Winger Video 3 -- Women in the OT

I've blogged and done videos on Winger's first two videos on women in ministry and the home. Here is the paper trail:

1. His introductory video: my blog post.and video response
2.1 His material on Genesis 1: my blog post and video response
2.2 His material on Genesis 2-3: my blog post on Gen 2 and video response to both Genesis 2-3 

I see I didn't blog post on Genesis 3 but it is covered in the video.

And now, his third (almost two hour) video on women in the Old Testament. I think I'm somewhere over 4 hours in. 8+ hours to go.
________________________
1. I was a little disappointed with this video. On Genesis 1 and 3, I thought he was mostly right. On Genesis 2, I thought he had things out of focus, although his exegesis wasn't bad. But in this video, I think his biases did a lot of the steering of the ship.

We get a little of his personal journey in the video. He says in effect that he wanted to be an egalitarian but the exegesis (primarily of the female scholars) he investigated was so bad that it turned him off. He seems especially to have it in for Aimee Byrd. 

Miriam
2. When I think of Miriam, I think #3 leader in Israel at the least, maybe even co-#2 with Aaron. Clearly Moses is number 1. We might call Aaron #2 because he plays the role of priest (he is never called high priest in the Old Testament). But Miriam is clearly a leader of Israel too. It seems a natural reading of the text to see her as a higher authority than any other male in Israel except for these two.

Winger spends a little time in Micah 6:4. He spends most of his time targeting egalitarian overreach. It's just a distraction. She is a leader of all the other men in Israel. Full stop.

"I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam." There you have it. Miriam was a leader of Israel as part of God's plan. She's at least #3, out "before" Israel. She is thus a leader of Israel. God puts her in a higher place of authority than all the other men of Israel.

Margaret Mowczko rightly points out that in Exodus 15:21, Miriam sings to "them" -- masculine plural. That is, she is singing to all of Israel, including the men. The previous verse calls her a prophetess. That is, she is prophecying to all of Israel in this song. God is thus speaking Scripture into existence through her. God is using her to breathe Exodus 15. None of this seems particularly controversial to me. 

3. Again, Winger spends a lot of time making fun of interpreters (Aimee Byrd again) saying that Israel waited on Miriam after her rebellion in Numbers 12. He rightly points out that it was God who decided when Israel moved forward in the wilderness. He is arguing against interpreters who say that Israel didn't wait on Miriam during her uncleanness because they saw her as their leader. 

While I was listening to all this, I was thinking to myself. So... you're saying that God did not want Israel to move forward until Miriam could rejoin them? How does that make her less significant than if it was merely Israel waiting on her. 

I chuckled to myself like he chuckles at Aimee Byrd. So it was God that wanted Miriam back in place before they proceeded. OK. :-)

Huldah
3. With Huldah, he chuckles at Aimee Byrd again. You know, when I go read the passages he mentions in her book, she doesn't sound nearly as laughable as he treats her repeatedly. I have to wonder if something is going on with him here. Maybe he needs a little therapy.

For example, she writes, "Here we have a prophetess who is described as 'arguably the first person to grant authoritative status to the Torah scroll deposited in the temple treasury.'" Byrd is actually quoting someone else, but he laughs at her. It's not even an outrageous statement. Let's dig in.

They are refurbishing the temple. The high priest "finds" the Book of the Law. Most scholars think it was some form of Deuteronomy. Winger and Byrd both think it's the whole Pentateuch. 

But let the situation sink in. The high priest hasn't apparently known where the Law was. From Josiah's reaction upon hearing it, he has never heard it before. Josiah instructs the high priest to inquire of Yahweh.

Again, let that sink in. Judah has not been using the Law apparently for a long time. In fact, think of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. Deuteronomy says they should not be offering sacrifices in the north (Deut. 12:14-15). They're only supposed to sacrifice in Jerusalem. Think of Samuel who offered sacrifices all over the place and not just in the tabernacle. It's like none of these prophets have read Deuteronomy. 

According to 2 Chronicles 34, the Passover that followed this event surpassed all the Passovers since Samuel. That fact lends some support to the idea that the Book of the Law largely had not been accessed since then. I'm sure there were traditions in Deuteronomy that they kept, but it was largely lost, it seems.

4. So, Josiah instructs Hilkiah the high priest to go and inquire of Yahweh in relation to the book. Many do in fact believe that Josiah is looking for verification that the book is legit. He thinks it is, but he wants to be sure. And he wants to know what the LORD's instructions are given how long Judah has been oblivious to the book.

Here is where I question both Winger and Byrd. The text does not say that Josiah sent the high priest specifically to Huldah. Josiah simply tells the high priest to inquire of the LORD. It is the high priest that seeks out Huldah.

Apparently, the high priest does not have a close enough connection with the LORD to seek him himself -- even though he presumably enters the Most Holy Place once a year. The high priest seeks out a higher spiritual authority than him. Huldah.

By the way, she's married. Having a husband presents no problem whatsoever for her to prophecy to the king and the high priest. She is clearly a higher spiritual authority than the king or the high priest. And being married makes no difference to her exercise of spiritual authority.

Does she verify that the Book of the Law is legit? I have always seen it that way. I say that she recognized its authoritative status rather than "granted" it. At the very least, she instructs the king and high priest what to do with it. And that is pretty significant.

Why did the high priest not go to Jeremiah or Zephaniah instead? They are around at the time. We don't know. Winger says she was in town and her husband worked in the palace. OK. It doesn't diminish the fact that the high priest and king submitted to her words, spoken from the LORD through her.

See more on priests below. Huldah is the highest spiritual authority in Israel in this moment.

Deborah
5. Deborah is the highest political leader within Israel in Judges 4. She is judging Israel (4:4). She is actually the only judge in Israel who does what the judges of Exodus 18:21-22 and 25-26 do. All the rest of them are merely military leaders that God raises up to fight back Israel's conquerers. She actually makes judge type decisions for the people. She is also the only judge about whom nothing negative is said. All the others in Judges are at least partial failures while she is a model judge.

Winger does a little flatlanding in this section. That is to say, he assumes that the ideal structure of Deuteronomy is in place with high priests doing what they're supposed to do and so forth.

However, Judges is the wild wild west. It has a much rawer, early feel than say Joshua. Joshua reads like a tidy position paper. If we read Judges inductively, it doesn't look like the ideal of Joshua is in place at all. This is why many scholars would argue that Joshua dates to a later time than the traditions of Judges. Joshua is telling us how it should have been. Judges is telling us how it really was.

So when Winger tries to say that she's a judge but not a teacher of Israel because that's what the priests and Levites do, he's imposing Deuteronomy on Judges. The Levite in Judges is no moral example or instructor in the Law (Judges 19). In fact, we get the impression from Judges that priests at this time are pretty much around to make sacrifices to deities, not because there is any true spiritual depth or understanding. 

Judges 17-18 give us a good glimpse of the wild west dimension of Israel at this time. You've got a guy named Micah in Ephraim. Decides he wants to make a shrine. Melts some gold, makes an idol. 

Now he needs a priest, a "Levite." He finds a man "from the family of Judah" who is a Levite (Judg. 17:7). It's as if they don't know that Levites are descendants of Levi. Micah hires the guy to be priest in his shrine. 

Meanwhile, despite the fact that Joshua tells us the tribe of Dan already has its allotment of land, the Danites of Judges 18:1 are still looking. They hire this Levite to come be their priest in the north. His descendants are priests in Dan until the time of the Assyrians, maybe even the Babylonians -- that is, through the whole period of the kings.

This entire story is crazy in the light of the Pentateuch as we have it. My point is that Winger is flatlanding it when he assumes that the priests are teaching the people the Law so that couldn't have been a function Deborah did. The priests seem to know almost nothing of the Law as we know it.

So let me state what has always seemed obvious to me. Deborah is not only the highest political authority in the land at this time -- the judge of Israel for forty years (Judg. 5:31). She is a prophetess and, as far as we can tell, the key spokesman for Yahweh in Israel as well. And she is married. Barak is the fighter, but he implores her to go along with him too so that they will win (4:8), and she give instructions to him from Yahweh (4:6).

Miriam, Huldah, and Deborah were exceptional for Old Testament times, but they show that women in leadership and ministry was possible even under the old covenant. There was no prohibition against it. And if there was no absolute prohibition on it, then how much more in the age of the Spirit should we expect women in ministry and leadership to be perfectly normal.

Priests
6. Let me get to the punchline first. There are no men or women today who are correlates to the Old Testament priests. Jesus is the only high priest. Hebrews is clear. None of the Old Testament sacrifices could actually take away sins (Heb. 10:4). Only the sacrifice of Christ did (10:14). Only Jesus is this type of effectual priest (7:23-25).

In a sense, there is a priesthood of all believers, which includes women (1 Pet. 2:9). We all have access to God through Christ, and the temple veil is torn in two (Mark 15:38). And there is Christ, the only high priest in the true, heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 8:1-2). 

Bottom line. The fact that the priests of the old covenant were all male has nothing to do with whether women can be ministers today. We can ask why they were only men in the old covenant. The Bible gives us no answer. It certainly fit the culture of the day.

Why did Jesus come as a man? I can find no theological reason why he couldn't have come as a woman. But he had to pick one, and in the world to which he came, being a man was most beneficial.

7. Let me make a bold observation. The priests of the Old Testament are not known for their godliness. They are not known for their spiritual insight. Yes, in Deuteronomy they are supposed to teach the Law (Deut. 33:10). But we almost never hear of them actually doing it (cf. 2 Chron. 15:3). Deuteronomy is a kind of position paper that apparently was rarely carried out. Malachi, at the end of the Old Testament, is still indicting priests for failing in this regard (Mal. 2:7).

We can look from the Levite who becomes the priest of Dan in Judges 18 to Eli and his sons in 1 Samuel to the fact that Hilkaiah himself can't say what to do with the Law. To all the prophetic words against all the vain sacrifices that Israel offers (Isa. 1:11; Mic. 6:6-7). To the words that Jeremiah speaks to those who put their faith in the temple (Jer. 7:4). He mentions that God allowed Shiloh to be destroyed in the north (7:12).

Bottom line: The priests in the Old Testament by and large are not in any way models of godliness or true spiritual insight. The prophets are those who are models of godliness in the Old Testment. They are the closest correlates to ministers today, and women are obviously among them. The priests of the old covenant offer sacrifices, and that's about it.

Kings
Women were not kings in Old Testament times. That's just the way it was. Winger is correct that the two examples of royal women are ungodly, but all the kings of the north were ungodly and the vast majority of kings in the south were too. I find no data here of relevance to the contemporary debate.

The Lead-Up to Romans

1. I've been mulling over for some time how to present biblical material in a way that might engage a broad reader. With Wesleyan Publishing House, I've written books covering the whole New Testament. For example, Paul: Soldier of Peace covers Romans. By happenstance, the title doesn't tell you anything about the book.

I'm proud of those books, although few have bought them. They make good book studies for a small group or Sunday School class. They cover the biblical material broadly rather than in verse by verse detail.

2. I've also produced some "Explanatory Notes." These go verse by verse. Here is one I published with Cascade publishing on the book of Hebrews. But my sense is that most people aren't into a verse by verse analysis. Commentaries of this sort are primarily reference tools that pastors use in sermon preparation or students use when doing exegesis.

Is there a way to meet in the middle? That is the question I've been asking. What would that even look like?

3. For the last few months, I've been working through Mark, aiming at a kind of middle ground. I went chapter by chapter, summarizing them and bringing out any salient issues of interpretation or application. I like the result a lot, although I'm not convinced anyone would buy it. 

But it combines the strengths of the two approaches I've just mentioned. It is more granular than my broader books. It is less detailed than my Explanatory Notes. Still, it is probably too deep for your average Sunday School. I went to a Sunday School class at a church not too long ago. They were reading The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis. It's not a shallow book by any means, but it is in narrative form. That makes deep material more accessible to a general audience. The conversation, though, was very surface level that Sunday.

So, here is an experiment, an attempt to bring the text alive on a deep level using story. There will inevitably be some novelizing, but hopefully only enough to bring out the meaning of the material on a deep level. You can tell me if it works.
_______________________________

1. Paul was discouraged when he arrived at Corinth late in the year AD56. He was preparing to go to Jerusalem with an offering to the church there. It was a kind of peace offering, as there had often been some tension between him and the Jerusalem church. 

The last time he had spoken with James, James had urged Paul to remember the poor of the city (Gal. 2:10). This offering was to be the fulfillment of his pledge to do so. Paul may have seen it as the fulfillment of prophecy. Isaiah 60:5 talks about the wealth of the nations flowing to Jerusalem at a time of restoration for the city. Paul may have seen his offering as a piece of the end times puzzle.

He apparently had a group of representatives with him from various Gentile (non-Jewish) churches he had planted or had a hand in planting. These included Sopater from Berea in Greece, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe in Asia Minor, as well as Tychicus and Trophimus from Ephesus (Acts 20:4). Timothy and Titus were Paul's long time co-workers. Timothy was from Lystra in Asia Minor, and Titus was possibly from that general region as well.

Part of the arrangement was apparently for them to carry the gifts from their churches. He didn't want there to be any charge of impropriety, so the designees from each church stewarded the money entrusted to them (e.g., 2 Cor. 8:19-20). Paul even left open the question of whether he would travel with these representatives (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:3-4).

It's at least possible that some of this money ended up being used to pay for the sacrifices Paul made in Jerusalem with several who had taken a vow (Acts 21:24). James suggests Paul do this to show the Jewish believers in Jerusalem that he keeps the Jewish Law. For Paul, it seemed like an easy enough thing to do.

So, Paul is in Corinth, about to head to Jerusalem with this offering when he writes Romans. As he says in Romans 15:25-27: "But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints of Jerusalem."

2. At the same time, it's hard not to think Paul was discouraged at this time. The words in Romans 15:23 have a certain heaviness: "Since I now no longer have a place in these regions..." 

Think about Paul's situation. Although Acts omits mention of it, many think it likely that he was imprisoned at Ephesus (cf. 2 Cor. 1:8). I suspect he was more or less banished from the city, which would be part of why he does not go into the city when he comes through again (cf. Acts 20:16-17). After three years at Ephesus, his time there is done. There is "no place" for him there.

And while we can presume his hosts at Corinth were cordial, we have good reason to think that his presence at Corinth was not entirely comfortable either. Yes, he enjoys the hospitality of Gaius (Rom. 16:23). Yes, he has many allies in the church there, people like Sosthenes (1 Cor. 1:1; Acts 18:17) and Chloe's household (1 Cor. 1:11). Perhaps Stephanus and his household are allies as well (1 Cor. 16:15-17).

But Paul has enemies at Corinth too. After nine incredibly harmonius chapters, in 2 Corinthians 10 Paul suddenly goes off the rails. It is like Paul thought everything was peachy with him and the Corinthians only to receive new information. The church is not as submitted to his authority as he thought. Some key individuals have apparently not repented of their sins.

The tone of 2 Corinthians 10-13 is unlike anywhere else in Paul's writing. "I fear lest somehow when I come to you, I might not find you as I wish... lest when I come to you again, God might humble me before you and I might mourn over many who had sinned before and have not repented of their uncleanness and sexual immorality and the sensuality that they practiced" (2 Cor. 12:21).

So it would seem that Corinth, like Ephesus, has "no place" for him either. We do not know what happened in response to Paul's letter to the Galatians. We would hope that they ended up listening to him and not the Judaizers who were trying to persuade them to convert fully to Judaism. While he may have ministered for several years in his home region of Cilicia, he apparently has not gone back much since.  In short, he may be ready to move on.

We do not know if there is any lingering tension over him at Antioch. He had a blow up there less six or seven years previous, after which he soon left the city (Gal. 2:14). While Acts portrays Paul in good relationships with all these places, we should note that to portray such harmony is part of Luke's rhetorical aim. Paul's own writings suggest much more tension.

This is the context of Romans. As Paul senses that the door is closing on his ministry in the east, he looks west.

The Wesleyan Church 2035 (in honor of Keith Drury)

Two men sit down at a coffee shop. One looks to be in his late 60s. The other is relatively young, maybe in college. The young man has a tablet to take notes on.

Aaron: Thanks for agreeing to meet with me on such short notice. My paper's due tomorrow.

Keith: (with a grin) If I'd have known that, I wouldn't have agreed to the interview. You'll never be successful in ministry if you don't learn to plan ahead and get things done in a timely way.

Narrator: A slight look of horror came over the student's face.

Keith: So, you're writing a paper about the recent history of the Wesleyan movement?

Aaron: Yes, in particular I'm supposed to write about the split that happened recently.

Keith: Well, that's the first thing to get straight. It wasn't a split.

Aaron: What? Isn't there The Wesleyan Methodist Church, The Wesleyan Connection, and one other I can never remember the name of.

Keith: The Wesleyan Holiness Church?

Aaron: Yes, that's it. 

Keith: Yes, and there are also a number of congregations that don't belong to any of these any more.

Aaron: Right. So a split.

Keith: Nope. 

Narrator: The puzzlement on Aaron's face was plain as day. He was a twenty-one year old young man studying to be a full-time minister. It was a rare approach to ministry those days, since most pastors were now co-vocational.

Keith: Let me explain. It wasn't a split. It was a fizzle.

Aaron: A fizzle? What's that?

Keith: OK. Let's go back about ten years, and I'll tell you my interpretation of what happened.

Aaron: That would be great. You're already different than a couple others I've interviewed. But I'm supposed to let you tell the story your way without interfering. So fire away.

Keith: Ten years ago in 2025, America was very divided. You'll remember that Trump was president at that time. Some of the divisions in America were present in the church as well. But those weren't the primary reasons behind the fizzle. They more came into play after the fizzle.

Aaron: You're kind of hurting my brain. Could you back up and start again.

Keith: Sure. Let me start again. 

Ten years ago, there were already cracks in The Wesleyan Church that had been steadily widening. For example, the church had been struggling over the issue of drinking for decades. One wing of the church -- especially large church pastors and younger pastors -- saw a prohibition on drinking as a hindrance to evangelism and church growth. And they just didn't see an absolute prohibition on drinking as biblical. They thought the church's position should be moderation, not total abstinence.

Aaron: That's the position of The Wesleyan Methodist Church, right? 

Keith: Yes, and The Wesleyan Connection. The only one of the three that prohibits drinking now is the Wesleyan Holiness Church. In fact, that's one the main reasons it exists. 

Aaron: Really? I didn't know that. What about homosexuality? Was that part of the cause of the split?

Keith: It wasn't a split. And no. 

It's true that, for a long time, there were voices that warned about The Wesleyan Church splitting over homosexuality. It just was never a real threat. It was more of a fear about something that could happen in the future.

The Global Methodist Church had pulled out of the United Methodist Church over the ordination of gay ministers. And there were many in The Wesleyan Church who warned that The Wesleyan Church might undergo the same split if we didn't "tighten the ship," so to speak. They believed that we were getting more and more liberal. 

Aaron: So, was there ever a group of Wesleyans fighting to affirm homosexuality?

Keith: No, but the fear of it was a crucial element in the dissolution of The Wesleyan Church.

Aaron: Dissolution?

Keith: The fizzle I've been talking about. Have you learned about the "trust clause" yet? 

Aaron: No, what's a trust clause?

Keith: Well, you'll need to learn about it because The Wesleyan Methodist Church put it back in. But it doesn't exist any more in the other two branches of the Wesleyan fizzle. 

For a very long time, the property of local churches was technically owned by the districts they were in. There was a line in the property deed that said it was held "in trust" for the denomination. A local church thus couldn't vote to leave the denomination and take the property with them. And the denomination held authority over the local church.

Aaron: Really? Even if the church paid for the building and all?

Keith: Yes. Part of the idea was that local churches usually had a lot of help getting established. The denomination might invest a lot into a local church and then, if the local church got some new pastor next year who wanted the church to leave with the property, the denomination could lose the church and it wouldn't be fair. There were a lot of churches that left the church with their property in the 1960s.

There was also the desire to make sure local churches didn't start teaching heresy. Owning the property gave the district ultimate control over the church. 

On the other hand, for those afraid the church would drift into accepting homosexuality, there was the fear that the denomination would go liberal and then local churches would be forced to accept homosexuality or lose their property. That's somewhat what happened in the Global Methodist Church.

Aaron: OK. So did the trust clause go away before or after the "fizzle," as you call it.

Keith: Before. It was one of the key steps in the denomination dissolving.

Aaron: I'm still not quite sure what you mean by fizzling or dissolving.

Keith: Maybe it would help if I talked about where most of The Wesleyan Church ended up. That's in The Wesleyan Connection.

Aaron: And they call themselves a "connection" rather than a "church," right?

Keith: Yes. A lot of the larger Wesleyan churches had never really believe in denominations, in my opinion. They were almost a denomination to themselves. 

Aaron: So what exactly is a "denomination"? 

Keith: A denomination is a collection of churches that have an official structure of authority, organization, rules, etc. The local church is part of and under the authority of a larger organization.

Aaron: Like the Wesleyan Methodist Church. 

Keith: Yes, or the Wesleyan Holiness Church.

Both churches have a Discipline. Both churches have general superintendents. Even though the Wesleyan Holiness Church doesn't have a trust clause, it is organized into districts and has district superintendents. In their case, they don't have much teeth if a church wants to leave, which has already happened in a few places.

Aaron: So what does The Wesleyan Connection have? 

Keith: It has a President and Connectional By-Laws. But membership in the Connection is purely voluntary. It lets you participate in certain common goals like the Wesleyan Planters Association. There are benefits to partiipating, but it isn't a denomination per se any more.

Aaron: So how did that happen?

Keith: Well, like I said, there were many who thought that we should be more like they saw the New Testament church. And they liked to say that John Wesley started a movement and that the early Wesleyan churches were part of a movement. They became organized churches later. 

These voices thought we too would be more biblical if we were a Spirit-led movement rather than an organization that was also a business. A hidden assumption here was that our goal should be to make the church today be just like the church was in the first century.

Aaron: And isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Keith: The church of the first century fit the shape of the world in the first century. There are groups today who might say we shouldn't have guitars in worship because they didn't have guitars in Bible times. But surely we should focus on the goals of the church, not the various forms the church has used to reach those goals over the centuries.

Aaron: So you're saying they mistook the forms for the substance.

Keith: Yes. It was much the same as those who say we should meet in house churches because the early Christians met in houses. They just applied it to denominations. They said, "They didn't have district superintendents in the Bible so we shouldn't either" or "They didn't call them local boards of administration in the Bible so we shouldn't either." In the end, they didn't see that every generation has to play out the gospel in the most helpful forms for its own day.

Aaron: So how did that play out?

Keith: Like I said, the larger churches had already largely run to a large extent like they were their own denominations. They sometimes felt like district leadership was less capable of leading than they were. They sometimes felt like smaller congregations were either failing at the mission or were small-minded in their thinking.

So in the late 2010s and early 2020s, there was a shift toward putting the larger churches in charge of the districts. Districts were combined, which lessened the voices of more traditional Wesleyans -- especially the ones that eventually ended up in the Wesleyan Holiness Church. 

The Boomer layer of the denomination was finally in charge. They emphasized evangelism and lay leadership. There was a big emphasis on equipping non-ministers to do the work of the ministry. There was less and less a sense that a minister was someone called and set aside specially for full time ministry.

Meanwhile, larger churches and many in the denomination had long been absorbing ideas from other mega-churches and broader evangelicalism. The church was absorbing a lot of Baptist and broader evangelical thinking and assumptions in the process. The broader church culture of America was pulling us into its gravitational pull.

Aaron: Like how? 

Keith: For example, many in the church had a low view of the sacraments.

Aaron: You mean baptism and communion?

Keith: Yes. The larger churches and a lot of pastors believed that any Christian should be able to baptize a new believer or lead at communion.

Aaron: That's not what the Wesleyan Methodists do, right?

Keith: Right. The Wesleyan Methodists only let a licensed or ordained minister serve communion or baptize, except in emergency situations.

Aaron: And Wesleyan Methodists allow infant baptism?

Keith: Yes, it's somewhat rare, but it is not allowed in either The Wesleyan Connection or the Wesleyan Holiness Church.

Aaron: And what about women in ministry?

Keith: Women cannot be lead pastors in The Wesleyan Connection, but they can be staff pastors. That's one of the reasons the Wesleyan Methodist Church isn't part of the Connection any more. In the Wesleyan Holiness Church, women can't be pastors at all. But in the Wesleyan Methodist Church, they can be any kind of pastor up to General Superintendent.

Aaron: So what led to the fizzle?

Keith: Well, there was this slow movement behind the scenes. The headquarters was sold without anyone hardly even noticing it. The trust clause was done away with. The financial institution of the church went independent.

Aaron: So it was slowly moving away from a denomination toward a connection for a while?

Keith: Yes. At the 2030 General Conference they made it official. In 2032, they would meet to draft the By-Laws of the new "Wesleyan Connection." 

This move solved several problems. It let local churches and former districts that wanted to prohibit drinking prohibit drinking. Meanwhile, churches who believed in moderation could adopt that position. 

Every church would agree to the by-laws of the Connection and would enjoy the benefits of pooled resources. But they could follow their conscience on "non-essential" items. The leaders of the move championed it as "becoming like the New Testament church."

Aaron: So did they meet and set it up in 2032?

Keith: Yes, but it didn't play out quite like the leaders of the move thought it would. It's funny how so many think that a church might just follow the Bible alone. But there are always different interpretations of Scripture -- even in a small denomination like The Wesleyan Church.

A Task Force came with its recommendations. The move on drinking was obvious. There would be no prohibition on drinking in the By-Laws. It didn't make a lot of churches in Tennessee and Kentucky happy, but I think initially they were planning to go along with it.

Aaron: But they didn't in the end? 

Keith: No, in the end there were several features that led them to walk away. They thought the position on entire sanctification was too watered down. There were some strong voices that didn't believe in women in ministry at all. And they obviously didn't like the allowance of drinking. 

They had felt shoved in the corner for too long and missed the days when they played a more central role in the church. The year after the Connection formed, they came together and re-formed as a denomination again, the Wesleyan Holiness Church. It mostly consists of smaller churches. A lot of them were churches that had once been Pilgrim Holiness churches before the 1968 merger.  

Aaron: So why did the Wesleyan Methodists leave the Connection?

Keith: That's where some of the social and political dimensions of the last decades came into play. Both in the Connection and the Wesleyan Holiness folks, there were some strong feelings against things they called "woke" or "social justice warriors." Following the flow of 2020s politics, they saw things like women in ministry, racial reconciliation, taking care of the poor, helping immigrants get documented -- they saw these values as "leftist liberal."

Aaron: Really? I've been taught that those values were part of the founding of The Wesleyan Church and John Wesley. And don't those values come from the Bible?

Keith: Well, The Wesleyan Methodist Church sure thinks so. But the leaders of the other churches didn't so much. Or they thought those issues were too secondary to let interfere with the greater good that was happening. Some had actually come to see such values as evil and preached against them. The culture and political landscape at the time was strongly pushing them in that direction. We don't always know why we see what we see in the Bible.

Aaron: So the Wesleyan Methodists left the Connection too?

Keith: Well, they never really joined. It was mostly the Millennial layer of the church. They just couldn't agree with some of the values and direction of the Connection. Like the Wesleyan Holiness Church, they re-formed as a denomination again the next year in 2033.

Aaron: And that was just two years ago! Wow.

Keith: We'll see how the three bodies go. The Connection is going strong. Lots of baptisms. Very white upper middle class.

The Wesleyan Methodists are growing too. It's finding a lot of forty somethings coming back to the church after leaving in the 2020s. It also seems to speak to your generation well.

Aaron: And the Wesleyan Holiness Church? 

Keith: My impression is that it is holding its own so far. A lot of older congregations in small churches. 

Aaron: Wow. This has been very helpful. The paper has practically written itself.

Keith: Next time, do it in plenty of time. Don't be a last minute minister. Plan your responsibilities out. You never know when an emergency is going to pop up.

Aaron: Understood. Thanks so much for letting me interview you.

Keith: Thanks for the coffee!

Through the Bible -- Mark 10

With this post, we finish my series of general thoughts on the Gospel of Mark. Here is the complete series:

Mark 1:1-13
Mark 1:14-15 
Mark 1:16-45
Mark 2
Mark 3
Mark 4:1-34
Mark 4:35-5:43
Mark 6
Mark 7
Mark 8
Mark 9
This post
Mark 11:1-11 (Palm Sunday)
Mark 11:12-25 (Temple Monday)
Mark 11:26-12:44 (Debate Tuesday)
Mark 13 (Temple Prediction)
Mark 14:1-52 (Last Supper)
Mark 14:53-15:47 (Good Friday)
Mark 16 (The Resurrection) 
_______________________
1. Jesus heads south. In Mark, this is the first time. It is the same in Matthew and Luke. Given the symbolic nature of John, it is at least possible that the three Passovers there are symbolic of the three days that Jesus was in the grave. If all we had were Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we would no doubt think Jesus' full ministry was only for part of a year.

The chapter begins with questions about divorce from "some Pharisees." Is it permitted, they ask him. This was a well-known rabbinic debate among various schools of Pharisees. The school of Hillel allowed divorce for a wide range of reasons, including trivial ones such as a wife burning a meal. [1] The school of Shammai took a stricter view, permitting divorce only in cases of serious indecency or unfaithfulness.

In Mark, Jesus sounds stricter even than the school of Shammai, since he gives no exception. However, Matthew adds "except for sexual immorality," thus aligning Jesus' position with that of Shammai. My seminary professor Bob Lyon felt like Jesus would not have startled anyone if he had historically given the exception and thus was inclined to believe that the historical Jesus made no exceptions.

2. It is quite hermeneutically instructive that Jesus overrides Moses. Rather than considering the teaching of Deuteronomy 24 to be timeless, exceptionless law, he indicates that there are teachings in Scripture that are less than ideal. In effect, Jesus says that God accommodated the hardness of Israel's heart when he allowed for divorce. This is quite striking.

Jesus then goes back to Genesis 2. A husband and wife become one flesh and thus are joined together by God. ("One flesh" here does not precisely correlate sex and marriage. Paul indicates that a person becomes one flesh with a prostitute in 1 Cor. 6, but he does not see that as a marriage).

Groups have often made the teaching here into a legalism of its own, which is ironic given Jesus' strong avoidance of legalisms. Bruce Malina has argued that, in the normal sense of adultery at the time, a man could not actually commit adultery against his wife because adultery was culturally understood to be the shaming of a man by sleeping with his wife. It didn't work the other way around because her honor was entirely embedded in his. [2] 

Jesus is thus being radically countercultural when he suggests a man could actually commit adultery against his wife. This would have been shocking. It also hints at the underlying reasoning. Far from setting down a legalistic view of marriage, Jesus is laying down protection for wives who were easily discarded in that world. He is forbidding it.

The additional note in 10:12 about a woman not divorcing her husband is likely a Markan addition to balance out the instruction for a broader Roman world. In Israel, a wife was not typically able to divorce her husband, making the command unlikely to come directly from Jesus historically. Rather, it is likely Mark applying Jesus' teaching to a braoder audience.

3. The middle part of Mark 10 implicitly contrasts the attitude of children with that of the rich. At first, the disciples rebuke people bringing children to him. It is another example of them not getting it, of the disciples' lack of understanding. We cannot enter the kingdom of God unless we receive it like a child.

The next story then contrasts. It is almost impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. Far from the attitude of a child, it is hard for them to surrender everything to God and be completely dependent on him. 

A rich man asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus reminds him of the Ten Commandments. He has kept all of those from his youth. But Jesus says that he lacks one thing. Jesus instructs him to sell everything he has and give to the poor. He goes away sorrowful because he has many possessions.

If we look back at the commands that Jesus mentions first, they are not to murder, commit adultery, steal, bare false witness. Honoring parents and not defrauding others are also mentioned. Defraud here seems to relate to coveting the things of others and cheating them in order to get them. We note that the Sabbath command is. not mentioned, which in Gentile Christian circles may not have been a central concern (cf. Rom. 14:5). We remember that Mark's audience may be primarily Gentile.

What else is missing from this list? The central command -- to love God with one's whole heart, not to have any other gods before Yahweh. It is often pointed out that Jesus does not make this command to everyone. I have heard it used often of a "one time" command of Jesus that was needed especially by a specific individual at a particular time.

I think this is ultimately the right application of the passage, but we probably let ourselves off the hook a little too easily. The Christian culture of today too easily throws away Jesus' frequent negativity toward the rich and his warnings about wealth. We have sanctified capitalism and made it part of godliness. The Parable of the Talents -- which appears right before the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 -- is made into a parable of monetary investment while the context suggests it is investment in others, especially those who are in need.

Similarly, there was apparently an apocalyptic urgency to Jesus' earthly ministry. While we are looking back at two thousand years, Jesus' ministry modeled the immanency of the kingdom's arrival. Having possessions in such a context is irrelevant. What is important is Jesus' mission. All else falls away.

If God has blessed you with wealth, Jesus indicates that you have no part in the kingdom if it is more important to you than he is. If you would not joyfully surrender every last bit for the sake of God, then it is as if you have not kept any of the commandments. It is our faith that indicates our belonging, not our rule-keeping.

"How hard it is for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God," Jesus says (10:23). It is harder than to get a camel through the eye of a needle. There was no "Camel Gate" or any other folk tale explanation attempt. In the saying, a camel is a camel, and a needle is a needle. It is hyperbole for sure, but the statement means what it seems to mean -- it would have been almost impossible for a wealthy person in Jesus' context to be part of the kingdom of God. 

In the coming age, those who are first now will be last, and those who are last now will be first then. The receiving of houses and lands and brothers and sisters and mothers now is not referring to a prosperity gospel but to becoming part of the family of God. Other people's mothers become your mothers. Their houses become your houses. Their land becomes your land. It is a communal dimension to the Christian family that Jesus has in mind here.

Again, he calls the disciples children, and Peter reminds Jesus that they have left everything to follow him. This hearkens back to what Jesus said about the children coming to him.

4. When the young man comes to Jesus, he calls him a "good teacher." Jesus deflects the word good as a descriptor. "Why do you call me good?" he says. "Only one is good -- God."

It is a fascinating reaction in several respects. On the one hand, there are those who take this as a straightforward indication by Jesus that he did not consider himself to be God. Then there are others who would say that Jesus' point specifically is to hint that he is God. This is probably the way most Christian interpreters throughout the centuries have taken the exchange. 

In either case, there is a clear allusion to the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 -- "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one." The original sense of the Shema was probably, "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone."

Then there is the question of whether a human can be good. As Christians, we certainly believe Jesus was (and is) good. This pushes us again toward an ironic reading of Jesus' statement, one that hints at something more than it says. 

It is also possible, however, that Jesus is trying to lower the rich man's opinion of himself. Perhaps the young man thinks he is good beyond what he actually is. Thus Jesus reminds him that God is the One who is truly good. We humans are creatures of sin, and our goodness is only by God's gracious empowerment.

4. The next part of the chapter presents the third time that Jesus predicts his death. Even in Mark, the three times may allude symbolically to the three days that Jesus was in the ground. This time it is James and John who show that the disciples do not understand. They do not get the fact that it is Jesus' suffering that will most clearly indicate that he is the Messiah.

They are still thinking of the Messiah in victorious political terms. They want seats of privilege at Jesus' right and left hand. The contrast with the fact that Jesus has just told them he was going to Jerusalem to die is stark. They don't get it.

Jesus asks if they can drink from the cup he is about to drink. Obliviously, they say yes. Jesus says that they will indeed. Although the tradition is that John did not die a martyr's death, this exchange suggests that John the son of Zebedee did indeed die a martyr. James would die fairly early on in the early forties at the hands of Herod Agrippa I. Mark seems to imply that John would also die by the early 70s.

The other ten are annoyed that James and John would try to get in line ahead of them. Jesus thus uses the moment as a teaching opportunity. In the Gentile world, leaders love power. They love to show off their authority. Frankly, this is human nature in general.

But it is not the way of the kingdom. Those who would be in leadership must be servants, not just in name but in reality. The first among them must behave like a servant.

Then we get the only explicit statement in Mark on the meaning of Jesus' death. Jesus -- the Son of Man -- did not come to be served (10:45). He came to serve. And he came to lay down his life as a ransom for many. Jesus' death would provide a means of freedom from bondage for those who trust in him.

5. The chapter ends with the healing of blind Bartimaeus leaving Jericho. This is the final event before the triumphal entry and the beginning of Passion week. It happens here in Mark as Jesus is leaving Jericho to head west toward Bethany and Jerusalem. In Matthew, there are two unnamed blind men. In Luke, it is a blind man as Jesus enters the city. These differences are a reminder that we are not getting a video tape of Jesus' ministry.

The fact that he is named suggests that he remained known within the early Christian community. We even know his father's name. It is also part of a cumulative case that Mark is the earliest of the gospels we have. 

The blind man calls Jesus "Son of David," which of course suggests he is the Davidic king. He is the first and only one to call Jesus this in Mark. He is blind, but he clearly sees.

Some of Jesus' followers rebuke him for thinking he is significant enough to be seen by Jesus. Jesus does not explicitly rebuke them, but the text implies a rebuke. As with the children, their priorities aren't in order, and they don't understand Jesus.

Jesus asks what the man wants him to do for him. It may be obvious, but it's important for the man to articulate. He wants his sight. In a sense, Jesus isn't the one who gives it. Rather, it is the man's faith (10:52).

[1] Mishnah Gittin 9:10

[2] Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp. 146–147.

Sermon Starters: Happy Trials to You

Preached at Mt. Edna Community Life Church, 8-3-25

Scripture: James 1:2-8, 12-15

Introduction

• I haven't gone through many trials, perhaps you have (note relatively minor worries in the vast scheme of things).
• My daughter lost 2 dogs, a cat, and a parakeet in the same year. Still, not the same as being martyred or losing a child.
• This is the anniversary of my mother's death, but she died at 98, father at 87. They both died well, and lived blessed lives.
• Still, the questions arise. Why does God allow so much suffering? Why so much evil? Why do the bad guys win so often? 
• Tim Keller -- We have small pieces of an answer but not really a comprehensively satisfying one. Free will explanation. Satan and demons explanation. We just have to trust that God is in control and that, if we could see everything, we would see that he is in fact good.
• James was stoned in AD62. Jerusalem was in between Roman governors and the high priest jumped at the opportunity.

I. Trials perfect us (1:2).

• This is one of the main answers to why God allows suffering. It can make us stronger. It can help us grow. "No pain, no gain."
• Running. If you're not training, you won't be able to make it on race day. Many times, our reaction to a sudden trial reveals whether we've been training -- by orienting our lives around surrender to God.
• A person who has had an addiction needs to surrender that area of potential temptation every day. So we should be practicing surrender long before the time of trial comes.
• We may, without thinking of it, think of God more as a candy machine than the one we are actually living for.

II. God wants to give us wisdom 1:5.

• He doesn't begrudge us asking. While God (and the Holy Spirit) stand ready to give us wisdom for anything, the context suggests God will particularly give us wisdom when we are in a time of trial.
• "Ask... seek... knock" (Matt. 7). This is "if we ask according to his will" (1 John) and are remaining in him (John 15). That is, our wills are aligned with his. And he gives us his Holy Spirit to guide us (Luke 18).
• If we really want an answer, he will give it. It may not of course be the one we prefer.
• The "double-minded person" is someone who has divided loyalties. They have not been truly surrendered to God but are half loyal, half self-loyal.
• Many of us make the "Corban" move -- we say we have given everything to God but then we decide what to do with "God's" stuff (Mark 7).

III. Sometimes we bring trial on ourselves (1:14-15).

• One reason for trials are bad choices we make.
• 1:14-15 give the anatomy of a sin -- a temptation, a choice, a sin, eventually death.
• As said, one reason we have suffering is because God gives us a choice. Then we experience the consequences.
• God is not being mean when we run into a brick wall. The wall isn't being mean. We made a choice to run into it.
• Give illustration of consequences of sin (e.g., a broken marriage because of sinful choices).

Conclusion

• Let's start getting ready to suffer now.
• Job -- never finds out about Satan's wager. He finally has to trust in a bigger picture he doesn't see.
• God allowed Job to suffer. He didn't direct it in this case.
• The bottom line -- 1 Cor. 10:31 and Col. 3:17 -- living a life fully oriented and surrendered to God