DOCSLIB.ORG

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Charlotte

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Charlotte GORDON-CONWELL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, CHARLOTTE DOCTRINAL POSITION PAPER ON THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN MINISTRY. SUBMITTED TO DR. ALAN MYATT TH 502: THEOLOGY SURVEY BY AUSTIN PFEIFFER MAY 17TH, 2012 INTRODUCTION I am a part of a church in the Presbyterian Church in America, which does not allow women to be deacons, elders, or to teach the wider congregation. I am also a graduate of the University of Colorado, from Portland, Oregon, and married a Harvard graduate, so my education and the culture around me has always been outspoken about equality for women. Our first year of marriage was in Boston, where my wife Erin and I were surrounded with friends who were passionate feminists, interrogating our faith, our belief in marriage, and the dynamics of our relationship. Some of these arenas and experiences conflict with each other, forcing some reflection to resolve what the biblical view of the role of women is in the church, and as I will argue, also applies in society and in the home. The question of what role women play in the home and public is relatively settled in theory (though not necessarily in practice) in American society. Equal employment, empowerment, and opportunity is the posture of American society toward women, so it would seem the complementarian perspective ought to bear the burden of proof. However, the most literal understanding of English translations of the Bible, as well as Church History, would place the complementarian perspective as plaintiff. Thomas Schreiener says as much, noting that Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christian branches have traditions in complementarianism.1 I took this approach, assuming the complementarian perspective was correct unless proven otherwise. Instead of reading the egalitarians first, I began with essays by Thomas Schreiner and Craig Blomberg, and some of the complementarian essays in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.2 It seemed surprising for Gundry and Beck to place Linda Belleville’s essay first. This differs from the first edition, which places her second, but in that edition both egalitarian views are first. Linda Belleville may be the most credible in a contemporary setting, as both a woman and an egalitarian. However, it would be more persuasive and logical if the 1 Stanley Gundry, ed., Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 267. 2 John Piper and Wayne Grudem, ed., Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991). egalitarian view were to meet the challenge of the historical view. This does not mean the complementarian view is correct unless proven wrong, it just means many historical interpretations are complementarian and already in place. Therefore the conversation should begin on the terms the historical church has laid out. My posture on women’s roles has always been to maintain a theological ignorance for the sake of plausible deniability. The issue is a tertiary one in the scope of Christendom, but I realize it has major implications for anyone seeking to gather Christians in community, then it becomes primary. Not for theological distinction or purity, but out of the necessity of understanding where half the human population fits in the church community. Most central was a desire to build a thoughtful view on “God's inerrant Word, competent in its interpretation, proclamation and application in the contemporary world.”3 Frankly, I was moved heartily from fence sitting and away from the more convenient bias of my complementarian tradition. Linda Belleville’s excellent scholarship far exceeded the requisite of competent interpretation in the contemporary world and inspired me to rely on exegesis, and not secondary literature or anecdotal experience. Her research is not circumstantial, conditional, or reactionary. She avoids arguments based on experience or contemporary society. Belleville deals directly with the text and exegesis by complementarian theologians. In fact, some complementarian scholarship relies more on context, hypotheticals, and syllogisms.4 Linda Belleville avoids the poles of, “the feminist solution to male domination…a rewriting of history, that inverts the hierarchy rather than equalizes the power [and] the traditionalist solution…to radicalize hierarchy.”5 Her purpose is clear exegesis, with the consequence of egalitarianism, making her work the most persuasive in my research by seeking a sound exegetical foundation for forming doctrine. Considering my research did not begin intending to validate a particular perspective, the first 3Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary “Mission and Purpose”, Article 1. http://www.gordonconwell.edu/about/Mission-and-Purpose.cfm 4 Gundry, Two Views, 280-1, 283. 5 Ibid, 102. task was to answer whether household codes and the biblical view of roles in marriage effects the role of women in the church. There is no strong support for a biblical distinction between the role of women in the household and the role of women in the church, regardless of a complementarian or egalitarian view. With the home and church in view, we must examine all biblical texts in the broad swath of scripture on women's roles in the Old and New Testament. Exegesis to understand the language, implications, and the role of some women in the Bible can set the stage for theological enquiry. Founded on careful scripture exegesis and thoughtful theological contemplation, the biblical evidence points to selfless service and egalitarian respect for men and women equally, in the church and home. OLD TESTAMENT EXEGETICAL QUESTIONS Creation and The Roles of Adam and Eve The creation of Eve in Genesis 2 could perhaps be the beginning of hierarchy in the human relationships of men and women. Still it remains to be asked, why was Eve created? What does it mean for her to be a helper? On the complementarian claim that man was created first with a primacy of leadership, Linda Belleville raises an interesting question...what then does it mean for men and women when Jesus claims the last will be first in the Kingdom? (Mark 10:31) There is a simple rebuttal, which is to note that Jesus is not teaching about marriage or ecclesiology in Mark 10. This sort of compartmentalization is a dangerous line of argument for any theological issue and should always be avoided. In this case it is convenient for complementarian theology to compartmentalize. This is inconsistent, since complimentarians will also appeal to economic Trinitarianism in its defense. One cannot appeal to Trinitarian theology, but claim Mark 10 is removed from ecclesiology. Belleville raises a number of other curiosities when commenting on emphasizing “firsts”, one observation being, “If 'first' in the divine plan designates the 'leader,' then the followers of John the Baptist (the Mandaeans) were right in elevating John over Jesus.”6 Further, Adam's name is a cognate of the Hebrew for ground or earth (M#∂dDa`Dh) used in Genesis 2:7. Adam is created out of the Earth, named from his source, and yet he is not called to submit to the Earth. In addition, Belleville, disputing Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.7, notes that Mö∂dDa is masculine in gender, but reflects a generic term like “'mankind' or 'humankind.'”8 If Eve being persuaded first by the serpent is evidence of a weaker sex, why would God introduce her to help Adam act in obedience? Especially since the Hebrew word r‰z™Eo (“help”) implies to be a relief, which Belleville points out, is used without exception in the Old Testament to describe a help from a position of strength offered to one in a position of weakness.9 10 To understand Genesis 2 is to understand the foundation all theological arguments on men and women are based, because it is God's uninterrupted design. It is surprisingly easy to overcome the complementarian argument from Genesis 2. Plainly put, Eve was created to help Adam (Gen. 2:18). The Lord did not believe he should be alone, so he created a help (r‰z™Eo). The help was created to complete the Lord's command to Adam, to serve (ä∂dVbDo) and keep watch á∂(rVmDv) over the land. Adam's duty is to serve and keep watch over the land, which Eve, who is “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23 ESV) into which Eve is invited. Genesis 2 is not emphasizing authority, and Adam is certainly not given the opportunity, as Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. argues, to “define the woman, in keeping with Adam's headship.”11 Genesis 2 is about stewardship. Adam is called to care for the land, Eve is created to help care. We know from Genesis 2:23 that Eve is not a superior power, rescuing a feeble Adam, but a relieving companion of the same flesh. Adam is to keep watch and serve creation, including Eve, who is called to the same in 6Gundry, Two Views, 30. 7Piper & Grudem, RBM&W, 98. 8Gundry, Two Views, 29. 9Gundry, Two Views, 27. 10Paul interprets both these comments in 1 Timothy 2. It may be argued that Adam submits to the Lord in caring for the Earth and Eve submits to Adam, which is logical and in line with “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Tim. 2:13-15 ESV) This will be addressed in NT exegesis, but should be recognized in interpreting Genesis 2. 11Piper & Grudem, RBM&W, 103. her help. As such, men ought offer the same deliberate care for wives, as 1 Peter 3:7 says. To claim humanity was named after man, not woman, and that Adam is given authority to define Eve's existence, is speculative at best.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • REV. DR. DAVID L. PALMER 6650 Spring Arbor Dr
    REV. DR. DAVID L. PALMER 6650 Spring Arbor Dr. Mason, OH 45040 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. New Testament Backgrounds, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, OH, 2010 Dissertation: The Philosophical Argument and Use of Scripture in 4 Maccabees Readers: Dr. Adam Kamesar and Dr. Richard Sarason M.Phil. Hebrew and Cognate Studies, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, OH, 2004 Hellenistic Civilization and Culture, University of Athens, Athens, GREECE, 2000 Th.M. Biblical Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 1999 Thesis: Matthew’s hermeneutical and theological appropriation of Zechariah 9:9 for the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem Readers: Dr. Gregory K. Beale and Dr. Moisés Silva M.Div. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 1997 B.A. History, Huntington University, Huntington, IN, 1992 L’Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, FRANCE, 1991 L’Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, CANADA, 1990 CURRENT POSITION Senior Pastor, Kenwood Baptist Church, Cincinnati, OH, 2012-present Adjunct Faculty in New Testament, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2012-present MINISTRY EXPERIENCE Senior Pastor, Kenwood Baptist Church, 2012-present Expository preaching ministry from both Old and New Testament Growing international congregation of 700 members with twenty native languages Extensive university ministry, especially to international and medical students Annual budget 1.2 million, last year total revenue 1.9 million Servant leadership with a gifted ministry team of twelve staff, men and women Associate Pastor,
    [Show full text]
  • “It's Just Divorce”
    Reformed Theological Seminary A JUST DIVORCE: Divorce That is Right and Just and Fair An Integrative Thesis Submitted to Dr. Howard Griffith In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts By John S. Weaver Mount Airy, Maryland May 2007 A JUST DIVORCE: Divorce That is Right and Just and Fair Copyright ©May 2007 by John S. Weaver All rights reserved ii Table of Contents Page Content v Abstract vi Abbreviations 1 Chapter One: INTRODUCTION: SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE 1 It’s Just Another Divorce 1 The Covenantal Character of Marriage 11 Chapter Two: ANCIENT PROLOGUE TO NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING: BIBLICAL AND CULTURAL BACKGROUND 11 Introduction 12 Old Testament Background 16 Ancient Near East 16 Sumerian Law – Ur-Nammu Law Code and Laws of Lipit-Ishtar (Twenty-first and Nineteenth Century BCE) 17 Old Babylanian: Laws of Eshnunna and Code of Hammurabi (Nineteenth and Eighteenth Century BCE) 19 Hittite Laws: Old Hittite Kingdom (Seventeenth to Sixteenth Century BCE) 21 Middle Assyrian Laws: Tilgath-Pilser (Eleventh Century BCE) 23 Neo-Babylonian Laws (Seventh Century BCE) 23 Elephantine (Upper Egypt) (Fifth Century BCE) 27 Distinctions Between Mesopotamian and Israel Law 28 Mishnah 30 Roman and Greek Marriage 34 Chapter Three: DIVORCE: IS IT PERMISSIBLE? 34 Jesus and the Rabbinical Debate: Rabbis Hillel and Shammai 36 The Synoptic Gospels 42 Paul’s Authoritative Teaching 47 Chapter Four: IS REMARRIAGE ALLOWED? 48 Writings from the Early Church 48 The Shepherd of Hermas 49 Justin Martyr 51 Athenagoras 52 Tertullian 54 Clement of Alexandria 54 Origen 55 Jerome 55 Chrysostom iii Page Content 56 Augustine 58 Roman Catholic: Sacrament of Marriage 59 The Reformation: John Calvin’s Geneva 65 The Puritans 66 Conclusion 67 Chapter Five: A JUST DIVORCE PROPOSAL 67 Introduction: A Just War Analogy 69 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Deuteronomy 202 1 Edition Dr
    Notes on Deuteronomy 202 1 Edition Dr. Thomas L. Constable TITLE The title of this book in the Hebrew Bible was its first two words, 'elleh haddebarim, which translate into English as "these are the words" (1:1). Ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaties began the same way.1 So the Jewish title gives a strong clue to the literary character of Deuteronomy. The English title comes from a Latinized form of the Septuagint (Greek) translation title. "Deuteronomy" means "second law" in Greek. We might suppose that this title arose from the idea that Deuteronomy records the law as Moses repeated it to the new generation of Israelites who were preparing to enter the land, but this is not the case. It came from a mistranslation of a phrase in 17:18. In that passage, God commanded Israel's kings to prepare "a copy of this law" for themselves. The Septuagint translators mistakenly rendered this phrase "this second [repeated] law." The Vulgate (Latin) translation, influenced by the Septuagint, translated the phrase "second law" as deuteronomium, from which "Deuteronomy" is a transliteration. The Book of Deuteronomy is, to some extent, however, a repetition to the new generation of the Law that God gave at Mt. Sinai. For example, about 50 percent of the "Book of the Covenant" (Exod. 20:23— 23:33) is paralleled in Deuteronomy.2 Thus God overruled the translators' error, and gave us a title for the book in English that is appropriate, in view of the contents of the book.3 1Meredith G. Kline, "Deuteronomy," in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation and Fall
    Creation and Fall The Bible begins with God creating the heavens and the earth. Biblical theology and Biblical creation begin with God. The term ’el / , which means “god,” suggests power and authority. Some suggest that ’el derives from the root ’wl (strong), others suggest ‘eloah (God), and others see the root ‘lh together with ’eloah (implying fear). 1 Though there is disagreement in the etymology of the term, it is broadly recognized in its use ’el / means “god.” Here in Genesis it is used to describe a profoundly powerful God in contrast to the other cosmologies of the ancient Near East. So the effective power and authority to create swiftly and effortlessly helps to inform the grandeur of this God ’el. Many suggest that the plural, Elohim , extends these conceptions of power, authority and majesty beyond which a singular name can do justice. For example, Eichrodt developed this as an overwhelming monotheism. A similar design led the writer of Genesis 1 to use the term elohim for the Creator God. By choosing this particular name, which as the epitome of all embracing divine power excludes all other divinity, he was able to protect his cosmology 1 An example of a brief discussion of this etymology can be found in Laird Harris, Gleason Archer and Bruce Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980). 427 from any trace of polytheistic thought and at the same time describe the creator God as the absolute Ruler and the only Being whose will carries any weight. 2 It has become popular in certain contexts to see elohim as God’s court or angels.
    [Show full text]
  • Women in Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern Law
    Studia Antiqua Volume 3 Number 1 Article 5 June 2003 Women in Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern Law Carol Pratt Bradley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua Part of the Near Eastern Languages and Societies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Bradley, Carol P. "Women in Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern Law." Studia Antiqua 3, no. 1 (2003). https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua/vol3/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studia Antiqua by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Women in Hebrew and Ancient Near Eastern Law Carol Pratt Bradley The place of women in ancient history is a subject of much scholarly interest and debate. This paper approaches the issue by examining the laws of ancient Israel, along with other ancient law codes such as the Code of Hammurabi, the Laws of Urnammu, Lipit-Ishtar, Eshnunna, Hittite, Middle Assyrian, etc. Because laws reflect the values of the societies which developed them, they can be beneficial in assessing how women functioned and were esteemed within those cultures. A major consensus among scholars and students of ancient studies is that women in ancient times were second class, op- pressed, and subservient to men. This paper approaches the subject of the status of women anciently by examining the laws involving women in Hebrew law as found in the Old Testament, and in other law codes of the ancient Near East.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNUAL REPORT Annual Reportcontents
    2015ANNUAL REPORT annual reportCONTENTS GORDON HUGENBERGER Senior Minister 4 WALTER KIM Associate Minister 6 KRIS PERKINS Associate Minister of Families and Church Development 7 LIFE OF THE CHURCH Ministry Reports 8 JULIAN LINNELL Minister of Missions 12 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Missions 13 PARTNER SCHOOLS 15 BOB ANDERSEN Church Administrator 16 DOUG MAY Moderator 16 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW Ministry & Operations 17 BOB RAWNSLEY Clerk 18 RICH ELLIOTT Facilities Manager 18 LIST OF CURRENT STAFF AND LEADERS 19 weeks on this controversial topic!), and slavery were answered to tackled some very important challenges currently facing the church. refute the claims of so-called “progressive” Christians who use these Although we are still one of the largest Protestant churches in New teachings to imply that we cannot trust the Bible’s ethical teachings, England, and although the age distribution of our congregation whether on these matters or on the controversial issue of same-sex should make us the envy of sister churches (25% are in their 20s, relationships. Finally, this fall we started a morning sermon series, 25% are in their 30s, 14% are in their 40s, 15% are between 50 and “The Pilgrim’s Progress,” on the theme of sanctification. We rejected 64, etc.), nevertheless, we have experienced a significant decline in the popular assumption that the Christian life is supposed to be easy our attendance since 2004. That decline has been almost entirely or comfortable. Instead, we reminded ourselves of the liberating but among our student population, and to a lesser degree, among those stern calling of the Savior for each of us to pursue holiness, repent who are 20 year-olds.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Israel in Sinai: the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition
    Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition JAMES K. HOFFMEIER OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Ancient Israel in Sinai This page intentionally left blank Ancient Israel in Sinai The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition james k. hoffmeier 1 2005 3 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright # 2005 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hoffmeier, James Karl, 1951– Ancient Israel in Sinai : the evidence for the authenticity of the wilderness tradition / James K. Hoffmeier. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13 978-0-19-515546-4 ISBN 0-19-515546-7 1. Bible. O.T. Exodus XVI–Numbers XX—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Bible. O.T. Exodus XVI–Numbers XX—Evidences, authority, etc. 3. Bible. O.T. Exodus XVI–Numbers XX—History of biblical events.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sons of God and “Strange Flesh” in Genesis 6:1–4
    MSJ 31/1 (Spring 2020) 79–105 THE SONS OF GOD AND “STRANGE FLESH” IN GENESIS 6:1–4 Dr. David L. Beakley Academic Dean and Professor of Exposition and Biblical Languages Christ Seminary, South Africa The “sons of God” text in Genesis 6:1–4 often receives nothing more than a brief comment from the pulpit or commentary. Coming right before the great deluge and God’s covenant with Noah, the passage seems to be a minor glimpse into antedilu- vian history. There have been several major views proffered over the past two mil- lennia, and the view that the “sons of God” were demonic angels who cohabitated with human women is one. In 1981, William VanGemeren proposed a re-examination of the “ungodly angel view” as the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1–4. This article intends to answer this call for further exegetical scrutiny by examining the text through the lens of a biblical-theological and exegetical methodology. By viewing the text using this methodology, and the understanding of a specific center, or constant theme throughout the corpus of Scripture—which is the idea of God’s grace given in the midst of judgment—then the answers to difficult questions such as the reason for the Flood, identity of the sons of God, and the purpose of the Nephilim become much more clear and harmonize with the immediate context of Genesis 1– 11. * * * * * Introduction After two millennia of intense study of the Scriptures, controversies still abound over select passages that generate intense debate among evangelicals.
    [Show full text]
  • Kosher Helper KDP Eagle Lake Marcellus
    Messianic Kosher Helper Leviticus 20:22 -26 “Kosher as Holiness” “You are therefore to keep all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land to which I am bringing you to live will not spew you out. Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them. Hence I have said to you, ‘You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey.’ I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples. You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.” In reviewing some of the preceding content of Leviticus ch. 20, readers encounter significant directions given against Ancient Israel sacrificing to Molech (20:1-5), or being involved with spiritism or soothsaying (20:6). Father and mother are not to be cursed (20:7), and there are a variety of forbidden sexual relations and unions that are described (20:10-21), which include prohibited heterosexual activities, homosexual activities, and bestiality, among other things.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? the New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics
    PHILOSOPHIA CHRISTI VOL. 10, NO. 1 © 2008 Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics PAUL COPAN Philosophy and Ethics Palm Beach Atlantic University Palm Beach, Florida The New Atheists and the Old Testament: A Brief Overview Today’s “new atheists” are not at all impressed with the moral creden- tials of the Old Testament (OT) God. Oxonian Richard Dawkins thinks that Yahweh is truly a moral monster: “What makes my jaw drop is that people today should base their lives on such an appalling role model as Yahweh— and even worse, that they should bossily try to force the same evil monster (whether fact or fiction) on the rest of us.” Dawkins deems God’s commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to be “disgraceful” and tantamount to “child abuse and bullying.” Moreover, this God breaks into a “monumental rage whenever his chosen people flirted with a rival god,” resembling “nothing so much as sexual jealousy of the worst kind.” Add to this the killing of the Canaanites—an “ethnic cleansing” in which “bloodthirsty massacres” were carried out with “xenophobic relish.” Joshua’s destruction of Jericho is “morally indistinguishable from Hitler’s invasion of Poland, or Saddam Hussein’s massacres of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.” ABSTRACT: The new atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) level arguments against Old Testament morality as primitive and barbaric, presumably undercutting belief in the biblical God (Yahweh). Yet the Old Testament presents creational moral ideals in Genesis –. Because of Israel’s embeddedness in the ancient Near East’s harsh, morally-problematic social milieu, Old Testament legislation is in places still morally inferior, though offering dramatic, incre- mental improvements upon such conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Israel
    Sin & Sacrifice in Ancient Israel Ryan White Part 5 Resources • Jacob Milgrom • Mary Douglas • Gary A. Anderson Sin: A History • Henry P. Smith The Hebrew View of Sin • Baruch Schwartz The Bearing of Sin in Priestly Literature • Jeremiah Unterman For the Image of God as Redeemer of Israel • Margaret Barker Atonement: The Rite of Healing • Jonathan Klawans Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple Resources • Marcel Mauss The Gift • Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss Sacrifice • Gordon Wenham The Book of Leviticus • Yitzhaq Feder Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual • Allen Ross Holiness to the LORD • Dennis Pardee Divinatory and Sacrificial Rites • William Gilders Sacrifice in Ancient Israel Dealing with the Critics Judaism/ Christianity • Theologically Evolved • Attained the goal • Understands the Ancient Israel spiritual • Remove the Magic Pre-Israel • Weaning off sacrifice • Magic to counteract • Control of laity demons • Violence-driven • Food for the gods 4,400 year old skull with regrowth of bone It takes 15 years of schooling to become a Neurosurgeon today Interesting Facts: • Built in 30 years, contains ~2.3 million stone blocks weighing from 2 to 70 tons each. • Outer surface had 144,000 marble stone casings, flat to within 1/100th of an inch an weighing 15 tons each. Highly reflective. • Located at the center of land mass on earth. • Slightly concave (0nly pyramid like this), its curvature matches that of the earth exactly. • Built facing true north and located on an underground stone mountain (support) • Cornerstones used ball & sockets to last through earthquakes, heat, cold, just like modern bridge design. Great Pyramid of Giza – Oldest known Pyramid ~4,600 years old.
    [Show full text]
  • JESUS' COVENANT of GRACE with the CHURCH a PREVIEW in Part
    COVENANT THEOLOGY PART 4 - JESUS’ COVENANT OF GRACE WITH THE CHURCH A PREVIEW In Part 4 we see that, because Jesus is the successful Servant of God the Father's Covenant of Works with God the Son, Jesus becomes the Lord and Mediator of another covenant...a Covenant of Grace with the Church! RESOURCES This series of lectures is based on and in many instances taken directly from the works of Meredith Kline, Lee Irons, Gordon Hugenberger, Rick Lints and many conversations with pastor friends and fellow covenant theologians. ​ A REVIEW We’re going to begin where we left off in Gen 3. Specifically Gen 3:14-21. This is the announcement, the promise of salvation right after the fall. And this good news for us comes as a declaration of war against our enemy, the devil, and as a pronouncement, as a prophecy of our enemy’s defeat by another Adam. And the crux of the prophecy is in v.15 with this bruising or striking or crushing of the serpent’s head AND the heel of the woman’s offspring. These are death blows to the devil and this Second Adam BUT they will mean salvation for God’s people. The First Adam failed to fulfill his Covenant of Works between him and God. So God the Father makes another Covenant of Works with a Second Adam = God the Son. Second Adam’s work: 1) doing what First Adam failed to do in resisting and judging the devil and fathering a people AND 2) giving up his life = dying and paying the penalty for Adam’s and for our disobedience.
    [Show full text]