Liturgical Press: Wisdom Commentary about to Ship

I like new perspective, added info not normally considered, etc

I placed my order, also. Thank you Faithlife for making this series available!

Paul

If you mindlessly kept reading, but need extra confirmation not to buy this (smiling):

https://polumeros.blogspot.com/2017/01/review-of-wisdom-commentary-on-hebrews.html

Thanks Denise for including the review on the commentary on Hebrews - very interesting. My reading of the review is that the reviewer believes the writers have misused and/or misinterpreted the text and seem to have a contempt for basic Christian doctrine. If that's true, I feel sad for the writers especially given that being feminist doesn't necessarily mean taking that road. Although I have feminist writers in my library, this is a series I think I'll leave on the shop shelf. Keep well Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1056807#Comment_1056807

the reviewer believes the writers have misused and/or misinterpreted the text and seem to have a contempt for basic Christian doctrine

I felt sorry for him, since Hebrews was his baby. Who could ignore Melchizedek?! A bit OT, but I was reading an apostolic fathers resource (from Logos), and the author based his whole author-analysis of 1st Clement, on Clement as author of Hebrews (they're very similar). But the circular logic was head-spinning.

I don't get too excited with words like 'contempt'. A sizable portion of the early church had the exact same questions, with the only solution then, a bad diety (plus the Father). And the same questions remain today, when moral demands exceed historical behaviors.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1056851#Comment_1056851

It is a fabulous set I own it in Accordance and have found over the past 9 months to be very insightful and helpful.

-dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1056870#Comment_1056870

From the review and information, it doesn't look like something I'd be interested in. I never like when a biblical commentary takes a specific approach to gender or ethnicity. Reading Hebrews from a feminist perspective is no more appealing to me than reading Hebrews from a non-feminist perspective. My point is that original readers didn't read it from a feminist or non-feminist perspective and I don't think we should either. I think it is then that we automatically set our selves up for interpreting through the lenses of those presuppositions. That being said, even reading the reviews on it, the authors seem bent on taking offense and interpreting the text through the lens of offense. Why does it seem to me (and this is my personal view), that so many feminists are angry? My daughter is a professing feminist, loves Jesus to pieces, and when I listen to her, she makes so much sense. Yet, why are so many who represent feminism so angry? I don't know, but it seems to me that if half the quotes the reviewer posts are actually in the Hebrews commentary, I personally wouldn't find it appealing at all, even as a free resource---never mind paying for it.

Denise, I hope you come back and let us know what you think of it once you have finished reading.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1056935#Comment_1056935

It is not always angry or reading through a lens of offence. I have no issues with those because it is not my lens but it can be very important to learn about how others hear and read things. I remember the Dean of the Cathedral in a sermon in 1997 taking about how this one man he knew was so damaged by his earthly father it was impossible for him to call God father indeed hearing God referred to as father for him brought traumatic flash backs of his own earthly father who frequently violently forced his face in the toilet bowl while he flushed it. His lens was so damaged that to have god as loving parent he needed to excise father. There are times when we who are not female may need to be reminded how a text has been used to oppress or how a text's subtle implication is ignored because it is more feminine. When I for example read the africa bible commentary I occasionally feel it is out in left field but more often than not i do get valuable insights i know i would miss as a CisGendered white male in North America.

Here is a sample of wisdom:

Psalm 46

Imagining a World without War

Psalm 46:1–11

To the leader. Of the Korahites.

According to Alamoth. A Song.

¹God is our refuge and strength,

a very present help in trouble.

²Therefore we will not fear, though the earth should change,

though the mountains shake in the heart of the sea;

³though its waters roar and foam,

though the mountains tremble with its tumult.Selah

⁴There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,

the holy habitation of the Most High.

⁵God is in the midst of the city; it shall not be moved;

God will help it when the morning dawns.

⁶The nations are in an uproar, the kingdoms totter;

he utters his voice, the earth melts.

⁷The LORD of hosts is with us;

the God of Jacob is our refuge.Selah

⁸Come, behold the works of the LORD;

see what desolations he has brought on the earth.

⁹He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;

he breaks the bow, and shatters the spear;

he burns the shields with fire.

¹⁰“Be still, and know that I am God!

I am exalted among the nations,

I am exalted in the earth.”

¹¹The LORD of hosts is with us;

the God of Jacob is our refuge.Selah

In the midst of the cosmic and human chaos of Psalm 46, the voice of Israel’s warrior God melts the earth and brings war to a halt. Rabbinic interpreters saw the battles preceding the Messianic Age in the poetry of Psalm 46. Martin Luther used the imagery of this psalm to sing of Jesus’ battle against the Prince of Darkness in the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” The very first verse of the psalm, however, describes God as “our refuge [מחסה] and strength.” Though “refuge” can be a military term (e.g., Isa 25:12), here it communicates trust in God, who is affirmed as a reliable “helper” (עזרה, vv. 1, 5).¹ “Refuge” is almost “a one-word refrain” in books 1 and 2 of the Psalter.² The primary theme of protection and trust is picked up again in the refrain of vv. 7 and 11, in which ‏משגב‎ (protected high spot) is used for “refuge.” The context of this refuge is not battle and war, as the rabbis and Luther’s hymn would have it, but rather the end of war and the destruction of weapons, as Psalm 46:9 asserts. This is good news for women, children, and men everywhere.

Many classify Psalm 46 as a song of Zion, though no explicit mention is made of Jerusalem or Zion (a frequent poetic name for Jerusalem and for the temple mount area); other possible Zion psalms include 46, 48, 76, 84, 87, 122, and 132. Psalm 46 can be divided into three sections marked by ‏סלה‎ (a technical term indicating a pause) in vv. 3, 7, and 11 and by the refrain in vv. 7 and 11 (probably missing after v. 3). Repetition of the word “earth” (‏ארץ‎) ties the sections together (vv. 2, 6, 8, 9, 10) and suggests God’s universal sovereignty. The psalm moves from chaos in nature (vv. 1–3) to chaos in history (vv. 4–7) to universal peace (vv. 8–11).

The first section claims that the agitated earth, mountains, and sea cannot cause fear because God is refuge. These verses show that confidence in God “is rooted in creation,” both the creation of the world from the “deep” (Gen 1) and the creation of Israel, which passed through the waters of the Reed Sea (Exod 15).³ Mountains “shake” (‏מוט‎) or “totter” in v. 2, recalling God’s theophany on Sinai (Exod 19:18; Ps 68:7–8). Waters “roar” (‏המה‎) in v. 3, but “we will not fear.” These verbs are repeated in the second section, tying the two sections together. In v. 6 the kingdoms “totter” (‏מוט‎) and the nations “are in an uproar” (‏המה‎). The NRSV translation obscures the repetition by using different translations of the same verb. We can imagine the worst in this “ancient version of a modern doomsday scenario,” but since God is with us and reigns over all, it will not happen.⁴ The word “strength” in v. 1 (עז, also “power,” “fortress”) is used often in psalms that proclaim God’s reign and control (enthronement psalms 29:1; 93:1; 96:7; 99:4); such a God brings joy and comfort to the entire created order.

Amid all this chaos and movement sits “the city of God” in v. 4; there God is present. This city, Zion, is the “still point”⁵ of Psalm 46. As “the holy habitation of the Most High,” it is the capital of God’s realm and site of God’s temple (see Pss 48:1, 2, 8; 87:3). The mountains and nations may “totter” or “shake,” but this city “shall not be moved.”⁶ Verse 5 uses the same verb, מט, as in vv. 2 and 6 to drive home the contrast, though the NRSV translation again obscures the repetition. Zion is stable because of God’s presence and the presence of God’s agent on earth, the king (see Pss 2:6–7; 89:19–37). The river whose streams gladden the city of God (v. 4) reinforces this sense of stability. Here the ambivalent value of water seen in Psalm 42–43 again appears. Water is an agent of joy and sustaining power for those inside the city but a symbol of chaos for those outside it. This is “no ordinary channel; it is uniquely a sanctuary stream, one that issues forth from God’s holy residence.”⁷ This river in God’s city evokes several associations: with the river that flowed out of Eden to water the garden in Genesis 2:10–14; the river flowing from the temple in Ezekiel 47:1–12; and the river flowing from the throne of God, which has replaced the temple in Revelation 22:1–12.

The underside of Zion as symbol of order and security for society is that it functions rhetorically to support the established political and cultic hierarchies there as immutable and divine. If Jerusalem is the symbol of security and refuge, then Jerusalem’s rulers can argue that public life is in order; such “propaganda” allows no criticism.⁸ As Coogan argues, “In the royal Judean ideology … deity, king, and city were linked.”⁹ Zion was thought to be inviolable because it was chosen as the dwelling place of both God and the Davidic king (Isa 37:35). One must ask how Jerusalem’s leaders dealt with women, children, and the poor in service to this ideology, given repeated prophetic criticism of their economic policies.

The use of “LORD of hosts” as a title for God in the refrain of vv. 7 and 11 sets up expectations about God that are subverted in the third section of the psalm. The title “LORD of hosts” suggests that God is both divine king and warrior. “Hosts” refers to Israel’s armies (1 Sam 17:45); God is enthroned invisibly in the ark of the covenant and accompanies Israel into battle (Num 10:35–36). “Hosts” also refers to the heavenly army of angelic beings who do God’s bidding (Ps 89:6–8); the prophetic texts use this title often (e.g., Isa 6:3). Connected with the metaphor of the Warrior King is the destructive power of the divine voice; the Warrior King speaks and “the earth melts” (v. 6; cp. Pss 18:7–15; 29). Marc Brettler argues that God as warrior is prominent not only in Psalms 18, 24, and 68 but occurs in three-quarters of the psalms; it is a central metaphor for God complemented in Psalm 46 by the use of “refuge” as fortress protection. Verse 8 commands nature and nations to behold “desolations” this Warrior King God has brought. The word for “desolations” (שמות) occurs only here in the form of a plural of intensity, showing that divine power is greater than human power to destroy. Instead of the expected list of God’s destructive actions, however, this command is followed by the surprising declaration in v. 9 that God “makes wars cease” and destroys all the weapons of war. This warrior wages peace¹⁰ and “is superlative in this role.”¹¹ We are surprised by this usage, perhaps because we can no longer imagine a world without war. The outrage expressed by some toward John Lennon’s song “Imagine” comes to mind in this connection.

The security Psalm 46 imagines is based on God’s stabilizing, nurturing presence rather than weaponry and war. Throughout human time, war has cruelly victimized women and children. Nowhere is this more clear than in Judges 4–5, the story of the judge Deborah, the Kenite woman Jael, and the mother of Sisera, the Canaanite general against whom Deborah urges Israel to battle. Jael must become a “seductive killer” (5:24) to survive, and the worried mother awaiting her general son’s return assumes that he is gathering spoils of war: “a womb, two wombs” (5:30). She reduces the women of the enemy to their reproductive organs as she envisions their rape. These women “approve of or commit violent acts to help their men to become victorious. They serve a patriarchal agenda and do not seek its subversion.”¹² Psalm 46 makes this kind of dehumanizing relationship among sisters unnecessary. Nations are to drop their weapons and stop warring, as God commands in 46:10: “Be still, and know that I am God!” The NRSV translation misses the point of God’s action; “desist” might better express what is at stake (the word is the hiphil of רפה, “leave off, abandon, stop”).

Women and War

Psalm 46 beckons us to reflect on the immeasurable and generational suffering experienced by women of color because of the brutal, inhumane “war” of slavery, servitude, patriarchy, and machismo.¹³ This “war” is fought with the weaponry of marginalization and oppression and dehumanizes its victims. Psalm 46 proclaims that “God is our refuge.” How is “refuge” experienced for African, Latina, African American, or Caribbean women who continue to be classified as ugly creatures and as property, solely because of their racial heritage? God’s refuge is not simply comfort for these women while they are ravaged by war. Rather, God’s refuge is the end of war and the destruction of dehumanizing weapons.

Exploited, despised poor women of color, Shawn Copeland suggests, are the new anthropological subject.¹⁴ When oppressors acknowledge this, they can then recognize and affirm the human dignity of God’s precious creation, which also bears the imprint of God, the imago Dei. “The realization of humanity … of personhood … rooted in religious, intellectual, and moral conversion”¹⁵ is refuge that facilitates the cessation of war. This realization challenges oppressors to destroy their weapons of war—racism, sexism, classism. Then and only then will women of color experience holistically God’s healing refuge, so that the spiritual, emotional, and psychological wounds of battle may heal.

Audrey Coretta Price

For God to be “exalted” (v. 10), nations must stop their violence toward one another and toward their own people. Only then will the entire cosmos join in worship and exaltation of the One who is the only source of security. Will we recognize God’s sovereignty or not? Yet one wonders whether Psalm 46 intends a universal peace. As Schaefer¹⁶ argues, the refrain in vv. 7 and 11 is structured as a chiasm in an A/B//B*/A* pattern: A: Lord of hosts / B: (is) with us // B*: a refuge for us / A*: (is) the God of Jacob. The word “us,” referring to Israel, is encompassed by God in God’s role as Warrior King and God of a particular people. This particularism is echoed by Jesus, “God with us”/Immanuel (Matt 1:23), who becomes the new manifestation of God’s presence as he preaches the reign or kingdom of God (Luke 4:14–15). We are confronted with the tension between the universal and the particular in both texts.

Notes

^1. See also Pss 10:14; 22:19; 28:7; 30:10; 33:20; 37:40. God sought such a “helper” for the man in the garden of Eden in Gen 2; she was to be for him an עזר כנגדו, “a companion corresponding to it” or “counterpart” in a relationship of mutuality and trust. Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 88–90.

^2. J. Clinton McCann Jr., “The Book of Psalms,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 4 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1996), 639–1280, at 864. This word appears twenty-four times in books 1 and 2, beginning in Ps 2:12.

^3. Peter Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 344–45.

^4. McCann, “The Book of Psalms,” 865.

^5. Konrad Schaefer, Psalms, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001), 116.

^6. Peter L. Trudinger, “Friend or Foe? Earth, Sea and Chaoskampf in the Psalms,” in The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets, ed. Norman C. Habel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 29–41, argues that the Chaoskampf pattern (the battle between god[s] and forces of chaos represented by water-beings), which so many scholars see in poetic texts as a borrowing from the Enuma Elish creation story, is secondary in the Zion psalms. The Zion tradition “gives a central role to a place, not a battle” (p. 40). This frees the Earth and its components from their hostile stance against God’s order and allows for free response to God.

^7. William P. Brown, Seeing the Psalms: A Theology of Metaphor (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 117. See Ps 87:7.

^8. Robert D. Miller II, “The Origin of the Zion Hymns,” in The Composition of the Book of Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 667–76.

^9. Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 278.

^10. McCann, “The Book of Psalms,” 866.

^11. Marc Brettler, “Images of YHWH the Warrior in Psalms,” Semeia 61 (1993): 135–65, at 145. See also God’s staff used to comfort rather than strike in Ps 23:4.

^12. Susanne Scholz, “Judges,” in Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom, Sharon H. Ringe, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 113–27, at 118.

^13. This cultural mind-set is found, inter alia, in Latino/a communities founded on patriarchy and male leadership in society and the household. Women are subjugated to the status of subservient and voiceless members of society who serve their men and maintain their households under the leadership of that patriarch.

^14. M. Shawn Copeland, Enfleshing Freedom: Body, Race, and Being (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 93.

^15. Ibid., 92.

^16. Schaefer, Psalms, 116.

Denise Dombkowski Hopkins, Psalms Books 2-3, vol. 21 of Wisdom Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2016), 35-40.

https://accordance.bible/link/read/Wisdom_Commentary-16#11563

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057011#Comment_1057011

Hello Dan:

Thanks for posting the portion of the commentary for review. I don't want to elaborate too much on it, as I fear we will not see eye to eye and take the conversation in a direction that is outside of this forum's permissible discussions. (I TRY to follow the rules... ) I just wanted to clarify that I didn't say (or mean to give the impression) that I think all feminists are angry and that they all read through the lens of anger. As I stated, my daughter classifies herself as a feminist, and she's not angry. Her "feminists" statements make absolute sense to me. But, many feminists do appear to have an ax to grind and so they come off as angry quite often. Second, as I expressed above, good hermeneutics charges us to not bring our own biases to the text when we read it, right? We are to come to the text without presuppositions (as best as possible [;)] , so in writing a commentary wherein the authors CHOOSE a feminist lens (or non-feminist lens, for that fact) automatically presents a bias. When we approach the text and allow GOD to show us what HE thinks about feminism or non-feminism, THEN I'm ready to listen. But to approach ALL the text through a feminist lens is not what I have learned to be solid hermeneutics.

Praying His blessings to you and yours,

Cynthia

I like new perspective, added info not normally considered, etc

[Y]

About two years ago I started assembling a collection of resources solely by women authors tagged as “Bible Commentary” by Logos. With the addition of the two that went live today the collection now numbers 138. Viewpoint has not been a consideration. Except for the apocrypha, the collection finally covers every book of the Bible. This represents just 3% of the 4,700 resources labeled as Bible commentaries in the catalog.

The Wisdom Commentary series will eventually cover every book of the Bible, including the apocrypha, in 58 volumes. Of the eighty-plus scholarly contributors, more than seventy are women.

I very much look forward to seeing their work in my search results. Again, thank you Faithlife for making available this unique set of resources.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1056935#Comment_1056935

Denise, I hope you come back and let us know what you think of it once you have finished reading.

Well, now! You'd be a good poker player, smilingly calling someone's bluff (I'm joking).

As strange as it may seem, with my purchase, I'm hoping to help with 2nd Temple analysis. That probably sounds pretty bizarre. But I keep running into early jewish writers who were quite mystified by dissonances in the OT. And just looking at some of the commentary samples, the issues are very similar. And indeed, in Sunday morning Bible class, again, the same hands up, and our pastor making another run at it.

We shall see ... I really hate to call in a refund, so I'm hopeful!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057069#Comment_1057069

Denise, I hope you come back and let us know what you think of it once you have finished reading.

Well, now! You'd be a good poker player, smilingly calling someone's bluff (I'm joking).

As strange as it may seem, with my purchase, I'm hoping to help with 2nd Temple analysis. That probably sounds pretty bizarre. But I keep running into early jewish writers who were quite mystified by dissonances in the OT. And just looking at some of the commentary samples, the issues are very similar. And indeed, in Sunday morning Bible class, again, the same hands up, and our pastor making another run at it.

We shall see ... I really hate to call in a refund, so I'm hopeful!

LOL!! I actually really do want to know your thoughts. I have much respect for you, so your review of it will be an interesting read for me! 😁

Kelvin44

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057081#Comment_1057081

Thanks for sharing this info. Its helped to me.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057049#Comment_1057049

Thanks Denise for the information.

I usually disregard groups, authors, and / or currents that place too much emphasis on Sophia, as it is a supposed female deity that occult groups worship, and that sell to the novice as a personification of a concept.

Now, in the review the reviewer posts:

"While the influence of wisdom literature on Hebrews cannot be denied (as evidenced in the prologue), I suspect its influence has been overemphasized in this commentary due to the authors’ interest in depicting Jesus as the embodiment of the divine Sophia."

The above is interesting, as to my understanding Wisdom was with God at the beginning of creation and a good conjecture is that it was pre-incarnate Jesus (maybe as the Angel of Yahweh), and that many people of God have identified with the "Master Workman" described in Proverbs 8.

So trying to find out what the feminist author makes of the relation of Sophia and Jesus is worth investigating.

Remember that even though Proverbs says that whoever finds Wisdom finds life, all true Christians know that life is only found in Jesus Christ, not a Sophia of any kind, much less a personified false deity.

Another interesting point that could make the series worth, is that different specialized biological roles historically, have allowed the genders to perceive different things that are important from their point of view in their particular contexts.

So it is good to read criticism of perceived concepts and thrusts in the Bible, to check and see if we males have overlooked an important angle.

[Abuse is not prescribed in the Bible Isaiah 58:6, injustice and exploitation is not a part of Godly love, charity, mercy and the like. Submission does not imply abuse of dignity, etc.]

The reference in the review about child abuse, is kind of funny, because not taking God at face value for what He warned about (like Eve did) is probably a contributory cause to the fall in which the possibility of such abuse begun [there was no abuse before the fall]. Maybe the first couple abused God by violating His established moral order.

If created beings blatantly disregard the moral order ingrained in God's created order, of course that dire consequences will ensue (first of all death).

So when Jesus says that He lays His life down voluntarily John 10:17-18, to save the created beings, is the utmost sacrifice in unconditional love, that truly shows who God in reality is: merciful, and forgiving, willing to go the extra mile to save us from ourselves and our selfish motives.

To fix the problem of the fall, the decree against us had to be removed: Colossians 2:13-14, and that we are all fallen and redeemed, maybe is part of the plan so that no one can boast in front of God.

When the ruling and only will is God's, all created order works perfectly. Any time a creature wants to assert his / her will over God's, is when troubles start. Is that lesson too hard to learn? for some probably yes.

I am undecided to order the series, but has made me want to know more about christian feminism. Is it a heterogeneous movement, do they have agreed doctrine, are they considered within the orthodox envelope? or is it as varied as the different denominations in western Christianity, do you know?

Thanks again for bringing the info to the forum.

Dan Francis

I don't want to elaborate too much on it, as I fear we will not see eye to eye and take the conversation in a direction that is outside of this forum's permissible discussions. (I TRY to follow the rules...

Understand and i do realize this series is not going to be for everyone. over all I have found it very insightful and useful. I would just encourage people to not be afraid and taking advantage of the Logos 30 day return policy to give it a fair shake as to weather it could be useful for them. I do realize that for some it is not going to be useful for them.

-dan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057130#Comment_1057130

I am undecided to order the series, but has made me want to know more about christian feminism. Is it a heterogeneous movement, do they have agreed doctrine, are they considered within the orthodox envelope? or is it as varied as the different denominations in western Christianity, do you know?

Thanks again for bringing the info to the forum.

Well, being a tiny bit familiar with your beliefs, this one's not for you. Just being realistic.

Feminists actually describe most women. Masculinists, most men. Naturally. Perspective is not by accident. Most men aren't looking for a masculine lady. Ditto the reverse for women.

The difference is at the extremes. When you read some early judaism resources (male), you'll see those extremes. So also, recent 'feminists'. I kind of scan over both, if there's value to be had. The problem is 'value to be had'.

Just to illustrate my earlier comment to Cynthia, judaism (at least some versions) were absolutely locked in on 'the binding of Isaac'. And it proceeded for several centuries. Modern day critics return to the same issue, and I suspect these type issues will repeat with new participant groups.

A different example is Judges (luckily, this collection includes Judges). First, you destroy all mitochondria from the tribe of Benjamin. Then you capture a bunch of virgins to repair the damage. How so?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057136#Comment_1057136

judaism (at least some versions) were absolutely locked in on 'the binding of Isaac'. And it proceeded for several centuries. Modern day critics return to the same issue, and I suspect these type issues will repeat with new participant groups.

A different example is Judges (luckily, this collection includes Judges). First, you destroy all mitochondria from the tribe of Benjamin. Then you capture a bunch of virgins to repair the damage. How so?

People keep talking about context, but conveniently leave it out when it gives clue to the real problem, and that points to the root cause of the problem.

Baal, Moloch, and other cults had some strange practices (Asherah cult was close to Baal's in the fire from heaven story). It was not uncommon for unsaved persons to sacrifice what they valued more to a supposed deity to secure favor, fair following winds, survival, etc.

God was testing Abraham. What was deep in Abraham's heart needed to be shown in real life. Abraham was sure that His God was not asking for the unthinkable for no reason, and he was sure that God would solve the dilemma if obedience and faith (needed for leadership in God's things) were exercised.

Of course the killing was not allowed by God, and never ever did God ask for an actual killing of babies, like many other cults following false deities and demons do.

Was it psychological terrifying to Isaac? probably, but life back then was brutal, precisely because was in a fallen situation.

It is human will that wants to be in control over God's will that causes all the trouble.

Benjamin tribe is a curious case, but we are not omniscient to really know what happened. Why would supposedly followers of Yahweh do such brutality to a female that was in the related big group? Maybe they were fake believers not walking their talk.

Many things in the Bible were written to be examples to us. By their fruit you will know who is who. Would turn the eye the other way to abuse could get you in the improper believer club? maybe.

We are not supposed to be talking about this here. I wrote just so there was a comparison of perceptions about certain events. I try not to write such things, but I cannot stand when supposedly believers question the character and nature of God, as over all, God is good and His h:hesed is forever.

All was perfect before created beings decided to supplant God. Any group or person trying to do is doomed to failure, because no creature has aseity nor creative power as God does.

Tares and Wheats, could what Christ described as the true underlying reality in a fallen situation be true? and if there are Tares infiltrated in the true flock, what are real sheep to do about it?

Not with armies, but with Holy Spirit, the tares are not to be allowed to take control be male or female, and not by killing, but by God's power.

Old struggle stays, means and rules of engagement change.

Non-expert opinion of course, for purely further research, reflection and sharing of insights purpose alone.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057136#Comment_1057136

judaism (at least some versions) were absolutely locked in on 'the binding of Isaac'. And it proceeded for several centuries. Modern day critics return to the same issue, and I suspect these type issues will repeat with new participant groups.

A different example is Judges (luckily, this collection includes Judges). First, you destroy all mitochondria from the tribe of Benjamin. Then you capture a bunch of virgins to repair the damage. How so?

People keep talking about context, but conveniently leave it out when it gives clue to the real problem, and that points to the root cause of the problem.

Of course the killing was not allowed by God, and never ever did God asked for an actual killing of babies, like many other cults following false deities and demons do.

Was it psychological terrifying to Isaac? probably, but life back then was brutal, precisely because was in a fallen situation.

It is human will that wants to be in control over God's will that causes all the trouble.

Many things in the Bible were written to be examples to us. By their fruit you will know who is who. Would turn the eye the other way to abuse could get you in the improper believer club? maybe.

All was perfect before created beings decided to supplant God. Any group or person trying to do is doomed to failure, because no creature has aseity nor creative power as God does.

Tares and Wheats, could what Christ described as the true underlying reality in a fallen situation be true? and if there are Tares infiltrated in the true flock, what are real sheep to do about it?

Not with armies, but with Holy Spirit, the tares are not to be allowed to take control be male or female, and not by killing, but by God's power.

Old struggle stays, means and rules of engagement change.

Non-expert opinion of course, for purely further research, reflection and sharing of insights purpose alone.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057219#Comment_1057219

Can I just share an epiphany I had? I am DEAD SERIOUS about this. It literally JUST hit me right between the eyes for the first time in my life. Here it is. I have always believed that wisdom and knowledge are good things---more is great. "Knowledge is power," yada, yada, yada. Well, I've decided that God is SO good to me. He has protected me from too much knowledge...too much wisdom. He had kept my head in balance with what my heart can stand. I know, mumble jumble stuff, but I understand what I mean, and so does God. I am, truly and with all sincerity, for the very first time in my life, content with my level of intelligence. Just bragging on my God...

Peace,

Cynthia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057228#Comment_1057228

Cynthia, I know you probably did not write for me, but it highlights a key point:

Very good, and there is the true sheep status, knowing our own limitations in front of an awesome God.

He wants us to trust, obey, and walk humbly with Him, He will take care of the rest.

My problem is with persons that think (sometime rightly) that we ought to do things because God will not come and do it for us.

To an extent I agree, but we definitively need the input of God to properly decide what to act on and how.

See the Tares at times think they are so smart, that they do not need God or His input to take care of business, and huge mistakes ensue, that many times get innocents in trouble.

The delusion of the supremacy of the creature is what is at the heart of the Tare, faithful to that delusion from their evil father.

The antichrist will sit in the Ezekiel temple and say: I am God (exactly what Heyleel wanted to do from the beginning) in the former, Jesus Christ will kill him, in the second case, it will be cast to the lake of fire.

Not so great destiny. Problem is that in between their final destiny, they will want to deceive the elected ones to worship such failed system.

Creature do not have aseity, and will never have. Creatures do not have creative powers like God, and will never have apart from Him.

Our job is to not fall for their folly. And to side with the true winner: Jesus Christ.

Peace and grace.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057228#Comment_1057228

I am, truly and with all sincerity, for the very first time in my life, content with my level of intelligence.

Well, duh. Smiling. First, you've always been very intelligent. From up above, a gift. You're a leader. But more importantly, the folks that sat on the hillside, forgetting their lunch box, amazed by Jesus didn't need a whole lot of interesting information. Believe, he said.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057229#Comment_1057229

Hello Hamilton:

I honestly was not speaking about anyone. I wasn't referring to anyone. I was reading the above, had a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach over what sometimes seems like "headiness" of this academic/scholarly chatter of the Christian faith, and then realized that I was content not understanding it. That led to my epiphany, and I shared it. That simple.

I think studying God's Word and knowing the truth is important. But, I think because I'm reading all these books for one of my classes on the Pietistic Tradition, while at the same time I am entrenched in the book of Galatians, ("You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you..."), I'm hungry for the simplicity of the gospel and "Jesus loves me this I know." And in that moment, I realized how God has protected me, and I'm thankful. Like I said, that simple.

Blessings,

Cynthia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057233#Comment_1057233

Cynthia:

So true, very well expressed.

1 Corinthians 2:5

that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Peace and grace.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057232#Comment_1057232

I am, truly and with all sincerity, for the very first time in my life, content with my level of intelligence.

Well, duh. Smiling. First, you've always been very intelligent. From up above, a gift. You're a leader. But more importantly, the folks that sat on the hillside, forgetting their lunch box, amazed by Jesus didn't need a whole lot of interesting information. Believe, he said.

Ahhhhh....thank you Denise. I LOVE what you said, that those on the hillside didn't need a whole lot of interesting information. I guess my epiphany has come because I am so stressed out over all these papers I have to write and it hurts my brain. Something about all this academic approach to faith was making me feel heady. "Believe, he said." Simple. I like it!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057232#Comment_1057232

I am, truly and with all sincerity, for the very first time in my life, content with my level of intelligence.

Well, duh. Smiling. First, you've always been very intelligent. From up above, a gift. You're a leader. But more importantly, the folks that sat on the hillside, forgetting their lunch box, amazed by Jesus didn't need a whole lot of interesting information. Believe, he said.

[Y]

One thing I learned in religious studies (Buddhist studies), for an academic it can be an advantage to be a non-believer - less pressure for confirmation bias. The believer can use the academic to refine their faith but have no reason to want to be an academic unless that is their natural inclination. One's model for a life of faith should never be academic or religious leader - it should be Jesus Christ and those few people you'll actually meet who clearly reflect Jesus Christ's love.

The trouble is that software tools by their very nature emphasize the academic. So please support the Logos resources that defy this tendency - things like: The Way of the Pilgrim, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, The Cloud of Unknowing . . .

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057331#Comment_1057331

I am so stressed out over all these papers I have to write and it hurts my brain.

Cynthia feel free to mention some of the papers you have to write about. Posters can then provide ideas, approaches, keywords / topics / themes, etc.

that can help you determine how to tackle some of them.

Sometimes when we do sources research we are gathering key ideas, and the like to narrow the topic and to get a rough idea of how to organize logically the paper.

Once you have the basic down, then you can focus on your particular contribution to the theme.

https://ebooks.faithlife.com/search?query=research&sortBy=Relevance&limit=60&page=1&filters=status-live_Status&ownership=all

Peace and grace.

LOL: human wisdom is not bad of itself except when is against revealed truth from God, and / or trying to supplant God's will, direction, etc.

Hi Denise and participants of this thread.

I have been researching, and came upon some interesting information:

"The various reading perspectives discern and identify sometimes overlooked aspects and accents within the Bible; they call attention to how these are strategic in the life and faith of a particular people. Viewed with openness, each perspective can inform us, raise our consciousness, advise us, and increase awareness of our mutual responsibilities as believers. This is as it should be, because the Bible is the property of the entire church, and each reading community within the church has insights to share with an interest to enlarge the church’s vision of God and God’s work among and through us in the world. The quest to understand and rightly utilize the Bible makes that sharing necessary. The plurality of reading perspectives makes that sharing possible. Meanwhile, we must understand that although readings of the Bible can be influenced by life within a particular social location, no reading should lead to an isolating hermeneutic, nor should it end as a reading that is location-controlled."

Massey, J. E. (1994–2004). Reading the Bible from Particular Social Locations: An Introduction. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 1, p. 152). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

"Reading the Bible as Women

CAROLYN OSIEK

Do women read the Bible differently from men? To judge from recent studies on gender differences, the answer must be yes, since such studies indicate that, based on the differences of socialization and experience due to gender, women generally interpret their world differently than do men."

Osiek, C. (1994–2004). Reading the Bible as Women. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 1, p. 181). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

"CRUCIAL QUESTIONS AND SOME RESPONSES

Beyond the flourishing scholarship by women for women about biblical women that continues today, however, the fundamental questions remain, the questions that must be asked by every woman of biblical faith whose consciousness has been raised this far: Is the Bible redemptive for women? Taking the question a step further, is the Bible redeemable for women? There is an unavoidable problem with the foundational document of Jewish and Christian faith, in that it sometimes ignores women or treats us only as threats to men (androcentrism), sometimes expresses contempt and fear of us (misogynism), and sometimes treats us as dangerously ignorant beings that must be controlled (patriarchalism)."

Osiek, C. (1994–2004). Reading the Bible as Women. In L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 1, p. 183). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

It would be interesting to get some input from female posters, on some of the questions above and in the article.

In my understanding, when Paul was expressing some of the limitations with respect to gender, he mentioned that they were mandates of God and not made up stuff from him.

God Himself created women as a fit aid for man. At no point did Jesus reverse that. There is no explicit reversion so that men will eventually become a fit aid for women.

Many feminist Christians do not fully explain their take on that particular situation.

Another question is what submission entails?

It surely is not oppression or messing up with person's dignity.

The model proposed by the Bible is Jesus caring for, and working with, and directing for higher purposes the Bride (true church). Not exploiting her in self serving intentions, nor humiliating its dignity.

Very interested on what women have to say. Do you read the Bible different, do you consider that human male interpretation is out of whack with the true message presented in the Bible?

How about social location? Do you consider that you have been short changed in the Western structure because of a misinterpretation of Biblical spiritual message?

Thanks ahead of time for your input.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057437#Comment_1057437

How about social location? Do you consider that you have been short changed in the Western structure because of a misinterpretation of Biblical spiritual message?

Hamilton, are you talking Logos software bugs? A recommended resource? How to close multiple tabs? These are good forum questions.

But regarding your not-forum question, and being humorous:

- I'm an 'eastern' person (my forum image is a chikusen biwa; no idea who the guy is). I could care less about any Western structure. But biwa tuning pegs come loose in dry climates like here. This is a truly maddening issue.

- I don't use interpretations, nor for that matter a Biblical spiritual message. These are other folks' theological constructs. They can happily be short changed, if they like. I don't recall short-changing advice in the Bible.

Less humorous, I do get tired of presumed men of God using the text for their own pleasure. I think 1 Kings 13 spoke to that problem, if I recall. I was surprised the donkey was uninjured.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057437#Comment_1057437

In my understanding, when Paul was expressing some of the limitations with respect to gender, he mentioned that they were mandates of God and not made up stuff from him.

God Himself created women as a fit aid for man. At no point did Jesus reverse that. There is no explicit reversion so that men will eventually become a fit aid for women.

Many feminist Christians do not fully explain their take on that particular situation.

Another question is what submission entails?

It surely is not oppression or messing up with person's dignity.

Perhaps theological viewpoints and discussions about gender, submission, and/or feminism are better off on a different website?

Very interested on what women have to say.

Perhaps you could buy the collection and read what woman have to say?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057440#Comment_1057440

Thanks Denise for the answer.

With women input maybe the importance of the series could be realized, as many male posters can relate closer to female posters here that they respect and trust, to see if the fuss about a feminine hermeneutic could show angles not normally considered by men.

The topic is so interesting, that I think some males would consider learning more about the feminine point of view, because it presents very valid critique.

Kind regards.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057446#Comment_1057446

Peta Christian:

I laid down the key issue many males see about the gender difference concept. God was clear on each gender role.

Why this is not talked about much?

Maybe resources that touch on this can be mentioned, and / or ways to explore the topic and in recommended female hermeneutic series / collection, etc. can be proposed.

The article on the New Interpreter's Bible is very illuminating, it touches on many important topics, that it made me curious to hear from trusted females about some points.

The intent was not to polemicist or violate guidelines, but to encourage more research about this important (and often overlooked) subject.

Kind regards.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057446#Comment_1057446

Perhaps you could buy the collection and read what woman have to say?

Rosie kindly shared a collection rule long ago:

title:(feminis, female, gender, women, sexes) OR "biblical equality" OR subject:(feminist, gender, women) OR mytag:gender -"men and women of the bible" -mytag:"library of early"

Is there a Female author collection anywhere?

How about Female feminist author collection?

Does anybody know?

Kathleen Marie

A very kind member of this forum gifted me this set. This set is mind blowing.

I am trying to read Leviticus, but I cannot even get through the introduction. I keep researching new words and ideas and spend hours doing that before I get back to the commentary to read a few more paragraphs. Then I am hours researching new words and ideas again.

I really needed to be introduced to this set at exactly this stage of my education, not sooner, and not later. This is not just about what I agree with or what I do not agree with. I also need to know WHY other Christians do what they do. I've been told false things about WHY some Christian women do what they do.

This set is also really good scholarship that points out issues that are not in my other Leviticus commentaries. General audience details that have nothing to do with gender. And also things that a woman would notice first, but that all people benefit having pointed out to them.

Women smell things before men and children. Men and children stay healthier and more comfortable, when disease-causing stinky things are removed sooner. Women are not expected to wait for the man to smell the rotting potato in the potato bin before removing it. I think women writing commentaries is a really good idea, and I hadn't noticed how few female authors were writing my commentaries.

Thank you secret person! God bless you!

Nick Steffen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1188887#Comment_1188887

This set is mind blowing.

Absolutely!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1188907#Comment_1188907

Wisdom Commentary Series (16 vols.) | Logos Bible Software and here Wisdom Commentary Series (16 vols.) - Verbum

Plus 5 more volumes on prepub need some love Wisdom Commentary Series | WC (5 vols.) | Logos Bible Software and here Wisdom Commentary Series | WC (5 vols.) - Verbum

Kathleen Marie

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1188907#Comment_1188907

Before being gifted this set, I was unaware how infrequently I was quoting females. For my papers for my secular classes, my quotes for females were a fraction of my quotes from males, but when I started writing for religion classes, I did not realize that I was not quoting female authors at all.

Something is wrong with looking back at paper after paper and realizing that I did not quote a single female author. I am not sure what is "right", but I do know this is wrong, somehow, some way.