I've had a tough time putting words to why I'm so grateful for this book, but essentially:
1--The observations raised by these writers do bring to light many examples of the women of the Bible being vilified by extratextual sources. Pointing out assumptions applied and proliferated by us moderns, carefully observing cultural context of the time, and relentlessly returning to the text itself are necessary practices, used here and casting these women in a different light. A less shady light, if you will. This is important not only because we want to get their stories right but because the closer we get to seeing their stories right, the better we see the God they related to and who included their stories in his word.
-
2--This call to examine filters and assumptions that I have as a person and inherent in what I've been taught about the Word, the weighty endeavor of reading this book God has given as revelation of himself as it was meant to be read, and the idea that even simple little I am able of learning from the text itself and of testing what I am taught against the text itself have all been feeling more and more immense over the past few months, partly because of this book. I find myself wanting to read more scholarly books about the Bible (something I never, ever, thought I would say,) and to check them against Scripture even more (and against other viewpoints).
-
"We are always reexamining our biblical interpretation, because we understand that every generation has its unique brands of blindness...Additionally, we all come to the text with preconceived ideas, so it stands to reason that our biblical interpretation has some fallibility. Instead of fearing a re-examination, we should pursue a constant reexamination in order to challenge ourselves toward growth. The alternative is to assume we have it all figured out and cling to the status quo (Rouse, 27)."
Also, the profits are donated to IJM!! (insert praise hands emoji)
"Doubtless, sin is an equal opportunity enterprise. And certainly the desire of the team of scholars assembled for this project is not to vindicate women whose actions we should all despise. Nor is it our goal to make men look bad and women look good.
"Our motivation is to handle faithfully the biblical text, which involves bringing to light a number of women labeled as 'bad girls' who deserve a fresh look" (Glahn, 13).
"One of the greatest surprises--and pleasures--for me as I edited this work was to find, as the chapters came in, that as slandered or ignored women in the Bible were vindicated, we recovered more than just a sense of how we should honor them. We could also see more clearly the point that the biblical author was actually trying to make by including these women in their stories. And time and again, God's heart for the silenced, the marginalized, the powerless, the Gentile, the outsider, was what had been missing" (Glahn, 16).
"For the first forty years of my life, my library of Christian authors consisted primarily of white western males. But what happens when the task of biblical interpretation is faithfully applied by an Asian woman and a Latino man? Does an Ethiopian believer see things that a European misses? Does this Aussie bloke see things differently from how an American might? (Consider what we envision when we hear the word 'football.') The truth is that never before has there been such a diversity of eyes on the text in conversation with one another. It is no longer just males who do biblical interpretation, nor is it just people form your demographic grouping. And this is a wonderful development. WE do well to listen to what everyone has to say, especially because the new eyes are just as well educated (sometimes more), trained (sometimes more) and godly( sometimes more) as you and I are" (Rouse, 17).
"In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity"--Rupertus Meldenius (c. 1627, quoted on p. 17).
"Before we go any further, I want to be really frank. This is not some book written by theologically liberal, wannabe scholars attempting to be politically correct or manipulating the text in order to be culturally relevant. The contributors to this book love God's Word. And we don't see our task as reinterpreting the text to make it more relevant or more acceptable than it already is--as if that were possible. Our goal is simply to study it and make sure we are being faithful to it. WE are not questioning the inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Scriptures. We are, however, questioning the inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of our human interpretation of them" (Rouse, 22).
"So the Word that we have is the written Word. It's divine in its source, absolutely; but it's also literature. And as a work of literature, we must--and this is critical--discuss and study it as literature without diminishing its divine origin" (Rouse, 22).
"Contrary to the biblical depiction of the marriage relationship where 'a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh (2:24), in patriarchal cultures the wife is absorbed into her husband's family. She becomes their property and comes under the thumb of her husband's family" (James, 38).
"My tradition esteems the Bible and grants it authority. So what does it mean when one person's interpretation points up and another's points down, yet we're all standing alone on the Word of God? Are we reading the same text? How do we disagree with people we love? What happens to our faith when we reject an idea we would have energetically defended ten years ago?" (Bleeker, 50).
"If the word choices and tone in Joshua implicate the two Hebrew spies in both potential sexual dalliance and mild stupidity while elevating Rahab to the role of unlikely heroine, what does that mean?" (Bleeker, 54).
"[In his genealogy], Matthew is setting up his reader,s the Jewish faithful, to accept cultural and racial outsiders--including the dreaded Canaanites--into the community through belief, not blood" (Bleeker, 55).
"While the levirate law obligated the brother-in-law--the levir--to marry the brother's widow, in the case of Ruth no brother-in-law existed. Yahweh's Law, however, had a build-in family care policy, even if no levir lived.
"Naomi names Boaz, not their levir, but by a more accurate name--their go'el. The go'el functioned as one who restored family wholeness. By definition, this relative 'acted as a kinsman or did the part of the next of kin, in taking the kinsman's widow.' Another way to accurately describe the go'el would be to call him a kinsman-redeemer" (68).
"The connection Ruth shares with Tamar is one many of us might miss. But needing someone to fulfill the levirate marriage responsibilities, they both chose to act when the men who should have shown hesed remained passive. These women's esteem of Yahweh's law must be commended, no criticized" (Legaspi, 76).
"To the humans, God grants dominion over the rest of creation, a clear statement of the hierarchy in the creation order, and this dominion surely includes being mediators of blessing to the creatures that God has already blessed. In other words, dominion is not domination and destruction but compassionate care for thos ecreatures and the environments in which they live. God's intention for his imagers is that they be mediators of blessing to blessed creatures. (Kreider, 135).
"We serve a God of justice; to blame one sex for seduction when both the man and the woman are cupable is unjust. It is ironic that the woman is blamed for being easily deceived by the serpent and then also blamed for being as seductive as the serpent in a fallen world. So which is it?" (Kreider, 146).
"Finally, as long as there is conflict between men and women and that conflict is rooted in gender differences, it will be hard for us to live out the command of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:34-35). It is hard to love one that is feared" (Kreider, 146).
"As for the remainder of the Christian canon, Sarah is referred to in Isaiah as 'the mother of Israel the nation' (Isa. 51:2), in Romans as 'the mother of the promise' (Rom. 9:9); in Hebrews as 'the mother of faith' (Heb. 11:11); and in 1 Peter as the model wife who submits to her husband (1 Peter 3:6)" (Merrill, 155).
(In rebuttal of the idea that Deborah was only prophetess because "a good man is hard to find":) "First, the lead person, Deborah--woman of light and fire--is portrayed consistently in a positive way throughout her story and song...
Second, there is indeed a good man in this text: Barak, the som of Abinoam, who agrees to go when he is called. His insistence on Deborah's presence implicitly invokes God's presence and guidance through the divinely inspired prophet and judge. She does not condemn him, though she adds the caveat that he must serve without the customary honor given to military leaders in battle. Barak demonstrates his faith in, and honor of, God by going, despits this challenging condition. As a result, he obtains an even greater honor: being listed in the book of Hebrews among the notable persons of faith, of whom this world is not worthy" (Pierce, 209).
"Writing in the sixteenth century, Calvin pairs Deborah and Huldah stating, 'God doubtless wished to raise them on high to shame the men, and obliquiely to show them their slothfulness. Whatever may be the reason, women have sometimes enjoyed the prophetic gift'" (McKirland, 224). (The author then goes on to say why he doesn't think this fits with other textual evidence. I find it interesting that this great Christian thinker thought this explanation made the most sense.)
No comments:
Post a Comment