I, like many others, was furiously emailing about Deborah when the issue of only male elders came up.
It seemed curious that Angus didn't address Deborah, as he surely knew of it.
Thankfully, ol' Geoff, and WT, cannot resist trying to get in a last word, which opened the door for Angus. (He's one cool customer.)
341 In his written statement provided to the Royal Commission following the close of the
public hearing, Mr Jackson offered the relevant scriptural references to which he
adverted but was unable to provide during the hearing. Specifically, he referred to
various books of the Old Testament which, he said, describe judges and priests as being
all male.625 Mr Jackson said that although the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament ended
‘[o]n Pentecost 33 C.E.’, its principles ‘guided the first century Christian congregation
and served as the context for future practices’.626 Mr Jackson explained that it is on this
basis that the apostle Paul ‘identifies only male members of the congregation as
potential elders’ in 1 Timothy 3:1.627
342 It should be noted by the Royal Commission that, in his statement, Mr Jackson referred
only to those books of the Old Testament in which men are described as judges, and did
not refer to Judges 4:4‐5 which tells of the female judge, Deborah. Specifically, the
verses report that Deborah, ‘a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at
that time’ and that the ‘Israelites would go up to her for judgment’. Since a woman judge
was apparently accepted in the Old Testament, it is not apparent why women should
not be judges of ‘Christian’ guilt or innocence in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation.
Its easy to make calls from the sidelines but put us in the middle of the heated hearing and we'd make mistakes too.
Jack shot himself in the foot.
He (Angus) did not make a mistake.
The guy is a legal genius.
Makemeanunbeliever - the point being raised by counsel for the commission is in response to a later letter Jackson sent. He had plenty of time to prepare that. The holes are there because the JW position is internally inconsistent, not from the pressure of being under cross-examination.
Thats true about pressure - its not like the bible is in Bro Jacksons field right?
I think thats Bro Letts field if I am not mistaken. (spoken with silly over emphasized gestures)
This would be Watchtower's spin:
The Aid to Bible Understanding book intentionally left Deborah out of the list of Judges.
1980 Watchtower explained why
QUESTIONS FROM READERS
● In view of Judges 4:4, can Deborah be viewed as one of the judges of ancient Israel, along with Samson, Gideon and others?
The Bible account at Judges 4:4 reads: “Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that particular time.” Earlier, the account at Judges 2:16 says: “Jehovah would raise up judges, and they would save them out of the hand of their pillagers.” Thus the main work of a judge would be to save Israel from their enemies. It appears, then, that the phrase at Judges 4:4 about Deborah “judging Israel at that particular time” does not mean that Deborah was usurping the place of a man and that she was fulfilling all the duties of a judge in Israel. Unlike Samuel, Gideon or other judges she did not judge all Israel and act as their deliverer or “savior.” In fact, at Nehemiah 9:27 the term “saviors” is used rather than “judges.”—Compare Judges 3:9, 15.Being a prophetess, Deborah told Barak what Jehovah’s will was in the matter. She was used by Jehovah to call Barak to serve as judge for the overthrow of the enemy. Barak served as the “savior” provided by Jehovah, not Deborah, although Barak asked that Deborah go with him. So it is most unlikely that Deborah performed all the duties usually associated with the office of a judge in Israel, the most prominent of which was leading the tribes in warfare against Jehovah’s enemies.Thus, while Deborah can properly be described as a prophetess, it is only in a general sense that she was doing a measure of judging in Israel; she was not taking the full place of a male judge in Israel. Judges 4:5 says: “She was dwelling under Deborah’s palm tree between Ramah and Bethel in the mountainous region of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel would go up to her for judgment.” As for the matter of giving the Israelites Jehovah’s answer to difficult problems that would come up, this she could do because of Jehovah’s spirit being upon her. In contrast, Barak certainly was one who effected deliverance for the Israelites. The reasonable conclusion to draw is that Barak was a judge in the full sense of the word, and this is in accord with Hebrews 11:32, where he ranks among the judges of ancient Israel. Thus the book Aid to Bible Understanding, on page 980, in listing the judges of Israel, does not include Deborah."
The problem they have with trying to spin it that way is the context of women being part of a process where allegations of abuse are being made isn't really equatable to 'leading the tribes into warfare'. So a 'general sense' and 'a measure of judging' are perfectly adequate grounds for finding ways to take onboard what the commission are telling them.
The reality is that these are men who include Herd, who genuinely does believe that women are biologically incapable of making decisions when a man is present. So no matter how inconsistent and nonsensical the reasons they come up with for their view on this, the decision will stand because they can't get it into their heads that women aren't disqualified from decision making because they lack a penis.
ttdtt - "... not like the bible is in Bro Jacksons field right? I think thats Bro Letts field..."
That explains a thing or two. :smirk:
Mephis - "...they can't get it into their heads that women aren't disqualified from decision making because they lack a penis."
Understandable, considering their brains are in their penises.