“The women proclaiming the good news are a large army.” – Ps. 68:11
Introduction
The article opens by quoting Genesis 2:18 which says that the first woman was created as woman a complement of the man. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “complement” refers to ‘completing or fulfilling’.
Complement, noun.
“A thing which, when added, completes or makes up a whole; either of two mutually completing parts.”
The latter definition seems to apply here, for while Eve completed Adam, Adam completed Eve. Though angels are also created in God’s image, there is no corollary to this unique human relationship in the spirit realm. Both sexes are made in God’s image; neither is lessor nor greater than the other in God’s eyes.
“. . .And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.” (Ge 1:27)
The wording of this verse indicates that “man” refers to human, not the male, for man—male and female—was created in God’s image.
Paragraph 2 speaks of the unique privilege that humans enjoy of being able to procreate their kind—something angels cannot do. Perhaps this is one of the things that tempted the angels of Noah’s day to take women for themselves.
An Ironic Point
After concluding that man’s rulership has failed utterly, paragraph 5 states: “Realizing that fact, we acknowledge Jehovah as our Ruler. – Read Proverbs 3:5, 6”
There is considerable irony in the publisher’s choice of Proverbs 3:5,6 to support the idea that we are acknowledging Jehovah as ruler, for that scripture tells us to ‘trust in Jehovah and not to rely on our own understanding.’ With that in mind, consider Philippians 2:9-11:
“. . .For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”
So the one Jehovah tells us to acknowledge as Lord or Ruler is Jesus, not himself. It is to Jesus that every knee should bend in submission. If our tongues are to openly acknowledge Jesus as Lord, why are we leaning on our own understanding and ignoring him in favor of Jehovah. This may seem logical to us. We may reason that Jehovah is the ultimate king, so there’s no harm in bypassing Jesus and going right to the source. However, in leaning on our own understanding, we ignore the fact that we openly acknowledge Jesus as Lord to the glory of God, the Father. Jehovah wants us to do it this way for it brings him glory as well, and by not doing it this way, we are denying God the glory he deserves.
Not a good position for us to put ourselves in.
Foolish Pharaoh
Paragraph 11 speaks of the decree of Pharaoh to kill all the male Hebrew babies because the Hebrews were growing in number and the Egyptians saw this as a threat. Pharaoh’s solution was stupid. If one wants to control population growth, one doesn’t kill off the males. The female is the bottleneck to population growth. Start with 100 men and 100 women. Kill 99 men and you can still have a birthrate of 100 children a year. Kill 99 women on the other hand and even with 100 males, you’re not going to get more than one child a year. So Pharaoh’s population control plan was doomed before it started. Mind you, considering how his son behaved 80 years later when Moses returned from self-imposed exile, it's obvious that wisdom was not a royal family trait.
Bias Rears Its Ugly Head
Paragraph 12 gives way to male-oriented bias by contradicting what is plainly stated in God’s Word. “In the days of Israel’s judges, one woman who had God’s backing was the prophetess Deborah. She encouraged Judge Barak…” This statement is in harmony with the “Outline of Contents” for the book of Judges in the NWT 2013 Edition, which lists Deborah as a prophetess and Barak as a Judge. Likewise, Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 743 fails to include Deborah in its list of the judges of Israel.
Now consider what God’s word says.
“. . .Now Deb′o·rah, a prophetess, the wife of Lap′pi·doth, was judging Israel at that time. 5 She used to sit under Deb′o·rah’s palm tree between Ra′mah and Beth′el in the mountainous region of E′phra·im; the Israelites would go up to her for judgment.” (Jg 4:4, 5 NWT)
Barak is not mentioned even once in the Bible as a judge. So the only reason that we discount Deborah as a judge and appoint Barak in her stead is because we cannot accept that a woman could occupy a divinely appointed position of oversight that would allow her to direct and instruct a man. Our bias trumps what is plainly stated in God’s word. How often true Christian have been challenged with the question, “Do you think you know more than the Governing Body?” Well, it appears that the Governing Body thinks it knows more than Jehovah, for they are blatantly contradicting his Word.
There can be no doubt that Barak’s position was subservient to Deborah. It was she who summoned him and she who gave him Jehovah’s orders.
“. . .She sent for Ba′rak the son of A·bin′o·am out of Ke′desh-naph′ta·li and said to him: “Has not Jehovah the God of Israel given the command? ‘Go and march to Mount Ta′bor, and take 10,000 men of Naph′ta·li and Zeb′u·lun with you.” (Jg 4:6 NWT)
In turn, Barak recognized her appointed status, for he feared to fight the enemy without her presence beside him.
“. . .At this Ba′rak said to her: “If you go with me, I will go, but if you do not go with me, I will not go.” (Jg 4:8 NWT)
She not only commanded him on Jehovah’s behalf, but encouraged him.
“. . .Deb′o·rah now said to Ba′rak: “Rise up, for this is the day that Jehovah will give Sis′e·ra into your hand. Is Jehovah not going out before you?” And Ba′rak descended from Mount Ta′bor with 10,000 men following him.” (Jg 4:14 NWT)
Clearly, Deborah—a woman—was Jehovah’s Appointed Channel of Communication at that time. There may be a reason that we so unashamedly demote Deborah from her divinely appointed place. The Governing Body has recently anointed themselves as God’s Appointed Channel of Communication. Consider this in light of Peter’s words about a feature that would manifest itself during the last days.
“. . .On the contrary, this is what was said through the prophet Joel, 17 ‘“And in the last days,” God says, “I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and YOUR sons and YOUR daughters will prophesy and YOUR young men will see visions and YOUR old men will dream dreams; 18 and even upon my men slaves and upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.” (Ac 2:16-18 NWT)
The women were to prophesy. This occurred in the first century. For example, Philip the evangelizer had four unmarried daughters who prophesied. (Acts 21:9)
The simple declaration of our Lord is that the slave he judges as faithful upon his return, is so judged on the basis of giving food at the proper time. The Governing Body take this statement to mean the slave has the sole right to interpret prophesy and reveal Bible truth.
If we accept that argument, then we must also accept that women would occupy a place in that slave, otherwise, how can Joel’s words come true? If we were in the last days in Peter’s time, how much more so are we now in the last days? Therefore, should not Jehovah’s spirit continue to be poured out on men and women who will prophesy? Or did the fulfillment of Joel’s words end in the first century?
Peter, in his next breath, says:
“19 And I will give portents in heaven above and signs on earth below, blood and fire and smoke mist; 20 the sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and illustrious day of Jehovah* arrives. 21 And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah* will be saved.”’” (Ac 2:19-21 NWT) *[or more accurately, “the Lord”]
Now Jehovah’s day/the Lord’s day has not yet arrived. We have not seen a darkened sun and a bloodshot moon, nor heavenly portents nor earthly signs. Yet, this will happen or Jehovah’s word is moot, and that can never happen.
To prophesy means to speak inspired utterances. Jesus was called a prophet by the Samaritan woman even though he only told her things that had already happened. (John 4:16-19) When we preach to others about God's word as revealed to us by holy spirit, we are prophesying in that sense of the word. Whether that sense is sufficient to fulfill Joel's words in our day, or whether there will be some grander fulfillment in our future when the signs and portents are being manifested, who can say? We'll just have to wait to see. However, whichever turns out to be the correct application of those prophetic words, one thing is beyond dispute: Both men and women will play a role. Our current doctrine that all revelation comes through a tiny forum of males does not fulfill Bible prophecy.
We cannot prepare ourselves for the wonderful things Jehovah will yet reveal if we give way to biased thinking by bending the knee to men and accepting their interpretation over what is plainly stated in the Holy Word of God.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-09-28 14:12:42
Meleti, another insightful expose of the Watchtower. It does seem that they keep shooting themselves in the foot.
"We cannot prepare ourselves for the wonderful things Jehovah will yet reveal if we give way to biased thinking by bending the knee to men and accepting their interpretation over what is plainly stated in the Holy Word of God."
This is certainly cause for self-examination. It is as you state, Jehovah will yet reveal how he views us and our actions regarding biased thinking, and what he considers "bending the knee to men" actually means to Him.
To me it begs the question, where is the line between putting our ‘trust in Jehovah and not to rely on our own understanding?’ Proverbs 3:5,6 I will pose that question in the discussion board so I can clarify my own understanding of that scripture.
Comment by Saskawoo on 2014-09-28 14:38:56
This happens a lot. In the January Watchtower, an issue which dealt with taking care of the elderly, they mentioned the story of Anna but if you read it, they make her out to be just an old woman who never missed a meeting. They also make sure to mention what a tragedy it is that she couldn't possibly have been one of the anointed (!) But here is what the Bible says:
Luke 2
36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (she was of a great age, having lived with a husband seven years from her virginity, 37 and she had been a widow even unto fourscore and four years), who departed not from the temple, worshipping with fastings and supplications night and day. 38 And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks unto God, and spake of him to all them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem
This was a huge eye-opener for me. They "quoted" the scripture but left out the "prophetess" part. Why?
Comment by kev c on 2014-09-28 15:46:32
The role of women in gods purpose . The theme scripture seems to limit the spiritual role to that of preaching the good news in the territory . Its probably much more than that .I think its important to get the right balance though .Romans 16 v1 and 2 is interesting about phoebe who was a servant at Cenchrea .it seems she had some sort of special spiritual assignment given to her.Romans 16 also speaks of Priscilla .Mary.Tryphena .Tryphosa .Persis all these women somehow worked very hard in the lord. I think it possible that some of these women could have been what we know as ministerial servants in the congregations for 1 Timothy 3 v11 could be translated in the same way women or wives greek gyna i think are to be worthy of respect not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything . I think its possible that it could be outlining the qualifications of a woman to be a servant .Its not a teaching position but a position that gives support to the congregation . As many women today do in in many congregations of JWs even doing the work of the MS without the official label its a position of a helper is it not.. I Think women did prophesy in the first century .but im not sure they would have done it in the congregation 1 corinthians 34 and 35 as this may have caused the impression of a lack of respect to their husband in a male dominated society .The role of women in worship is clearly defined for us though at 1 timothy 2 v9 to 15 and Titus 2 v 3to 5 . Well done to all you women out there for the encouragement given on this site also my local sister who i study the bible with without which i would find things very difficult . Also my lovely mrs as well . Kev ps i didnt want to go into the watchtower article to much i dont think it did our women enough justice .
Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-09-28 18:36:25
Outstanding article Meleti!
This article has me looking at those scriptures in a different way. In your view, how can we reconcile scriptures like 1 Cor 14:33-35 and1 Timothy 2:12 ?Paul seems to teach that women should have non teaching roles in the congregation despite that some had the ability to prophesy. As fars as the scripture in 1 Timothy goes the context IMO suggests that Paul was addressing a specific situation with Timothy.
I always wondered why we are expected to turn over Bible studies with men. Especially if another brother or sister is always sitting in...Reply by Saskawoo on 2014-09-28 23:35:38
In Roman society a man owned his wife and children and could legally kill them for disobedience. I'm speculating, but I imagine the relative equality between men and women in Christianity was another reason they were feared and hated. Women would have had a really hard time going out and teaching. It would be dangerous and nobody would listen. And most women would have no education whatsoever, so that means no reading or writing - they (like many men) would be disqualified from teaching just for not having the public speaking and other skills required of a leader. The reality is that most women of the time would probably have been rather stupid because no one thought it worthwhile to invest any time in teaching them anything. It's just the way it was. I think that Paul's proscriptions were either due to his Roman/Pharisee bias and/or his experience in a congregation with some particularly obnoxious women.
So this is where it stands: Any man can teach. A woman can teach if she's directly chosen by God. God doesn't directly choose people anymore, except for the anointed. There are women that are of the anointed, who are directly chosen by God, but these can not be teachers because Paul said women should be silent.
But yes, the greater issue is what this has to do with the distinction between the "faithful and discreet slave", the "anointed" and the "great crowd". I used to think women would be dropped from the anointed to make things work, but as you said Meleti, it appears to be another justification for them choosing instead to separate themselves from the mass of "anointed" to keep the ruling clique closed.Reply by anderestimme on 2014-09-29 12:15:31
"I think that Paul’s proscriptions were either due to his Roman/Pharisee bias and/or his experience in a congregation with some particularly obnoxious women."
Wouldn't this view call into question the inspiration of Paul's writings?Reply by saskawoo on 2014-09-30 09:51:00
The alternative is to believe that Jehovah breaks his own rules.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-29 08:26:48
I'd never heard of this Roman law before. Can you provide us with some reference material to corroborate?
Reply by Saskawoo on 2014-09-30 14:18:44
As in any society, the laws changed over time. You see things swinging from conservative to more liberal and back again depending on the overall political climate. The PBS series "Rome in the First Century" I think gives a good idea of the ever-changing environment that the early Christians lived in. Augustus was emperor when Christ was born, and this reign saw a return to conservatism. Here are some of his reforms:
A father could kill his daughter and her lover if he caught them in the act of adultery.
In his own home, a husband could kill his wife and her lover if he caught them in the act of adultery.
(this might seem palatable to some people, but there was no reciprocal law for women whose husbands cheated because it was about racial purity and bloodlines, not justice- women as breeding stock - not at all unusual for the ancient world).
Both men and women HAD to marry.
The poet Juvenal wrote about how scandalous it was that women were attempting to discuss politics and other "manly" matters, and attributed the recent misfortunes of his nation to these "meddling women".(because it couldn't have possibly been anything else like squabbles over power or Carthage or an over-extended military...)
I've been trying to learn more about history. I like to understand things in context. It brings the episodes in the Bible to life. I think learning about them in isolation takes away the complexity - you really don't get a sense of just how revolutionary Jesus' message was without at least attempting to get into the ancient mind. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe it possible that prevailing attitudes would have colored the opinions of Bible writers. I believe Paul admits as much when he says "I forbid a woman..." not "God forbids a woman.." and refers to Jewish law to back up his stance. Paul was an organizer, a necessary role. Was he inspired when bragging about how he suffered more than anyone else, went to prison more than anyone else, endured more hardships than anyone else? He even says, basically, "hey, I know I sound like a braggart, but here goes..." (2 Cor 11) He had clashes with other leaders. They had their differences about things like the application of Mosaic law to Gentiles. It's Ok for me, it just makes them human. I would say it is faith-strengthening, not faith-crushing, but again, that's just me.
Also I am sorry for posting so much on this topic, it's just one that I've thought a lot about.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-29 08:28:43
Hi GWIT. I'm going to attempt to reply to your question in an addendum post.
Comment by Anonymous. on 2014-09-28 19:55:00
Great article, Meleti. I have one question though. Early in the article you said:
"for man—male and female—was created in God’s image."
I take it that you're saying both male and female should be viewed as being equally made in God's image. How then do you reconcile that idea with what this text says:
"(1 Corinthians 11:7-9) . . .For a man ought not to have his head covered, as he is God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory. 8 For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man; 9 and, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man."
The above passage seems to me to be saying that the male human gender is more directly made in the image of God than is the female gender which is patterned more so after man's image than God's. The text further goes on to say that women were made to please/serve men and not the other way around. The bible does seem to clearly put men above women and relegate women to a somewhat inferior position, sad to say.Reply by Saskawoo on 2014-09-28 23:44:33
Then why is it always translated as "them" rather than "he"? Since God only made one Adam, who is "them"? I often hear it quoted as "him" but most Bibles seem to actually use "them".
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.(KJV)Reply by Anonymous. on 2014-09-29 00:07:24
Yes, I get what Genesis 1:26,27 is saying. Mankind - both male and female - is made in God's image. However, 1 Corinthians 11:7 clearly suggests that the male gender is more directly made in the image of God than the female gender. The female gender is said to reflect the glory of the male while the male is said to reflect the glory of God. So even though it says both are made in God's image, Corinthians adds that the male gender is a greater likeness of the image of God than the female gender.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-29 08:24:22
Good question. I’m going to write an addendum to the article in an attempt to answer it.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-29 08:25:35
Based on the context of the scripture you've cited, the "them" would refer to the man and woman, but given what God says in the next verses, it refers to all mankind yet to come.
Reply by anderestimme on 2014-09-29 14:00:36
In light of the fact that Jason BeDuhn in his book "Truth in Translation", chastised the NWT for changing the woman's name "Junia" at Rom. 16.7 to a man's name (Junias) that doesn't exist, I can only see the revised NWT's use of "Junias" as an example of particularly stubborn male bias. It would be naïve to think that the organization's take on the role of women in the Christian congregation wouldn't also be colored by the same bias.
I've always been amused that the participation of the sisters in the TMS is viewed as not violating the 'no female teachers' rule, when all it really does is use a technicality to work around the letter of the law while violating its (perceived) spirit. If you tell your kid not to tell something to John but you later find out that he told Harry to tell John, will you feel like you were obeyed?
Given that the teaching format and authority structure of the early Christian congregations are not clearly defined in scripture, I would think that, in the present-day setting, the 'no female teachers' rule should be much more cautiously applied than it is so as not to stifle the kind of insights and viewpoints that our sisters can provide, and of which we men are so much in need. Part of the problem probably has to do with the formal, speaker/audience separation in the meetings. If part of the meeting were devoted to open discussion, then women would have their say without ever having to get up on the platform. To some extent this happens in the question and answer parts, but the material is too tightly scripted to allow true freedom of expression.
Another possibility, to play sexist's advocate, is that Paul was saying that holding positions of teaching and authority is something for which women are generally not best suited, any more than men are generally well suited for picking out baby shower gifts. I get the feeling that at least some in this forum will find that logic highly suspect.
Whatever the case, one thing is sure: the God who told Abraham to "listen to her voice" is not a god who holds female viewpoints in contempt.Reply by menrov on 2014-09-30 04:01:20
Hi, regarding Junia or Junias, here is a comment from NET translators on this verse:
The feminine name Junia, though common in Latin, is quite rare in Greek (apparently only three instances of it occur in Greek literature outside Rom 16:7, according to the data in the TLG [D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 922]). The masculine Junias (as a contraction for Junianas), however, is rarer still: Only one instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband-wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila [v. 3], Philologus and Julia [v. 15]), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in v. 12 all three individuals are women [though the first two are linked together], and in vv. 9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). If it refers to a woman, it is possible (1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles. As well, the term “prominent” probably means “well known,” suggesting that Andronicus and Junia(s) were well known to the apostles (see note on the phrase “well known” which follows).
In summary, it is believed Junia is slightly more preferred than Junias for the reasons given. If NWT only ues Junias, to support their agenda, it explains why do not explain why they have decided to say Junias instead of Junia.
Comment by blessednubian on 2014-09-28 22:35:23
This has certainly been eye opening for me. It would appear that the WTBTS has been caught yet again shooting itself in the foot! (If this keeps up the will develop a permanent limp!) Thank you for all your hard work Brother. Your efforts are so very much appreciated!
Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-09-29 02:43:50
"The reality is that most women of the time would probably have been rather stupid because no one thought it worthwhile to invest any time in teaching them anything"
Saskawoo, Intelligence is not measured by how much book learning you have. Not being able to read and write does not make anyone stupid, imo.Reply by anderestimme on 2014-09-29 14:18:28
CG2, you're definitely right that ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. I've met 'ignorant' people who were sharp as a tack, and people with phds who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag. However, clear thinking is not something we're born with. If we are able to think and learn, it's because we were taught to do those things. If Saskawoo's premise is that women in Roman times were not taught to think and learn, then his conclusion is likely correct.
Reply by saskawoo on 2014-09-30 09:35:36
You're right, poorly worded. I guess I just meant to stress their low status in general in Rome. Its really very hard for me to fathom.
Comment by menrov on 2014-09-29 06:03:04
Just going through the article but first looked at what was said about the objective of the study article:
"Learn what the rebellion against God has meant for men and women. Consider the experiences of some faithful women of the past. Also, find out how Christian women contribute to God’s work today"
Of course, the WT first needs to mention REBELLION again, ..... well, I will now read the article and see how these items are discussed.
Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-09-29 06:51:16
It's all to do with human nature.
Comment by menrov on 2014-09-29 11:34:54
Opening image: funny, it shows life in Eden but Eve is not naked anymore…..
Par. 2: yes, the word privilege is used again. WHy?? If that was the purpose, it is not privilege but a natural result of the purpose.
Was the ability to reproduce a gift, in the sense it was to be seen as something on top? Or should it be seen as a “tool” provided in order to fulfil the task. Otherwise, how else could they fulfil the task to fill the earth.
Par 3 states: 3 To receive the blessings set before them, Adam and Eve would have to obey Jehovah and acknowledge his rulership.
This is incorrect as Gen. 1:28 reads that God blessed them. Blessed here more or less means God provided them the ability to do something.
Par. 4 actually is not in line with what Paul states. It is correct that sin came through Adam but that is because he is the man, via seed one creates offspring. However, with regard who was to blame in Eden, Paul was very clear: 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression.
Par. 5 is standard WT stuff. Yes, last century was rather bloody but the centuries before, since Adam and Noah were not much better. Hence to state it was for a time…hmmm, rather very long time.
Par. 6: Males are favored in some societies…..also in the congregation I would like to add.
Par 7: The mistreatment of women certainly does not please God. He treats women justly and respects them…. True but in Mosaic Law, the positon of the woman was not always equal to men.
Par. 8 tries to prove that time we live in are the Last Days as mentioned by Paul. However, what has been described there started already when the Apostles fell away. The medieval times were not the nicest time: crusades, wars, colonization, harsh prisons, many illnesses, no rights for women or children….
Par. 9 claims all wifes feared God. There is no proof at all of that. It was Noah and because of his od fearing behavior God blessed him and save him and his family.
Par. 10 tries to convince the reader that a good woman is one that does not complain…What about Hannah or Sarah complaining about the other woman??
Par. 15: What a privilege it was to be the mother of the greatest man ever to live on earth!
Well, I believe Mary was to mother the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God….
Par 16: 16 Jesus was very kind to women…..what statement is this? He became our example of how to treat our neighbor, incl. women…
When all is read, does a woman who is a member of the congregation of Jehovah Witnesses actually got a clear picture of their / her role in Gods purpose? Most likely they will remember that women serve and minister apostles (those who lead) but without roles for men.
Is that indeed the role of women in Gods purpose?Reply by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-09-29 12:23:18
Menrov, I am amused at your style of writing.
Have you ever considered being a comedienne? You really just plowed right through that Watchtower! I admire your honesty and boldness, your "take no prisoners!" attitude.
This is not meant to make light of your meaning in any way. It is a serious thing that the Watchtower does, using clever, deceptive, biased words to distort God's Word. Those words are the spiritual food our blinded brothers and sisters feast on and it slides down so easily, no chewing required.Reply by menrov on 2014-09-30 03:53:36
hahahah. many thanks. But I am a guy (I believe ....) hence I could consider to become a comedian...
In all seriousness, yes, I did read the WT paragraph per paragraph. But, as I have put off my WT glasses, I noticed how they (the society) actually writes their articles:
the (over) use of adverbs (even to a level it becomes annoying),, the use of bible verses to apparently prove a point but where the actual verse does not prove the point at all, misleading construction of a sentence or paragraph, trying to lead the reader to a conclusion.
As a result, I am convinced most JW's do not see how this technique actually influences them. They believe (like I did) that they read and draw their own conclusions but in fact the article make them draw a predefined conclusion.
That is why I sometimes provide my views per paragraph as I have the desire to make others aware.
Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-09-29 12:36:04
*** it-1 p. 255 Barak ***
"The prophetess Deborah, WHO WAS THEN JUDGING ISRAEL, spurs Barak to take the initiative in freeing his people."
(capitalization mine)Reply by The Way on 2014-09-29 15:21:52
It's curious the Insight book has a list of 12 judges, listing Barak and excluding Deborah. But in Aid to Bible Understanding the list has 13 members, including (13) Eli. Furthermore the Insight book acknowledges Samuel - as well as Eli - judged Israel but says "Samuel is not usually counted among the Judges."
If we look at the biblical data, there are not 12, not 13, but 14 persons expressly named as "judges" during the period of the Judges, before the Kings. And one of them was a woman:
(1) Othniel
'Jehovah raised up a savior to rescue the Israelites', 'the judge of Israel' - Jg 3:9, 10
(2) Ehud
'Jehovah raised up for them a savior' - Jg 3:15
(3) Shamgar
'After him [Ehud] was Shamgar; he too saved Israel' - Jg 3:31
(4) Deborah
'was judging Israel at that time; the Israelites would go up to her for judgment' - Jg 4:4-5
'until I, Deborah, rose up, until I rose up as a mother in Israel' - Jg 5:7
(4*) Barak
---- rather described as chief or commander of the army; the executive working in tandem with Deborah
'Then Jehovah sent Jerubbaal [= Gideon, Jg 6:32] and Bedan [= Barak ?] and Jephthah and Samuel and rescued you' - 1Sa 12:11
Barak was indeed sent by Jehovah THROUGH His word BY DEBORAH.
(5) Gideon
'[Jehovah's angel:] you will save Israel' - Jg 6:14
(6) Tola
'rose up to save Israel', 'He judged Israel for 23 years.' - Jg 10:1, 2
(7) Jair
'rose up and judged Israel for 22 years' - Jg 10:3
(8) Jephthah
'Jephthah judged Israel for six years' - Jg 12:7
(9) Ibzan
'judged Israel after him', 'He judged Israel for seven years' - Jg 12:8, 9
(10) Elon
'After him Elon judged Israel; he judged Israel for ten years' - Jg 12:11
(11) Abdon
'After him Abdon judged Israel. He judged Israel for eight years.' - Jg 12:13-14
(12) Samson
'[Jehovah's angel:] he will take the lead in saving Israel' - Jg 13:5
'he judged Israel for 20 years' - Jg 15:20
'He had judged Israel for 20 years.' - Jg 16:31
(13) Eli
'He had judged Israel for 40 years.' - 1Sa 4:18
(14) Samuel
'Samuel kept on judging Israel throughout his life', 'he judged Israel in all these places' - 1Sa 7:15-17Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-09-29 18:55:24
Curious too is that “Judge Barak” shows up 71 times when searched on the WT Library. How many times does Judge Deborah appear? 0
Only once Questions From Readers (w80 11/1 p. 30) is this challenged: “In view of Judges 4:4, can Deborah be viewed as one of the judges of ancient Israel, along with Samson, Gideon and others?”
I guess what I find most disturbing is that while the scripture simply reads that Deborah “was judging Israel at that time” there is no scriptural reference for the statement: “She was used by Jehovah to call Barak to serve as judge.”
Instead of reasoning this further we are simply reminded that “‘judging Israel at that particular time’ does not mean that Deborah was usurping the place of a man.” So perhaps the bigger question should’ve been, why was she even judging in the first place? Maybe that was a question too hot to handle for a male dominated writing committee?
In fact, nowhere in scripture is Barak ever referred to as a judge which leaves empty of any reason for its final statement—“Thus the book Aid to Bible Understanding, on page 980, in listing the judges of Israel, does not include Deborah.”Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-09-30 07:54:01
Thanks for the reference, smolderingwick1.
That "Questions from Readers" uses the reasoning that a key role of the judge was to save the people from their enemies; ergo, the judges were saviors; ergo, Barak was a judge because he killed the enemy, but not Deborah because she didn't wield a sword. (Judges 2:16)
Yet, isn't it the commander-in-chief of the army that gets the credit or glory for saving the people? Deborah summoned Barak and gave him Jehovah's orders. (vs. 6,7) Jehovah never spoke directly to Barak as was the case with the other judges. Barak wouldn't fight without Deborah by his side, so she was there at the battle, directing the maneuvers. (vs. 8, 14) So who was the savior?
Samuel was a judge also, ergo, a savior of Israel, but he didn't lead men into war like Barak, so being the leader of an army wasn't a requirement of being a judge.
The "Question from Readers" attempts to prove Barak was a judge because he ranks with other judges listed at Hebrews 11:32. They ignore the fact that David wasn't a judge, but a king. This isn't a listing of Judges but of valiant men of faith. As one of those he has a place in that ranking.
Again, we use our flawed reasoning to try to support a bias even though it means adding to scripture what is not there ("Judge Barak") and removing what is ("Judge Deborah").Reply by menrov on 2014-09-30 08:47:43
Some more on Deborah from NET with footnotes (numbers in the verse refer to the footnotes below):
Judges 4:4 Now Deborah, a prophetess, 8 wife of Lappidoth, was 9 leading 10 Israel at that time. 5 She would sit 11 under the Date Palm Tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel 12 in the Ephraimite hill country. The Israelites would come up to her to have their disputes settled. 13
8 tn Heb “ a woman, a prophetess.” In Hebrew idiom the generic “woman” sometimes precedes the more specific designation. See GKC 437-38 §135.b.
9 tn Heb “she was.” The pronoun refers back to the nominative absolute “Deborah.” Hebrew style sometimes employs such resumptive pronouns when lengthy qualifiers separate the subject from the verb.
10 tn Or “judging.”
11 tn That is, “consider legal disputes.”
Was she call a judge? No maybe not but she was referred to as a woman that was there to judge and consider legal disputes. A woman of authority. Hence she could as is verse 6, summon Barak.
I guess one is a judge when you are appointed to judge, like Deborah. I do not read Barak was appointed to judge.
Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-09-29 14:32:51
"Paul was saying that holding positions of teaching and authority is something for which women are generally not best suited, any more than men are generally well suited for picking out baby shower gifts."
anderestimme, Discounting the exceptions to every rule, I agree with you. To me it is illogical to think that men and women have the same abilities. Our bodies are made differently. In some areas, women are superior to men. Likewise, in some areas, men are superior to women. I think denying that fact causes much stress in marriages.
It is the differences between men and women that gives life more joy and meaning. Since men and women think differently, it also adds to the confusion in communicating, though that is something that can be learned if one is willing.
The Bible says that woman was made as a complement to man. It's my belief that men and women compliment each other. Meaning that, generally speaking, when one mate is weak in an area, usually the other mate is stronger. Recognizing that can lead to a stronger marriage and union.
This is not to say that men and women are not equal in God's eyes. Jesus sacrifice applies to both sexes equally, the same price for each person, meaning no one is more valuable or less valuable than any one else.
Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-09-29 15:00:27
anderestimme, Not to belabor the point, BUT I still maintain that women of those times were capable of both learning and thinking. They learned how to prepare for and cook a meal without ever going to school. They were capable of making and mending their families clothes. They learned how to keep a house clean. They learned how to care for their babies. They probably had to grow some of their own food.
The men may have spent their day learning all sorts of things, philosophizing, politicking, fighting wars and otherwise running the country, but come mealtime, or time to get dressed each morning, I submit they could not have functioned as they did without a woman who had knowledge and skills and who knew how to think, even though they had only soft skills.Reply by anderestimme on 2014-09-30 17:36:32
CG2, I guess I could have worded that better, but I wasn't talking about all thinking and learning. God has given us a marvelous brain, and you can't keep a good brain down, at least not entirely. I guess all I was saying was that the 'foolishness in our hearts' is ousted through education - most importantly at home but also secular - and without it stupidity flourishes.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-10-01 09:10:17
A brain is like a muscle. Feed it and exercise it and it grows. There is a reason that the repressive regimes (religious and secular) throughout history have tried to keep the populous uneducated. That is why in some countries today, women are not allowed an education. Even a good brain needs information to build on. Education is discouraged whenever those in charge fear that the common man or woman will learn things to show just how weak their leaders really are.
Our leadership keeps us in fear. Fear of disfellowshipping. Fear of God's disapproval. Yet it is all smoke and mirrors. They cannot grant us God's approval. And disfellowshipping is power that we give them and which--if we were educated in God's word--we could and would take away. Then where would they be?
Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-09-29 15:58:21
Men are born with leadership qualities - it's part of their makeup. As long as men treat women with dignity and respect, then women generally know their place. It's true that sometimes women can be more clever than men, but that shouldn't really make any difference.
Reply by rosesinbloom on 2014-10-06 17:57:58
Really? You just said that? You can not ignore history. History has shown that in general, it has been the men who have done the raping and the robbing and the killing and the war mongering for the last 7000 years. It has been the men who have done the pilliaging, the beheading and the subjegating of whole races into slavery, it has been the men who have done the law making, the money making and most of the mischief making, so if the world isn't exactly what you had in mind, you have only yourselves to thank.
Comment by on 2014-09-29 18:19:44
The GB throws the sisters a bone and it's called "Pioneering". A non-scriptural name that permits some of our sisters to carry with them an air of self-righteous spiritual snobishness.
Comment by kev c on 2014-09-29 18:23:06
If women were un educated in bible times then what of proverbs 31v 16 and 26 it speaks of a woman of buisness and a woman of wisdom proverbs 1 v8 tells a young man not to forsake his mothers teaching .Lydia of acts 16 v14 was a dealer in expensive purple cloth .obviously a clever woman of buisness kev
Reply by menrov on 2014-09-30 03:40:17
Women are not uneducated because God wanted this. If they were uneducated, this was a result of the Jewish tradition how to treat women. The fact that something was widespread under the Jewish system does not mean it had Gods backing. Many things were corrected when Jesus came.
Men and women are different and each have their roles. In principle the man should take the lead which is fine as there cannot be 2 captains on one ship. If man fails in his role but i modest, he will b happy if the woman can step in. Also, nothing wrong. God would be pleased as He has used women before in leading positions.
But to stop a woman to develop and grow just because it is a woman, is wrong.
Reply by anderestimme on 2014-09-30 17:27:30
Kev, Proverbs was written a long time before the Romans came on to the scene. In any case, Israel was an anomaly precisely because their law was not a reflection of human attitudes of the time. Prov 31 gives us a picture of a woman who was very educated, not just in household chores but in sensible, reasoned management of the whole domestic enterprise.
Comment by imacountrygirl2 on 2014-09-30 15:45:16
saskawoo, Thank you for that information. It is fascinating to learn about the context of Jesus time on this earth.
The more I learn, the more I learn there is to learn.
Comment by kev c on 2014-10-01 04:30:20
What sort of education are we talking of here ive got a feeling that education was restricted to the higher classes not just men or boys . Thus many men of the general populace were also considered uneducated just as women .just even as jesus was john 7 v15 . From what ive read in greek culture many upper class boys were lead by a pedagogue .a sort of a role model and teacher according to william barclay .Such were appointed by the father and was likely one of his most trusted servants .Paul was alluding to this arrangement at galatians 3 v24 .in relation to the law becoming a tutor . But i dont suppose the general populace would have have a servant . Im saying this because i think education in some ways was likely deprived to boys as well not just women ..kev
Comment by anderestimme on 2014-10-05 19:39:57
When the conductor, in the first paragraph, asked 'what do we see in the picture', my comment was "Adam rapidly losing interest in ungulates". Unfortunately, I was not called on.
Comment by Andrew on 2014-10-05 22:46:49
At the WT study today, after the paragraph on Deborah was read, I was called on for the second comment. I said "Although Barak is not directly called a judge, Deborah was a judge, and was in a leadership position. She was chosen by Jehovah to judge the nation."
After the meeting, the elder who conducted the WT (privately) came up to me and said he enjoyed my comment, and that he agreed with it !
I was not attending my home congregation. I was visiting a neighboring ongregation, but I have been there before, and the elder has known me for many years.
AndrewReply by rosesinbloom on 2014-10-06 18:01:59
Bravo Andrew, you've got guts. We don't realize how many have the same understandings we do, but continue to ride the bus, because even with all it's faults, it's still Jehovah's imperfect orgaization, until he's ready to clean house starting with his own organization.
Comment by Don Albert on 2015-09-13 23:18:03
That was awesome.