believe that. I just think you have a bit of a blind spot. Not really serious, since we live in a society where no body is allowed to beat anyone with a rod at all, for any reason...

The Barrd,

WW was citing these verses to which you replied:

““When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged.” (Exodus 21:20, ESV)

““When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye.” (Exodus 21:26, ESV)

“When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.” (Exodus 21:2, ESV)

““You shall not pervert the justice due to the sojourner or to the fatherless, or take a widow’s garment in pledge, but you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there; therefore I command you to do this.” (Deuteronomy 24:17–18, ESV)

Which of these verses are teaching you that, 'if you honestly believe that God directed jealous husbands to have the priest give their wives filth from the floor mixed with holy water to drink, in order to test her fidelity...I can't see that your Christianity is much different from Mohammed's Islam'?

If I've got the wrong verses, would you please give me the correct ones so that we can understand these verses in context. Which are the verses that are getting up your nose that are causing you to conclude that God did not authorise the OT through Moses?

Oz

 

[Barrd]

What is actually under debate here is whether I, a "mere woman", am an affront to God, because of my role in the little home church I belong to.
I am "ordained" by my church, (as is every member over 18), which, by the way, is recognized by our government to be a church. (We did not apply for the charter, recognizing that we are "tax exempt" under IRS law without it.) I have the same legal right as any ordained minister to preach, or teach the Word of God (to men or women, or both at once), or to administer the communion (again, to men or women), or marry, or bury, or to park in the spot reserved for clergy ^_^ .
Evidently there are those who think that Paul (and therefore, God) has a problem with forward women like me.

Yes, I do have some strange ideas about some things...but as I have said a million times, I do not claim to be a scholar.
I believe with every fiber of my being that the Ten Commandments are still in force, and that they are different from the rest of "The Law of Moses", most of which God did not write, or inspire in any way.
Sorry, but I think most people just haven't thought this through.

That is my position. That, and the fact that when Paul wrote that "all scripture is given", he was not referring to the Bible, obviously. Yes, Peter referred to Paul's letters as "scripture", so we know that, at least to the Apostles, "scripture" didn't necessarily mean the torah.

At the end of the day, it's really all about love.
Or, should I have said "LOVE"....

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

WW was citing these verses to which you replied:


Which of these verses are teaching you that, 'if you honestly believe that God directed jealous husbands to have the priest give their wives filth from the floor mixed with holy water to drink, in order to test her fidelity...I can't see that your Christianity is much different from Mohammed's Islam'?

If I've got the wrong verses, would you please give me the correct ones so that we can understand these verses in context. Which are the verses that are getting up your nose that are causing you to conclude that God did not authorise the OT through Moses?

Oz

:huh:
Num 5:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 5:12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
Num 5:13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
Num 5:14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
Num 5:15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
Num 5:16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
Num 5:17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
Num 5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
Num 5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
Num 5:21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
Num 5:22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
Num 5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
Num 5:24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Num 5:25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
Num 5:26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
Num 5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
Num 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Num 5:29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
Num 5:30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
Num 5:31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

So, let me get this straight. If a man is jealous over his wife, and suspects she has slept with another man, this is the "test for adultery". The husband doesn't really need a reason to subject his wife to this humiliation...she can be as innocent as a daisy, but he can still drag her before the priest and she will have to drink this "holy water" flavored with dirt from the floor (and remember, this was an agricultural society...what might have been tracked in on that floor, I don't want to even think about.) Let's hope hubby doesn't get his jealous attack while the crops are being fertilized...
And if the woman gets sick, well then, we know she did the dirty deed, and now we can stone her. If she doesn't die from the "test", that is. And if she does, no matter...we know she was guilty, don't we?
Yeah, sounds about right...

(This sounds a whole lot like another "law", which some idiot comes up with a few thousand years later...if a woman is suspected of being a witch, throw her into the water. If she sinks, she's innocent...dead, but innocent...and if she floats, she's guilty. Of course, she will then be hung, but at least we know we didn't hang an innocent woman.)

Then there is this charming little "law":

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

In other words, the very same God Who says "Thou shalt not kill" also says "unless it's just your slave...meh, it's your money, after all"...

Yeah, right...

 

[StanJ]

There is nothing "simple" about that question at all, and I can't really answer it with a simple yes or no. There's something in there about "testing the spirits to see if they be of God"...this is sort of the same thing.

You are supposed to test the spirit of false teachers, NOT God's word.

Accusing God's word of being deceitful OT biased against women is one thing you will have to answer for. I doubt anything I say will change that big chip on your shoulder.

 

[OzSpen]

:huh:
Num 5:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Num 5:12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
Num 5:13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
Num 5:14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
Num 5:15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
Num 5:16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the LORD:
Num 5:17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
Num 5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
Num 5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
Num 5:21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
Num 5:22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
Num 5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
Num 5:24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Num 5:25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
Num 5:26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
Num 5:27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
Num 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Num 5:29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
Num 5:30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the LORD, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
Num 5:31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

So, let me get this straight. If a man is jealous over his wife, and suspects she has slept with another man, this is the "test for adultery". The husband doesn't really need a reason to subject his wife to this humiliation...she can be as innocent as a daisy, but he can still drag her before the priest and she will have to drink this "holy water" flavored with dirt from the floor (and remember, this was an agricultural society...what might have been tracked in on that floor, I don't want to even think about.) Let's hope hubby doesn't get his jealous attack while the crops are being fertilized...
And if the woman gets sick, well then, we know she did the dirty deed, and now we can stone her. If she doesn't die from the "test", that is. And if she does, no matter...we know she was guilty, don't we?
Yeah, sounds about right...

(This sounds a whole lot like another "law", which some idiot comes up with a few thousand years later...if a woman is suspected of being a witch, throw her into the water. If she sinks, she's innocent...dead, but innocent...and if she floats, she's guilty. Of course, she will then be hung, but at least we know we didn't hang an innocent woman.)

Then there is this charming little "law":

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

In other words, the very same God Who says "Thou shalt not kill" also says "unless it's just your slave...meh, it's your money, after all"...

Yeah, right...

The Baard,

Let's look at this section in a more easily understood translation:

Numbers 5:11-31 New Living Translation (NLT)

Protecting Marital Faithfulness
11 And the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.
“Suppose a man’s wife goes astray, and she is unfaithful to her husband 13 and has sex with another man, but neither her husband nor anyone else knows about it. She has defiled herself, even though there was no witness and she was not caught in the act. 14 If her husband becomes jealous and is suspicious of his wife and needs to know whether or not she has defiled herself, 15 the husband must bring his wife to the priest. He must also bring an offering of two quarts of barley flour to be presented on her behalf. Do not mix it with olive oil or frankincense, for it is a jealousy offering—an offering to prove whether or not she is guilty.
16 “The priest will then present her to stand trial before the Lord. 17 He must take some holy water in a clay jar and pour into it dust he has taken from the Tabernacle floor. 18 When the priest has presented the woman before the Lord, he must unbind her hair and place in her hands the offering of proof—the jealousy offering to determine whether her husband’s suspicions are justified. The priest will stand before her, holding the jar of bitter water that brings a curse to those who are guilty. 19 The priest will then put the woman under oath and say to her, ‘If no other man has had sex with you, and you have not gone astray and defiled yourself while under your husband’s authority, may you be immune from the effects of this bitter water that brings on the curse. 20 But if you have gone astray by being unfaithful to your husband, and have defiled yourself by having sex with another man—’
21 “At this point the priest must put the woman under oath by saying, ‘May the people know that the Lord’s curse is upon you when he makes you infertile, causing your womb to shrivel and your abdomen to swell. 22 Now may this water that brings the curse enter your body and cause your abdomen to swell and your womb to shrivel.’ And the woman will be required to say, ‘Yes, let it be so.’ 23 And the priest will write these curses on a piece of leather and wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He will make the woman drink the bitter water that brings on the curse. When the water enters her body, it will cause bitter suffering if she is guilty.
25 “The priest will take the jealousy offering from the woman’s hand, lift it up before the Lord, and carry it to the altar. 26 He will take a handful of the flour as a token portion and burn it on the altar, and he will require the woman to drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself by being unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings on the curse will cause bitter suffering. Her abdomen will swell and her womb will shrink, and her name will become a curse among her people. 28 But if she has not defiled herself and is pure, then she will be unharmed and will still be able to have children.
29 “This is the ritual law for dealing with suspicion. If a woman goes astray and defiles herself while under her husband’s authority, 30 or if a man becomes jealous and is suspicious that his wife has been unfaithful, the husband must present his wife before the Lord, and the priest will apply this entire ritual law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any guilt in this matter, but his wife will be held accountable for her sin.”

I'd like to pick up a few points you made in relation to this Scripture (plus a couple more):

1. Who is giving these instructions? It is the Lord giving them through Moses (v.11).

2. Who are they for? The are for the people of Israel (v 12).

3. What is the context in Num 5:1-10? The people of Israel are pt put all who are unclean outside of the camp (5:1-4). Those who commit any sins 'by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person realizes his guilt' (5:6), the person should confess the sin and make full restitution (5:7-10). Holiness before the Lord was the instruction for the Israelites to obey. Sin in the camp must be dealt with.

4. Then we come to Num 5:11-31 where you find a portion to which you object. From the comments I have read you making, it seems that you could be jumping to wrong conclusions.
a. You say that this husband 'doesn't really need a reason to subject his wife to this humiliation'. That's not what the text of 5:14 states. It states that 'her husband becomes jealous and is suspicious of his wife'. The inference here is that he has enough evidence to become jealous and suspicious about what is going on with possible extra-marital sexual involvement.

b. The 'test for adultery', says the Lord, is detailed in this circumstance in 5:15ff. She is not 'as innocent as a daisy' (your lingo), and he does not 'drag her before the priest'. That's inflammatory language. The LNT uses the language of, 'the husband must bring his wife to the priest' (5:15). Remember that this is God keeping the Israelites pure of sin. You and I don't invent these laws. God himself gave the details of these laws. These laws were for the sanctification of the Jewish community to keep it holy.

c. Now to your anti-biblical statement that this woman suspected of adultery, 'will have to drink this "holy water" flavored with dirt from the floor (and remember, this was an agricultural society...what might have been tracked in on that floor, I don't want to even think about'. That is your invention. What is the evidence from 5:16? 'He must take some holy water in a clay jar and pour into it dust he has taken from the Tabernacle floor'. Because it was dust from the Tabernacle, there is every possibility that this dust was regarded as holy. Philip Budd (1984:64) in his commentary on Numbers (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers) states, 'The dust was doubtless considered sacred by virtue of its presence in the Tabernacle'. I think you have jumped to a hasty conclusion to relegate this dust in the holy water to agricultural dirt trudged into the Tabernacle. Your inference is that this dust could contain some crap ('Let's hope hubby doesn't get his jealous attack while the crops are being fertilized').

d. If the woman gets sick, she is suffering the consequences of her adulterous behaviour: 'His wife will be held accountable for her sin' (5:31).

e. This law, invented by God for the Israelites, has nothing whatsoever in parallel with any witchcraft procedure.

f. I'm very concerned, The Barrd, when you make statements like this: 'ON topic, I do not believe that those laws came from God. I truly do, with all of my heart, believe that to insist that God did write such bloody nonsense as that is maligning the character of God. God never wrote those shameful laws. They came from the same mind that thought that paying Dad a sum of money might make up for raping his daughter, for instance' (see #285). I urge you not to use this kind of goading. I find the 'bloody nonsense' as your description of parts of Scripture to be blasphemous.

As for slavery:

Then there is this charming little "law":

Exo 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Exo 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

In other words, the very same God Who says "Thou shalt not kill" also says "unless it's just your slave...meh, it's your money, after all"..

Please get out of your mind any concept of slavery as practised in North America. OT slavery or servanthood happened 3 ways:

(1) The Hebrew person who sold himself into slavery (Lev 25:39-55; Deut 15:12-18) because he owned nothing and all he had was his works as a labourer. If you were an Israelite and you needed to pay off a debt, what did you have to sell or offer? You had no property to go to the bank to use as collateral for a loan. You sold the only thing you had - labour. However, in the 6 years he or she was working as a slave, there were strict requirements placed on the master.
(2) They were foreigners taken as prisoners of war, and
(3) In the days after the exile in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah there were slaves but they seemed to have a clerical function.

In my reading of the OT, I've never seen any evidence of what happened in your country of slaves being captured and sold. That happened with the Phoenicians and Philistines. If you knew how the surrounding cultures to Israel treated their slaves, you'd understand that these instructions in Ex 21:21-22 were extremely mild. What this passage was designed to do was to make sure that any master who mistreated his slaves would have the slaves released immediately or if the master was instrumental in the slave's death, the master received capital punishment (see Ex 21:21-22; Lev 26:25).

Before you make extreme statements about OT punishments, I suggest that you become better informed in background information.

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[Barrd]

The Baard,

Let's look at this section in a more easily understood translation:

I'd like to pick up a few points you made in relation to this Scripture (plus a couple more):

1. Who is giving these instructions? It is the Lord giving them through Moses (v.11).

2. Who are they for? The are for the people of Israel (v 12).

3. What is the context in Num 5:1-10? The people of Israel are pt put all who are unclean outside of the camp (5:1-4). Those who commit any sins 'by breaking faith with the Lord, and that person realizes his guilt' (5:6), the person should confess the sin and make full restitution (5:7-10). Holiness before the Lord was the instruction for the Israelites to obey. Sin in the camp must be dealt with.

4. Then we come to Num 5:11-31 where you find a portion to which you object. From the comments I have read you making, it seems that you could be jumping to wrong conclusions.
a. You say that this husband 'doesn't really need a reason to subject his wife to this humiliation'. That's not what the text of 5:14 states. It states that 'her husband becomes jealous and is suspicious of his wife'. The inference here is that he has enough evidence to become jealous and suspicious about what is going on with possible extra-marital sexual involvement.

If, as you say, our husband in this scenario "has enough evidence", why does he not present his evidence, so that his wife might be judged on the evidence, fairly?

b. The 'test for adultery', says the Lord, is detailed in this circumstance in 5:15ff. She is not 'as innocent as a daisy' (your lingo), and he does not 'drag her before the priest'. That's inflammatory language. The LNT uses the language of, 'the husband must bring his wife to the priest' (5:15). Remember that this is God keeping the Israelites pure of sin. You and I don't invent these laws. God himself gave the details of these laws. These laws were for the sanctification of the Jewish community to keep it holy.

There is suspicion, here. Do not tell me that it is not possible for a man to suspect his wife of adultery when she is, as I said "as innocent as a daisy".
And please do not tell me that the wife is going to be willing to go along with this "test". Even if she is found innocent, she has been humiliated in front of the entire camp.

c. Now to your anti-biblical statement that this woman suspected of adultery, 'will have to drink this "holy water" flavored with dirt from the floor (and remember, this was an agricultural society...what might have been tracked in on that floor, I don't want to even think about'. That is your invention. What is the evidence from 5:16? 'He must take some holy water in a clay jar and pour into it dust he has taken from the Tabernacle floor'. Because it was dust from the Tabernacle, there is every possibility that this dust was regarded as holy. Philip Budd (1984:64) in his commentary on Numbers (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers) states, 'The dust was doubtless considered sacred by virtue of its presence in the Tabernacle'. I think you have jumped to a hasty conclusion to relegate this dust in the holy water to agricultural dirt trudged into the Tabernacle. Your inference is that this dust could contain some crap ('Let's hope hubby doesn't get his jealous attack while the crops are being fertilized').

Dirt is dirt, even if it comes up off of the Tabernacle floor. We could say that all dirt is sacred, since it all comes from God's Hand...but I still wouldn't recommend drinking it in your morning coffee...

d. If the woman gets sick, she is suffering the consequences of her adulterous behaviour: 'His wife will be held accountable for her sin' (5:31).

Or she could be suffering the consequences of ingesting dirt.

e. This law, invented by God for the Israelites, has nothing whatsoever in parallel with any witchcraft procedure.

I think it does. In both cases, the innocent suffer, possibly even die, just as the guilty. And in neither case is guilt or innocence actually proven. Just because a woman can swim doesn't mean she is a witch...and just because the dust from the tabernacle didn't make some woman sick doesn't mean she hasn't been playing house with someone other than her husband.

f. I'm very concerned, The Barrd, when you make statements like this: 'ON topic, I do not believe that those laws came from God. I truly do, with all of my heart, believe that to insist that God did write such bloody nonsense as that is maligning the character of God. God never wrote those shameful laws. They came from the same mind that thought that paying Dad a sum of money might make up for raping his daughter, for instance' (see #285). I urge you not to use this kind of goading. I find the 'bloody nonsense' as your description of parts of Scripture to be blasphemous.

Perhaps someone ought to explain to you that the whole thrust of this discussion is that I believe that God wrote the Ten Commandments Himself. He didn't inspire Moses to write them, they are not "God breathed"...rather God actually wrote them in the stone with His Own hand...well, finger, if you want to get technical.
He did not write the rest of the Law of Moses.

As for slavery:

Please get out of your mind any concept of slavery as practised in North America. OT slavery or servanthood happened 3 ways:

I'm not comparing Hebrew slavery with the shame of my own country.

(1) The Hebrew person who sold himself into slavery (Lev 25:39-55; Deut 15:12-18) because he owned nothing and all he had was his works as a labourer. If you were an Israelite and you needed to pay off a debt, what did you have to sell or offer? You had no property to go to the bank to use as collateral for a loan. You sold the only thing you had - labour. However, in the 6 years he or she was working as a slave, there were strict requirements placed on the master.

In other words, the laws concerning a slave taken from foreign peoples were harsher than the laws regarding a bond servant from your own people. Nice.

(2) They were foreigners taken as prisoners of war, and

Which made it okay to beat them, to the point of death?

(3) In the days after the exile in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah there were slaves but they seemed to have a clerical function.

I'm sure that made slavery more palatable for them.

In my reading of the OT, I've never seen any evidence of what happened in your country of slaves being captured and sold. That happened with the Phoenicians and Philistines. If you knew how the surrounding cultures to Israel treated their slaves, you'd understand that these instructions in Ex 21:21-22 were extremely mild. What this passage was designed to do was to make sure that any master who mistreated his slaves would have the slaves released immediately or if the master was instrumental in the slave's death, the master received capital punishment (see Ex 21:21-22; Lev 26:25).

Let's remember that my country fought a bitter war, and one of the reasons for that war was slavery.
Somehow, excusing cruelty by pointing out that surrounding cultures were worse doesn't really work for me. These are supposed to be the People of God. We should not compare their behavior to surrounding cultures, but hold them to a much higher standard.
What you are telling me is that you do think that the same God who said "Thou shalt not kill" also said "unless it's just a slave...after all, it's your money".
I find that I cannot agree with that.

Before you make extreme statements about OT punishments, I suggest that you become better informed in background information.

I appreciate your concern, Oz. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Oz

:wub:

 

[Deborah_]

Numbers 5:11-31 HAS to be read in its cultural context - and when you do so it is not actually anti-women at all, but protective of women.

https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/the-cup-of-the-adulteress-understanding-the-jealousy-ritual-of-numbers-5/

If a woman was caught in the act of adultery, she and her lover were both subject to the death penalty. But what if there were no witnesses, and her husband was merely suspicious (perhaps that a child was not his)? His jealousy might or might not be justified; but suspicion alone can be sufficient to wreck a marriage (and in Middle Eastern culture, could lead to an innocent woman being stoned by a mob).This ritual was prescribed for the protection of the vulnerable: a wife who fell under suspicion of adultery could submit to a form of ‘trial by ordeal’, surrendering judgement into God’s hands.

In fact, the ‘ordeal’ was very mild, and was heavily biased in favour of the innocent. All the available drinking water in those days was 'dirty' by our standards; the dust from the Tabernacle (or Temple) floor was probably the cleanest dust for miles around. The woman would come to little or no harm by drinking it; she would suffer only if she was guilty, and then by God's direct action.

 

[OzSpen]

Numbers 5:11-31 HAS to be read in its cultural context - and when you do so it is not actually anti-women at all, but protective of women.

https://alastairadversaria.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/the-cup-of-the-adulteress-understanding-the-jealousy-ritual-of-numbers-5/

If a woman was caught in the act of adultery, she and her lover were both subject to the death penalty. But what if there were no witnesses, and her husband was merely suspicious (perhaps that a child was not his)? His jealousy might or might not be justified; but suspicion alone can be sufficient to wreck a marriage (and in Middle Eastern culture, could lead to an innocent woman being stoned by a mob).This ritual was prescribed for the protection of the vulnerable: a wife who fell under suspicion of adultery could submit to a form of ‘trial by ordeal’, surrendering judgement into God’s hands.

In fact, the ‘ordeal’ was very mild, and was heavily biased in favour of the innocent. All the available drinking water in those days was 'dirty' by our standards; the dust from the Tabernacle (or Temple) floor was probably the cleanest dust for miles around. The woman would come to little or no harm by drinking it; she would suffer only if she was guilty, and then by God's direct action.

Deborah,

You have stated the case so well and succinctly. That link you gave was brilliant in its content. Your emphasis on the positive impact of this Numbers 5 law was profound. We don't have any further OT evidence of this law being put into effect, but it was obviously there for the protection of marriage and the purity of the Israelite nation.

The idea from another poster that this dust could have included agricultural dirt brought into the Tabernacle (in Australia we call it muck - I was raised on a sugar cane farm), is speculation with no basis in fact.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[Barrd]

Okay, so let's say the wife is innocent. She drinks the nice, healthy, holy dust, and nothing happens. So, she and hubby go home and live happily ever after?
Uh...probably not. Don't you suppose there might be some resentment? The entire camp now knows that her husband suspects her of being an adulteress. This innocent lady has been subjected to this humiliating trial by ordeal in front of the entire camp.

And there are always going to be those who think that she must have been guilty. Human nature being what it is, people like to think the worst, don't they?
Men are looking at her a bit differently...sizing her up...and women are avoiding her vicinity and calling their children to them when she walks by.
The relationship between her and her husband has changed...

I know that if I were the innocent wife in the case, I would be...well, I can't use the first word that comes to mind, but I would be royally ANGRY. I would be hurt and resentful. Here I've been a good wife to this lout...as faithful as an old dog...and he puts me to open shame in front of the entire camp? Maybe I ought to mix a bit of dirt into his supper...right after the men get through fertilizing the fields...

 

[StanJ]

What is actually under debate here is whether I, a "mere woman", am an affront to God, because of my role in the little home church I belong to.
I am "ordained" by my church, (as is every member over 18), which, by the way, is recognized by our government to be a church. (We did not apply for the charter, recognizing that we are "tax exempt" under IRS law without it.) I have the same legal right as any ordained minister to preach, or teach the Word of God (to men or women, or both at once), or to administer the communion (again, to men or women), or marry, or bury, or to park in the spot reserved for clergy ^_^ .
Evidently there are those who think that Paul (and therefore, God) has a problem with forward women like me.

Yes, I do have some strange ideas about some things...but as I have said a million times, I do not claim to be a scholar.
I believe with every fiber of my being that the Ten Commandments are still in force, and that they are different from the rest of "The Law of Moses", most of which God did not write, or inspire in any way.
Sorry, but I think most people just haven't thought this through.

That is my position. That, and the fact that when Paul wrote that "all scripture is given", he was not referring to the Bible, obviously. Yes, Peter referred to Paul's letters as "scripture", so we know that, at least to the Apostles, "scripture" didn't necessarily mean the torah.

At the end of the day, it's really all about love.
Or, should I have said "LOVE"....

That is NOT true Barrd. It's your frame of mind that states; "I am right regardless of what the Bible says." It comes out in many of your posts, as does your lack of being able to NOT deflect or obfuscate. If you don't believe that our current Bible is God's Word, in its entirety, then you're on the wrong forum, and have no right to use SOME of it, based on your own philosophy, as you yourself are NOT the person to decide what is or isn't inspired/breathed of God, like you are doing now.