This question is about the Joseph who is the husband of Mary. This question is about the Joseph who was the son of Jacob. Both questions are tagged joseph. How can we disambiguate? Each use has only one question; is the tag (in either case) useful?
Isaiah 3:12a states (ESV):
My people — infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
This is showing one of the signs of affliction upon Israel for their disobedience. We see in Judges where at this time the men were quite passive. In Judges 4:8 we see after Deborah asked Barak ...
You have a great answer here, but I want to discuss your conclusion with you:
"The Bible is very consistent in that God has given the responsibility of leadership to men, in both the old and new testament. This is a very applicable point today, since we see this level of passiveness in the modern industrialized world, partly spurred by the advance of the heresy of feminism."
Two main issues: 1 - the question of feminism...what feminism is, what it means, why people are feminist, what the Bible says about feminism, etc. are way beyond the scope of that question and possibly the site as a whole since this begins to bleed into doctrine.
2 - I think it's really dangerous to throw around the label "heresy" on this site...under any circumstances and in any context.
This site can be a wonderful amalgam of different view points and perspectives. Disagreements need to be cast in the language of rigorous textual analysis. Name calling and broad generalizations are the most sure way to undermine that project.
Very interesting questions. On (1), we have carefully defined on-topic exegesis questions to exclude questions that begin with something other than Bible text. AFAIK there has been no discussion about the content of answers.
Key issue for me: do you think Lance is answering the question - specifically is the part on feminism part of the answer or is it a tangent?
Anyway, I have the reputation to edit the question myself, but I want that decision to come from the moderators of this site and ideally from Lance himself.
"I've sometimes heard that Deborah was allowed to be a leader of Israel only because no man stepped up to the responsibility." . I think perhaps the issue of feminism was present in the mind of the OP
To be precise, the issue of male headship - feminism means a large number of different things to different people
"the heresy of equal roles promoted by some flavours of feminism" is possible a phrase that communicates better what Lance is trying to say - which brings us on to (2) :-)
"heresy" is certainly an emotionally charged and historically loaded word. Is that part of the issue for you?
Sure, but as long as we stick to text, Christians and Jews and atheists can have common ground which is why this site works so well
The biblical text is a medium which makes inter-cultural discussion fruitful
Talk about gender roles needs to happen through the reading/interpretation of verses that say something meaningful about gender roles. I don't think the verses in the book of Judges about Deborah and Barak are in conversation with the question of gender roles in our modern day religious communities.
I think I am right in saying there are several who'd call themselves Jewish active on the site, and several who'd call themselves Christian. It would be a surprise to me if there was an atheist who cared that much about what any Biblical Text says, but I hope I'm wrong on that...
@Ami I think Lance is taking the view that "for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." is more than just matter-of-fact, rather a deliberate reference to gender roles
@Ami Hey, shows what I know :-)
I think there is an interesting question underlying this: "should we tolerate intolerance" on the site
Yes. "The Lord will sell Sisera..." It is a deliberate reference to gender roles and Lance makes that clear in the first part of his answer which I totally agree with: "In Judges 4:8 we see...a real low point in Hebrew masculinity:"
Judges 4:8 is aware of the cultural reality of the time. Judges 4:8 assumes that men are usually leaders and woman usually are not leaders. Judges 4:8 does not say anything about whether or not woman should/can be leaders today...that's a very different question.
okay...I have to backtrack a little. Earlier I said "definitely should be discussed on this site." I want to take that back. The question of modern day gender roles is just like this question. The issue of gender roles is about modern day religious practice not Biblical text and therefore cannot be disentangled from doctrine.
but the view that male headship was approved by God is definitely a valid position
Perhaps this question would work: Does Isaiah 3:12 ("My people — infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them") speak to normative religious practice or the cultural realities of the time?
I understand - and this brings into focus the distinction of whether doctrine is 'allowed' on the site, particularly in answers. If I understand correctly, we have particular rules about questions not being allowed to begin with doctrine (note that is not the same as saying they are not allowed to contain or refer to doctrine), and no 'doctrine' rule at all about answers.
@Ami I think that is on-topic and an interesting (if hard to answer well) question - are you going to ask it?
I agree its an interesting question, and I will definitely think about it, but I think its a little too narrow and difficult to answer as is. If I can come up with a more broad version of the question, I will ask it.
Anyway, if we can go back to an early point, I think the term "heresy" and all its synonyms should be treated as name calling and offensive and completely disallowed on this site. I definitely like the idea of not tolerating intolerance.
I agree with that last statement. Labeling people as heretics doesn't help discussion. Saying that a certain viewpoint falls out of a certain stream of orthodoxy is another thing, such as saying that a certain view falls in line with a particular non-Christian religion.
Then I will have to ban you both for intolerance :-) seriously - that is too big for me to decide on, the best thing would probably be to ask one or more questions on meta about what we should allow in answers.
@Ami If you are willing to do so that would be great - I'm sure you will anyway but it's best to focus on the issue rather than on Lance if at all possible
I just recently found it, I haven't really asked any questions on it yet
I studied Hebrew and Greek in a pre-seminary program for a few years, also a semester of Aramaic.
I am not in any form of professional ministry so it's a struggle to keep sharp, but I still grab the original text and try to jump in on an almost weekly basis
I have a slightly different perspective on many issues, though - but that shouldn't affect how I exegete passages. I do my best to allow no eisegesis to creep in ;)
that is very cool. The children will benefit from being exposed to another language at a young age
what text/resource are you using for self-teaching?
I'm not 100% sure where I fall in the Christian spectrum. I am influenced both by Eastern and Western thought - very interested in Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Roman Catholicism. And yet I profoundly agree with many of the steps taken in the Protestant Reformation, so I end up identifying with moderate Lutherans very often, except in the realm of ecclesiology, where I tend to end up in the Anabaptist camp lol
I was going to ask what your perspective is? For self teaching I using the materials we have for teaching the children (flash cards and a starter on the alphabet and the most basic grammar) apart from that we are practising reading/learning and writing specific verses from the NT.
I tend to come back to Lutheranism on core issues such as soteriology (saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ, not by works - monergistic single predestination), the Sacraments (mysteries, more than symbols but not transubstantiative nor do they work 'ex opere operato' apart from faith), the doctrine of the Trinity, etc.
my primary interest in Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism is in their philosophical Eastern worldview that rejects Western systematic thought, which has brought us much of systematic theology. While I do think there must be some concrete absolutes, Eastern thought is more comfortable with paradoxes (antinomies, to be exact), mystery, and an honest approach to the place of history's authority in the Church
I am not familiar with that one, please tell me more about it.
So, you understand James, John, 1,2,3 John, Revelation and much of the OT better than most people then ;-)
The Greek book says it is different because it gets you looking at and reading actual NT Greek from the first page. So there is less focus on traditional grammar based books IIRC. TBH I have nothing to compare it to so I have no idea how other books approach it.
The Western Christian history of thought is filled with thinkers in philosophy and ethics. The notion of hermeneutics itself comes from Greek philosophical rhetoric. Eastern thought has been concerned with asceticism and mysticism. I think we need both, we cannot exclude one side or the other to get a complete worldview.
Orthodox Christian theology is a series of antinomies (they are not truly paradoxes, as they are often called): Jesus is fully man and yet fully divine. The Lord's Supper is Jesus' body and blood and yet it is clearly bread and wine. God is completely sovereign and yet man has free will.
The first book I recommended is similar in that it gets you going immediately. The second is a traditional grammar but not as difficult to follow as many I've encountered in academia.
Any attempt to resolve the antinomies results in extremism at best and 'heresy' at worst.
One of the reasons I like this site is I often get insight int a text even in answers I completely disagree with - because the discussion throws up interesting observations on the text
I just saw the comment earlier about understanding various books. And I would say I feel that I do understand these books fairly well, although not everything is entirely understandable to us. Somewhat because we don't really understand how the original hearers took it, we've lost some of their context. And also partly because not all of it is understandable ;)
@JackDouglas, I was going to post the text of the question in chat to get your feedback, but instead I'll just post it on meta and get your feedback then
This meta question is in response to this recent answer. Firstly, I agree with Lance's answer which is good and deserves the upvotes it got. However, at the end, Lance applies his analysis to a modern day hot-topic issue: "feminism":
The Bible is very consistent in that God has given the resp...
in some ways yes, but Eastern Christians would say the nous and dianoia
nous = "eye of the soul," translated as intellectus in Latin (intellect) but this corresponds more to our spiritual / heart understanding in the West. dianoia = "reason," translated as ratio in Latin (rational, reason) and corresponds to our logical minds in the West. The Eastern spiritual text (more of a compilation) is the Philokalia, and it is filled with ascetic and mystical references to this
But you must wade through it carefully, as they were often monastic and definitely viewed faith and works as two sides of the same coin (synergistic soteriology, which is held by most Eastern Christians to this day, especially Eastern Orthodox).
@Ami That's good - one thing we need to do is ask people to address at most 1 of your 4 points in an individual answer so votes can be deciphered. Alternatively you could repose as multiple questions - what do you think is better?
@digitaloday Something you just said just leaped out and slapped me in the face...
I don't understand all the terms you use - what is soteriology?
@JackDouglas, I don't know...I phrased the question in the hopes of getting some "first approximation" of an answer. I figured that as people weighted in on the matter, more specific formulations could be spawned.
In Eastern thought, faith and works are an antinomy in salvation; they are two sides of the same coin. But they also don't view salvation as the teleological focus of Christian faith. Theosis (deification) is the main goal in their worldview.
I would disagree with the first view. I believe that faith precedes good works, and faith itself (as well as repentance) is a gift from God that we cannot earn.
salvation is just one of the benefits in their belief system, which I think may be a good thing to some extents
@Ami Good idea - how about adding something to that effect to the question, maybe even inviting further meta questions if folk feel they are necessary?
@digitaloday That is very reformed :-) My big fear for the reformed wing at least here in the UK is that there seems to be a presumption of saving faith in any who confess, absent the evidence of good works. Not usually an explicit presumption mind, just in practice.
@digitaloday Check out some of the 'starred' discussions on the right or the meta questions :-)
But I am not Reformed, I assure you. I agree with Reformed that salvation is a monergistic work of God. However, I only believes he predestines people to heaven - I believe no one is predestined to hell (single predestination). Once someone comes to faith in Christ, I believe they can fall away from faith. This is a Lutheran view, not a Reformed view.
Our current title, "Biblical Hermeneutics", has a lot going for it:
Covers many of the questions we ask if you take hermeneutics to mean "applied hermeneutics".
Quietly excludes people who don't have some inkling what hermeneutics might consist of and includes people who know all about this som...
I need to go get some children to bed... Thanks for popping in @digitaloday, I've found this very interesting. I hope you decide to contribute to the site long-term... @Ami thanks for the meta Q and the update - I'll be watching the outcome with interest. Also thanks again for talking all this through with me in here :-)
This meta question is in response to this recent answer. Firstly, I agree with Lance's answer which is good and deserves the upvotes it got. However, at the end, Lance applies his analysis to a modern day hot-topic issue: "feminism":
The Bible is very consistent in that God has given the resp...
Isaiah 3:12a states (ESV):
My people — infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
This is showing one of the signs of affliction upon Israel for their disobedience. We see in Judges where at this time the men were quite passive. In Judges 4:8 we see after Deborah asked Barak ...
This meta question is in response to this recent answer. Firstly, I agree with Lance's answer which is good and deserves the upvotes it got. However, at the end, Lance applies his analysis to a modern day hot-topic issue: "feminism":
The Bible is very consistent in that God has given the resp...
Our current title, "Biblical Hermeneutics", has a lot going for it:
Covers many of the questions we ask if you take hermeneutics to mean "applied hermeneutics".
Quietly excludes people who don't have some inkling what hermeneutics might consist of and includes people who know all about this som...
The Library
The Library