AN EXPOSE` OF THE ZONDERVAN HANDBOOK TO THE BIBLE, Part IV (of VII)

Claire Powell: Jesus or Jessica?

This will wrap up my critique of Claire Powell’s three page article on pages 89-91. I have already wasted a lot of ink on it. And much more could be pointed out in the way of interpretational hijinks and downright dishonesty. So we are only going to look at four more problems as representative samples.

First, in her introduction on page 89, we learn that men are stupid. She writes, “A change of perspective on the Bible was also needed, not because women relate to God or see the Bible differently from men, or that all women think the same way, but because, until recently, almost all biblical interpretation has been by men.”

Yep, that’s right. Men have been doing all the interpretation and that's bad. I have to assume we have gotten things wrong somehow. Huuummmm.

Oh, but wait! In that same quote you will find two curiously anomalous statements. One says, “...not because women relate to God or see the Bible differently from men...” And the other says, “A change of perspective on the Bible was...needed...because...almost all biblical interpretation has been by men.” This is the conundrum of feminist bigotry. They want to say that men and women are essentially identical at the same time they say women are better than we beastly males are.

Second, on page 90, second column, we read, “Junia...was an apostle (Romans 16:7).” Actually, Romans 16:7 says, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” So either “apostle” was used in an wider sense or Andronicus and Junias were held in high esteem by the twelve. In any case, Junias was not one of the twelve.

Third, Powell goes on a rant about how we must not see God as male. On page 91 we read, “Many people hold a mental image of God as male or at least somehow more male than female.” Yes, Claire, and so did I....until I was six!

But it gets better. When she delves deeply into Greek and Hebrew grammar all three wheels come off. “In languages which do not have an inclusive pronoun, either masculine or feminine must be used to reflect the fact that God’s nature is personal, not impersonal. It has nothing to do with sex (that which is biologically determined) or gender (that which is socially determined.)” (The parentheses were hers, not mine.)

Did you catch that? Sex is biologically determined. (Thanks, Claire, for clearing that up for us.) But gender is socially determined. Hummm. And all this time I thought sex determined gender. One is scared to think just where Powell is going with this line of thinking. If gender is not afixed to biological sex, then the way is open for all kinds of filth, such as that espoused by the EC (Evangleicals Concerned) which says this about itself: “Evangelicals Concerned (EC) is a nationwide ministry which encourages and affirms lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Christians in their faith.” Is it my imagination or is Powell nudging us down a lavender path?

As she continues down the road to grammatical perversion, we read in the middle column of page 91 that “...the feminine terms for God, e.g. the Holy Spirit and wisdom in the Old Testament...have been rediscovered.” I find two things here that are interesting. First, the idea that the Holy Spirit has been lost for some time is news to me. But then, I never accidentally had the book of Proverbs (or any of the other wisdom books) fall out of my Bible, either. Second, while she discounts the masculine pronoun as any sort of indicator about God’s character, she invoked the grammatical feminine as a determining factor in our picture of God the Holy Spirit. Is this a double standard?

In the biblical position, God is seen as masculine at times and feminine at times, never male or female, since He has no body. Masculine and feminine indicate manner, role, and character. And since God is Ruler, King, Judge, Yahweh of Armies, Husband of His people, Father, etc., the biblical view is almost exclusively masculine. This is so simple the church has always held to this view and I understood it when I was knee-high. Yet, the feminists and homosexuals amoung us don't get it. Why?

More important, why is Zondervan pushing their gender agenda on us?

Fourth, and last, Powell claims it is only happenstance that the Messiah came as a man and not a women. God flipped a cosmic coin and it came up tails, so He sent Jesus, not Jessica. Poor Jessica. This is found on page 91, second and third columns. The logic is tortured--unworthy of an academic setting with any pretense to objective research and learning. In Powell's creative history, since it was Jesus and not Jessica, women have been ignored as possible clergy. Again, she denies God's created order. Man is the head because of God's decree, not a messianic gender accident.

Further, it ignores the plain teaching of Romans 5. There we read of righteousness coming from a Man and sin coming from a man. Verse 19 says, "For as through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." So then, sin and death came by a man, and life and righteousness came by a Man. The masculinity of the Messiah was neither accidental nor incidental.

We weren't made sinners by Eve. We aren't made righteous by Jessica. And I won't buy anything from Zondervan.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. There Shawn. Happy now?