Monday 17 September 2007

Of Genealogies, Women and Men

I'm reading the genealogies (all nine chapters of them) in 1 Chronicles in my St James Daily Devotional Guide lectionary. I am fascinated by the little tid-bits of information that are included. There are lists of names, sons of, sons of, fathered and then these little promontories in the genealogical landscape:
  • Nimrod who "was the first on earth to be a mighty man"

  • Casluhim "from whom the Philistines came"

  • Peleg "for in his days the earth was divided"...the footnote tells us the name "Peleg" means division
There are also the women. One pops up every now and then.
  • in verse 32, the first woman mentioned: Keturah, Abraham's concubine. I wonder why not Sarah or Hagar?

  • in verse 39, we are told “and Lotan's sister is Timna.” She is also mentioned in Genesis in a list of Esau's descendants. Why are no other sisters mentioned? What was special about her? Who needed to know that?

  • in verse 50, the writer makes a point of naming Mehetabel, who was the wife of one of the kings of Edom, Hadad, and who was also “the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.” I wonder whether Matred and Mezahab are male or female? Why is Mehetabel listed when none of the other kings' wives are?
Fascinating, I thought, maybe I'll start making a list of all the women who are mentioned in the Bible. But wait! Somebody has probably already done it and posted it on the web. And so they have. There I found that there are 188 women mentioned in the Bible. I guess God thinks that is enough. If what women say is true about any woman being able to do the work of ten men, then that would be enough, wouldn't it. See the list of women here.

As I have to remind myself in this church business, it's not quantity that counts, it's quality. Thank God for you women.

9 comments:

  1. I can see your point. But how do we maintain something is inerrant when we can not agree on what it means? We have how many different translations of the Bible? And even if we decide upon one translation as the most 'authentic' (unless it is in Greek or Hebrew) some human translators had to decide upon nuance and punctuation.

    An exaggerated case in point: two different groups of Christians interpreted the Bible exactly opposite from one another where it concerns slavery. And the doctrine of inerrancy had not even come to wide acceptance at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That you or I disagree on what it means doesn't necessarily mean that the text is in error. One, or both, of us may well be, however.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very true. But then doesn't that pretty much guarantee where we are today? Thousands of denominational differences over what are often minor disagreements.

    So much of what we accept as biblical truth has been handed down to us (some of it recently, such as the doctrines attributed to Scofield et al) by men who have claim a particular discernment. This also describes the doctine of inerrancy which was developed in response to the relativism that followed on the heels of Darwin. The doctrine, in and of itself, is not Biblical. (Except for one possible interpretation of the last line in John's Revelation).

    I find it ironic that many of these 'truths' are the offspring of revelation and tradition, something that the Protestant church has held against the Roman Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess the Anglican equivalent of the "revelation and tradition" you mention would be tradition and reason...from Hooker, I believe, but Scripture was still paramount. I still think we need somewhere from where to start...an anchor point...and the Bible is it. Says Dallas Willard: "The Bible is the best information on the most important topics we have." So, I have chosen to believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God as defined by Grudem, Packer and in the Chicago Statement. If I'm honest I have to admit I have done so partly because I see what unbelief in the truth of Scripture has done in my denomination and I don't want to go there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, the slope can be slippery. Dallas Willard, eh? "The Divine Conspiracy" was one of the most important books I have ever read. Do you feel that Willard holds to the doctrine of inerrancy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree on "The Divine Conspiracy," a delicious book. I'm also listening to him on various free mp3s I found over at Christianaudio. I haven't heard or read a definitive statement from him on inerrancy per se but he seems close enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...it's interesting, too, that memorizing Scripture is one of his personal spiritual disciplines.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have trouble memorizing scripture, but I've read through the Bible from cover to cover four times using four different editions and that has helped me to understand the overarching themes. It helps also in refuting those who say that such and such is in the Bible , when it isn't. I've also come to the personal conviction that the Bible is trustworthy. You might want to read some of my latest research on Genesis at http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/

    Perhaps, Gene, you would view it and consider listing it on your blogroll under Interesting Ones.

    ReplyDelete