Dateline 800 B. C. (Dan, Israel). Dan is one of the twelve tribes of Israel; it remains the northernmost city in the kingdom. We were able to interview recently one of the men that officiates at the altar in this territory, whose name just happens to be that of the tribe’s founder, Dan. (Int. is short for interviewer.)
Int: How are things going in your part of the country?
Dan: Great. I’ve just written a new book: Accepting Apostasy.
Int: That sounds bold. Tell me about it.
Dan: Well, when this golden calf was first set up, a lot of people took issue with it.
Int: Weren’t those some of the same people who bellyached about priests coming from tribes other than Levi?
Dan: Yes, it seems there are always detractors when people are trying to make progress. So I decided to fling the word apostasy back into their faces and show them that God is pleased with our progress over the past century-and-a-half.
Int: No one has a problem with the golden calf now, do they?
Dan: Oh, once in a while some radical still prophesies doom, but we just point to our marvelous prosperity as proof that God is not displeased with us. Each year more and more people come here to worship. They are absolutely awed by the sight of the golden calf.
Int: I can imagine. So why did you write the book?
Dan: I wanted people to know that they should not take for granted the fact that so many people now accept the calf. For many years my predecessors were persecuted and made to look evil because they dared to be different from Judah.
Int: I know, if the press had not manipulated public opinion, who knows if you would have ever gotten this far?
Dan: We knew that we were on the right side of history in this struggle and that public sentiment would eventually be in our favor. It’s been about 150 years now, however; it is clear that we have prevailed.
Int: Any words of advice for those who want to bring in future “apostasies”?
Dan: Yes, don’t give up. Step back for a bit, if you must, but then boldly drive forward again. The public does not have enough energy to resist change for long. Eventually, the sentiment will turn in your favor. After a few years, no one will challenge you anymore.
The preceding discussion was fiction (maybe) and could be used to justify almost any practice—from homosexual ministers marrying their own kind to women usurping spiritual roles God gave to men. Many think, for example, that because denominations and instrumental music have been used for 500 years, they must both be acceptable. However, time is not the operating factor; God’s approval is. The golden calves lasted more than two centuries in Israel, but when God arranged for Assyria to take the northern kingdom captive, He inspired these words found in 2 Kings 17:21:
For He tore Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the Son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin.
The golden calf, along with the other innovations, may have become accepted for more than 200 years, but it was wrong the day Jeroboam established false religion, and the next two centuries could not change wrong into right. Just because objections ceased did not mean that God changed His mind regarding the sin. Some religious denominations are nearly 500 years old—but that’s still 1,500 years too late to be the church Jesus established in the first century.
An article appeared recently in the Orlando Sentinel that praised a female rabbi and how she “fought for it.” Published on May 27, 2006; it assumes that women in roles of spiritual leadership are acceptable, nor does it seek in any way to prove the practice is Biblical.
The article calls her by the venerable Jewish name of Sally. She wanted to be a rabbi when she was still in high school back in 1963 (probably listening to Leslie Gore’s, “You Don’t Own Me”). When she applied to be a student, she was told that the school had never ordained a woman and that they did not know of any opportunities available for her upon graduation (A10).
She eventually graduated, was ordained, and spent the majority of her career at a Reform Temple in New Jersey (not a surprise) until she retired ten years ago. Now she has (wait for it) written a book, along with other women of her ilk, about her exciting adventures in overcoming gender “prejudice.” [No “journalist” ever considers whether or not the Bible may be right rather than prejudiced.] Her first claim is that what she did is an important part of history. So is what Jeroboam did. It was part of the reason Israel was destroyed. Many events are historical—for good or evil. The stoning of Stephen was a historical event, but that did not make it right. Herod’s slaughtering of the children was historical—but not helpful. Neither is Sally’s cause.
She surmises that the greatest difficulty she faced was “that people judged the idea of women in the rabbinate by virtue of what I did and what their experience of me was.” In other words, if she delivered a good message, they liked and approved of her, and if not, then they didn’t like her. However, this is not the standard. People should have asked, “Is a female rabbi authorized in the Old Testament?” and the answer is, “No.” Unfortunately, many use the pragmatic approach instead of a Biblical standard. “Does it work? Okay, then, it’s all right.” No, robbing people at gunpoint to raise money for God may prove lucrative (if one doesn’t get caught), but it is not right!
Someone might argue that the Old Testament doesn’t authorize male rabbis, either. Two things ought to be considered on that score. First, the forerunner of such a practice may go back to Ezra and Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 8:1-8, the people had returned from captivity. They had rebuilt the temple and the walls of the city of Jerusalem. The people were united and told Ezra the scribe they wanted him to read the Book of the Law of Moses in their hearing. He read from it in the open square from morning until midday, and the people were attentive to the book of the Law.
Then Ezra built a platform of wood on which to stand while addressing the people. Other men stood alongside him. These, along with the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law; “they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (v. 8). The Old Testament comes to a close after these things (and those written in Malachi). This could well be the origin of men becoming rabbis, as well as the practice of teaching from a platform. God expressed no displeasure with what was done on this occasion, and it was a practical way of communicating the Word to people. In other words, it violated no other command or principle, and it facilitated getting the knowledge of God to the Jews.
The second reason why the existence of rabbis appears to be legitimate is that Jesus did not condemn them, which He certainly would have done if the practiced violated God’s will. The only thing He protested was the exaltation of such men (Matt. 23:1-12, esp. v. 8). But the careful reader ought to notice that these rabbis were male. Not one was a female. Though women accompanied Jesus and were among His disciples, not one of the apostles was a woman. Furthermore, under the Law of Moses, all of the priests were male, also. God has always given public spiritual responsibilities to males—both in Judaism and in Christianity. For a female to attempt to assume those positions is both presumptuous and unauthorized.
Sally comments concerning herself and the other women who have assumed the role of rabbi: “…we have learned to rethink previous models of leadership, I think.” The translation of these words is: “We are ignoring what God authorized and are now doing what we want.” God made no provision for feminine rabbis just as He made no provision for priests to be from any tribe but Levi. If more than three thousand years of Jewish history has not shown that God appointed the male gender to handle spiritual leadership, someone is just not paying attention.
“We’ve learned to accept new models of divinity,” Sally claims. Because female rabbis are now more common, she thinks Jews now have a greater understanding that “God embodies characteristics both masculine and feminine. We’ve become more gender-aware.” Do we not only need to read Genesis 1-2 to come to the conclusion that God made us male and female? Do we not comprehend that He is a God of compassion—a trait more closely associated with women than men? But none of these things relate to the roles God assigned to each gender.
The female “rabbi” thinks that it is wonderful that there are now female scholars. Have not women usually been free to read the Word, make comments in a discussion, or write chapters, articles, and even books if they so desire? No one has ever decried their intellect. However, that is different than having women on a faculty to teach or assuming the role of a rabbi.
A lack of humility is seen in Sally’s answer to the question if she had ever imagined (when she was the only female student) that one day female students would outnumber males in Reform Rabbinic institutions. She answered, “I not only envisioned it. I fought for it….” Isn’t that often the case? People fight to be accepted as a minority, but really they want to be the majority.
The interviewer asked Sally what she thought about the pope granting the possibility of female deacons. She answered that she was not surprised. “You know, the Catholic Church is not that much different than Orthodox Judaism in regard to women being leaders. I feel that the day will come when they’ll be more than deacons.” Perhaps she is right. If the culture is going to influence religion rather than the other way around, she may be correct. Since society has accepted homosexuality, many churches have scrambled to get on board (as evidenced by the article on page one).
The problem is that people do not know the Bible, nor do they reverence God. Many do not like what God revealed in His Word, and they think they have the right to change it. They desire to make God into man’s image. If men choose to accept perversion, they think God should give His blessing. If they want to defy His giving males the leadership role in the home and in the church, they do so without ever looking back. Then they brag about their achievements! But all of their ways are futile because God does not alter His Word to accommodate a changing society. What He commanded is still right, and it is the standard by which we shall be judged.