From 'Vayikra Rabba' !!

[Larry Kelsey]

Shlama Akhi Rob,

Let me know if I'm swerving from the type of material you would like to see posted here on this type of forum.
I'm sure you've seen this or something very similar.

From 'Vayikra Rabba' (s. 19)---

1. "Should anyone, in Deut. 6:4, change d to r he would ruin the world."

This would make the verse read "Hear, O Israel; the Lord is a false lord."

2. Should anyone, in Exodus 34:14, change r to d he would ruin the world."

This would make the verse read "Thou shalt not worship the one true God."

3. Should anyone, in Lev. 22:32, change x to h he would ruin the world."

This would make the verse read "Neither shall ye praise {instead of "profane"} My holy name."

4. Should anyone, in Psa. 150:6, change h to x he would ruin the world."

This would make the verse read "Let every thing that hath breath profane {instead of "praise"} the Lord."

5. Should anyone, in Jer. 5:12, change b to k he would ruin the world."

This would make the verse read "They have lied like {instead of "belied"} the Lord."

6. Should anyone, in 1st Sam. 2:2, change k to b he would ruin the world."

This would make the verse read "There is no holiness in {instead of "none holy as"} the Lord."

What might take you by surprise is that this comes from a book entitled "God's Word to Women" (One Hundred Bible Studies on Women's Place in the Divine Economy) by Katherine C. Bushnell. She was so adamant about the silencing of women in ministry and the total hypocrisy of women being allowed to do everything overseas but nothing at home in ministry (plus a million other rude, vulgar and overly domineering stances toward women made by men who contort Scripture to fit their every whim), that she delved deeply into Biblical Language studies. For example, one passage of Scripture was so pivotal in the treatment of women, that she made an entire chart entitled "Rendering of TESHUQA in ancient versions" featuring the Septuagint, Peshitto, Samaritan Pentateuch, The Old Latin, Sahidic, Bohairic, Aethiopic, Arabic, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Babylon Targum and Babylon Talmud.
The verses in question are Gen. 3:16, Gen. 4:7, and Song of Sol. 7:10. Unanimously, "turning" is the common concensus as opposed to "desire" which has been misinterpreted to mean "make your wife into a sex-slave or any kind of slave" evidently. If this woman were still alive today she'd really roast these womanizers and male chauvinist pigs (some of which find their way into our pulpits unfortunately). <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

Any thoughts?

Shlama w'Burkate, Larry Kelsey

[Craig]

She was so adamant about the silencing of women in ministry and the total hypocrisy of women being allowed to do everything overseas but nothing at home in ministry (plus a million other rude, vulgar and overly domineering stances toward women made by men who contort Scripture to fit their every whim), that she delved deeply into Biblical Language studies.

Nowhere in the teachings of Y'shua, nor in the rest of the B'rit Chadashah, do we see anything authorizing female S'michah (Ordination). On the contrary, the example that Y'shua set was selecting Twelve men, and there are explicit limits upon the roles that women can perform within congregations (1 Corinthians 14:33-35).

Congregational offices are restricted to men, and the one man who is ultimately responsible for the congregation is the Paqid (Overseer).

1 Timothy 3:2-7

A Paqid then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the assembly of Elohim?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Unlike the Paqid, who can be relatively young man like Timothy was, for a man to hold the office of Zaken (Elder) his children must all be of age to have personally accepted Y'shua and in fact done so:

Titus 1:5-6

I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work there and appoint Zakenim in each town as I instructed you. A Zaken must be well thought of for his good life. He must be faithful to his wife, and his children must be believers who are not wild or rebellious.

Mshamshana (Servants) are men selected to be in charge of temporal needs of believers, such as distributing charity to believing widows from the funds of the local assembly (Acts 6:1-6).

1 Timothy 3:8-12

Likewise Mshamshana must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as Mshamshana, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let Mshamshana be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Yisra'el has been always been a patriarchal society, and the B'rit Chadashah clearly expects ordained men to govern the congregations as they do their wives and children. Jewish and Church tradition are united in that only men may be receive S'michah. All the liberal branches of Judaism (Reform) and Christianity that have allowed female ordination, quickly then start ordaining homosexuals. It is the same politcally correct perversion, just in different forms.

For example, one passage of Scripture was so pivotal in the treatment of women, that she made an entire chart entitled "Rendering of TESHUQA in ancient versions" featuring the Septuagint, Peshitto, Samaritan Pentateuch, The Old Latin, Sahidic, Bohairic, Aethiopic, Arabic, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, Latin Vulgate, Babylon Targum and Babylon Talmud.
The verses in question are Gen. 3:16, Gen. 4:7, and Song of Sol. 7:10. Unanimously, "turning" is the common concensus as opposed to "desire" which has been misinterpreted to mean "make your wife into a sex-slave or any kind of slave" evidently.

I notice she avoided, "...and he shall rule over you", to focus on, "...thy desire [shall be] to thy husband".

If this woman were still alive today she'd really roast these womanizers and male chauvinist pigs (some of which find their way into our pulpits unfortunately).

If believing the Scriptures that men are meant to rule over their households, and that women are NOT supposed to be "equals" with men, nor teach men, etc., means I'm a "male chauvinist pig"... I much rather be that than a weak willed little man that that would rather follow the direction of modern society than his Elohim.

Regards, Craig

[drmlanc]

Doesn't the Bible say a woman must be silent in the Church?

If that makes me chauvanistic, to listen to His Word, then i guess I am just chauvenistic <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[Rob Vanhoff]

Shlama Akhay,

Larry, I'm familiar with the rabbinic material you've quoted. I personally think it is a very creative midrashic instruction for scribes to write every single letter with extreme care and the utmost attention. For anyone who writes with the Ashuri script can tell you how easily these particular letters can be mistaken for another. The rabbis are simply stressing the importance of forming each letter correctly.

Women have played extremely important roles in Scripture. There was a woman judge (Deborah), who was at that time the most powerful person in Israel. There was Huldah the prophetess to whom Hilkiah the priest went, and who prophecied in the time of King Josiah. There was Esther (Hadassah), through whom God saved the Jews in thier exile.

According to the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene was the first to see our risen Master. (For she was held in high regard as a disciple of Yeshua in the Yochannan community)

Comments found in Paul's writings need to be kept in context. If there are women who are talking amongst themselves in the back seats during serious teaching, of course they need to be silenced or asked to leave the room. But the same would go for men who are in any way distracting from the teaching of the word. Every situation needs to be handled according to the Spirit. One aspect of 'legalism' is either enforcing a law inappropriately, or insisting that the lighter matters of the law should outweigh the heavier matters. The emphasis of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians is order, not the complete silencing of women. The reason this is even an issue is because there were particular women causing disruptions. "Control the situation! Order!" Paul commanded.

I'll tell you this - if I had the choice of sitting at the feet of Mary Magdalene or some new male Gentile convert who'd never heard a word from the Lord, I'd learn from the former any day!

A man and woman are to complement one another in marriage. Each one's body belongs to the other, for they are one flesh. This relationship mirrors the relationship between Meshikha and His 'edah (congregation). The godly household has spiritual order, and the man is the leader. But the wise man will also discuss matters with his wife before making important decisions. He washes her with the water of the Word, through which they grow closer together as they discuss and chew on it together.

These are my beliefs.

Akhi Craig, I have two questions for you. Where did you get the word 'paqid'? Do you insist that this is the correct term? Thanks.

Shlama w'taybutha,
Rob

[Craig]

Women have played extremely important roles in Scripture. There was a woman judge (Deborah), who was at that time the most powerful person in Israel. There was Huldah the prophetess to whom Hilkiah the priest went, and who prophecied in the time of King Josiah.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nazarene-Judaism/message/7295">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nazarene- ... ssage/7295</a><!-- m -->

Where did you get the word 'paqid'?

Closest Hebrew title that I could find to the Greek episkopos.

Do you insist that this is the correct term?

No. The Aramaic equivalent would be most correct, or even the literal meaning of "Overseer".

Shlama, Craig

[Rob Vanhoff]

Shlama Craig,

The reason I asked is that 'paqid' is the title assumed by a man named Yirmi ben David, a convert to Yemenite Judaism who claims to be the hier of the bishopric of a reconstructed 'original Netzarim' in Ra'anana, Israel. I own a few of his books and know his teachings fairly well. Are you familiar with his work?

The Hebrew term dyqp means 'one charged/commanded/commissioned'. Followed by the preposition lv it means 'one charged over/concerning something'.

The word used in 1 Timothy 3 in the Peshitta is [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]04y4q[/font].

I like to understand people's motives for using Hebrew terms.

Thanks and brachot,
Rob

[Craig]

The reason I asked is that 'paqid' is the title assumed by a man named Yirmi ben David, a convert to Yemenite Judaism who claims to be the hier of the bishopric of a reconstructed 'original Netzarim' in Ra'anana, Israel. I own a few of his books and know his teachings fairly well. Are you familiar with his work?

I'm familiar with what he has on his website. I am however, as he would call me, a proud worshipper of the "virgin born man-God." I believe in the Peshitta canon, and not just an overpriced mutilated Matthew. I find his beliefs to be more accurately described as Evyoni (Ebionite) than Netzari (Nazarene). I do not think Christianity is Babel, or that Christians are unsaved, etc. In short I wouldn't recommend him or his material to anyone.

The Hebrew term dyqp means 'one charged/commanded/commissioned'. Followed by the preposition lv it means 'one charged >over/concerning something'.

The word used in 1 Timothy 3 in the Peshitta is 04y4q.

I like to understand people's motives for using Hebrew terms.

I just wanted to avoid "Bishop", because of the association that carries of a man required to be celibate within Roman Catholicism, etc. I try to only use Hebrew or Aramaic theological terms, because the Greek ones are never as accurate. For example, it is much easier to grasp the Father, Son, and Ruach as qnome of the same kyana, rather than as hypostases sharing the same homoousious.

Shlama, Craig

[Rob Vanhoff]

Shlama Craig,

Thanks. I'm glad to hear it. I, perhaps just like you, am trying to confine the basis of all my scriptural understanding to the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures. Not because its essence cannot be understood in other languages, but because I feel it is essential for a sturdy theological grounding. So, if I seem picky about language it's because I have high standards! That's why this website is such a "God-send' to me!
Thanks Akhan Paul!

Rob

[Paul Younan]

For example, it is much easier to grasp the Father, Son, and Ruach as qnome of the same kyana, rather than as hypostases sharing the same homoousious.
Shlama, Craig

THANK GOD! My convoluted posts on this topic made sense to someone! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[Paul Younan]

So, if I seem picky about language it's because I have high standards! That's why this website is such a "God-send' to me!
Thanks Akhan Paul!

Rob

:oops:

[The Thadman]

Doesn't the Bible say a woman must be silent in the Church?

If that makes me chauvanistic, to listen to His Word, then i guess I am just chauvenistic <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

Read on after those verses and you'll see Paul talking about having no such custom and ridiculing such teaching by asking whether it came from God or only them.

Shlomo,
-Steve-o

[Craig]

Read on after those verses and you'll see Paul talking about having no such custom and ridiculing such teaching by asking whether it came from God or only them.

Well, that's an interpretation. Apparently a very modern one that seems to be becoming popular and which says that verse 34 and 35 are a question by someone in Corinth and that Paul rebukes the question in the following verses. However, how I read it, and how it seems to have always been interpreted in Christianity:

34As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If 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.
36Did the word of God originate with you [Corinthians, who give yourJezebel female "prophetesses" free reign in the congregation]? Or are you the only people it has reached [as opposed to us Jews who have always enforced verse 34 and verse 35]? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues [by men in congregations]. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way [which means the women, prophetesses or not, keep quiet].

Shlama, Craig

[drmlanc]

Yes Craig, it is important to put God's Word above the modern world's ideals. Paul makes it very clear that the things he said are Commands of God.

[Rob Vanhoff]

Shlama Akhay,

We've encountered a good topic for discussion, if anyone is up to it! <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) -->

I assume we each desire to carefully adhere to what is written. Perhaps we could apply the biblical principle of 'out of the mouth of two or three wintesses let every matter be established' in understanding this passage.

What other passages might contribute to our interpretation of this passage?

What is the 'law' that is mentioned in verse 34? How is this law applied in practice?

Shlama,
Rob

[Craig]

What other passages might contribute to our interpretation of this passage?

What is the 'law' that is mentioned in verse 34? How is this law applied in practice?

Law = Torah. Are Christian children still required to honor their parents under the "Law"? If yes, then women are still under the authority of their husbands. How is that put into practice as far as congregations?

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Some argue that 2:12 should be "over her husband", but that doesn't help much, since a woman can't be ordained in a congregation without it placing her over husband if he isn't ordained, and even if her husband also holds an ordained office that would that place her in a un-Scriptural position of being a "peer" of her husband. Notice how 1 Timothy 2:11-15 fits perfectly with 1 Corinthians 14:33-40. Unless Corinthians is interpreted wrongly and then they contradict eachother, which is proof of a wrong interpretation of Corinthians, because the most basic rule of Scriptural hermeneutics is that the Word doesn't contradict itself if properly understood.

Shlama, Craig