Women the power of God to men

Lalitha: (reading an article) Only the Sikh faith has no gender differentiation between men and women where all are equal.

Me: True, but so also in Christianity.

Lalitha: No. In the Bible if a woman made a vow and the husband or father disallowed it, it would not stand. They are not equal, but under the authority of the man.

Me: That is the culture of the time, and not the Bible teaching in gender.

Lalitha: That way you can prove anything.

Is there cultural accommodation in the Bible? When Jesus said “It is because of the hardness of your heart that Moses gave this command” does it mean that the Jews interpretation was wrong because of the hardness of their heart, or this command was given because of the hardness of their heart? I prefer to see it as a wrong interpretation by the Jews, but many see it as a cultural accommodation in the Mosaic Laws to culture. On the other hand, the laws on slavery and concubines are clearly an accommodation to culture, since these are not what God wanted at any stage.

So what is the teaching on gender in the Bible? Firstly, they are clearly different and so roles are different. However, the first role indicated in the Bible for women was to be a helpmeet. The word used here is ‘ezer’ which means help or succour, or one who helps or succours. This word is used 21 times in the Bible – Genesis 2:18, 2:20, Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 33:2, 33:26, 33:29, Ps 20:2, 33:20, 70:5, 89:19, 115:9, 115:10, 115:11, 121:1, 121:2, 124:8, 146:5 Isaiah 30:5, Ezekiel 12:14, Daniel 11:34 and Hosea 13:9.

In the 19 instances outside Genesis 2, 16 refer to God helping Israel. In 2 instances it is of a more powerful nation sending its armies to help Israel. In one it speaks of no one to help Israel. From this it can be concluded that the primary meaning of ‘ezer’ is of a more powerful person helping a weaker person. Just like Jesus said in Matthew 19:4-6 the text in Genesis 2 shows the original intention of God that there should be no divorce, I would say that this was meant to be the original position of woman in relationship to man. However, due to culture, Jesus says in Matthew 19:8, that Moses permitted divorce. Hardness of heart led to the fallen culture. This same fallen culture has led to the inferior position of women in the world, and their suppression, instead of women being God’s power for man.

In the New Testament, while we see many signs of liberation for women, (in they being among Jesus’ disciples) there is no attempt to over turn the state of affairs. The approach taken through the Bible is to curtail the  negative effects of a fallen culture, rather than try to force a divine view on people who cannot understand. Hence we find that slavery, concubinage are referred to without condemnation, when laws are made to curtail abuse of victims.

To Paul our testimony to those who do not know God was more important than setting right these injustices for the present. He felt that if we did try and set these right, it would affect the testimony of the church. This has been Paul’s theme in 1 Corinthians, not to do anything, even if it is right in the sight of God, if it will turn people away from God.

In the New Testament, with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit where we should be able to understand the divine will, these cultural aberrations need to be set right within the church, to the extent where it does not spoil its testimony. Unfortunately for the church, these aberrations are being forced on the church as the will of God, and the Biblical teaching, so that education is proving the liberator rather than Jesus. The world seems to be moving ahead of the church.

Leviticus 4

Leviticus 4

The sin offering

This offering was to be made when we did something wrong unintentionally (vs 2). For intentional sins there was no offering, except for some minor offenses. These unintentional sins could be making a statement without knowing that it was incorrect, or taking something which belongs to someone else by mistake etc. Or it could be an offence against a ceremonial law unintentionally, like forgetting that it was the Sabbath. Once we are aware of the error we were to offer this as a sin offering recognizing that we have erred.

If the offender is the priest that sin comes on all Israel (vs 3). In the case of a priest a bull was to be offered as the sin offering.

The laying of the hand on the head in this case probably is a transference of one’s sin but more likely his self along with his sin.

Whereas in the burnt offering or peace offering the blood was either sprinkled on the altar (1:5, 3:2) in this case the blood was sprinkled in the Holy Place before the veil of the sanctuary (vs 5f). He will put some of the blood on the altar of incense in the Holy Place. The rest of the blood would be poured on the altar outside.

Only the High Priest could go into the Holy of Holies and so the priest sprinkles the blood just outside that.

All the fat was offered to the Lord on the altar (vs 8-10). The rest of the bull was burnt outside the camp (vs 11-12) and was not given to the priest. Nothing is preserved. This separation of the fat and the rest of the animal probably signifies the two natures of man Paul speaks of in Romans 7:13-25 especially vs 25. That which desires to serve God with good is burnt on the altar. The evil is burnt outside the camp as a getting rid of the sinful nature.

Jesus’ death outside the city of Jerusalem was a fulfilment of this aspect of the sin offering. Jesus became sin taking our sinful nature and being crucified outside the city a sign that we are set free from our sinful nature.

In case of the nation sinning, the elders lay hands as representatives of the people (vs 15). If one of the rulers have sinned unintentionally in the duties of his office he is to offer a male goat and not a bull (vs 22f). But if the sin is done by an ordinary person the offering was a female goat (vs 28) or sheep (vs 32).

The sin offering of the ruler and the common man is not burnt outside the camp, but taken by the priest - Chapter 6:26. By the priest taking the sin offering he takes the sin as the representative of the people, and this is the priestly role that Jesus performs.

This is important in understanding Jesus’ offering on Calvary as for the kingdom of God rather than me individually. My salvation is as a member of the kingdom of God. Because of the distortion of the understanding of the kingdom in some churches this aspect is not popular now among Protestants.

Also the blood is not taken to the Holy place, but only the horns of the sacrificial altar was anointed with the blood and the rest poured out at the base of the altar.

So there is a distinction between the offering for the priest and for the nation and the rest of the offerings for individuals.

Leviticus 3

I had begun posting my Leviticus comments 2 years ago but did not continue. See September October 2015. Am resuming it.

Leviticus 3

The peace offering

The word translated ‘peace’ (vs 1) is shalom or to be whole. What exactly was meant to be made whole is not clear. The NIV takes it as relationships being made whole, and so translates it as ‘fellowship’ offering. Many commentators take it as an offering to make their relationship with God whole. It is seen as an expression of their love for Yahweh. But this is similar to the free will offering and the difference is not clear. In fact Lev 19:5 says that the peace offering is to be made not as a necessity but on the freewill of the worshiper.

Others see this as an offering for physical well-being, offered when sick or in difficulties.

Leviticus 7:11-16 indicates that one of the reason for making the peace offering is thankfulness or the fulfilment of a vow. It does not exclude other reasons, but would indicate that it was linked to thankfulness or receipt of something from God. This could be healing or delivery from a difficult situation and being made whole.

This offering is to be without blemish (vs 2). Laying on of hands here signifies transferring of ourselves. Our wholeness and our relationship with God comes from the surrender of ourselves to God. Unlike the burnt offering only a part of the offering was burnt on the altar. The rest was to be eaten by the priest within the Temple and was not for his family. Probably signifying that the part of me that is being rebellious and not submissive to Yahweh is surrendered to Yahweh and our relationship made whole. In that sense it is similar to the sin offering.

All the fat around the liver and kidneys, and all the stomach fat will be burnt before on the altar. The blood signifying the life of the person making the peace offering is poured out at the base of the altar.

Unlike the burnt offering the offering here could be a male or a female animal. Also unlike the burnt offering the animal could be from the herd or the flock and not a bird.

The restrictions are repeated, identically for the other animals.

According to Lev 3:16f not only is blood prohibited as food, but also the fat from the kidneys, liver and stomach area is banned as these are to be given totally to Yahweh. This is a perpetual statute not to be changed. However in Acts 15:29 listing the prohibitions to be observed by the Gentiles fat is not mentioned, though blood is.

AUTHOR STIR

Jesus’s atoning sacrifice acts as our Peace offering and restores our relationship with God bringing healing in all areas of our life. Has this been a reality in your life?

Ezekiel 22:30 – What does it mean – Intercessor or Jesus?

So I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one.

This has been traditionally interpreted as seeking for someone to intercede on behalf of the nation and to turn away the wrath of Yahweh. Hence this is used to encourage people to pray for their nation, and the impact one person can have on the history of a nation.

However, in the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy and of the judgement of Judah by Babylon, Jeremiah and his colleague Baruch, and they were weeping and interceding for Judah. So, if Ezekiel 22:30 refers to the absence of intercessors, it would not be true. But if it refers to Jesus, it would be true. By turning away to idols Judah had lost the protective covering of Jesus and so the judgement of God came upon the nation. Jesus is the only Intercessor and Mediator between a nation and God.

Since we have been sent like Jesus, we can intercede also in the name of Jesus, but the nation cannot afford to refuse the protection of Jesus by turning to other gods of this world.

Understanding 1 Peter 3:19

1 Peter 3:18-4:6 has been a difficult passage to understand. I would like to recommend one line of interpretation that is not heard of much.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him. Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you. They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this reason the gospel was preached also to those who are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

The key to understanding this passage seems to lie in the concept of baptism as a dying to self and a resurrection to live for God. This concept is seen in Romans 6:1-6 and Galatians 2:20.

So, verse 18 begins with the thought that on the cross Jesus suffered for our sins and rose again by the Spirit which becomes a type for the antitype of baptism.

Verse 19-20 taken together says, that “by whom”, i.e. the Spirit, Jesus preached to those who sinned in the time of Noah. Only those came through the flood was saved – eight souls. This is best seen as the Spirit preaching through Noah to his generation.

The confusion comes by the term ‘preached to the spirits in prison’. That gives rise to interpretations that Jesus went and preached to them sometime in His ministry. Many see this as between the death and the resurrection as said in the Nicene creed – he descended in to hell. But the expression could mean, those spirits who were condemned and sent to hell. In the present when Peter is writing they are in prison, but when the word was preached to them they were one earth. If you look at the passage carefully, you will find that nowhere it says when this word was preached to them. Peter did not explain probably because he was clear in his mind as to what he was saying.

In verse 21 he now links this to baptism, which is not seen as a washing away of sins, but a regeneration and a new person. Just as Noah and his family were saved coming through the judgement on the world, we also are saved by coming through the judgement of the cross with Jesus.

1 Peter 4:1 has another difficult statement based on the same idea, ‘he who has suffered does not sin.’ This is same thought in Romans 6:1-6. He who has died in baptism does not sin or commit himself to sin. Suffering here is death continuing the thought of 1 Peter 3:18, and not physical suffering as such.

We see this idea of judging the flesh also in 1 Peter 4:6 where the gospel is preached to the spiritually dead so that in baptism they can die and live by the Spirit. This is the purpose of preaching.

What is the Old Covenant and what is the New?

Jeremiah 31 speaks of the new covenant God will make with Israel. But what is the old covenant that is being replaced. Most Christians tend to think that the old covenant is salvation by works and the new covenant salvation by faith. But that this erroneous is apparent from Paul’s argument in Romans 2 to 4 and 9. The old covenant was also salvation by faith!!

What is the old covenant? The old covenant grows out of God’s covenant with Abraham. So let us look at these covenants with Abraham and Moses.

The first covenant with Abraham is Genesis 12:1-3 where no works are demanded except to get out of his father’s house and to go to the promised land. If he went to the Promised Land God would bless him and make him a blessing.

The second covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 15:1-11 where an unconditional promise is given to Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation. In this covenant, the Exodus event is indicated in verses 13-14 as a part of the covenant with Abraham. This passage also contains the well-known verse 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and He accounted it to him for righteousness”. It is important here to note that the word righteousness carries within it the meaning of salvation.

The third covenant with Abraham is in Genesis 17:1-14. Here God begins in verse 4 saying that God’s covenant is with Abraham, to make him the father of many nations. Verse 7 says that this would be an everlasting covenant with his descendants and God would give these descendants the promised land. No conditions are given. The sign of this covenant, that they were chosen by God, was circumcision (vs 10). To remain in this covenant relationship, they needed to carry on them the sign of the covenant, otherwise they were cast off (vs 14).

We now come to the covenant with Moses in Exodus. The Exodus event begins with the Passover celebration. Again here no conditions are put. God has rescued them and they were to put the blood of the Passover lamb on their houses so the judgment would not come on them. No works were required, only an expression of their faith in Yahweh and the Passover sacrifice.

In Exodus 19:4-6

 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Verse 5 “if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me “ is seen as a verse expressing salvation by works. But is that true? Verse 4 says that God has, with no conditions, brought them out of Egypt to HIMSELF.  Now if they lived by obedience to Yahweh, God would make them a nation of priests, or they would fulfill God’s purpose for them.

The succeeding verses then spells how they could make themselves into a nation of priests.

The book of Deuteronomy often speaks of the Old Testament. These need to be studied carefully. You should note that the disobedience that leads to separation from God is worshiping other gods and not breaking one of the commands.

Deuteronomy 4:3-4 makes this very clear. Those who left Yahweh died and those who stayed with Yahweh lived. Verse 5 and 6 says that if they lived by the Law they would be a testimony to the nations around them. This is the covenant referred to in verse 13 and the Laws are spelt out in the succeeding verses.

Deuteronomy 4:23 says that forgetting the covenant was to worship other gods. Similarly, if you read Deuteronomy 9-12 carefully, you will see that these chapters speak of God’s unconditional love for Israel and how if Israel obeyed the commands they would fulfill God’s purpose for them.

This is essentially the same relationship we have with God in the New Covenant. He saved us in Jesus, and if we are loyal to Him and avoid other gods, we have salvation. The more we live by the teachings of Jesus the more we fulfill His purpose for us.

Then what is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New?

Primarily two.

One is obvious, which is the finished work of Jesus, so that we know how secure our future with God is. But what Jeremiah refers to is the writing of the Law in our hearts (Jer 31:33) and we do not need anyone to teach us (Jer 31:34). Compare this with 1 John 2:27. Here it is the presence of the Holy Spirit that makes this a reality. So the difference between the Old Covenant and the New is not Works and Grace, but the out pouring of the Holy Spirit on all flesh as prophesied in Joel. In the Old I had to fulfil God’s purpose on my own, in the New I fulfil with the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, let us leave the Old and move on to the New.

Consequence of sin - can we escape it?

In 2 Samuel 12:7-12 Nathan’s brings God’s word against David for his sin. This word includes “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house because you have despised Me …” (verse 10).

David then in verse 13 says I have sinned and Nathan says that God has put away your sin. He then says “because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die (verse 14).

The question which arises from vs 13 is “If David’s sin was put away by God, why was the punishment of vs 10 not put away?”

Is the punishment like Karma, a must that cannot be avoided and only escape from banishment to hell the only protection in Jesus Christ? That is not acceptable in the light of Jonah’s preaching turning away the destruction of Nineveh, at least temporarily.

Is there then an alternative understanding of verse 10 not as a punishment but a prophecy of the consequence of the sin? Just as excessive drinking leads to a ‘cirrhosis of the liver’ so the despising of God by David led to despising of God by his children and resultant internecine fighting. Can verse 10 be interpreted as a prophecy instead of a judgement? Or possibly both?

Does that mean that the consequences cannot be reversed while the punishment can? That would be pushing God into a box. I would rather say that the ‘cirrhosis’ can be cured miraculously and so the consequence avoided, but this is not the norm by which God works. Usually we go through the consequences with God at our side.