Piper and Grudem are a primary proponent of a bizarre interpretation of Judges:
"Deborah, a prophetess, judge, and mother in Israel..., along with Jael..., was a living indictment of the weakness of Barak and other men in Israel who should have been more courageous leaders."
"Deborah, a prophetess, judge, and mother in Israel..., along with Jael..., was a living indictment of the weakness of Barak and other men in Israel who should have been more courageous leaders."
I heard this same interpretation proliferated through seminary and in Reformed churches as assumed fact. Yet, the fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Bible does it hint at the fact that Deborah, Jael, & other leading women were an indictment against failed male leadership.
It's actually placing a grid of interpretation upon the biblical text. It's reading a presupposition of "manhood and womanhood" into the text where the Bible actually commends Deborah and Jael (Judges 5). "Most blessed of women be Jael..." the biblical text says, not "this was
the best we could get because Israel's men were weak leaders." "Villagers in Israel would not fight... until I, Deborah, arose, until I arose, a mother in Israel." Again, nowhere does it hint that Deborah was some sort of lesson that God was teaching Israel about failing men.
The point of the matter is that this bizarre interpretation is not fringe in Reformed and Evangelical circles. It's preached from pulpits and taught at seminaries to the next generations of church leaders. But the interpretation is grasping at straws in order to make
a square peg fit into a round hole. Simple, elementary hermeneutics tells us that we should not be trying to force biblical texts to fit our agenda, even if we have the gall to call it "biblical" manhood and womanhood.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
