Thursday, November 24, 2016

Chivalry Should be Dead

Definition of Chivalry: A feudalistic facade concocted in the Middle Ages to deflect attention from the barbaric conditions under which women lived.

   Chivalry included exaggerated courtesies and control of the female sex through moral purity standards which males were not required to adhere to. The female sex was falsely “cherished” and her movements and freedoms were severely restricted under the guise of “protecting” her. It was a Middle age version of the modern mafia protection racket; “Pay me and I’ll protect you. Protect me from who? I’ll protect you from me!
   During the Middle Ages, highborn women were the primary recipients of chivalry, as they were the primary targets for abduction, forced marriage, and rape in order to further men's ambitions for rank and power.
   Chivalry included a range of superficial gestures designed to emphasize the appearance of female helplessness and to remind her of her utter dependency on men.
   During feudal times, women were indeed at the physical mercy of men who have the physical advantage. But instead of crafting laws, back then, to protect women, chivalry was born. Chivalry gave the appearance of protecting women while reinforcing the harsh reality of her physical helplessness against men, and  her social, material, and political dependency on men.  
   What has this to do with women today when recourse can be taken to courts of law rather than to the sword, when lawmakers have crafted laws to protect women from brutes? It is simply this: A few civil rights and outlawed physical brutishness does not exclude men (who continue to rule in public policy and attitudes) from harboring the same brutish sentiments of male superiority women have been up against throughout the ages.
   “Chivalrous” behavior continues to mask the same attitudes among many "gentlemen" as among brutes—that woman is created a subordinate creature and should remain so—no matter how many civil rights is given.
   Modern chivalry continues to include many culturally ingrained—superficial—gestures designed to reinforce the idea of woman’s helplessness and dependency on the physically stronger man. Complementarian leaders admit this is the case. They take the case even further by publicly teaching that common courtesies can be used to demonstrate what they call, the “realities of manhood.”
   Finally, some honesty about chivalry!

   This is explained more fully in the following excerpt from the book, Woman this is War! Gender, Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System:

“It is shameful that even courtesy has become a twisted tool for complementarian men who are desperate to demonstrate the “realities” of manhood and womanhood. In explaining how courtesies can be used to masculine advantage, pastor and author, John Piper, who believes that it is inappropriate for women to hold equal or superior positions to men in the workplace, described some ways in which men can exert their masculine personhoods over women who may be equal or superior to them on the job. Piper calls upon men to exert their “mature masculinity” or “manhood” over women they are not married to by practicing simple courtesies such as opening doors and holding chairs for them, etc..

Quote from John Piper in, Recovering Biblical Manhood And Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, Edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Crossway Books Wheaton, Illinois, 1991).: ‘If, in the course of the day, a woman in the law firm calls a meeting of the attorneys, and thus takes that kind of initiative, there are still ways that a man, coming to that meeting, can express his manhood through culturally appropriate courtesies shown to the women in the firm. He may open the door; he may offer his chair; he may speak in a voice that is gentler.  It is true that this becomes increasingly difficult where a unisex mentality converts such gentlemanly courtesies into offenses and thus attempts to shut out every means of expressing the realities of manhood and womanhood… (end of quote).’

 For men to use their superior physical strength in defense of woman’s equality is noble. For men who are dedicated to protecting the autonomy of women to open doors or hold chairs is more than acceptable. But to use courtesy as a way of lording it over women, in situations where acting lordly would be unacceptable, is unacceptable. Courtesies extended in order to stroke one’s own ego are selfish in the extreme, condescending, and sinful. Treating others condescendingly (even masking it with politeness) is not courteous by any stretch of the imagination. It is insulting, and it is wrong. No woman should feel honored or appreciative when courtesies are sullied by such men.”
   In response to offensive remarks about women made by then Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, Speaker, Paul Ryan, announced, "I am sickened by what I heard today. Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified.” Ryan’s response was little more than complementarian chivalrous dribble.
   It did absolutely nothing to empower women.
   In fact, it furthered the ancient feudal and modern complementarian narrative of the inferior (subordinate), weak, and dependent woman.
   Ryan was correct, in that women should not be objectified. But as long as men hold to the idea that women are subordinate creatures and therefore need to be “championed and revered” to cover the [barbaric] fact that they are not permitted functional [or even Constitutional] equality with men, women will continue to be objectified.
   Woman do not need nor want to be “championed and revered.”
   The idea is obsolete. It is nothing but continuing the false, hypocritical, and medieval, idea of chivalry which should have went the way of the dinosaur long ago, but has now been revived, pushed forward by the desperate complementarian need to put woman back in “her place.”
   Women ask only the respect due them as beings created in exactly the same image of God as men are. If there was ever any merit to the straw man “No Differences” argument— made up by complementarians to solve a non-existent problem—It would be the fact that there are indeed no differences between men and women in the spirit realm—beyond that, most reasonable people acknowledge and embrace differences between the sexes without the need to implement a phony front of unscriptural, outdated, and overstated courtesies in order to make little men feel big.


Jocelyn Andersen is best known for her book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence.  

She is also editor of the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary  

For more information about her work, visit her website at www.JocelynAndersen.com 




The Woman Caught in Adultery: Is it a True Account?

2: And early in the morning he came again into the temple and all the people came to him and he sat down and taught them 3: And the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman taken in adultery and when they had set her in the midst 4: They said to him Master this woman was taken in adultery in the very act 5: Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned but what say you 6: This they said testing him that they might have [reason] to accuse him But Iesous stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground as though he heard them not[1] 7: So when they continued asking him he lifted up himself and said to them any who are without sin among you let them first cast a stone at her[2] 8: And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground[3] 9: And they which heard it being convicted by their own conscience went out one by one beginning with the elders even to the least and Iesous was left alone and the woman standing before him[4] 10: When Iesous had lifted up himself and saw none but the woman he said to her Madam where are those thine accusers has any condemned you 11: She said No one Lord and Iesous said to her Neither do I condemn you go and sin no more[5]



[1] Was Jesus writing, Leviticus 20:10, And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife [both] the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death…? Where was the man?
[2] Jesus was not condoning the woman’s sin in defending her. He was, rather, confronting the greater sin of using the Word of God with self-serving motives and by only partially applying it to the situation. Those who had brought this woman before him, had neglected to bring the other guilty party—the man—who had also been caught in the very act with her. This unidentified man had apparently been paid off and released. This was a cruel political ploy—in which a woman’s life was held in total disregard—aimed at ridding themselves of, by publicly discrediting, the wildly popular teacher from Nazareth. 
[3] Was Jesus writing, Hosea 6:6, For I desired mercy and not sacrifice and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings?
[4] Jesus and the woman were not completely alone. Only her accusers had left. Remember, Jesus was on the Temple grounds teaching the people when they were all interrupted by the Pharisees dragging in this woman—who the scriptures say had been set up in a sting operation just to test and discredit Jesus publicly. This had been strategically timed for maximum exposure, so there was likely a very large crowd present. We cannot know the exact size of the crowd that witnessed the episode, from beginning to end, and then remained (after the woman’s accusers had all left) to witness Jesus exonerating the woman.
[5] Some claim that the story of The Woman Caught in Adultery is not a true account, but rather an interpolation (inserted [after the 1st Century] into the text of John’s Gospel). There is little authority for this, but the evidence that this story was indeed penned by the apostle—and is true—is overwhelming. 1.) The passage is contained in over 5000 extant (existing) manuscripts, so there is no doubt that this episode did happen exactly as the text relates it. 2.) It would be curious indeed if this account was fabricated and added into the text later, as it is well-documented that ancient peoples were all misogynistic in the extreme. Even the early Christian Church—that began as egalitarian—soon fell back into the misogyny from which it had so recently been set free. So, for an unknown scribe to imagine and manufacture a story where a woman commits adultery against her husband (her lord) and can go unpunished—in a time when all women were considered little more than property—is near impossible for any thinking person to believe. Even more difficult to accept, is that such a fabrication would become so popular and widely accepted that it was then copied into over 5000 extant Greek Texts (and into how many thousands more that are no longer extant?). The story of The Woman Caught in Adultery is true. It has as much textual evidence to support it as does the story of Nikodemos’ secret visit to Jesus (recorded in John chapter three) where Jesus told Nikodemos that he “…must be born again.”


Jocelyn Andersen is best known for her book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence.  She is also editor of the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary  For more information about her work, visit her website at www.JocelynAndersen.com 


Untranslated words in this chapter of the HHBC
Iesous Pronounced Ee-A-Soos G2424 translated Jesus: Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Iesous refers to the Old Testament character Joshua. Because of disparities in English translation of the word, Iesous will remain untranslated throughout the main body of scripture this commentary.


Thursday, November 17, 2016

Triune or Triad? One Flesh or duo?

What has complementarian doctrine done to Jesus except transform him into a little god in the minds of its followers? The war against women and the seed of the righteous, which began in the garden (Genesis 3:15), has done nothing but escalate in these last days, with the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) leading the charge. Their hatred of women is so intense, they have demoted the Creator of all Things--the All Mighty--to a cosmic errand-boy. And they have largely gotten away with it! 

Apostasy from sound doctrine is taking place on a worldwide scale, and nowhere is this desertion more evident than in the acceptance of heretical,  male headship teaching, propagated by the CBMW.

Excerpted from  HHBC
Elohiym   Gods, i.e., The Godhead. All references to “God” in Genesis chapter one are Strong’s Hebrew reference 430, “Elohiym”.  The word refers to more than two (Martin/Ankerberg 1985). There is a word in Hebrew that refers to more than one but not more than two, but Elohiym is not that word. The word “Elohiym, is a reference to the Godhead. Genesis 1:1 specifically tells us that it is the LORD God Yahweh Elohiym—the Godhead—who created all things (Isaiah 44:24, 45:18, John 1:3,10). This is first Biblical evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, not simply a subordinate god that Yahweh Elohiym “used” to create all things. Jesus is Yahweh Elohiym (1 Timothy 3:16 kjv). According to Philippians 2:10-11, which is a New Testament quote of Jehovah who is speaking in Isaiah 45:23, Jesus is The LORD GOD—Yahweh Elohiym—of Genesis1-3. The fullness (entirety) of the Godhead resides in Jesus in physical form (Colossians 2:9). We serve a God who is one. The Holy of Holies literally means the Holy place of the Holy Ones—i.e., the Godhead (Cooke). Do we understand how God can be three yet be one? No, we do not. It is as impossible for man to analyze and pry apart the Godhead as it would be to attempt to separate the soul and spirit; only God has sufficient understanding and power to accomplish such a thing in His triune personage and yet remain one. It is sin to theologically transform the Triune Godhead into a hierarchal, idolatrous, triad. Just so, it is sin to theologically turn the holy, one flesh, relationship of marriage into a hierarchal duo with a god-man at the helm. Man made hierarchies accomplish nothing less than the conversion of triune into triad and one flesh into hierarchal duo.

About the Author: Jocelyn Andersen is best known for her book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence.  She is also editor of the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary  For more information about her work, visit her website at www.JocelynAndersen.com

Her study entitled, Trinity Marriage and the Godhead, (Volume 1 of the God Women Ministry series) examines and refutes the theory of hierarchy within the eternal Godhead. 



Untranslated words in this excerpt of the HHBC
Elohiym  See above
YHWH H3068 (without vowels—Hebrew has no vowels) known as the Tetragrammaton) Yahweh; Sometimes translated as Jehovah; The true name of the name of the Almighty, known to scholars as the Tetragrammaton, the correct pronunciation is, Yahveh.” This pronunciation has never been lost, according to Jewish scholar, Kaufmann Kohler. In the HHBC, any New Testament citing of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton from an Old Covenant source will be treated as Hebrew. The letters YHWH will be used in the verse in place of LORD.   



Sunday, November 6, 2016

No Leader in Godhead = No Leader in Marriage

John 5:19 Amen, amen I say to you The Son does not [dynamai G1410] [ou G3756] do [poieo G4160] any [thing] [oudeis G3762] by himself [alone] but that which he sees the Father bring forth For whatever it is [that] He does this also the Son does in the [exact] same way[1]



[1] This was a statement of absolute unity between the man Christ Jesus and The God Christ Jesus—who all of the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in physical form Colossians 2:9—and is not be taken as any declaration of subordinate status on the part of Messias Iesous.

 Early English Bible translators lived under monarchies which were in turn controlled by Popes--essentially creating Roman Catholic theocracies. Thus, their entire world view was comprehended through the lens of hierarchy. This hierarchal bias was reflected in many of the word and phrase choices they made during the course of their translating activities. Even though many modern translators have never lived under a monarchy/theocracy, they have failed to recognize and remove the ancient pre-suppositions of those who did, and who inserted their views into the general understanding of the Holy Scriptures via both translation and commentary. Their ancient perceptions were then passed down to the modern reader unchallenged. Aside from translator bias—often unintentional but bias nonetheless—there are many textual reasons this statement of Jesus should not be construed as alluding to a hierarchal relationship within the Godhead, not the least of which is the fact that Iesous is YHWH—Jehovah God—Himself. The hierarchal, and highly misleading, theory of the 1st , 2nd , and 3rd persons of the Godhead (which has passed to modern Christians through the false doctrines of Eternal Generation and Eternal Procession) have unduly influenced virtually all Bible translators to support the theory of hierarchy within the Godhead ever since John Wycliffe gave us the first complete English translation of the Holy Scriptures. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) rest their case for inequality between women and men entirely on the alleged hierarchy within the Godhead. In support of hierarchy between the sexes, Charles Stanley wrote that if God the Father was not the leader of the Godhead, then complementarians had no basis for teaching gender-based subordination (A Man’s Touch, Victor Books, Wheaton, ILL, 1988).

As there exists no textual evidence (only easily refuted gender-biased-English-translation-theology) that the Father is the leader within the Godhead, this writer states that, unequivocally, complementarians have no basis for teaching gender-based subordination.

The London Confessions, issued by Baptists in the 17th century sought to correct the Arian nature of earlier Church creeds, and after three attempts, felt they had succeeded in their statement which left the doctrine of the One, yet Triune, God intact while admitting to the impossibility of any mortal to logically explain it:  “1. The Lord our God is but one God, whose substance is in Himself; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but Himself; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light, which no man can approach unto; Who is in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, in wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, Who gives being, moving and preservation to all creatures.  2. In this divine and infinite Being, there is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, Each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided; All infinite without any beginning, therefore but one God, Who is not to be divided in nature, and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties.” The London Confession, Final Edition, 1652
  


About the Author: Jocelyn Andersen is best known for her book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence.  She is also editor of the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary  For more information about her work, visit her website at www.JocelynAndersen.com

Her study entitled, Trinity Marriage and the Godhead, (Volume 1 of the God Women Ministry series) examines in detail and refutes the complementarian theory of hierarchy within the eternal Godhead. 


Special Features of the HHBC 
1.       The main body of scripture text in this commentary is based on the Received Text (Textus Receptus) of the NT and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text of the OT as found in the Original *Strong’s Concordance, 1894, by James Strong, and compared diligently with the work of respected scholars. 
2.       **Archaic language is updated in most cases, but The AV is followed unchanged where the language and sense of the translation is clear to the modern reader.
3.       Where a Hebrew or Greek word has no good English equivalent, the original word is left untranslated, in italics, and, in some cases but not all, with the *Strong’s Greek [G] or Hebrew [H] reference number notated beside it (see list of untranslated words below).
4.       Where the Old Covenant is quoted in the New Testament, the Hebrew words may be used and left untranslated 
5.       In New Testament quotes of Old Testament that include the word “Lord” in referring to Jehovah [YHWH], the word LORD will be capitalized 
6.       Proper names and the names of God are often left untranslated
7.       The names and titles of God are in bold print
8.       The words of Jesus are in bold print
9.       Scripture cross-references are noted in line with the text
10.    There is little punctuation used in the main body of the scripture-commentary text
11.    Brackets [ ] indicate alternate rendering or short commentary
12.    Longer commentary is located in footnotes

*20th Century editions of this work, such as, The New Updated Strong’s, and, The Strongest Strong’s, are not referenced in the HHBC as they do not correspond to the Textus Receptus or the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text this commentary is based upon.

** Historically loved, poetic and extraordinarily beautiful, passages of the King James Version, such as portions of the Psalms and Beatitudes, etc., will be left largely unchanged except for where updating archaic language would not interrupt the poetic flow. 


Untranslated Words in this Chapter or passage of the HHBC
Amen G281 When used at the beginning of a discourse, it means truly or assuredly; When used at the end of a discourse or prayer, it means so be it, let it be so: The word "amen" is a most remarkable word. It was transliterated directly from the Hebrew into the Greek of the New Testament, then into Latin and into English and many other languages, so that it is practically a universal word. It has been called the best known word in human speech. The word is directly related — in fact, almost identical — to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful. Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence. — HMM
Audawm The phonetic spelling and pronunciation of the Hebrew (H120) adam. In the HHBC, when H120 is used in reference to groups of both females and males, or of the human race in general, the phonetic spelling of “audawm” will be used. In both Old and New Testament commentary in place of androcentric translation such as mankind or human race, the phonetic spelling of audawm will be used. The word “Adam” will be used only when the text is specifically referencing the first male.
Iesous Pronounced Ee-A-Soos G2424 translated Jesus: Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Iesous refers to the Old Testament character Joshua 
Messias G3323 pronounced Me-say-us or Me-sy-us: Messiah; Christ; Savior
YHWH H3068 (without vowels—Hebrew has no vowels) known as the Tetragrammaton) Yahweh; Sometimes translated as Jehovah; The true name of the name of the Almighty, known to scholars as the Tetragrammaton, the correct pronunciation is, Yahveh.” This pronunciation has never been lost, according to Jewish scholar, Kaufmann Kohler. In the HHBC, any New Testament citing of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton from an Old Covenant source will be treated as Hebrew. The letters YHWH will be used in the verse in place of LORD.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Equality or Hierarchy: Which is it?

John 5:17 But Iesous answered them My Father works till now and I work 18: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him because he not only had broken the Sabbath but said also that Theos was his Father making himself equal with Theos[1]




[1] Jesus not only claimed to be equal with God by saying God was his father, but later, in John 8:28, he made a clear statement claiming to be God. The “he” in John 8:28 is a translator addition and is not found in the original. Jesus clearly claimed Jehovahistic identity when He identified Himself as the “I AM” of the burning bush. The Jews had no such oxymoronic issues as complementarian (female subordination) teachers have with qualifying degrees of equality (equal-but-different-theory) which do not exist. One cannot have equality and hierarchy at the same time. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Untranslated Words in this Chapter or passage of the HHBC 

Iesous Pronounced Ee-A-Soos G2424 translated Jesus: Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Iesous refers to the Old Testament character Joshua 

Theos G2316 Deity; god; The reason the word, Theos, is largely left untranslated in this commentary, is to put to rest erroneous teaching that the word must be prefaced by the definite article, “ho,” in order to be referring to Yahweh. In fact, most New Testament scripture references to Theos are not introduced using the definite article, “ho,” but even so, it cannot be argued when the Almighty is being referenced—especially in the case of John 1:1, where John, a Jew who would never commit blasphemy by following anyone who was called “A” god, calls Jesus God. John was specifically stating that Jesus is YHWH [Yahweh]. 

Special Features of the HHBC
1.       The main body of scripture text in this commentary is based on the Received Text (Textus Receptus) of the NT and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text of the OT as found in the Original *Strong’s Concordance, 1894, by James Strong, and compared diligently with the work of respected scholars.
2.       **Archaic language is updated in most cases, but The AV is followed unchanged where the language and sense of the translation is clear to the modern reader.
3.       Where a Hebrew or Greek word has no good English equivalent, the original word is left untranslated, in italics, and, in some cases but not all, with the *Strong’s Greek [G] or Hebrew [H] reference number notated beside it (see list of untranslated words below).
4.       Where the Old Covenant is quoted in the New Testament, the Hebrew words may be used and left untranslated
5.       In New Testament quotes of Old Testament that include the word “Lord” in referring to Jehovah [YHWH], the word LORD will be capitalized
6.       Proper names and the names of God are often left untranslated
7.       The names and titles of God are in bold print
8.       The words of Jesus are in bold print
9.       Scripture cross-references are noted in line with the text
10.    There is little punctuation used in the main body of the scripture-commentary text
11.    Brackets [ ] indicate alternate rendering or short commentary
12.    Longer commentary is located in footnotes

*20th Century editions of this work, such as, The New Updated Strong’s, and, The Strongest Strong’s, are not referenced in the HHBC as they do not correspond to the Textus Receptus or the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text this commentary is based upon.

** Historically loved, poetic and extraordinarily beautiful, passages of the King James Version, such as portions of the Psalms and Beatitudes, etc., will be left largely unchanged except for where updating archaic language would not interrupt the poetic flow.



About the Author: Jocelyn Andersen is best known for her book, Woman Submit! Christians & Domestic Violence.  She is also editor of the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary  For more information about her work, visit her website at www.JocelynAndersen.com

Her study entitled, Trinity Marriage and the Godhead, (Volume 1 of the God Women Ministry series) examines in detail the equal-but-different-theory as it relates to Jesus and the complementarian claim of hierarchy within the eternal Godhead.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Caste, Spiritual Growth, & Forgotten Equality John 4:40-43

40: So when the Samaritans had come to him they asked him if he would stay a while with them and he stayed there two days 41: And many more believed because of his own word 42: And said to the woman Now we believe not because of your saying [but] because we have heard him ourselves[1] and know that this is indeed ho Christos the Savior of the world 43: Now after two days he departed from there and went into Galilee



[1] Do we detect a hint of misogyny in this statement? Did their decision to believe that Jesus was Messiah have to be qualified because of the low reputation of the person who had led them to him, or was it simply because that person was a woman? " Now we believe "not" because of what you said..." They had listened to her long enough for her to lead them to the water of life—which they joyfully drank from—and then, as respecters of persons, appear to have acted on a sinful need to distance themselves from her. How many Christians, today, because of caste or low social standing, feel outcast among God’s people—among those who call themselves brethren? This should not be so among any who call themselves by the name of Christ. Could this scene in John Chapter four be a brief glimpse into how the new believers of Samaria were disinclined to let go of the familiar, yet destructive and cruel, caste system for the seemingly new, but completely forgotten to them, system of equality re-introduced by Jesus (Genesis 1:27-28, 5:2)? Even Peter fell prey to strong—but utterly sinful and divisive—cultural traditions Galatians 2:11-14 Could this scene at the Samaritan well be an example of the war between the two natures of audawm—the physical and the spiritual? Were the people of Samaria already rejecting their messenger of good tidings because of who she was? If they were, we can be sure Jesus set them straight on that score, as he stayed and taught them for another two days. No one comes to Christ except the Spirit lead them—regardless of who the messenger is. To reject the messenger because of reputation, or sex—or both—is wrong. And it appears the people of Samaria were attempting to do just that. The act of coming to Christ is just the beginning. Everyone begins their new life in Christ at the same place—as newly born-again babes—and must grow spiritually from there. The ground is level at the cross, and spiritual growth can only be accomplished through feeding from (and obedience to) the Word of God—the Bible—as illuminated by the Spirit of God 1 John 3:27. Jesus said knowing the Word is never enough, but one must be a doer of the Word as well Matthew 7:24-27.

List of Untranslated Words in the HHBC 
Adam H120 Pronounced “audawm” The name of the first man, and the name God gave to both the first man and the first woman; the entire human race—homosapiens in general; mixed crowds in the Hebrew are also referred to as adam.

Audawm The phonetic spelling and pronunciation of the Hebrew (H120) adam. In the HHBC, when H120 is used in reference to groups of both females and males, or of the human race in general, the phonetic spelling of “audawm” will be used. In both Old and New Testament commentary in place of androcentric translation such as mankind or human race, the phonetic spelling of audawm will be used. The word “Adam” will be used only when the text is specifically referencing the first male.

Christos G5547 pronounced kree-stos: Christ; Anointed One; Messiah

Ho G3588 definite article corresponding to: the; this; that. Other usages include: of; etc.; who; which 

Friday, October 28, 2016

Second Woman on Record to Preach the Gospel

39: And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman[1] who testified He told me all that ever I did



[1] The first woman on record to publicly preach Jesus as Messiah, was Anna, the elderly prophetess (preacher) at the temple. Later, there were women among the 120 at Pentecost preaching (prophesying) the good news of Jesus in the street at Jerusalem. But the Woman at the Well is indisputably the second woman on record to preach the gospel—loudly and authoritatively—to a public audience composed of both men and women. And Christian women have been following suit for over 2000 years, in spite of fierce opposition from men determined to silence the Daughters of God from fulfilling their callings. The Woman at the Well did not stop to ask male permission before racing off and authoritatively declaring the good news of the Savior in public (by any standard, that is preaching), and Jesus did not rebuke her for it or tell her that preaching the gospel was a job for men only. The early church recognized women apostles (Junia), women deacons (Phoebe), women teachers of doctrine (Priscilla), women who preached and prayed publicly (Acts 2:17). It was not until later—as the church became politicized—that the ordination of women was discouraged and finally forbidden. In more recent times, The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and Moody Bible Institute ordained and recognized women as pastors until the complementarian (male headship) movement, which began in 1987 with the Danvers Statement, put a stop to it. Now women are not even permitted to take pastoral courses at complementarian Bible colleges.  

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Gender-Biased-English-Translation-Theology Slanders the Woman at the Well

This is a preview relevant to Christian women's equality (indeed all women), not posted as yet (in its entirety) to the Hungry Hearts Online Bible Commentary 

John 4: 1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Iesous made and baptized more disciples than John 2: Though Iesous himself baptized not but his disciples 3: He left Judaea and departed again into Galilee 4: And it was necessary for him to pass through Samaria[1] 5: Then came he to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph[2] 6: Now Jacob's well was there Iesous therefore being wearied with his journey[3] sat thus on the well and it was about the sixth hour 7: There came a woman of Samaria to draw water Iesous said to her Give me to drink 8: For his disciples were gone away into the city to buy food 9: Then said the woman of Samaria unto him How is it that you being a Jew ask drink of me which am a woman of Samaria for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans 10: Iesous answered and said to her If you knew the gift ho Theos and who it is that says to you Give me to drink you would have asked of him and he would have given you living water 11: The woman said to him sir you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep from where then have you that living water 12: Are you greater than our father Jacob who gave us the well[4] and drank of it himself and his children, and his cattle 13: Iesous answered and said to her Whoever drinks of this water shall thirst again 14: But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give them shall never thirst but the water that I shall give them shall be in them a well of water springing up into everlasting life 15: The woman said to him Sir give me this water that I thirst not neither come here to draw.[5] 16: Iesous said to her Go call your husband and come [back] here 17: The woman answered and said I have no husband Iesous said to her You have well said I have no husband[6] 18: For you have had five husbands and he who you now have is not your husband in that you answered honestly[7] 19: The woman said to him Sir I perceive that you are a prophet 20: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where [we] ought to worship[8] 2 Chronicles 6:6 21: Jesus said to her Madam believe me the hour comes when you shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father 22: You worship you know not what we know what we worship for salvation is from the Jews 23: But the hour is come even is now when the true worshippers shall worship the Father by [the] Pneuma[9] and by [the] truth[10] for the Father seeks such to worship him 24: Ho Theos is a Pneuma and they that worship him must worship him by [the] Pneuma and by [the] truth 25: The woman said to him I know that Messias comes which is called Christos when he is come he will tell us all things[11] 26: Jesus said to her I who speak to you am he[12] 27: And upon this came his disciples and marvelled that he talked with the woman yet none said What seekest thou or Why talk thou with her 28: The woman then left her waterpot and went her way into the city and said to anthropos[13] 29: Come see a man which told me all things that ever I did is not this Ho Christos 30: Then they went out of the city and came to him


[1] There was a woman there he needed to see. He was going to reach out in love to a woman who was outcast and desperately lonely. 
[2] This fact must have come from spoken tradition as the Hebrew scriptures record the coat of many colors given to Joseph by his father, Jacob, and the jealousy of his brothers, but nothing about a parcel of land. The question is, was the land given to Joseph while he was still young, before he was sold into slavery by his brothers (at age 17), or was it bequeathed to him later while they were all still in Egypt?   
[3] Statements like this give us a glimpse into the humanity of Jesus. He had walked a long way. He was tired. His feet probably hurt. He was thirsty. He sat on the well. It felt good to sit down. God became just like us. He experienced everything we experience Hebrews 5:15.
[4] The Samaritans descended from Jacob through his grandson, Ephraim, one of the two sons of Joseph.
[5] This woman suffered so much from the treatment she received of others that she waited until she could be reasonably sure that no one else would be at the well when she arrived, so she came in the heat of the day to draw her water. This well was apparently not in the middle of town at a convenient location, so the walk to and from it was better made when the sun was not yet high. Yet here was this woman at high noon only just arriving at the well. The cruel treatment she received from others, who came to the well during the cooler times of the day, must have been unbearable for her. The town well also served a second purpose as a social hub for the women as they came together to draw water each morning (we see an example of this in the Book of Ruth, where the well was the place Naomi reunited with the town’s women when she returned to Bethlehem-Judah from her long sojourn into Moab). But it was not for this un-named Samaritan woman to enjoy a morning visit with other women who met together in the cool of each morning. She apparently had few friends among these women. She was not an accepted part of a crowd who no doubt snubbed or jabbed at her with painful, malicious remarks. She was a social reject. She likely felt rejected by God as well. But she wasn’t. And Jesus went out of his way, into territory hated and avoided by respectable Jews, to tell her this. It was to a woman who was outcast in her community that Jesus felt compelled to travel through Samaria to see.
[6] What would have happened if the woman had not been honest with Jesus about her marital status? Would she have run back to town to fetch her “husband” only to find no one at the well waiting for her when she returned? Jesus made the first move. He started the conversation that changed this woman’s life—If she could pass the honesty test. He reached out to her with full knowledge of the fact that she was living in sin with a man she was not married to. But before he would continue, he required honesty. She had to come clean in order for Jesus to reveal the truth that would set her free. 
[7] There a few things to note about Jesus’ answer. The gentleness with which Jesus confronted her sin is an example we should learn to emulate. Her honest answer about her marital status wasn’t a confession really, but she did not pretend to be a respectably married woman when she wasn’t. Even had she offered the details of her sin, she would not have been condemned for it—as we know from the rest of the discourse.
It is commonly asserted that this woman had been divorced. There is no basis to assume whether that was the case or not. She could have been. Assuming that she was a divorced woman—as is almost always asserted—it is important to note that Jesus acknowledged each of her five marriages as legitimate by saying she had, had five husbands. He did not suggest that she had anything to ask forgiveness for regarding any of her five marriages. This does not suggest she had never been divorced, but if she had been divorced, then Christians need to ask themselves why one of their most common words of “comfort” to divorced brethren are, “God forgives divorce” when Jesus said no such thing to this woman who had been married five times. Whether she had ever been divorced or not, most Christians have been taught that the woman at the well was a divorced woman. It is important to understand that all divorce is not sin. There are scriptural grounds for divorce, and it is an erroneous and smug position to assume that divorce is always sin when dealing with Christians who have experienced the pain (and undeserved shame heaped on them by other Christians) of it.  
The woman at the well could very well have been widowed five times and been considered anathema as a wife. She could have been “put away” by her last husband, and therefore unmarriageable due to the fact that, though he cast her off, refused to legally divorce her in order to avoid paying a divorce settlement. This was a common practice in those days and before. God had harsh things to say through the prophet Malachi about men who dealt treacherously with wives they grew tired of by casting them off. Many Jewish wives were put away but never set free from the marriage by a legal divorce. This forced them to either live in limbo for the rest of their lives, or to marry again, anyway, bringing the label of adulteress on themselves, or to live with a man without being married to him. Regardless of what the case was with the woman at the well, the scriptures do not say “God hates divorce.” It is written that God hates shalachH7971 the putting away (sending away or casting off). Shalach (casting off) without a bill of keriythuwthH3748 (bill of divorce) is not the same as a divorce. The prophet Jeremiah3:8 wrote that God himself cast off Israel and gave her a bill of divorce for adultery against him. The salient points in this verse are 1.) Jesus confronted the woman’s sin but complemented her honesty and dealt gently with her 2.) The scriptures do not record whether her previous marital status was divorced or widowed. It is commonly taught that the woman at the well had been divorced at least once but perhaps multiple times, yet Jesus acknowledged the legitimacy of each of her five marriages and demanded no repentance from her on the issue of adultery/divorce.
[8] Religion is the strongest bond rulers can use to ensure the loyalty of their people, and that is where the bad blood between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah was deliberately solidified by Jeroboam, who had renounced David’s dynasty and became the first king of Israel. Jeroboam introduced idol worship as a national religion to Israel. Samaria, a part of Jeroboam’s kingdom, later, under Omri, became the Capitol city of Israel and eventually became known as home to hybrid Jews—ancient Israelites descended from Joseph [1/2 tribe of Ephraim] who later interbred with Canaanites.
The basis of the Woman at the Well’s argument about where to worship was an ancient argument and was deliberately engendered by two of Israel’s kings, Jeroboam and Omri. The biblical history is as follows: 1 kings 12:25 Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim and dwelt therein and went out from thence and built Penuel 26: And Jeroboam said in his heart Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David 27: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord even unto Rehoboam king of Judah and they shall kill me and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah 28: Whereupon the king took counsel and made two calves of gold and said to them It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem behold your gods O Israel which brought you up out of the land of Egypt 29: And he set the one in Bethel and the other put he in Dan 30: And this thing became a sin for the people went to worship before the one even unto Dan.
1 Kings 16:23 In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel twelve years six years reigned he in Tirzah 24: And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver and built on the hill and called the name of the city which he built after the name of Shemer owner of the hill Samaria 25: But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all that were before him 26: For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger with their vanities
  
[9] It is only through the Holy Spirit that we can know and worship God. The Holy Spirit must draw us, indwell us, and empower us to worship God.
[10] Jesus is the way the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father but by him. Jesus said the written Word of God as Truth—Thy Word is TRUTH—We must worship God according to his Word, through his risen son, Jesus.
[11] Faith always supersedes theology. In spite of the woman’s bad theology based on history, tradition, and outright lies fed to her ancestors by evil rulers and no doubt by the contemporary religious leaders of her day, nothing could squelch her faith in the coming Messiah. God always honors faith.
[12] The scripture record shows that the first person Jesus declared himself to, was a woman.  If complementarian male headship, as taught by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is true, then Jesus would have asked her to go fetch one of the male heads of the city to stand beside her as he announced to the male who he was, as he knew she—a woman—would immediately run into the city and begin preaching that the Savior had come. But he did not tell her to call the men, first, before revealing his identify. He broke Jewish protocol (shocked his disciples into stunned silence) and kept a divine appointment with a woman. He then entrusted this woman, who was an absolute social outcast and held to bad Samaritan theology, with the first announcement ever that he was the long awaited Messiah.
[13] The unfortunate fact of translating the word anthropos as men in this verse has slandered The Woman at the Well, and forever sullied her name as associating her with being a prostitute when there is no scriptural evidence to support this assumption. When she went into the city to preach the gospel that Jesus was Messiah, there is no reason to believe she went to only males. She more likely announced this fact loudly and publicly to all within earshot. The crowd that came out of the city to see Jesus was no doubt a mixed crowd of both men and women. There is no textual reason why anthropos should be translated as men in this verse. The word is just as accurately translated as people or person and can refer to either females, males, or mixed crowds of both, or to the human race in general; it all depends upon the context. Although Greek is an androcentric (male centered) language—as is English and most other languages—the Greek word, anthropos, is not unique to just males.  

Special Features of the HHBC
1.       The main body of scripture text in this commentary is based on the Received Text (Textus Receptus) of the NT and the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text of the OT as found in the Original *Strong’s Concordance, 1894, by James Strong, and compared diligently with the work of respected scholars.
2.       Archaic language is updated in most cases, but The AV is followed unchanged where the language and sense of the translation is clear to the modern reader.
3.       Where a Hebrew or Greek word has no good English equivalent, the original word is left untranslated, in italics, and, in some cases but not all, with the *Strong’s Greek [G] or Hebrew [H] reference number notated beside it (see list of untranslated words below).
4.       Where the Old Covenant is quoted in the New Testament, the Hebrew words may be used and left untranslated
5.       In New Testament quotes of Old Testament that include the word “Lord” in referring to Jehovah [YHWH], the word LORD will be capitalized
6.       Proper names and the names of God are often left untranslated
7.       The names and titles of God are in bold print
8.       The words of Jesus are in bold print
9.       Scripture cross-references are noted in line with the text
10.    There is little punctuation used in the main body of the scripture-commentary text
11.    Brackets [ ] indicate alternate rendering or short commentary
12.    Longer commentary is located in footnotes

*20th Century editions of this work, such as, The New Updated Strong’s, and, The Strongest Strong’s, are not referenced in the HHBC as they do not correspond to the Textus Receptus or the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text this commentary is based upon.


List of Untranslated Words in the HHBC
Adam H120 Pronounced “audawm” The name of the first man, and the name God gave to both the first man and the first woman; the entire human race—homosapiens in general; mixed crowds in the Hebrew are also referred to as audawm. In the HHBC Hebrew text, when H120 is used in reference to groups of both females and males, or of the human race in general, the phonetic spelling of “audawm” will be used. In both Old and New Testament commentary in place of androcentric translation such as mankind or human race, the word audawm will be used. The word “Adam” will be used only when the text is specifically referencing the first male.
Adelphos G80 Brother; fellow Christians in general, both male and female; used of a group of Jesus siblings which included his sisters
Adown H113 Lord
Aggelos G32 pronounced angelos: messenger, translated “angel” 179 times in the AV
Aner G435 Male, husband, all people, a group of people composed of both females and males (which indicates that G435 could be translated as female unless the context demands otherwise)
Amen G281 When used at the beginning of a discourse, it means truly or assuredly; When used at the end of a discourse or prayer, it means so be it, let it be so: The word "amen" is a most remarkable word. It was transliterated directly from the Hebrew into the Greek of the New Testament, then into Latin and into English and many other languages, so that it is practically a universal word. It has been called the best known word in human speech. The word is directly related — in fact, almost identical — to the Hebrew word for "believe" (amam), or faithful. Thus, it came to mean "sure" or "truly", an expression of absolute trust and confidence. — HMM
Anthropos G444 A human being; the human race in general; Mixed crowds of both men and women; angels who are sometimes mistaken for men; people in general, whether female or male. In instances where this is the case, rather than using a gender specific or androcentric term, the HHBC commentary uses the untranslated Greek word, anthropos, which is frequently used in the Received Text for mixed groups of women and men and of the human race as a whole. Most languages are androcentric (male centered) including the Hebrew and Greek our English scriptures were translated from. Most English translations are even more so, and in many cases supplement the text with the words, man or men where they do not appear. For that reason, where the Greek word, anthropos, occurs, the HHBC often leaves it untranslated, leaving it to the context and the reader to decide if the text is alluding specifically to males, or to a mixed crowd/group composed of both females and males, or of the entire human race in general.
Aule G833 Hall, Court, Palace [home/habitation]
Autos G846 a pronoun that could be translated any number of ways: she, he, it, himself, herself, the same, they, their, etc..
Beelzeboul G954 A name of Satan
Christos G5547 pronounced kree-stos: Christ; Anointed One; Messiah
Eklektos G… Picked out, chosen
Diamonions G1140 Evil Spirits
Elohiym   Gods, i.e., The Godhead. Specifically denoting three.
Exodus G1841 Departure
Gyne G1135 Woman, Wife, Madam
Hades G86 The nether world; the realm of the dead; the lower regions
Ho G3588 definite article corresponding to: the; this; that. Other usages include: of; etc.; who; which
Iesous Pronounced Ee-A-Soos G2424 translated Jesus: Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Iesous refers to the Old Testament character Joshua
https://gotquestions.org/Yeshua-Jesus.html
Ishshaw  Hebrew for woman/wife. Never used for males
Iysh Hebrew for man/husband/mixed crowds of both women and men/homosapiens in general
Kosmos G2889 The earth, the world/universe, the system of this world/arranged order of things, the people who inhabit the earth
Logos G3056 Word (said, thought, computation, motive)
Messias G3323 pronounced Me-say-us or Me-sy-us: Messiah; Christ; Savior
Monogenes G3439 One of a kind; Only offspring; God has many children—but all adopted or created. Jesus is neither adopted nor created. He is God’s only, for lack of a better word, natural (or genetic) child—begotten.  
Panoplia G3833 complete set of armor
Pneuma G4151 Pronounced Nu-maa: Spirit
Satanas G4567 Satan
Shameh: Strong’s Hebrew reference 8064 Heaven is, “SHAMEH.” The word is used exclusively for all references to heaven from Genesis through Psalm 78:8. In these passages, only the context can determine which “heaven” the verse is referring to, whether the sky, beyond the sky (space), or the third Heaven Paul was caught up to.
Theos G2316 Deity; god; The reason the word, Theos, is largely left untranslated in this commentary, is to put to rest erroneous teaching that the word must be prefaced by the definite article, “ho,” in order to be referring to Yahweh. In fact, most New Testament scripture references to Theos are not introduced using the definite article, “ho,” but even so, it cannot be argued when the Almighty is being referenced—especially in the case of John 1:1, where John, a Jew who would never commit blasphemy by following anyone who was called “A” god, calls Jesus God. John was specifically stating that Jesus is YHWH [Yahweh].
YHWH H3068 (without vowels—Hebrew has no vowels) known as the Tetragrammaton) Yahweh; The true name of the name of the Almighty; Known to scholars as the Tetragrammaton; the correct pronunciation is, Yahveh.” This pronunciation has never been lost, according to Jewish scholar, Kaufmann Kohler. In the HHBC, any New Testament citing of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton from an Old Covenant source will be treated as Hebrew. The letters YHWH will be used in the verse in place of LORD.