Leolaia, You wrote: the Christian messianic interpretation fails to respect the sense of the text. What you just wrote is nothing more than your opinion, and in my opinion a very arrogant one. For thousands years myriads of Bible scholars with minds at least as bright as your own have thoroughly studied all aspects of this prophecy and have concluded that it was clearly meant by God to foretell the time of the coming of His Messiah. However, you ask us to believe that only your non-messianic way of understanding the contents of Daniel 9 shows respect for real sense of the text. Don't get me wrong. I readily admit that your way of understanding this passage is very reasonable. In fact I believe the Holy Spirit carefully constructed its wording so it would be understood by many Bible readers exactly as you now understand it. For like many of the Bible's messianic prophecies, I believe the Holy Spirit has crafted the wording in this passage of Scripture to be understood in two different ways. First of all, in a way that would allow those who are truly seeking God's Messiah very valuable help in finding Him. But also in a way that would permit those who, for whatever reason, prefer to reject God's Messiah the opportunity to do so. Christians understand that Jesus Christ is God. As such we understand that Christ Himself inspired the writing of the entire Bible. That being the case, it does not surprise me that Jesus Christ would have inspired the writing of all parts of the Bible, a Bible that He knew would be read by both those with hearts inclined towards Him and by those with hearts hardened against Him, in much the same way in which He spoke to crowds containing both of these kinds of people while He was on earth. In what way was that? In Matt. 13:11-15 Christ told His followers, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them [those who would not accept Him as the Messiah]. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.' " Here Christ made it clear that His words, and by reasonable extension many of the other words of Scripture which He inspired, such as the words of Daniel 9:24-27, were often presented in a way that would provide important spiritual truths to some people while at the same time withholding these truths from other people. Mike
a Christian
JoinedPosts by a Christian
-
66
Daniels prophecy
by Hellrider ini`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!
) , and then he writes: .
"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.
-
-
-
66
Daniels prophecy
by Hellrider ini`m discussing with a jw-dork on another forum, and we`re discussing 607, 1914, all that crap (no scholar, stay away from this thread!
) , and then he writes: .
"they were famaliar with the writing of the jewish prophets.
-
-
a Christian
I have recently been studying this prophecy at some length.
I believe that Daniel's "70 Weeks" began to run when Nehemiah ordered the work to begin on the rebuilding of Jerusalem's wall after Artaxerxes issued a decree in his 20th year which permitted Nehemiah to return to Jerusalem to rebuild that Holy City. (Neh. 2)
Some see a problem with this understanding. For Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" are widely understood to refer to a period of 490 years, and all historians now assure us that Artaxerxes' 20th year of ruling Persia took place in 445 BC. And 490 years after 445 BC brings us to 46 AD, which was quite a few years after the death of Christ.
How then can I understand that Artaxerxes' decree in his 20th year as king has anything to do with Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy? Because I am convinced that Nehemiah did not return to Jerusalem and give his command to begin rebuilding that city until the year 440 BC, even though the Bible tells us that Nehemiah had been granted permission by Artaxerxes to issue such a command in Artaxerxes' 20th year as king of Persia, which historians assure us took place in 445 BC. (Neh. 1:1-6)
I believe this because the first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that Nehemiah "came to Jerusalem" not "in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as the Bible seems to say, but in his "twenty and fifth year." (Ant. XI, 5, 7) The fact is that the Bible does not actually say that Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 20th year. It only tells us that Artaxerxes then gave Nehemiah permission to do so. While Josephus, on the other hand, tells us of the time that Nehemiah actually "came to Jerusalem." (It is also possible that Nehemiah reckoned the reign of Artaxerxes in a substantially different manner than historians do today and Josephus did in his day. I'll explain this later.)
Concerning this matter, in his book, "History Of Israel" (third edition, 1981, pg. 381) John Bright tells us, "The Bible gives us the impression that Nehemiah set out at once, accompanied by a military escort (Neh.2:9). But Josephus (Ant. XI, 5, 7), who follows the Septuagint text, the first part of which is preserved in 1 Esdres, places his arrival only in 440. Though assurance is impossible, this may be correct. If Nehemiah first went to Babylon and collected Jews to accompany him, as Josephus has it, and then having presented his credentials to the satrap of Abah-nahara, attended to the procurement of building materials before proceeding to Jerusalem, as he possibly did since work was begun soon after his arrival, the date is not unreasonable."
Some who harmonize the accounts of Nehemiah and Josephus in this way point out that it took Solomon nearly four years to procure similar kinds of building materials before he was able to begin building the Temple. (2 Chr. chapters 1 and 2 and chapter 3, verses 1 and 2) And Solomon was much better funded than Nehemiah, and unlike Nehemiah, Solomon was able to conscript all the labor he needed for his building project, rather than having to spend time finding volunteers.
Other scholars agree with Bright's assessment of Josephus' probable accuracy in this matter. For instance, Sigmund Mowinckel, a highly regarded Scandinavian Bible scholar, believes that Josephus used a separate Greek version of Nehemiah that in several respects differed from that preserved in the LXX. He argues that Josephus' chronological information on the Persian kings did not result from his own calculations, or from any mistakes some say he must have made in this matter. Mowinckel argues that Josephus must have been quoting from a now lost Greek version of Nehemiah. On Josephus' statement about the 25th year of Artaxerxes, Mowinckel maintains that Josephus' figures are most likely the original ones. He writes, "In my opinion the balance [of evidence] is in favor of [the figure] '25'." (Vol. 3, p.45 of Studien zu dem Buche Ezra-Nehema, Vols. 1-3, Oslo, 1964)
But how does the fact that Nehemiah did not give his order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem until 440 BC help us to make sense of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks" prophecy? As most students of Bible prophecy know, Daniel's "seventy weeks" are generally understood as referring to seventy weeks of years (seventy sets of seven years) totaling a period of 490 solar years. But the Jews used a lunar calendar! Their years were lunar years, not solar years. So a week of years to the Jews would have meant seven lunar years. And seventy weeks of years to the Jews would have meant 490 lunar years, not 490 solar years.
At the time of Daniel, on average about every three years, the Jews added an extra month to the end of their lunar calendars to make sure that they never fell too far out of sync with the solar year. But at the time Daniel wrote his "Seventy Weeks" prophecy the Jews had no set system of doing so. When they decided that it was time to add an extra month to their calendars they called this extra month "second Adar." However, the fact that they then sometimes added an "intercalary" month to their lunar calendars does not change the fact that, to the Jews, a "year" normally meant 354 days. For that is the number of days which one of their calendars most often contained. Their calendars usually consisted of six 29 day months and six 30 day months. So, to the Jews who lived at the time Daniel wrote his "Seventy Weeks" prophecy, a “year” would have been understood to mean a lunar year, and a "week" of years (literally a “seven” of years) would have been understood to mean seven lunar years. And “seventy weeks” of years would have been understood to mean 490 lunar years, none of which were then either automatically or routinely solar-adjusted.
Now, since one lunar year contains 354.367 days, 490 lunar years contain 173,639.83 days. And 173,639.83 days divided by 365.2425 (the number of days in a solar year) equal 475.40 solar years. With these things in mind, I have come to conclusion that Daniel's "seventy weeks" were a period of 475.4 years which ran from 440 BC to 36 AD. I believe those 475.4 years began at the time Nehemiah gave his "commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25 KJV; Neh. 2:17,18). And I believe those 475.4 years ended at the time God acted to "confirm the [new] covenant with many" by pouring His Holy Spirit out on Gentiles for the first time (Dan. 9:27 KJV; Acts 10). I believe the "many" here referred to were the "many nations" God promised Abraham that he would one day become the father of. (Gen. 17:4)
As anyone who has thoroughly studied the history of this prophecy's interpretation knows, this is by no means a new idea or a novel one. In the year 221 AD Julius Africanus in his work entitled "Chronographia" argued that the 490 years were lunar years of 354 days each, which he converted into 475 solar years. He counted them from the 20th year of Artaxerxes, which he correctly dated to the 4th year of the 83rd Olympiad (=445/444 BC). From this date, he said, to "the 16th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (30/31 AD, his date for the death of Christ), there are reckoned 475 years, which take 490 according to the Hebrew numeration, as they measure the years by the course of the moon; so that, as is easy to show, their year consists of 354 days, while the solar year has 365 1/4 days." (Africanus' Chronographia XVI, 3 translated in The Ante-Nicence fathers, Vol. VI ed. A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, p. 135) Many later expositors followed Africanus in doing this.
I believe that the facts of history, together with a knowledge that the Jews used a lunar calendar, combine to show that the Messiah (meaning "anointed one") was first presented to Israel in the year 29 AD by John the baptist, after sixty-nine weeks of lunar years had passed, when John anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the waters of his baptism in "the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar." (Luke 3:1,21). At that time Jesus Christ was "cut off" from his people and, quite literally, "had nothing for himself." (Dan. 9:26) For he then began a forty day long fast in the wilderness. Then, after three and a half years, in the middle of Daniel's seventieth week, in the spring of 33 AD, Christ's sacrificial death brought an end to the Jewish system of sacrificial offerings. (Dan. 9:27) Finally, three and a half years later, at the end of Daniel's "Seventy Weeks," in the early fall of 36 AD, Christ "confirmed a covenant with many" (Dan. 9:27) when he, for the first time, poured out his Holy Spirit on non-Jewish people. (Acts 10)
Doing so confirmed the fact that God, from that time forward, would give everyone who put their faith in Jesus Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, complete forgiveness of their sins and eternal life. With this fact in mind, the good news of what Jesus Christ had done for mankind then began to be preached to all people on earth, just as Christ said that it would be. (Math. 24:14)
There is another solution to this ancient puzzle that also fits all the facts of history. This solution eliminates the problem of Nehemiah taking five years to get to Jerusalem, which some people have a hard time accepting. Historians tell us that Artaxerxes did not gain legal control of Persia's throne until six years after the assassination of his father Xerxes. Because he did not, it is very possible that Nehemiah did not count the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign during which its legality was being contested. Those who have thoroughly studied the way in which Bible writers reckoned the reigns of Israel's and Judah's kings tell us that at times they apparently employed this "legal count" system of reckoning.
If this is true, then when Nehemiah referred to Artaxerxes' 20th year he would have been referring to the same year Josephus referred to when he told us Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 25th year, 440 BC.
The historical information which strongly suggests that Nehemiah very likely employed this "legal count" system of reckoning is contained in the works of several ancient historians. I'll here give you a condensed version of it.
Artaxerxes came to the throne of Persia in August of 465 BC following the murder of his father Xerxes. To gain the throne for himself Artaxerxes and his supporters, the real murderers, blamed Xerxes' murder on the rightful heir to the throne, Artaxerxes' older brother crown prince Darius. They then had Darius unjustly executed. For the next six years Artaxerxes' legal right to rule Persia was hotly disputed. Why? Because ancient Persia was not a "banana republic" in which anyone willing to assassinate their country's head of state and then take his place with the support of several armed friends had just as much a legal right to run their country's government as anyone else did. Ancient Persia was then governed by a hereditary monarchy. In that monarchy, upon the death of a king, the right to rule legally passed from a father to his first born son. If that first born son was, for some reason, legally disqualified from becoming king, the right to rule then passed to the king's next oldest son. If a king had no son who was legally qualified to inherit the throne, upon his death the right to rule passed to his oldest brother.
Following king Xerxes' murder and the execution of crown prince Darius, Artaxerxes' older brother Hyspases was legally next in line to inherit Persia's throne. However, Hyspases was then away governing the Persian Provence of Bactria. Because he was, Artaxerxes was able to sit on his father's throne. It is said that for the next few years Hyspases rightly maintained that he held the legal right to rule Persia. Sometime during the first few years of Artaerxes' legally disputed reign as king, he and his older brother Hyspases met on the field of battle to resolve this issue, and some others. In Artaxerxes' effort to suppress what historians call "the Bactrian revolt," he then killed his older brother Hyspases. However, when Artaxerxes killed Hyspases he did nothing to remove the cloud of illegitimacy that then hung over his rulership of Persia. If anything, he only darkened that cloud. For a son or a brother of a king who killed the king was not legally allowed to inherit the kingdom from the king he had killed. So, at the time Artaxerxes killed Hyspases, the right to rule Persia legally passed to Xerxes full brother, Achamenes, who was then away governing Egypt.
It was not until the year 459 BC that Artaxerxes finally gained the legal right to rule the Persian empire, an empire he had been illegitimately ruling since 465 BC. For it was in that year that Artaxerxes' uncle Achamenes was killed in a battle in Egypt. It was only at that time, in 459 BC, that Artaxerxes was finally able to legally wear the crown of the king of Persia.
Nehemiah serving at the King's court would have been aware of these legal matters which put the legality of the first six years of Artaxerxes' reign in question. If Nehemiah, like other Bible writers who recorded chronological information, did not count years of a king's rule in which their right to rule was legally in question, he would have counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' first year as Persia's king. And if Nehemiah counted 459 BC as Artaxerxes' first year, he would have counted 440 as Artaxerxes' 20th year.
In other words, we have strong reason to believe that Nehemiah may have reckoned the reign of Artaxerxes differently than the way in which it was then commonly reckoned, the way in which Josephus' sources reckoned it, and the way in which it is commonly reckoned today. When Nehemiah wrote of Artaxerxes' "20th year" he may not have been referring to the year 445 BC, as has long been thought, but to 440 BC, just as Josephus clearly was when he told us that Nehemiah came to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' "25th year."
And sixty-nine "sevens" of years (483 lunar years) after 440 brings us to AD 29, the year Jesus became the Messiah.
My verse by verse commentary of Dan. 9:24-27 (NAS) is [in brackets.]
24 "Seventy weeks [490 lunar years] have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.
25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree ["from the going forth of the commandment" - KJV] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem [Nehemiah's on site order to begin rebuilding Jerusalem's wall, upon his return to Jerusalem in Artaxerxes' 25th year, as per Josephus, which historians identify for us as 440 BC] until Messiah the Prince [Jesus Christ] there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks [7 x 7 lunar years + 62 x 7 lunar years = 483 lunar years. 483 lunar years from 440 BC = 29 AD, which was "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar," in which year Jesus was baptized]; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. [The first "seven weeks" - 49 lunar years - ran from July of 440 BC until January of 392 BC, during which time the city of Jerusalem was completely rebuilt, despite great opposition from neighboring nations.]
26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing [Following Christ's baptism he cut himself off from all human contact while he literally "had nothing," as he then fasted in the wilderness for forty days.], and the people [Rome's armies] of the prince who is to come [General Titus, the son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, thus a "prince"] will destroy the city and the sanctuary [Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and her Temple in 70 AD]. And its end will come with a flood [the hoards of soldiers who then descended upon the city]; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. [All of the words in verse 26, following its reference to "the Messiah" being cut off and having nothing, should be read parenthetically. For they refer to events which would occur 30 - 34 years after the "seventy weeks" came to an end.]
27 "And he [the Messiah] will make a firm covenant with the many ["confirm a covenant" - NIV - referring to the "New Covenant" which was established by the death of Christ and confirmed with "many" by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the gentiles, as recorded in Acts chapter 10. Romans 15:8-12 tells us that the covenant promises which Christ "confirmed" were those God made to the patriarchs concerning the Gentiles. The "many" here referred to are all the nations of the earth, Jews and Gentiles. God told Abraham, in Gen. 17:4, that he would become the father of "many nations."] for [The word "for" here is absent from the Hebrew. I believe the context strongly suggests that the word "after" should instead be here inserted.] one week [at the end of the 70th "week" which ended in 36 AD], but in the middle of the week [again the 70th "week," the middle of which was the spring of 33 AD] he [the Messiah] will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering [which Jesus Christ's sacrificial death brought an end to]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate [In Mark 13:14 and its parallel passage, Luke 21:20, Jesus himself clearly identified the "abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet" as the "armies" which he said would "surround Jerusalem" prior to its destruction in 70 AD.], even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." [Jerusalem's desolator, General Titus, became Emperor of Rome in 79 AD. Within months Mount Vesuvius erupted burying Pompeii. The following year, 80 AD, a fire destroyed much of Rome. Titus uttering "the fire has ruined me" was forced to sell or strip all of his imperial estates to hasten Rome's recovery. Then, in the fire's wake, one of the worst plagues on record descended upon Italy. Finally, on September 1, 81 AD, for reasons unknown, Titus fell painfully ill and died, only two years after gaining Rome's throne.] -
3
A Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom
by Earnest inthose who take an interest in bible chronology may be interested to know of a new publication, the reconstructed chronology of the divided kingdom (winona lake: eisenbrauns, 2005), by tetley, m. christine.
a review by steven mckenzie (rhodes college, memphis) has been published in the journal of hebrew scriptures : .
this volume, a revision of the authors 2000 dissertation at the university of melbourne, advances a new approach to and a new reconstruction of the chronology of israel and judah.
-
-
a Christian
Ernest, You asked: As you have already corresponded with Tetley on the subject of chronology, are you able to share the essence of her response to your objections without compromising the privacy of your communications ? Tetley shared her doctoral thesis with me about two years ago. If you read the critical reviews of Tetley's book (which is simply a slightly expanded version of that thesis) you will find in those reviewers' comments pretty much everything I then said to Tetley. Basically her response to me then went something like this: Since it is, in her opinion, absolutely impossible to fully harmonize all of the ancient witnesses - biblical and secular - which provide us with testimony of some sort or another on this subject matter, she said all serious students of scripture and history are forced to determine for themselves which of these ancient witnesses are most likely to be providing us with accurate information and which of them are most likely to be providing us with inaccurate information. She went on to say that we must then attempt to fully harmonize only the sources of information which we have with much effort determined to be the most trust worthy. However, if we find that even establishing harmony between the witnesses which we have determined to be "the most trust worthy witnesses" is not possible, we must then accept the fact that, in a few cases, all ancient witnesses pertaining to the time of a particular king's reign may have been corrupted. In such cases, we must then try our best to determine how the relevant data may have become corrupted, and use that understanding to help us determine the likely content of the original data before it was corrupted. And then, if we find that what we have determined to be the "original uncorrupted data" fits neatly into our chronological reconstruction, we should have no aversion to using it to replace the few bits of chronological information which we have determined had been corrupted in all witnesses. You wrote: As I have not yet read her book I cannot comment on her conclusions, however I have wondered myself how accurate the bible chronology can be when there are clear differences in the transmission of the original text. It is my belief that all of the variant chronological information now found in the LXX, the Lucian text, Josephus, and elsewhere did not result from mistranslations of the original Hebrew text. It is my position that virtually all of the "variant" numerical data pertaining to the chronology of the Hebrew kings which we now have in our possession was taken from various accurately preserved written records containing chronological information above and beyond that which was preserved in the Hebrew text. It is my belief that this additional accurate chronological information somehow often found its way into the text of various ancient Bible translations and manuscripts. I believe this probably happened in two ways. First, some translators probably took it upon themselves to "improve" the text of scripture (since the Hebrew text appears to contain many contradictions) by replacing some of its numbers with numbers from historical sources which they considered to be more reliable and less contradictory than some of the numbers recorded in the Hebrew text. And second, some of the chronological information contained in these now long lost, extra-biblical, "reliable sources" may have first appeared in the pages of scripture only as someone's supplemental "margin notes," notes which were later misunderstood by copyists to have been intended as corrections of the Hebrew text, rather than as mere supplements to that text. In order to harmonize all of these apparently contradictory texts, as you may have guessed, I have had to accept the fact that co-regencies were quite common among the kings of both Israel and Judah, a fact which Tetley for some odd reason will not accept, and a fact which, as Tetley's critical reviewers point out, the Bible itself makes quite clear several times. For instance, as one review points out, Tetley maintains that the correct length of Abijah's reign is "six years," as the LXX and Lucian text both tell us in 1 Kings 15:2, and "not three years," as the MT there tells us. However, as I pointed out to Tetley, there is no conflict here at all if we simply accept what the Bible itself clearly tells us, namely that "Rehoboam appointed Abijah to be Chief Prince, in order to make him King." (2 Chron. 11:22) Those who understand this to mean that Rehoboam then appointed his son Abijah to begin serving as his co-regent have no trouble also understanding that Abijah's "three years" refer to the time he spent as his nation's only royal ruler following his father's death. Those who understand that Abijah served as Rehoboam's co-regent also have no trouble understanding Abijah's "six years" as "accession year reckoning" for his seven total years of rule, years which began at the time Abijah began serving as his father's co-regent and ended at the time of Abijah's death. You wrote: Do let us know when you print your own research as I'm sure there are many who would find it helpful in this "tortured topic of chronology" (including myself). I'll certainly do just that. I've spent several years pouring most of my free time into this. The problem is I'm just a regular guy who has to work for a living. Though in one sense all of my work is now complete (the research), in another it is just now beginning (the writing). I hope I can soon somehow find enough free time to produce what I believe will be a very important written work, and one that I am sure will be reviewed much more favorably than Tetley's work on this subject matter has been. Thanks for your interest. Mike
-
3
A Reconstructed Chronology of the Divided Kingdom
by Earnest inthose who take an interest in bible chronology may be interested to know of a new publication, the reconstructed chronology of the divided kingdom (winona lake: eisenbrauns, 2005), by tetley, m. christine.
a review by steven mckenzie (rhodes college, memphis) has been published in the journal of hebrew scriptures : .
this volume, a revision of the authors 2000 dissertation at the university of melbourne, advances a new approach to and a new reconstruction of the chronology of israel and judah.
-
-
a Christian
Ernest,
I have corresponded with Tetley at some length on this subject matter. As the reviewer said, for a variety of very good reasons, her work is most certainly "doomed for rejection."
To begin with, Tetley's reconstruction of the divided kingdom conflicts with several very well established facts from the history of the ancient Near East. But even more unacceptable to most of us who have an interest in this subject matter is that she maintains that the words of the books of Kings and Chronicles as they appear in our Bibles today cannot be trusted and are in fact full of errors. As the reviewer points out, her reconstruction of the chronology of the divided kingdom is "based primarily on that of the Greek witnesses," which she believes "to be superior in Kings to the MT’s," from which our Bibles have been translated.
I am convinced that where Tetley and all others who have attempted to properly understand "the mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings" have gone wrong is by their failing to consider the possibility that virtually all ancient witnesses on this subject matter may be completely accurate and fully complimentary. That is the approach I have taken. I hope to publish the results of my study in the near future.
Mike
-
21
Anyone here ever attend the Assembly Hall in Holt Michigan?
by AK - Jeff in.
i spent the better part of my witness career going there twice a year.
anyone familiar?
-
-
a Christian
Jeff,
I live in Holt, just about half a mile from that Hall. I attended many a JW assembly at that hall. But that was a long time ago. I left the Dubs over 20 years ago. I was pretty much an agnostic for the next 7 or 8 years. I became a Christian in 1991. I now attend the Holt Nazarene Church just a stones throw from that JW assembly hall on Eifert Rd.
Mike
-
38
~How did/do you personally feel about the headship arrangement?~
by FlyingHighNow ini feel that headship is one of the most damaging doctrines taught in the wtbts as well as other fundy religions.
it is promoted as a way to have happier, healthier marriages and families.
in theory, maybe so.
-
-
a Christian
jwfacts, You wrote: it always made me wonder about how reliable the writings of Paul are. In regard to that question I posted the following article in another thread dealing with this same general subject matter. You may find it to be of interest. Women Equal In The Church My recent study of the scriptures has convinced me that the words written by the apostle Paul which are most often criticized as being "sexist," though they were in fact written by Paul, did not actually reflect the apostle's own beliefs about how women should be treated in the Christian Church. Instead, I believe that the context of all of Paul's allegedly "chauvinistic" words shows that they actually reflected the beliefs of false teachers, beliefs which Paul quoted because he felt they needed to be corrected, and teachers whom Paul turned his attention to because he felt they needed to be rebuked. The words written by Paul to which I here refer are those recorded in 1 Cor. 11:3-10, 1Cor. 14:34,35 and in 1 Tim. 2:8-15.
These words in the New International Version of the Bible read as follows:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (1 Cor. 11:3-10)
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14:34,35)
"I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1Tim. 2:8-15)
Many Christians have long had a very hard time understanding how the apostle Paul could have written words such as these. Why? Because Paul encouraged Christians to, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1) And the Bible reveals that Jesus always treated women with respect and gladly discussed spiritual things with them. ( Luke 10:36-42; John 4:7-27) And because Paul was the same man who said that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) And because we know that Paul accepted both women prophets and women deacons. (Acts 18:26; 21:9 Romans 16:1) And, we can't help but ask, how did Paul expect women to serve as prophets if he did not allow them to teach or even speak in church, as 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12 would seem to indicate?
With these things in mind, I will here discuss what I believe is strong evidence which clearly indicates that Paul was, in these passages, actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings.
I believe that Paul's words in 1 Cor.11:3-10 described a teaching promoted by some in Corinth which the Corinthians sent to Paul for his critique. Paul's words in verse 2 serve as an obvious tip-off that Paul was about to directly quote and then comment upon a false teaching that was then circulating in the Church. For in that verse Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you."
I believe the next words he wrote, recorded in verses 3-10, were those in which Paul then quoted the false teaching which the Corinthians had sent to Paul for him to comment on. That teaching was this: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
The contents of the next several verses, 11-16, clearly show them to be Paul's rebuttal to the false teaching he had just referenced. For the words in these verses clearly rebut the arguments advanced in verses 3-10. Thus they can only be understood as being Paul's own explanation of the true Christian position on this issue, the position which Paul was really promoting. That position was this: "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God."
After quoting those who demanded that women wear head coverings to show their submission to men Paul said, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ... LONG HAIR is given to her AS a covering." So, Paul was saying women do not need head coverings as some false teachers were demanding. Furthermore, Paul clearly pointed out that men and women were equal in the faith. "For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." (verse 12). This argument by Paul clearly refuted the false teachers' statement made in verses 3 and 8 that, "The head of woman is man," because "man did not come from woman, but woman from man."
I am convinced that the now common "male chauvinistic" understanding of Paul's words developed in large part due to the way in which Paul wrote. Paul's use of sharp contrasts in place of clear transitional phrases is largely responsible for causing some of what he wrote to be widely misunderstood. However, Paul's words would have been perfectly understandable by those to whom he originally addressed his letters. For they knew what Paul had previously taught on such matters. And they knew the teachings of others which they had asked Paul to comment on. However, when a third party, such as ourselves, reads the letters which Paul wrote they do not have such "inside" knowledge. And without it, it is sometimes difficult to recognize when exactly Paul was quoting false teachers and when he was actually setting forth true Christian teachings. Because of such difficulties in understanding Paul's letters many of the words Paul actually wrote for the purpose of refuting false doctrine later became widely used to promote false doctrine. And in the process Paul, God and the New Testament have acquired very undeserved reputations as being "anti-woman."
I'll now comment on 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35. Though I normally use the NIV, I'll use the KJV here because in this passage the NIV is missing an important element. (The Revised Standard Version and others may also be used here. For they contain the same important element.) There we read: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church."
Here again, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10, we can see that Paul was quoting the words of false teachers for the purpose of rebuking them. How can we see this? By simply reading the three following verses, 36-38. There Paul wrote: "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Paul identifies false teaching with either strong rebuke or by clearly pointing out the error and correcting it. Or by doing both. But he does so, as I mentioned earlier, while using minimal transitional phraseology. Here that transitional phraseology is extremely minimal. In fact, it consists of only a single word. But for Paul it only took one word to identify a false teaching. That word was one very strong word of rebuke. In case you missed it, that word was, "What?"
Though missing from the NIV, this "particle of distinction between two connected terms," as Strong's Greek dictionary defines the Greek word used at the beginning of verse 36, is translated as "What?" in the KJV and the Amplified Bible and as "What!" in other translations of the Bible. By Paul's use of that Greek word to begin his thoughts recorded in verse 36 it certainly appears that Paul was expressing both shock and outrage at the blatant sexism which some false teachers were then promoting as Christian doctrine. For those who question if that is truly the sentiment which Paul meant to convey by the first word he used in verse 36, the many words of rebuke which followed Paul's "What?" show beyond a doubt that he was disgusted that such chauvinistic teachings were being promoted in Christian congregations. And he reminded the Corinthians that, unlike the false teachers who were demeaning Christian women, "The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (verse 37) One of the things to which he obviously here referred was his consistent teaching that in Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)
It is also worth noting that the content of this passage (1 Cor. 14:34,35) itself clearly indicates that the sentiments expressed therein could not have been those of Paul. For verse 34 says that women "are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." But, as I am sure you know, Paul was the apostle who continually preached Christian freedom and how Christians were not under either the Mosaic law or the pharisaic oral law, to which Paul must have here referred since the Mosaic law contains no such commands. Thus the idea that Paul would have used the authority of Jewish law to support his teachings seems, to put it mildly, most unlikely. So it seems quite clear, that when discussing here and elsewhere the idea that women should be treated differently than men within the Christian Church, Paul was citing the false teaching of some legalistic Jewish Christians. He was not presenting his own beliefs and teachings.
This also raises an interesting question. How was the text in Paul's letters originally formatted? Though I don't believe the actual text of any of Paul's letters has been corrupted over the years, I do believe it is entirely possible that Paul may have differently formatted, "italicized" or bolded some of his original written words. (The Greek language in Paul's day did not use punctuation marks.) I believe he may well have done so in a way that made it perfectly clear to any who read his original letters, when exactly he was writing his own words and when he was quoting the false teachings of others.
Imagine, for instance, if Paul had written his words in a way such as this:
Let your women keep silence in the churches
For it is not permitted unto them to speak
WHAT Was it from YOU that the word of God first went forth or has it come to YOU ONLY
Though the words have not changed, it is much harder now for us to miss what Paul was clearly saying to such false teachers. And I tend to believe Paul's original letters employed a similar means of making his meaning quite clear, a means which was lost, not in translation but in transcription.
The evidence also indicates that 1 Timothy 2:8-15, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10 and 14:34 and 35, were words written by Paul quoting false teachers. In the last verse of 1 Timothy chapter 1 the apostle Paul was explaining to Timothy about Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Thus we have reason to believe that in the early part of 1 Timothy chapter 2 Paul was actually refuting some of the teachings of these men. Then in verse 7 Paul pointed out forcefully that, "I am telling the truth, I am not lying - and am a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles." These words of his in verse 7 indicate that he was there contrasting his position as a teacher of truth with the false teachers he had just been discussing and whom he would now quote.
With this in mind, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 2:8 through the end of Chapter 2 can be seen to be a false teaching he was quoting for the purpose of exposing it as such. There Paul wrote, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
In the very next verse (1 Tim 3:1), in referring to what he was next to write, Paul wrote, "Here is the trustworthy saying." With these words, "Here is the trustworthy saying," Paul clearly indicated, as he did elsewhere when using that same phrase (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11), that he had previously been referring to either people or ways of thinking which were not trustworthy.
As mentioned earlier, Paul's scant use of transitional phrases, clearly distinguishing his own teachings from the false teachings he sometimes cited for comment, is largely to blame for the problems we now have in understanding the passages we are here discussing. And Paul's use of such transitional phrases is certainly quite scant in this passage of scripture. Fortunately, however, we here have additional reason to understand that Paul must have here been citing the doctrine of false teachers. What reason is that? We know that Paul could not have here been presenting his own beliefs because he had already shown in 1 Cor. 11:12 that the argument, "Adam was formed first, then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:13) in no way proves that man is superior to woman. For, as Paul there pointed out, "As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman." So, why would Paul present an argument which he himself had previously shown to be flawed? ( 1 Timothy was written after 1 Corinthians ) The evidence shows that he would not and that he did not.
Thus we must conclude that 1 Timothy chapter 2:8-15 contain the false teachings of Hymenaeus and Alexander, and that Paul there quoted their teachings for the purpose of indicating to Timothy that he considered them to be neither "true" nor "trustworthy."
Something which also helps us to identify the teachings recorded in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 as being those of false teachers is the fact that they are full of regulations and restrictions typical of legalistic Jewish-Christian sects which were already beginning to spring up in the first century. Such sects promoted a form of prayer, during which the men only raised their hands, common to the first century Jewish religion. They also promoted a dress code for women but not for men and in effect dictated a women's lifestyle, (leaving more money for the men or contributions for the leaders by eliminating expensive jewelry) all on the pretense that God was being served by such.
As I read the words of 1 Tim. 2:11,12, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent," I recall the movie "Yentyl" with Barbra Streisand. Anyone who saw that film can appreciate the effect such doctrine had and has on women and why Paul would condemn those who promoted it.
These are the passages in the New Testament which are most often criticized for allegedly containing "sexist" thinking. Other passages which are sometimes attacked as being sexist are, I believe, very unfairly criticized. In such passages women are encouraged to be good wives and mothers and are instructed to willingly submit to their husbands at home and in their own personal lives. By doing so it is said Christian wives might be able to help win over their unbelieving husbands and be a good example of Christian humility to all. However, women are never told that they must submit themselves to men within the Church. Wives willingly submitting themselves to their husbands within their homes and women submitting themselves to men in general are two very different things. It should be remembered that Christian slaves were also encouraged to continue willingly submitting themselves to their masters. (Eph.6:5, 1 Pet.2:18) This did not mean that Paul and Peter considered slave masters to be superior to their slaves in any way. Neither does it indicate that Christian slaves were not allowed to hold teaching positions in early Christian congregations. For within the Christian Church Paul said there was "Neither slave nor free." (Gal. 3:28)
Paul's intent in instructing Christian wives to continue submitting themselves to their husbands and Christian slaves to continue submitting themselves to their masters was to cause Christians and Christianity to become well spoken of among the nations. Paul asked Christian wives and Christian slaves to willingly surrender outside of the Church what they were given inside of the Church, full equality with their husbands and their masters. He asked them to do so in order to help spread the good news of Jesus Christ, who, as Paul and the other apostles reminded them, also suffered unjustly for them. (See 1 Pet. 2:18-21)
The scriptures reveal that in the early Church men usually took the lead in most matters, as they still tend to do today. And Paul's letters were written with that fact of life in mind. But this does not mean that women were then or should be today excluded from being appointed as servants in their Churches. This can be seen by reading 1 Tim. 3:8,11. There Paul wrote, "Deacons are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine .... In the same way, their wives (or "deaconesses" as in some manuscripts- see footnote in some Bibles) are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything." This, of course, reminds us of what Paul wrote to the Romans: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (or "deaconess") of the Church which is at Cenchrea." (Romans 16:1)
Some use Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2, where he said that "an overseer must be ... a husband of but one wife," to support their teaching that, though Paul may have permitted women to serve as "deacons" in their congregations, he did not permit them to serve as "elders." To this I say, Bunk! Why? Because it is obvious from their context that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 did not exclude women from serving as "elders." How is this fact obvious from that verse's context? Because the context of 1 Tim. 3:2, namely verses 1-7, clearly shows that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 were meant to be understood only in a very general way.
We can see this by the fact that he said, "An elder must be ... the husband of one wife." Thus those who say that this verse proves that an "elder" must be a man must also say that an "elder" must be married. However, very few of those who say that this verse proves Paul only permitted men to serve as elders say that it proves that Paul only permitted married men to do so. For those who say that would also have to believe that Paul did not permit widowers to serve as elders. For a widower is not "the husband of one wife." Also to be considered is the fact that Paul said that an elder must have "children who obey him." (verse 4) So, according to the "an elder must be a man, because Paul said they must be husbands" logic, all elders must also have children, but not just any children, children who still live at home. For only such children are required to "obey" their parents. But is it really reasonable to believe that in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 Paul was saying that all elders had to be married men with young children? No, it is not. For to believe this we would also have to believe that Paul required that elders give up their positions in their congregations when and if their wives ever died and when and if their children ever died or grew up and moved out on their own. For then those elders would no longer be "husbands of one wife" and then they would no longer have "children who obey them."
These things show that the only reasonable way to understand 1 Timothy 3:2 is to understand that in that verse Paul was simply indicating that the majority of the time elders were going to be men. Why? Because at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy few women had enough education to be "able to teach," which is what elders largely did. (verse2) Also in the first century, before the advent of birth control, disposable diapers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers and TV dinners, the vast majority of women were far too busy at home to be able to take on the responsibilities of teaching and shepherding a congregation. Because of such things Paul knew that few women in the first century would be able to serve as "elders." However, as I have here shown, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 no more disqualify women from serving as elders than they disqualify widowers and men without small children from serving as elders. With these things in mind we have no reason to believe that women were prohibited by Paul from serving as elders in early Christian Churches. The fact of the matter is that, despite the efforts of false teachers to the contrary, we know that women did serve as teachers in first century Christian Churches. For Jesus Christ Himself told us so. He did so when He instructed His apostle John to write to the Church in Thyatira and chastise them for tolerating the false teachings of a woman named "Jezebel." Though Jesus said that He was displeased with what that woman was teaching, He did not say that He was displeased with the fact that a woman was teaching. That the Church in Thyatira had allowed a woman to hold a teaching position for what was apparently a long time clearly shows that women were allowed to teach in first century Christian Churches. (Rev. 2:18-25) In fact, Paul seems to indicate that there was at least one woman who was even called an apostle. At Romans 16:7 he tells Christians to "greet Andronicus and Junia" who he says were "notable ones among the apostles". The name Junia is feminine (not masculine as many translations would have it). Furthermore, the normal way of reading the Greek would suggest that she was one among those called an "apostle", not just one who was highly respected by them.
The fact that women did at times serve as "elders" (aka "Bishops" or "overseers") in the early Church is also supported by strong historical evidence. Consider the following: An early mosaic in a Roman basilica portrays a female figure titled "Bishop Theodora." A Christian inscription from 2nd or 3rd century Egypt reads: "Artemidoras...fell asleep in the Lord, her mother Paniskianes being an elder (presbytera)." The bishop Diogenes in the 3rd century set up a memorial for Ammion the elder (presbytera, feminine form). Other passages which are sometimes said to brand Paul as a sexist are Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14.
Titus 2:3-5: "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."
These do not appear to me to be sexist remarks. Though I can see that there here exists an opportunity to take offense, if one is looking for such an opportunity.
1 Tim. 5:11-14: "As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."
The early Church had the custom of financially supporting widows. Here Paul was advising Timothy to no longer put young women who had lost their husbands on the list of widows who would be supported by the congregation. Why did he so advise Timothy? For one thing, when this was done it gave younger widows who were fully capable of supporting themselves too much time on their hands, time which often ended up being used in nonproductive ways. For another thing, Paul felt that many of the younger widows who were unable to support themselves were capable of finding new husbands who would support them, and by so doing they would no longer pose a financial burden to the congregation. Paul could have, and probably would have, made similar comments about young widowers, if young widowers were being supported by their congregations. But they were not. So he did not. With these things in mind, I do not feel it is fair to label these comments by Paul as "sexist."
Some have asked, if this understanding of Paul's words is correct, why do the writings of many of the early "Church Fathers" indicate that they treated women as second class citizens of the Church? The answer to this question is that even during Paul's lifetime false teachers were busy trying to corrupt what Paul taught concerning full equality of the sexes within the body of Christ. By the time the early "Church Fathers" wrote on this subject the thinking of the false teachers who had been so busy promoting sexism in Paul's day had infiltrated most Christian Churches. This should not come as a great surprise. For the fact that a corruption of Christianity would take place after Christ and His apostles left the earth was predicted by both Jesus and Paul. In fact, it is clear from Paul's writings, that prophesied corruption had already begun to take place during Paul's lifetime. (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thes. 2:3,7; 1 Tim. 4:1,2)
I now firmly believe that the man God used to write much of the New Testament did not, as is often alleged, promote sexism. Rather, I am convinced that the apostle Paul was actually a very strong promoter and defender of full equality of the sexes within the Christian Church. Mike Footnote: I wrote earlier that I believe Paul's original letters most likely employed some means of making the fact that he was at times quoting false teachers quite clear, a means which I believe was most likely lost, not in translation but in simple transcription. That is what I continue to believe. However, when discussing this subject matter with others it has been suggested to me that I consider the possibility that false teachers who were very active in the Church from the very beginning may have deliberately edited out such "quotation marks" when copying Paul's letters. It has also been suggested to me that I consider the possibility that they may have even edited out a few of Paul's own words, which in his original letters may have very clearly identified which words were the words of the false teachers and which words expressed his own beliefs. I have been reminded that when we are looking at any ancient copy of Paul's writings ( which is, at best, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ), and we do not then have Paul's original "autograph" copy to compare it to, we cannot say for sure how many words, if any, may have been deliberately removed from, or even added to, Paul's writings by corrupt copyists with an agenda. Many Christians I have spoken to believe that God only inspired the writing of the Bible writers' original manuscripts, and not the later copying of those manuscripts. That is what they say accounts for the fact that some minor corruptions have found their way into the text of our Bibles over the years, a fact which is acknowledged by nearly all Bible scholars. However, all Christians I have discussed this subject matter with have told me they are absolutely convinced that God saw fit to perfectly preserve in the Bible all the information that anyone needs to find salvation through Jesus Christ. -
10
Daniel 4:10-17
by OldSoul inthe meaning of daniel 4:10-17 is found in daniel 4:20-27. i am going to place the interpretation daniel gives for each element beside the interpretation given by the christian congregation of jehovah's witnesses.. i invite any witness to explain why the interpetation given in the bible is open to re-interpretation of a later fulfillment that does not correspond, on a single element, with the orginal interpretation.. .
from daniel 4:20-27. daniel's interpretation.
the tree that you beheld.... it is you o, king.
-
-
a Christian
Leolaia, Thanks for the details. I had read a while back of the Dan. 4 "Nebuchadnezzar = Satan" interpretation but failed to note any details its possible origin. I'll kept your words on file for future reference. Thanks again. Mike
-
50
Appropriateness of Women's Headcovering
by TheListener in1 corinthians 11:3-16 doesn't make any sense to me.
several other places paul says there are no male, female, slaves, jews, greeks, etc but we are all one with christ.
so why do some of us, who are all one, have to cover our heads or not even speak publicly at the meetings?
-
-
a Christian
Listener,
I posted this article a while back. It deals at length with the headcovering and other women's issues. You may find it to be of interest.
Women Equal In The Church My recent study of the scriptures has convinced me that the words written by the apostle Paul which are most often criticized as being "sexist," though they were in fact written by Paul, did not actually reflect the apostle's own beliefs about how women should be treated in the Christian Church. Instead, I believe that the context of all of Paul's allegedly "chauvinistic" words shows that they actually reflected the beliefs of false teachers, beliefs which Paul quoted because he felt they needed to be corrected, and teachers whom Paul turned his attention to because he felt they needed to be rebuked. The words written by Paul to which I here refer are those recorded in 1 Cor. 11:3-10, 1Cor. 14:34,35 and in 1 Tim. 2:8-15.
I wrote earlier that I believe Paul's original letters most likely employed some means of making the fact that he was at times quoting false teachers quite clear, a means which I believe was most likely lost, not in translation but in simple transcription. That is what I continue to believe. However, when discussing this subject matter with others it has been suggested to me that I consider the possibility that false teachers who were very active in the Church from the very beginning may have deliberately edited out such "quotation marks" when copying Paul's letters. It has also been suggested to me that I consider the possibility that they may have even edited out a few of Paul's own words, which in his original letters may have very clearly identified which words were the words of the false teachers and which words expressed his own beliefs. I have been reminded that when we are looking at any ancient copy of Paul's writings ( which is, at best, a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy ), and we do not then have Paul's original "autograph" copy to compare it to, we cannot say for sure how many words, if any, may have been deliberately removed from, or even added to, Paul's writings by corrupt copyists with an agenda. Many Christians I have spoken to believe that God only inspired the writing of the Bible writers' original manuscripts, and not the later copying of those manuscripts. That is what they say accounts for the fact that some minor corruptions have found their way into the text of our Bibles over the years, a fact which is acknowledged by nearly all Bible scholars. However, all Christians I have discussed this subject matter with have told me they are absolutely convinced that God saw fit to perfectly preserve in the Bible all the information that anyone needs to find salvation through Jesus Christ.
These words in the New International Version of the Bible read as follows:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (1 Cor. 11:3-10)
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14:34,35)
"I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (1Tim. 2:8-15)
Many Christians have long had a very hard time understanding how the apostle Paul could have written words such as these. Why? Because Paul encouraged Christians to, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1) And the Bible reveals that Jesus always treated women with respect and gladly discussed spiritual things with them. ( Luke 10:36-42; John 4:7-27) And because Paul was the same man who said that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) And because we know that Paul accepted both women prophets and women deacons. (Acts 18:26; 21:9 Romans 16:1) And, we can't help but ask, how did Paul expect women to serve as prophets if he did not allow them to teach or even speak in church, as 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12 would seem to indicate?
With these things in mind, I will here discuss what I believe is strong evidence which clearly indicates that Paul was, in these passages, actually citing false teachings then being promoted by others for the purpose of correcting those false teachings.
I believe that Paul's words in 1 Cor.11:3-10 described a teaching promoted by some in Corinth which the Corinthians sent to Paul for his critique. Paul's words in verse 2 serve as an obvious tip-off that Paul was about to directly quote and then comment upon a false teaching that was then circulating in the Church. For in that verse Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you."
I believe the next words he wrote, recorded in verses 3-10, were those in which Paul then quoted the false teaching which the Corinthians had sent to Paul for him to comment on. That teaching was this: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
The contents of the next several verses, 11-16, clearly show them to be Paul's rebuttal to the false teaching he had just referenced. For the words in these verses clearly rebut the arguments advanced in verses 3-10. Thus they can only be understood as being Paul's own explanation of the true Christian position on this issue, the position which Paul was really promoting. That position was this: "In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God."
After quoting those who demanded that women wear head coverings to show their submission to men Paul said, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ... LONG HAIR is given to her AS a covering." So, Paul was saying women do not need head coverings as some false teachers were demanding. Furthermore, Paul clearly pointed out that men and women were equal in the faith. "For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." (verse 12). This argument by Paul clearly refuted the false teachers' statement made in verses 3 and 8 that, "The head of woman is man," because "man did not come from woman, but woman from man."
I am convinced that the now common "male chauvinistic" understanding of Paul's words developed in large part due to the way in which Paul wrote. Paul's use of sharp contrasts in place of clear transitional phrases is largely responsible for causing some of what he wrote to be widely misunderstood. However, Paul's words would have been perfectly understandable by those to whom he originally addressed his letters. For they knew what Paul had previously taught on such matters. And they knew the teachings of others which they had asked Paul to comment on. However, when a third party, such as ourselves, reads the letters which Paul wrote they do not have such "inside" knowledge. And without it, it is sometimes difficult to recognize when exactly Paul was quoting false teachers and when he was actually setting forth true Christian teachings. Because of such difficulties in understanding Paul's letters many of the words Paul actually wrote for the purpose of refuting false doctrine later became widely used to promote false doctrine. And in the process Paul, God and the New Testament have acquired very undeserved reputations as being "anti-woman."
I'll now comment on 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 35. Though I normally use the NIV, I'll use the KJV here because in this passage the NIV is missing an important element. (The Revised Standard Version and others may also be used here. For they contain the same important element.) There we read: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church."
Here again, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10, we can see that Paul was quoting the words of false teachers for the purpose of rebuking them. How can we see this? By simply reading the three following verses, 1 Cor. 14:36-38. There Paul wrote: "What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
Paul identifies false teaching with either strong rebuke or by clearly pointing out the error and correcting it. Or by doing both. But he does so, as I mentioned earlier, while using minimal transitional phraseology. Here that transitional phraseology is extremely minimal. In fact, it consists of only a single word. But for Paul it only took one word to identify a false teaching. That word was one very strong word of rebuke. In case you missed it, that word was, "What?"
Though missing from the NIV, this "particle of distinction between two connected terms," as Strong's Greek dictionary defines the Greek word used at the beginning of verse 36, is translated as "What?" in the NWT, the KJV and the Amplified Bible, and as "What!" in other translations of the Bible. By Paul's use of that Greek word to begin his thoughts recorded in verse 36 it certainly appears that Paul was expressing both shock and outrage at the blatant sexism which some false teachers were then promoting as Christian doctrine. For those who question if that is truly the sentiment which Paul meant to convey by the first word he used in verse 36, the many words of rebuke which followed Paul's "What?" show beyond a doubt that he was disgusted that such chauvinistic teachings were being promoted in Christian congregations. And he reminded the Corinthians that, unlike the false teachers who were demeaning Christian women, "The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." (verse 37) One of the things to which he obviously here referred was his consistent teaching that in Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE NOR FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)
It is also worth noting that the content of this passage (1 Cor. 14:34,35) itself clearly indicates that the sentiments expressed therein could not have been those of Paul. For verse 34 says that women "are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." But, as I am sure you know, Paul was the apostle who continually preached Christian freedom and how Christians were not under either the Mosaic law or the pharisaic oral law, to which Paul must have here referred since the Mosaic law contains no such commands. Thus the idea that Paul would have used the authority of Jewish law to support his teachings seems, to put it mildly, most unlikely. So it seems quite clear, that when discussing here and elsewhere the idea that women should be treated differently than men within the Christian Church, Paul was citing the false teaching of some legalistic Jewish Christians. He was not presenting his own beliefs and teachings.
This also raises an interesting question. How was the text in Paul's letters originally formatted? Though I don't believe the actual text of any of Paul's letters has been corrupted over the years, I do believe it is entirely possible that Paul may have differently formatted, "italicized" or bolded some of his original written words. (The Greek language in Paul's day did not use punctuation marks.) I believe he may well have done so in a way that made it perfectly clear to any who read his original letters, when exactly he was writing his own words and when he was quoting the false teachings of others.
Imagine, for instance, if Paul had written his words in a way such as this:
Let your women keep silence in the churches
For it is not permitted unto them to speak
WHAT Was it from YOU that the word of God first went forth or has it come to YOU ONLY
Though the words have not changed, it is much harder now for us to miss what Paul was clearly saying to such false teachers. And I tend to believe Paul's original letters employed a similar means of making his meaning quite clear, a means which was lost, not in translation but in transcription.
The evidence also indicates that 1 Timothy 2:8-15, like 1 Cor. 11:3-10 and 14:34 and 35, were words written by Paul quoting false teachers. In the last verse of 1 Timothy chapter 1 the apostle Paul was explaining to Timothy about Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Thus we have reason to believe that in the early part of 1 Timothy chapter 2 Paul was actually refuting some of the teachings of these men. Then in verse 7 Paul pointed out forcefully that, "I am telling the truth, I am not lying - and am a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles." These words of his in verse 7 indicate that he was there contrasting his position as a teacher of truth with the false teachers he had just been discussing and whom he would now quote.
With this in mind, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 2:8 through the end of Chapter 2 can be seen to be a false teaching he was quoting for the purpose of exposing it as such. There Paul wrote, "I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing. I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
In the very next verse (1 Tim 3:1), in referring to what he was next to write, Paul wrote, "Here is the trustworthy saying." With these words, "Here is the trustworthy saying," Paul clearly indicated, as he did elsewhere when using that same phrase (1 Tim. 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11), that he had previously been referring to either people or ways of thinking which were not trustworthy.
As mentioned earlier, Paul's scant use of transitional phrases, clearly distinguishing his own teachings from the false teachings he sometimes cited for comment, is largely to blame for the problems we now have in understanding the passages we are here discussing. And Paul's use of such transitional phrases is certainly quite scant in this passage of scripture. Fortunately, however, we here have additional reason to understand that Paul must have here been citing the doctrine of false teachers. What reason is that? We know that Paul could not have here been presenting his own beliefs because he had already shown in 1 Cor. 11:12 that the argument, "Adam was formed first, then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:13) in no way proves that man is superior to woman. For, as Paul there pointed out, "As woman came from man, so also man is born of woman." So, why would Paul present an argument which he himself had previously shown to be flawed? ( 1 Timothy was written after 1 Corinthians ) The evidence shows that he would not and that he did not.
Thus we must conclude that 1 Timothy chapter 2:8-15 contain the false teachings of Hymenaeus and Alexander, and that Paul there quoted their teachings for the purpose of indicating to Timothy that he considered them to be neither "true" nor "trustworthy."
Something which also helps us to identify the teachings recorded in 1 Tim. 2:8-15 as being those of false teachers is the fact that they are full of regulations and restrictions typical of legalistic Jewish-Christian sects which were already beginning to spring up in the first century. Such sects promoted a form of prayer, during which the men only raised their hands, common to the first century Jewish religion. They also promoted a dress code for women but not for men and in effect dictated a women's lifestyle, (leaving more money for the men or contributions for the leaders by eliminating expensive jewelry) all on the pretense that God was being served by such.
As I read the words of 1 Tim. 2:11,12, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent," I recall the movie "Yentyl" with Barbra Streisand. Anyone who saw that film can appreciate the effect such doctrine had and has on women and why Paul would condemn those who promoted it.
These are the passages in the New Testament which are most often criticized for allegedly containing "sexist" thinking. Other passages which are sometimes attacked as being sexist are, I believe, very unfairly criticized. In such passages women are encouraged to be good wives and mothers and are instructed to willingly submit to their husbands at home and in their own personal lives. By doing so it is said Christian wives might be able to help win over their unbelieving husbands and be a good example of Christian humility to all. However, women are never told that they must submit themselves to men within the Church. Wives willingly submitting themselves to their husbands within their homes and women submitting themselves to men in general are two very different things. It should be remembered that Christian slaves were also encouraged to continue willingly submitting themselves to their masters. (Eph.6:5, 1 Pet.2:18) This did not mean that Paul and Peter considered slave masters to be superior to their slaves in any way. Neither does it indicate that Christian slaves were not allowed to hold teaching positions in early Christian congregations. For within the Christian Church Paul said there was "Neither slave nor free." (Gal. 3:28)
Paul's intent in instructing Christian wives to continue submitting themselves to their husbands and Christian slaves to continue submitting themselves to their masters was to cause Christians and Christianity to become well spoken of among the nations. Paul asked Christian wives and Christian slaves to willingly surrender outside of the Church what they were given inside of the Church, full equality with their husbands and their masters. He asked them to do so in order to help spread the good news of Jesus Christ, who, as Paul and the other apostles reminded them, also suffered unjustly for them. (See 1 Pet. 2:18-21)
The scriptures reveal that in the early Church men usually took the lead in most matters, as they still tend to do today. And Paul's letters were written with that fact of life in mind. But this does not mean that women were then or should be today excluded from being appointed as servants in their Churches. This can be seen by reading 1 Tim. 3:8,11. There Paul wrote, "Deacons are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine .... In the same way, their wives (or "deaconesses" as in some manuscripts- see footnote in some Bibles) are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything." This, of course, reminds us of what Paul wrote to the Romans: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant (or "deaconess") of the Church which is at Cenchrea." (Romans 16:1)
Some use Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2, where he said that "an overseer must be ... a husband of but one wife," to support their teaching that, though Paul may have permitted women to serve as "deacons" in their congregations, he did not permit them to serve as "elders." To this I say, Bunk! Why? Because it is obvious from their context that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 did not exclude women from serving as "elders." How is this fact obvious from that verse's context? Because the context of 1 Tim. 3:2, namely verses 1-7, clearly shows that Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:2 were meant to be understood only in a very general way.
We can see this by the fact that he said, "An elder must be ... the husband of one wife." Thus those who say that this verse proves that an "elder" must be a man must also say that an "elder" must be married. However, very few of those who say that this verse proves Paul only permitted men to serve as elders say that it proves that Paul only permitted married men to do so. For those who say that would also have to believe that Paul did not permit widowers to serve as elders. For a widower is not "the husband of one wife." Also to be considered is the fact that Paul said that an elder must have "children who obey him." (verse 4) So, according to the "an elder must be a man, because Paul said they must be husbands" logic, all elders must also have children, but not just any children, children who still live at home. For only such children are required to "obey" their parents. But is it really reasonable to believe that in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 Paul was saying that all elders had to be married men with young children? No, it is not. For to believe this we would also have to believe that Paul required that elders give up their positions in their congregations when and if their wives ever died and when and if their children ever died or grew up and moved out on their own. For then those elders would no longer be "husbands of one wife" and then they would no longer have "children who obey them."
These things show that the only reasonable way to understand 1 Timothy 3:2 is to understand that in that verse Paul was simply indicating that the majority of the time elders were going to be men. Why? Because at the time Paul wrote his letter to Timothy few women had enough education to be "able to teach," which is what elders largely did. (verse2) Also in the first century, before the advent of birth control, disposable diapers, clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers and TV dinners, the vast majority of women were far too busy at home to be able to take on the responsibilities of teaching and shepherding a congregation. Because of such things Paul knew that few women in the first century would be able to serve as "elders." However, as I have here shown, Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 no more disqualify women from serving as elders than they disqualify widowers and men without small children from serving as elders. With these things in mind we have no reason to believe that women were prohibited by Paul from serving as elders in early Christian Churches. The fact of the matter is that, despite the efforts of false teachers to the contrary, we know that women did serve as teachers in first century Christian Churches. For Jesus Christ Himself told us so. He did so when He instructed His apostle John to write to the Church in Thyatira and chastise them for tolerating the false teachings of a woman named "Jezebel." Though Jesus said that He was displeased with what that woman was teaching, He did not say that He was displeased with the fact that a woman was teaching. That the Church in Thyatira had allowed a woman to hold a teaching position for what was apparently a long time clearly shows that women were allowed to teach in first century Christian Churches. (Rev. 2:18-25) In fact, Paul seems to indicate that there was at least one woman who was even called an apostle. At Romans 16:7 he tells Christians to "greet Andronicus and Junia" who he says were "notable ones among the apostles". The name Junia is feminine (not masculine as many translations would have it). Furthermore, the normal way of reading the Greek would suggest that she was one among those called an "apostle", not just one who was highly respected by them.
The fact that women did at times serve as "elders" (aka "Bishops" or "overseers") in the early Church is also supported by strong historical evidence. Consider the following: An early mosaic in a Roman basilica portrays a female figure titled "Bishop Theodora." A Christian inscription from 2nd or 3rd century Egypt reads: "Artemidoras...fell asleep in the Lord, her mother Paniskianes being an elder (presbytera)." The bishop Diogenes in the 3rd century set up a memorial for Ammion the elder (presbytera, feminine form). Other passages which are sometimes said to brand Paul as a sexist are Titus 2:3-5 and 1 Tim. 5:11-14.
Titus 2:3-5: "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."
These do not appear to me to be sexist remarks. Though I can see that there here exists an opportunity to take offense, if one is looking for such an opportunity.
1 Tim. 5:11-14: "As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander."
The early Church had the custom of financially supporting widows. Here Paul was advising Timothy to no longer put young women who had lost their husbands on the list of widows who would be supported by the congregation. Why did he so advise Timothy? For one thing, when this was done it gave younger widows who were fully capable of supporting themselves too much time on their hands, time which often ended up being used in nonproductive ways. For another thing, Paul felt that many of the younger widows who were unable to support themselves were capable of finding new husbands who would support them, and by so doing they would no longer pose a financial burden to the congregation. Paul could have, and probably would have, made similar comments about young widowers, if young widowers were being supported by their congregations. But they were not. So he did not. With these things in mind, I do not feel it is fair to label these comments by Paul as "sexist."
Some have asked, if this understanding of Paul's words is correct, why do the writings of many of the early "Church Fathers" indicate that they treated women as second class citizens of the Church? The answer to this question is that even during Paul's lifetime false teachers were busy trying to corrupt what Paul taught concerning full equality of the sexes within the body of Christ. By the time the early "Church Fathers" wrote on this subject the thinking of the false teachers who had been so busy promoting sexism in Paul's day had infiltrated most Christian Churches. This should not come as a great surprise. For the fact that a corruption of Christianity would take place after Christ and His apostles left the earth was predicted by both Jesus and Paul. In fact, it is clear from Paul's writings, that prophesied corruption had already begun to take place during Paul's lifetime. (Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43; Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thes. 2:3,7; 1 Tim. 4:1,2)
I now firmly believe that the man God used to write much of the New Testament did not, as is often alleged, promote sexism. Rather, I am convinced that the apostle Paul was actually a very strong promoter and defender of full equality of the sexes within the Christian Church. Mike Footnote: -
10
Daniel 4:10-17
by OldSoul inthe meaning of daniel 4:10-17 is found in daniel 4:20-27. i am going to place the interpretation daniel gives for each element beside the interpretation given by the christian congregation of jehovah's witnesses.. i invite any witness to explain why the interpetation given in the bible is open to re-interpretation of a later fulfillment that does not correspond, on a single element, with the orginal interpretation.. .
from daniel 4:20-27. daniel's interpretation.
the tree that you beheld.... it is you o, king.
-
-
a Christian
As I pointed out in another thread dealing with this topic: Many (like OldSoul here) correctly argue that there is no reason for us to believe that Daniel 4 was meant to have any "larger fulfillment" than the one which Daniel applied to Nebuchadnezzar himself. But if God did intend for this passage of scripture to one day have a larger fulfillment, is the "larger fulfillment" proposed by JWs the most reasonable one? I don't think so. For other "larger fulfillments" of Daniel 4 have been proposed which seem more reasonable to me. For instance, it has been suggested that not God's rule, but Satan the devil's rule, was pictured by that tree. Like that Daniel 4 tree, Satan's rule and influence now fill the whole earth. And like that tree, the Bible tells us that Satan's rule and influence will one day be cut down and bound. The tree in Daniel 4 was bound with metal bands. We are told that one day Satan will be symbolically bound with metal chains. (Rev. 20:1-3) That Nebuchadnezzar would have been used to play the small scale role of Satan seems quite fitting. Nebuchadnezzar was, after all, a Gentile king who had persecuted and enslaved God's people. The tree in Daniel 4 was banded for "7 times." We are told that Satan will be chained for "1,000 years." By what mathematical formula does "7 times" equal 1,000 years? Surely one that is less complicated than the JW mathematical formula that converts "7 times" into 2,520 years. Am I saying that this "Nebuchadnezzar = Satan" interpretation is the "correct" interpretation of Daniel 4? No, I am only saying that if Daniel 4 was intended by God to one day find a "larger fulfillment," this "Nebuchadnezzar = Satan" interpretation seems much more likely to me to one day become that fulfillment than the JW "Nebuchadnezzar = God's righteous earthly rule" interpretation. Mike
-
19
Jesus or the Kingdom?
by theotherside init appears 2 me that jws harp so much on the new system and the " good news of the kingdom " that maybe the real theme of the bible is lost in the process.
from what i've studied the theme of the bible is all about jesus.
from the seed of genesis 3:15 to gods promise to abraham to giving the law as a tutor to christ ( you can't live or justify your salvation by law, you must have sins atoned 4 by jesus' sacrifice) 2 the real good news of the first century faith in that sacrifice and living like jesus did and being a christian which is learning how 2 love which brings life right now and future prospects of hope.
-
-
a Christian
You got that Right!