Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    There is value in reminding us beyond a shadow of doubt the
    androcentric nature of the Bible.  That does not mean we need to reject
    the Bible.  It means we need to be careful how we use it.
    
                                  Patricia

    The incident is a sober reminder of how serious sin is.  The incident
    put a blotch on the name of the Benjamite tribe and over 22,000
    Benjamite warriors were killed...all because of the concubine incident.  
    
    Judges was a very dark period in the history of Israel.   If you think
    the incident was unthinkable, consider how the Israelites felt.  The 
    incident was an absolute abomination to them.
    
    -Jack

   >>  androcentric nature of the Bible.
    
    Define androcentric please!

    Andro centric   Male Centered
    
    
    By the way in the Judges 19 episode, the man's concern for his dead
    wife is non existent.  The Bible potrays him as almost tripping over
    her on the way out.
    
    His only concern is revenge against a violation of his personal honor.
    
                                  yours truly,
    
                                  patricia
    
                                 

    Jack,
    
    	Judges 19 says zip about sin.  The husband of the concubine appears
    to be the injured or insulted party, not the concubine herself.  A
    concubine, it must be remembered, was considered more property than
    a wife.  I think you're looking at the incident through the wrong end
    of a telescope.  And I think you're doing it because it happens to be
    in the Bible.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Recall what you stated in the base note.  You stated "The incidents of
    chapter 19 and the others following; hence I thought you were referring
    to chapter 20 as well.  The happenings in 20 were based on what
    happened at the end of chapter 19, where the concubine was divided into
    12 pieces and sent throughout the tribes of Israel.
    
    The incidents in the beginning and middle of 19 propogated the acts of
    late 19 and 20.  Yes Richard...Transgressing the Mosaic law with the
    concubine or in more modern terminology...SIN!  
    
    Patricia, I say this in love my friend.  You have made this gender
    issue an obsession and you need to temper it if you are to grow in
    faith.  Every single time you have brought up something suspicious,
    negative, questionable, etc. (fill in your negative thing here), you
    have made it a gender issue.  This is not a healthy outlook on life,
    believe me.  One day your going to be a senior citizen and your going
    to be bitter at men if you don't moderate your passion alittle.  You'll
    find it far more effective.
    
    -Jack

Jack

    
>    I have touched on this issue a number of times.  Men and womens roles
>    are defined by God, not by ability or by predjudice. 


I know you keep saying it Jack.  God told women to shut up and obey there 
husbands.  God defined the roles, so who am I Jack Martin to not live up to the 
role assigned to me.  And by the way Patricia when are you going to stop 
nagging about it and start listening to the men as they explain theology to you.
 

>Though women have equal and even greater ability at times to do this, the man
>of the home holds the role and responsibility of Spiritual leader, setting the
>spiritual tone in the home. 

Women set the spiritual tones in most of the homes I know of.  Woman go to
church more often and women often have to drag their husbands off to church.
Not always, but in many cases.

> God defined this role to Abram and it was his job and his alone to remain
> faithful to God, not Sarahs.  

The Scriptures define the roles.  I agree, The covenant in the old testament is
between men and God.  Men alone are deemed responsible for the covenant.
    
> I would like to also remind the readers here that Sarah entreated Abraham 
>to have relations with Hagar. 

THe system was oppressive to both Sarah and Hagar.  Women were considered sinful
and worthless if they could not bear sons.  Since the women were only consider
a vessel, it did not really matter who the mother was so the custom of having
slaves bear children when the woman was barren.

>  God knew her disbelief yet honored her as the vessel to bring Isaac into the
>    world.  Sarah's attitude toward Hagar was disingenuous at best because
>    she incited the whole thing in the first place.  

So we should rejoice in Sarah's role.  To be the vessel to bring Isaac into 
the world.    

>    But the key here is that GOD directed his instructions to Abram ONLY.  
>    Abram was the chief patriarch of the Jewish people.  



    
>    Patricia's Edition of Websters:
    
>    Woman Oppression: (Wo-man Ou-presh-on) - When a republican
>    conservative homophobic fundamentalist christian man weds any woman.
 
Some women marry men that beat them too!  It is a tragedy when women collude 
in their own oppression.  By the way, that definition is a long way from my 
definition of oppression.
   
    
  >  Patricia, I say this in love my friend.  You have made this gender
  >  issue an obsession and you need to temper it if you are to grow in
  >  faith.  Every single time you have brought up something suspicious,
  >  negative, questionable, etc. (fill in your negative thing here), you
  >  have made it a gender issue.  This is not a healthy outlook on life,
  >  believe me.  One day your going to be a senior citizen and your going
  >  to be bitter at men if you don't moderate your passion alittle.  You'll
  >  find it far more effective.

I'm not angry at men in General.  Just the chauvanistic one's.  The one's 
who believe that God created men on the top of the hierarchy and women on
the bottom.  Fortunately I have no problem  avoiding  men like this.  I am
inspired and thrilled to know a large number of men who are as committed to 
the equality of all people as I am.  Many even more committed.

    Please don't resort to personal attack and psychological analysis when
    you can't make your point by sticking to the topic.
    
                                      Patricia

    Men may be tagged with the spiritual head of the house role, but many
    believers (and I agree) look at the wife as a picture of the Holy Spirit 
    of the house.  In this sense, the covenant of marriage within the house
    mirrors the triune nature of God.  The woman dictates/determines the 
    *atmosphere* of the house.  

    right.
    
    A woman's place is in the home!

    I think you misunderstood me, Patricia.  

    >>    Please don't resort to personal attack and psychological analysis
    >>    when you can't make your point by sticking to the topic.
    
    Pullease Patricia, you know better than this.  This has nothing to do
    with analysis.  I could spend a good hour cutting and pasting 100's 
    of your various replies depicting the victimization of women throughout
    history.  You know I respect you so why do you look at this as an
    attack?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    The pullease patricia,  Patricia dear etc are all very condensending
    ways of treating a person.  I don't like being treated in a
    condensending way particularly by a man arguing the point of being the
    Divinely appointed in the class of spiritual leadership over woman.
    
    It is that condesending language that pushes my buttons.
    
    It is a fact that woman have been victimized through history, not
    something that myself and other feminists make up. 
    
    It is a fact that the Bible includes examples of this victimization in
    ways that are not clearly showing them as victimization.  The human
    authors were ignorant of how clearly something like Judges 19 shows the
    victimization lack of concern for the personhood of women.
    
    Which of the church fathers was it that questioned whether woman even
    had souls.
    
    Every woman must read the Bible with suspicion because to not read it
    with suspicion leads to acceptance of the believe that God did asign a
    more subservient role to women than to men.
    
    All a woman has to do to demonstrate this is to read Timothy and Titus.
    
    Again I emphasize to read the book with suspicion does not mean that
    the book is devalued unless one's faith depends on the book being the
    innerant word of God.
    
    All women who read it that way have to accept and realize that there
    are no qualifiers.  It doesn't say that if your husband is a good
    Christian man, then he should rule over you land the children.  It says
    the husband should rule over his wife and children.  THe Bible says
    that, i agree.  God does not say that.
    
                          Patricia

    Dear Patricia:  (That's legal...I didn't say Patricia Dear!_
    
    First of all, you got me all wrong, I didn't mean to be condescending.
    I really didn't and am sorry you took it that way.  It was a term of
    endearment because I am starting to feel comfortable with you.  I will
    watch myself from here on in.
    
    Secondly, you are putting words in my mouth.  I never said that man was
    divinely appointed to rule over women and children.  What I said was it
    is the role of the man to set the spiritual tone in the household.  
    Remember, man is incomplete without woman.  If a dealership sells a 
    car and the car is devoid of all compnents, i.e. engine, electrical,
    etc., then it is an empty shell.  This is what a relationship is like
    if a married man lords over his wife and does not walk with her.  
    
    Remember Patricia...YOU HEARD IT HERE!!!
    
    So, I hope the proper foundation has been set, a man is incomplete
    without his wife and vice versa.  Man and Woman were created at the 
    same time/ both in the image of God.  
    
    I do believe in the precepts of Paul to Timothy and Titus to maintain a
    healthy happy homelife.  Paul defined roles for a Godly home.  I have
    seen more families broken up that haven't followed the precept and have
    seen more families stay together who have followed it.  
    
    -Jack

    .6 is a conclusion based on a presupposition, not actual text.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Judges 21 is sort of cute, too.  It seems that in their eagerness to
avenge the crime of Gibeah, the Israelite army laid waste to all the towns
of the tribe of Benjamin and killed their women.  Then they began to
regret this deed, seeing as how the remaining 600 Benjaminites had no
wives, and the other tribes had promised not to let their daughters marry
Benjaminites.  It would be a shame if the tribe of Benjamin died out and
there were only 11 tribes.

Where could they find 600 brides for the Benjaminites?  Well, first of all
they discovered that the town of Jabesh-gilead hadn't sent any
representatives to the war council at Mizpah.  For shame!  The army laid waste
to Jabesh-gilead, killed all the men, married women and children, and took
400 virgins to be given to the Benjaminites.  This left them 200 virgins
short, so they kidnapped 200 women from Shiloh.

Judges 21:25 pretty much sums it up: "In those days there was no king in
Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

				-- Bob

    I have changed the title of this string to specifically include
    chapters 20 and 21 of the book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    In reading over Judges 19, 20 and 21 this evening, I find no allusion
    to sin either by God or anyone else.  Mind you, according to this
    author, God is not without voice in these chapters.  Virtually
    everyone involved, with the exception of the concubine, behaved
    sinfully.
    
    The text records pure vengeance with practically no ceiling; a far
    cry from the light Jesus of Nazareth revealed.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    And we cannot forget to emphasize that the women were TAKEN as
    property, possession for the men with absolutely no regard for there
    personhoods which included their relationship with their community that
    was masacred.
    
                                 Patricia

    Jack,
    
    Thanks for your reply and apology.  Some of your notes do push my
    bottons as I am sure some of mine push yours.
    
    I do agree that healthy families are one's in which all the members
    compliment each other.  I picture the role of husband and wife as
    partners and not as one over the other.  I believe that a loving
    relationship between partners is more critical than any role ideology.
    
    It is harder in a relationship for the partners to determine what the
    individual roles of each are and live, learn, and compromise in finding
    those roles than it is for each to assume the traditional roles. 
    Unfortunately each assuming the traditional roles deprives both of the
    fullest potential of their humanity.
    
    In the best relationships each partner approaches caring as much for
    what is truly important to the other as for what is truly important to
    them.  Without a respect and sense of equality between the two partners
    there also cannot be true love. True love in the case of adults is the
    total covenant and commitment of two equal adults for each other.
    
    THe marriages listed in the Old testament do not reflect this level of
    commitment, each partner for the other.
    
                                          Patricia  

    Besides, with how many latter-day situations involving a man and his
    concubine(s) are we commonly aware?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re: .20
    
    Depends on how you define "latter-day" :-)  I have a great, great, etc.
    uncle, who lived in Colonial Boston, who outlived his wife and 7
    councubines.  The story goes that the wife was bed-ridden and they
    needed someone to do the housework.  A live in maid was a scandal, but
    for some reason I don't understand it was acceptable to have a
    concubine.  

      Hi,
    
        I heard one explanation of this incident that comes closest
        to satisfying me.  And that is that because of the sinful 
        state of man, sinful behavior must be retaliated by society
        OR ELSE that society's hatred of evil will lessen.  They will
        be desensitized to it.
    
        Mark one thing I said...it is a result of man's condition and
        not of any need God has (save to restore man).  Perhaps, had
        the Benjamin tribe been treated in a less severe way, their
        seeds of desensitivity toward how bad sin really is would have
        permeated Israel and Israel would not have had a chance to 
        be the vehicle God wanted them to be.
    
        Regarding the man-woman thing...I do believe that God worked
        with man where man is and certainly the Bible is very male-
        oriented.  But, so far as God is concerned, "There is neither
        male nor female..."
    
        I also reject the inference that for one sex to be the head of
        the family implies that sex is superior to the other.  I see no
        rationale for this whatsoever.  Personally, I believe man and
        woman were created equal, each having differing strengths in some
        ways such that some roles are better suited for men and others
        for women.
    
        I suppose if I weren't a Bible-believer, I might have a problem
        with the above, but I truly don't see (hypothetically) the notion
        that men and women might have different roles implies that one
        sex is inferior to the other.
    
                                                       Tony

>Judges 21:25 pretty much sums it up: "In those days there was no king in
>Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."
    
    ...and the fruits of turning from a theocracy to a monarchy is more
    than obvious.
    
    Mike

>    THe marriages listed in the Old testament do not reflect this level of
>    commitment, each partner for the other.
    
Genesis 2:18
And the lord god said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will
make him an help meet for him.

    Patricia, a help meet *IS* a partner.  God made woman out of man's
    side to be his equal.  If man was to dominate woman, God would've made
    her out of man's foot.  If woman was to dominate man, God would've made
    her out of man's head.
    
    Paul said that man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church.  Do
    you ever stop and pause to think about how much Jesus loves his church? 
    Paul also told wives to submit to their husbands.  Can a woman submit
    to someone that she doesn't truly love?  
    
    The Bible, inspired by God, supports the partnership view within the 
    covenant of marriage as you describe.  The Bible cannot be faulted for
    man's sinful ways.  The sin of the people in Judges is rejecting their
    theocracy - turning their back on God, their Lord and King.  
    
Romans 1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own
hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Romans 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature
more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    Mike

Re: .23 Mike

>    ...and the fruits of turning from a theocracy to a monarchy is more
>    than obvious.
    
Fewer massacres?

				-- Bob

re .24

>    Patricia, a help meet *IS* a partner.

Mike, you are right that a "help" is a partner, but the word is
a "help" not a "help meet".

The noun is "help".  What kind of help?  One that is "meet for him".

"Meet" is an adjective which means "appropriate, suitable, or proper".

	It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we
	should at all times, and in all places give thanks unto
	thee, O Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God.

	Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all
	the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy
	glorious name; evermore praising thee and saying,

	HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of Hosts,
	Heaven and earth are full of thy Glory;
	Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High.

/john

    I don't have my Strong's with me.  Is "help meet" translated from 1
    word or 2?  Something in the back of my mind says it's from a single
    Hebrew word meaning partner.
    
    Mike

    While we're at it, would whoever finds something on it share the
    etymology of 'concubine'?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    ...or maybe Strong's definition of the Hebrew word translated as
    "concubine"?

>    I don't have my Strong's with me.  Is "help meet" translated from 1
>    word or 2?  Something in the back of my mind says it's from a single
>    Hebrew word meaning partner.

If so, then it is not "help meet" that's the translation into English
of that one word; it's "help meet for him".

"meet for him" is a single grammatical construct in English.  In this case,
it modifies "a help" and means that the "help" is "suitable for him."

There is no such thing in English as "a help meet".

/john

re .23

;    ...and the fruits of turning from a theocracy to a monarchy is more
; than obvious.


	Mike your comment seems to allude that once Israel had a king that
	that they were no longer under a theocracy but a monarchy. This 
	certainly was not the case and Israel continued to be under 
	theocracy right until they were conquered by the Babylonians under 
	the rule of king Nebuchadnezzar.

	Certainly, many of the Israelite kings rebelled to the detriment 
	of their subjects. But some were faithful which led to the 
	prosperity of their subjects for Jehovah blessed them.

	The Israelites didn't need a king however.

	Being the Israelite king was a weighty responsibility.

	Today, it is neccessary to acknowledge a king for Psalms 2:6 NWT	
	reads "[Saying] 'I, even I, have installed my king. Upon Zion,
	my holy mountain.'" Psalms 2:12 shows why it is neccessary to
	recognise this king, for those that humble themselves as subjects
	of this king can enjoy a theocracy today which will lead to their 
	eternal happiness.

	Phil.

    Looking at the Adam and Eve myth  from a psychological perspective is
    interesting.  I position Adam and eve at the dawn of the worship of God
    as a Man.  Origiaally the Divine was worshiped everywhere as a woman.
    Later the Divine was worshiped as a Woman/Man pair and then Man/Women
    pair.  Then God was worship as a man, and finally in Christianity as a
    Father/Son pair.
    
    Freud has popularized the notion of penis envy without any real serious
    look at the notion of Male envy of the women's ability to create life
    out of her own body.  The mother Goddess myths abound in the mythology
    of birth of the cosmos from the mother Goddess.
    
    Adam and Even Mythology challenges the female birthing process with Eve
    being created from Adam's body rather than the Male being Born from the
    Woman.  In this way, all humanity can be seen as originating from Adam
    rather than from the Great Mother Goddess.
    
    Just a look at the evolution of mythology and its psychological
    implications.
    
                                     Patricia
    
    
    

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Just one interjection...
    
        God creates something from nothing!  Male or female still 
        requires that something is there before the fact!
    
        I think the fact that women can bear children is wonderful.
        I wouldn't want ti downplay its significance and no doubt 
        its something men cannot do.  Score one for women!  (Except  
        that I'm personally into humility anyway and scoring only
        for Christ.)
    
        What men and women can do is sometimes good stuff.  But, in
        comparison to what God can do...well, its like comparing a
        10 watt light bulb to a star!
    
        Oh...one last thing...I don't worship God as a man and not
        as a woman either.
    
                                                   Tony

    It is an interesting thought if we look at the phenomena of mythology
    and connect it with the human psyche.  Even in comparing three myths.
    
    Goddess creates the world from herself
    God creates the world, women and men out of nothing
    God creates the world, men out of nothing.  God then creates women from
    man.
    
    And for those unable to consider the first.  The psychic difference
    between the two biblical creation myths if quite significant.
    
                                   Patricia

>	Mike your comment seems to allude that once Israel had a king that
>	that they were no longer under a theocracy but a monarchy. This 
>	certainly was not the case and Israel continued to be under 
>	theocracy right until they were conquered by the Babylonians under 
>	the rule of king Nebuchadnezzar.
    
    I Samuel 8:7
And the LORD said unto Samuel, hearken unto the voice of the people in all that
they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me,
that I should not reign over them.

I Samuel 8:8
According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought
them up out of Egypt even unto this day, where with they have forsaken me, and
served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

    Clearly, Israel rejected God as their king and wanted a monarchy.  They
    rejected God and rejected their theocracy.
    
    Mike

    >    as a Man.  Origiaally the Divine was worshiped everywhere as a woman.
    
    The head of the gods in Greek and Roman mythology (Zeus) wasn't a
    female.  Many other pagan gods (i.e., Egyptology) were also male.  The 
    Torah didn't bring anything new in that respect.
    
>    pair.  Then God was worship as a man, and finally in Christianity as a
>    Father/Son pair.
    
    you forgot the Holy Spirit.  God has a triune nature.
    
    >    Freud has popularized the notion of penis envy without any real serious
    
    Freud was a pervert.
    
    Mike

    There are deities which predate the Greek and Roman cultures, and which
    were never as pervasive (and typically not as warmongering) as these
    cultures.
    
    Freud was a pervert?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .35

Mike,

What you say is true...

;    Clearly, Israel rejected God as their king and wanted a monarchy.  They
;    rejected God and rejected their theocracy.

But rejection does not mean that the monarchy replaced theocracy. 1 Samuel 8:8
that you quoted mentions all the works since being released from Egytian
slavery, they had rejected his rule and authority many times. The account
in the wilderness shows that they soon forgot God's saving hand in their
rebelliousness, and it took much time before they finally accepted Moses as
God's spokeperson and Aaron. In the promise land Jehovah God sent judges
to keep them on the straight and narrow regarding true worship. Now they
wanted a their own monarch, they didn't need a king for they had Jehovah.
Jehovah God showed great patience and long suffering with the Israelites,
and if you carry on to read verse 9 of 1 Samuel 8 you will see that
God told Samuel to listen to the people even if this would be to their
detriment (also verse 22). Jehovah told the people, through Samuel, that 
having a king would mean that they would have to serve an imperfect human 
and at times they would suffer under his rule but they still wanted a king. 
Though, the Israelites were taking a wrong course it was God who anointed 
their king (1 Samuel 9:15,16). The king was still under the command of 
Jehovah God, thus the nation was still under a theocracy. David when 
fleeing from Saul, recognised that Saul was the anointed of Jehovah and 
therefore felt it was wrong to take Saul's life. 

If I remember rightly, the king had to write down God's Law for God's 
commandments had to be kept to the forefront in their dayly dealings. 
When the king accepted theocracy then the nation was blessed, as we 
see in the first part of Solomon's reign.

Perhaps I should do a little more study on this, for I didn't realise
that others saw that the reign of the Israelite kings as not being
a theocracy. Ofcourse, at times the king and nation rebelled but this
had been going on since the time in the wilderness when there was no
king. No wonder Moses called them a stiff necked people (Exodus 34:9)

Phil.

    re: .36
    
    We're all perverts!  ;-)
    
    Actually, if you think about it, we all are.  All of our acts,
    unless sanctified, are sin itself and thus our sexual acts are
    a perversion of what they were meant to be (in the heart).
    
    I think there is perversion in us until our hearts are made
    perfectly cleansed.
    
                                             Tony

>But rejection does not mean that the monarchy replaced theocracy. 1 Samuel 8:8
    
    It sure did.  The people of Israel rejected God and wanted a king.  The
    whole nation took their eyes off the Lord.  It is sad to see what
    happens to a nation when they reject God.  Look at all the persecutions
    and hardships Israel has experienced since this event.  Look at what is
    happening to America today.  We've turned our back on God.  We've
    kicked Him out of most of the areas of our lives (classrooms are a major
    example).
    
>wanted a their own monarch, they didn't need a king for they had Jehovah.
>Jehovah God showed great patience and long suffering with the Israelites,
>and if you carry on to read verse 9 of 1 Samuel 8 you will see that
>God told Samuel to listen to the people even if this would be to their
>detriment (also verse 22). Jehovah told the people, through Samuel, that 
    
    And to their detriment it was.  They rejected God and paid a price for
    it.  They're still paying because they rejected Him so many times
    since and still do.  
    
>having a king would mean that they would have to serve an imperfect human 
>and at times they would suffer under his rule but they still wanted a king. 
>Though, the Israelites were taking a wrong course it was God who anointed 
>their king (1 Samuel 9:15,16). The king was still under the command of 
>Jehovah God, thus the nation was still under a theocracy. David when 
>fleeing from Saul, recognised that Saul was the anointed of Jehovah and 
>therefore felt it was wrong to take Saul's life. 

    But as you say here, only the king was under God.  The rest of the
    nation looked to the earthly king.  This is not a theocracy, it is a
    monarchy.  And Saul's spiritual life slipped to a point where he didn't 
    he obey God and couldn't call God his God!  Read 1 Samuel 15 and see 
    how many times Saul said to Samuel, "...the Lord *YOUR* God..."!  Saul 
    couldn't even say the Lord was *HIS* God!
    
>When the king accepted theocracy then the nation was blessed, as we 
>see in the first part of Solomon's reign.
    
    No, the nation of Israel was blessed for having a king who served God. 
    The people were serving the king.  If the king was in right-standing
    with God, everything fell into place as it should.  If the king was
    disobedient, the whole nation suffered.  This is still a monarchy. 
    
    Say the Queen of England is the sole ruler of England (assume this is a
    pure monarchy without Parliament).  If she serves God, does she have a
    monarchy or a theocracy?  Obviously it is still a monarchy.  In a
    theocracy, the King is the King of Kings - up in Heaven.

>a theocracy. Ofcourse, at times the king and nation rebelled but this
>had been going on since the time in the wilderness when there was no
>king. No wonder Moses called them a stiff necked people (Exodus 34:9)

    It continues on to this day...  Israel hasn't been the same since.
    
    Mike

    >    Freud was a pervert?
    
    yeah, have you ever read what his daughter thought of him and his
    antics?

    .41  No.  But I do think the rather loaded term "pervert"
    continues to be applied a little too loosely to be of much
    use.
    
    <no name>
    

re .40

Mike,

I did some study into this in the book "Insight on the scriptures" vol 2
p163 under the heading "Kingdom of God" subheading "A human king requested".
One comment was that though the peoples motives were wrong, God granted
their request not for their sake primarily but to accomplish his own grand
purpose in furthering the progressive revelation of the "sacred secret"
of his future kingdom by the "seed".

>having a king would mean that they would have to serve an imperfect human 
>and at times they would suffer under his rule but they still wanted a king. 
>Though, the Israelites were taking a wrong course it was God who anointed 
>their king (1 Samuel 9:15,16). The king was still under the command of 
>Jehovah God, thus the nation was still under a theocracy. David when 
>fleeing from Saul, recognised that Saul was the anointed of Jehovah and 
>therefore felt it was wrong to take Saul's life. 

;   But as you say here, only the king was under God.  The rest of the
;   nation looked to the earthly king.  This is not a theocracy, it is a
;   monarchy.  And Saul's spiritual life slipped to a point where he didn't 
;   he obey God and couldn't call God his God!  Read 1 Samuel 15 and see 
;   how many times Saul said to Samuel, "...the Lord *YOUR* God..."!  Saul 
;   couldn't even say the Lord was *HIS* God!

No, the king was to be God's earthly agent, appointed by God  to sit as
deputy king on God's throne. This is brought out in 1 Chronicles 29:23 NWT 
"And Solomon began to sit upon Jehovah's throne as king in place of David 
his father and  to make a success of it, and all Israelites were obedient 
to him.". Both the king and nation were under the Law convenant. Therefore, 
people also had to respect God's authority for the nation to benefit.
If the nation looked to other sources for guidance and protection rather 
than Jehovah God then their king would be swept away (De 28:36, please read
1Sa12:13-15,20-25). The kingship had to operate entirely in the framework of 
the Law  convenant. You mention Saul's disobedience, but like the Israelites 
previously as since the days of Moses, God allowed the king to show what his 
heart contained. That is a willingness or unwillingness to submit to God's 
authority and will. It was the same too for the nation as individuals, as was 
the case in the wilderness and would be in the future. Only now they had the 
additional burden of serving an earthly king.

;    Say the Queen of England is the sole ruler of England (assume this is a
;    pure monarchy without Parliament).  If she serves God, does she have a
;    monarchy or a theocracy?  Obviously it is still a monarchy.  In a
;    theocracy, the King is the King of Kings - up in Heaven.

Funny you chose the Queen of England for here is a good example of a
monarchy that does not have full authority today. Also it shows that 
a monarchy can coexist within and represent a higher authority. But 
following your thoughts, she can only be an authority within a theocracy 
if God appoints her as his agent here on earth. Those who seek to do
God's will cannot place themselves in authority over others as God's
respresentatives for this would be presumptous and also not Christlike. 
For example, two of Jesus' disicples wanted to sit on the right and 
left hand of Jesus in his kingdom. After that ten other apostles became 
indignant with them, Jesus called them to him and said "'YOU know that 
the rulers of the nations lord it over them and wield authority over 
them. This is not the way among YOU but whoever becomes great among 
YOU must be YOUR minister, and whoever want to be first among YOU must 
be YOUR slave.'" Persons can only have authority in a theocracy if
they have been appointed by God to hold that position. Jehovah God
has chosen humble ones to represent him as kings in the kingdom of 
the heavens (Revelation 5:9,10). Interestingly, pictured by the 24
elders these cast their crowns in front of God's throne thus recognising
that they owe their authority to the one that gave it to them, our
creator Jehovah God (Revelation 4:10,11). This is too is an example
of kings who are part of a theocracy distinct as persons from the king 
of kings. The king of kings has corulers whom the Bible refers to
as kings.


Phil.

re .43

In line with Debby's request in 100.98, all scripture is quoted from NWT:


                               De28:36
  36 Jehovah will march you and your king whom you will set up over
you to a nation whom you have not known, neither you nor your
forefathers; and there you will have to serve other gods, of wood and
of stone.

                              1Sa12:13
  13 And now here is the king whom YOU have chosen, for whom YOU
asked; and here Jehovah has put over YOU a king.
                              1Sa12:14
  14 If YOU will fear Jehovah and actually serve him and obey his
voice, and YOU will not rebel against the order of Jehovah, both
YOU and the king who must reign over YOU will certainly prove to be
followers of Jehovah YOUR God.
                              1Sa12:15
  15 But if YOU will not obey the voice of Jehovah and YOU will
actually rebel against the order of Jehovah, the hand of Jehovah
will certainly prove to be against YOU and YOUR fathers.

                              1Sa12:20
  20 So Samuel said to the people: "Do not be afraid. YOU--YOU have
done all this evil. Only do not turn aside from following Jehovah,
and YOU must serve Jehovah with all YOUR heart.
                              1Sa12:21
  21 And YOU must not turn aside to follow the unrealities that are
of no benefit and that do not deliver, because they are unrealities.

                              1Sa12:22
  22 For Jehovah will not desert his people for the sake of his
great name, because Jehovah has taken it upon himself to make YOU
his people.
                              1Sa12:23
  23 As for me also, it is unthinkable, on my part, to sin against
Jehovah by ceasing to pray in YOUR behalf; and I must instruct YOU
in the good and right way.
                              1Sa12:24
  24 Only fear Jehovah, and YOU must serve him in truth with all
YOUR heart; for see what great things he has done for YOU.
                              1Sa12:25
  25 But if YOU flagrantly do what is bad, YOU will be swept away,
both YOU and YOUR king."

                                Re5:9
  9 And they sing a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the
scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with your
blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and
people and nation,
                               Re5:10
  10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and
they are to rule as kings over the earth."


                               Re4:10
  10 the twenty-four elders fall down before the One seated upon
the throne and worship the One that lives forever and ever, and they
cast their crowns before the throne, saying:
                               Re4:11
  11 "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory
and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and
because of your will they existed and were created."

As you can see in 1 Samuel 12:24 the people had to continue serving
Jehovah their God.

Phil.

    I've been doing some studying on these chapters.  From what I can
    gather, Judges 17-21 appears to be an appendix to the rest of the book
    and it doesn't really follow a chronological order.  There are 2
    stories recorded in these chapters, the latter has been called into
    question here.
    
    It is clear from the text that Israel not only rejected God
    (theocracy), but they also didn't have a king (monarchy).  The people
    of this time pretty much did what was right in their own eyes.  There
    was no order at all, they rejected God's law, and had your basic anarchy.
    
    It is interesting to note the different cultures of Israel in the OT
    and NT.  The culture in this passage mirrored everything that is bad
    about existentialism and paganism.  If you examine any pagan culture,
    you see women were mistreated and disrespected.  When Christ came along
    to present the Gospel in the NT, it was very radical with respect to
    what they were used to.  
    
    Under the Gospel of Jesus Christ, God is no respecter of persons and we
    are all one in Christ.  This is the way God intended it.  When we take
    our eyes off God and do what is right in our own eyes, people are
    mistreated.
    
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

    The impact this has had on today's society is great since women are
    more respected than ever.  What bothers me is the pagan influences that
    are creeping back into our culture.  When people give themselves over
    to depravity in paganism, women are no longer respected.  This is where
    women are exploited and used to satisfy the lusts of men in all sorts
    of gross activities from pornography to bestiality.
    
    When looking at it this way, it makes you wonder why any feminist
    wouldn't want to be a Christian.  They aren't mistreated in true
    Christianity like they are in paganism.
    
    Finally, it is also interesting how the sin of homosexuality is
    described in this passage.  The depravity of the Benjaministes mirrored
    that of those in Sodom with respect to Lot and his family.  The homosexual 
    acts were referred to as "folly," "lewd," and "disgraceful" in Judges
    19-21.
    
    Mike

re Note 987.45 by FRETZ::HEISER:

> Galatians 3:28
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
> neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
>     The impact this has had on today's society is great since women are
>     more respected than ever.  What bothers me is the pagan influences that
>     are creeping back into our culture.  When people give themselves over
>     to depravity in paganism, women are no longer respected.  This is where
>     women are exploited and used to satisfy the lusts of men in all sorts
>     of gross activities from pornography to bestiality.
> 
>     When looking at it this way, it makes you wonder why any feminist
>     wouldn't want to be a Christian.  They aren't mistreated in true
>     Christianity like they are in paganism.
    
        (There are forms of "paganism" which are distinctly feminist
        / matriarchal in substance.  "Paganism" (if by "paganism" you
        mean non-Judeo-Christian religion) is hardly a single belief
        system.  I wouldn't wonder why a feminist would be attracted
        to such forms.)

        As fundamental as Galatians 3:28 appears, the same Bible has
        texts which have been used to prove that in Christ there are
        indeed distinctions between male and female (some also use
        the Bible to distinguish between Jew and "Greek" as well).  I
        can understand why a feminist would discount Galatians 3:28
        since, through most of its history, Christians have
        discounted it, too.

        Bob

    Christians ignoring Galatians 3:28 and other passages that deal with
    the same subject are just plain wrong.  The Bible shouldn't be blamed
    for the errors of man.
    
    Mike

re Note 987.47 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     Christians ignoring Galatians 3:28 and other passages that deal with
>     the same subject are just plain wrong.  The Bible shouldn't be blamed
>     for the errors of man.

        Perhaps not.

        But it is common in every other area of human endeavor to
        place at least some of the blame for lack of understanding
        upon the text or device with which a human must deal or which
        is used to instruct persons.

        If people have a hard time using a software program, at least
        some of the blame lay with the program (and its designer).

        If people have a hard time setting a clock on a VCR, at least
        part of the blame lay with the VCR (and its designer).

        If people have a hard time following a recipe for making a
        cake, at least some of the blame lay with the recipe (and the
        author of the recipe).

        When people have a hard time understanding an
        introductory-level math textbook, some of the blame may lie
        with the book (and the author).

        Yet when people read the Bible and come away with the wrong
        understanding, and hence act "wrong" (by somebody else's
        understanding of the Bible), we blame the person 100%, and
        not the Book (and the Author) at all.

        I guess it's an easy call when you have a perfect Book by a
        perfect Author. :-}

        Bob

    I think it's is slightly different with the Bible.  To me, Galatians
    3:28 and other passages make it quite clear that women and men are
    equals in the kingdom of God.  How anyone else arrived at a different
    conclusion is beyond me.  
    
    What I've learned in recent years is sometimes it takes more study to
    properly interpret the Bible.  I find that going back to the original
    languages is a big help for difficult passages.
    
    I still think people are at fault for poor interpretations.  People too
    often try to filter the Bible based on their personal beliefs, culture,
    or environment.  We should be letting the Bible filter us.
    
    And the whole meaning about wives submitting to their husbands has been
    sorely missed by a lot of well-meaning Christians (both men and women).
    
    Mike

	Re .45 Mike

    > If you examine any pagan culture, you see women were mistreated and
    > disrespected. When Christ came along to present the Gospel in the NT,
    > it was very radical with respect to what they were used to.

	Many pagan cults were based on a female godhead. Their treatment of
	women would be exemplary in any religious system.
  
    > Galatians 3:28 ...

    > The impact this has had on today's society is great since women are
    > more respected than ever. 

	I would question the assertion that the respect enjoyed by women
	today has anything to do with Gal 3:28 or any other biblical text.
	Most of the respect women enjoy today has been hard won and not
	infrequently in conflict with those who point to the bible as their
	guide.


    > When looking at it this way, it makes you wonder why any feminist
    > wouldn't want to be a Christian.  They aren't mistreated in true
    > Christianity like they are in paganism.

	Probably some of them recall the history of the church and, in
	particular, the 300-odd years of witch-burning. Or the fact that,
	even today, they are excluded from the priesthood in at least one
	important Christian religion.

 
    from .49    
    
    > What I've learned in recent years is sometimes it takes more study to
    > properly interpret the Bible.  I find that going back to the original
    > languages is a big help for difficult passages.

    & from .45

    > Finally, it is also interesting how the sin of homosexuality is
    > described in this passage.  The depravity of the Benjaministes mirrored
    > that of those in Sodom with respect to Lot and his family. The homo-
    > sexual acts were referred to as "folly," "lewd," and "disgraceful" in
    > Judges 19-21.

	Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us an original language
	version of Gal. 3.28 and Judges 19-21. My (translated) versions
	make no reference to homosexuality.
	
    &, from .49 again.
   
    > I still think people are at fault for poor interpretations.

	We are in agreement here, Mike.
    
    > And the whole meaning about wives submitting to their husbands has been
    > sorely missed by a lot of well-meaning Christians (both men and women).
    
	And here, too. I miss my wife's submission sorely.  :-)

	Greetings, Derek.

================================================================================
Note 1143.102                   Hebrew Scriptures                     102 of 121
POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine"              45 lines   2-NOV-1995 09:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last night we did talk about Judges 19 - 22.  The instructor used the
    term Deuteronomistic historian to describe the author of the books
    Joshua through 2Kings(JOS, JUD, Sam, 1&2Kings)  The "historian" had a
    series of stories that he wove together into the chronology that is
    judges.  The stories were sequenced by the author.  THe authors theme
    which was identified as being most explicit in the book of judges is
    the cycle of Apostasy, crying out, God hearing the cries, God sending a
    deliverer(judge).  The instructor believes(contrary to the majority
    opinion that those four chapters are an appendex to judges) that those
    four chapters are used to drive home the 'historian's" point.  Four
    times the phrase "And that was the time when there were no kings" is
    quoted, with the concluding words of judges being "And that was the
    time when there were no kings, and all men did as they pleased."
    
    The author, A historian from a Davidic court, was telling the story of
    Israel between the ideal times of Moses and Joshua and the days of
    David and the Davidic monorchy.  Gildea, the Benjamite city in which
    this atrocity occurs, is coincendently the city of Saul.  Bethlehem,
    the city where the concubine is from and where the man receives even
    more than the expected hospitality, is the city of  David.  The story
    is told cast Saul in a negative light and David in a positive light.
    
    It legitimitizes the David monarchy.  The author of the story was
    familiar with the Sodom and Gomorah story.  Some of the words of the
    judges story parallel those in the Sodom and gomorah story.  the point
    being made is that Sauls home city is even more perverted than Sodom
    and Gomorah.
    
    I had a lot of problems with the instructor calling the deuteronomistic
    author a historian because it seems to me that he was a story teller,
    weaving snippets of folk lore into a chronicle.
    
    The point that the concubine in the story is treated as dirt by her
    husband as well as the city folk is seen as anciliary to the point.
    
    I'm not sure I like the Old Testament very much!
    
    Our text also points out that Yahwew of the book of judges is a God of
    War.  In good times, the Israeli people of the period concentrated on
    agriculture and worshipped Baal, the God of agriculture.  In times of
    war, the worship Yahweh, God of battle.
    
    Did the God of war, win the battle with the God of agriculture?
    
                                 Patricia