The Bible: A Biography by Karen Armstrong

A while back, way before I ever even knew what a blog was, I began to read books about the Bible.  I'm an avid reader, and usually stick to nonfiction.  I love God and the Bible, but have always felt I could learn more about both. 

In particular, I always felt ignorant about the Bible.  When I was younger, Southern Baptist churches were the ones I attended most because of my family and friends.  But I didn't attend regularly and when I did go, I always felt like I had missed some basic lessons and didn't know as much as everyone else who were memorizing Bible verses like crazy.  I've never been good at rote memorization, so that never worked for me anyhow. 

I'm also more of a big picture learner.  It is hard for me to make sense of something when all I have is information on the micro, not macro, level.  So a while back, I began to pick up books on the Bible which helped give me more of a big picture understanding of the Bible.  It was really helpful.  And I think that is a good place for us to start here, as I take a step back and ask us to consider what Christianity is.

One of the first books I read in this genre was a terrific book whose name and author I unfortunately did not take time to write down.  Urgh!  I've gotten much better about that sort of thing since then, but I vaguely recall that the book was named something like A Biography of the Bible.

I've done some internet research and am not quite sure which book it was that I read, but I think it might have been Karen Armstrong's 2007 book, The Bible: A Biography.  I found a blurb about it on the NPR website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16220762.  I encourage you to take a read.

Whether it was Ms. Armstrong's "biography" or some author's book, a couple things in particular struck me as I read this mystery book whose title and author I don't recall with precision.

First, the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament have not been the same static documents over time.  The excerpt from the link above states:

"The Jewish scriptures and the New Testament both began as oral proclamations and even after they were committed to writing, there often remained a bias towards the spoken word that is also present in other traditions. From the very beginning, people feared that a written scripture encouraged inflexibility and unrealistic, strident certainty. Religious knowledge cannot be imparted like other information, simply by scanning the sacred page. Documents became 'scripture' not, initially, because they were thought to be divinely inspired but because people started to treat them differently. This was certainly true of the early texts of the Bible, which became holy only when approached in a ritual context that set them apart from ordinary life and secular modes of thought." 

Later, the excerpt continues,

"From the very beginning, the Bible had no single message. When the editors fixed the canons of both the Jewish and Christian testaments, they included competing visions and placed them, without comment, side by side. From the first, biblical authors felt free to revise the texts they had inherited and give them entirely different meaning. Later exegetes held up the Bible as a template for the problems of their time. Sometimes they allowed it to shape their world-view but they also felt free to change it and make it speak to contemporary conditions. They were not usually interested in discovering the original meaning of a biblical passage. The Bible 'proved' that it was holy because people continually discovered fresh ways to interpret it and found that this difficult, ancient set of documents cast light on situations that their authors could never have imagined. Revelation was an ongoing process; it had not been confined to a distant theophany on Mount Sinai; exegetes continued to make the Word of God audible in each generation."

A second major point I took from the book is related to the first: judging the factual truth of the Bible is not something that has been of interest to our spiritual forbearers.  As the excerpt at the link above notes:

"When their sacred texts tell stories, people have generally believed them to be true, but until recently literal or historical accuracy has never been the point.  The truth of scripture cannot be assessed unless it is--ritually or ethically--put into practice." 

The excerpt goes on to state,

"It is, for example, crucial to note that an exclusively literal interpretation of the Bible is a recent development. Until the nineteenth century, very few people imagined that the first chapter of Genesis was a factual account of the origins of life. For centuries, Jews and Christians relished highly allegorical and inventive exegesis, insisting that a wholly literal reading of the Bible was neither possible nor desirable. They have rewritten biblical history, replaced Bible stories with new myths, and interpreted the first chapter of Genesis in surprisingly different ways." 

Aren't these points fascinating?  That blew my mind that the Bible was written and frequently rewritten as new understandings arose.  Wow.

We fight so much about literalism these days.  It impacts bitter theological arguments, as well as legal and political battles over school curriculum, foreign policy, and the rights of women, sexual minorities and others.  But maybe this focus on literalism misses the point. 

Maybe when we insist on literal interpretations we are copping out and looking for easy answers.  However, no one said being a person of faith--or a Christ follower in particular--was easy. 

I believe that Jesus came to earth in part to put into human language important teachings our Heavenly Father wanted us to learn.  Human language is an important tool to impart information and meaning.  But it is imperfect.  Whenever I read the Gospels in the New Testament, I am continually amazed--and frankly comforted--at how even Jesus's closest disciples who lived with, worked alongside and learned from him directly did not understand his words. 

This is not easy stuff.  I wish I had a magic wand to make it all crystal clear, but I don't.  I don't think anyone does.  However, I can appreciate wishing that literal interpretations make it all clear.  Based on my study--which I'll explain more in future posts--I don't think literalism makes everything clear and simple.  It leads to plenty of contradictions that then require lots of creativity to resolve.  More on that later.

But a second thought concerns me about this apparent modern focus on literalism.  Perhaps when we insist on literal interpretations of Scripture, we are not just being lazy and refusing to do the heavy lifting necessary to find the truth of God's Word.  Maybe we insist on literal interpretations--at least in part--to justify our own prejudices and hardened hearts.  After all, if we assert that God is on our side in verbally condemning, systematically oppressing, or outright physically harming people, that can seem to give legitimacy to actions that otherwise might seem clearly wrong and cruel, or even outright un-Christian. 

I don't like to think the worst of people, but the more I study, the more I worry that this type of justification is one reason for the insistence on Bible literalism.  This is frankly a scary thought to me.  I find it horrifying to think that people might distort the gift of Scripture to serve ungodly and even evil ends. 

But maybe if that is what is going on, it is not done consciously.  Perhaps no one goes around thinking, "I know that God loves all his children equally, but I'm going to come up with arguments based on literal interpretations of passages taken out of context to justify finger wagging and discriminatory policy."  I suspect that people who insist on literalism in ways that harm others do so earnestly believing that is God's will. 

In life, I find we mere mortals are often not fully aware of our own motivations in how we react to different situations.  As a result, I think it is important for us to focus on examining our own lives.  I think that was one reason at least for Jesus's teaching on the Mote and the Beam in Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37-42.  Terrific food for thought.

I also find the following passage from the above excerpt fascinating and relevant to today's debates:

"Some of the most important biblical authorities insisted that charity must be the guiding principle of exegesis: any interpretation that spread hatred or disdain was illegitimate. All the world faiths claim that compassion is not only the prime virtue and the test of true religiosity but that it actually introduces us to Nirvana, God or the Dao. But sadly the biography of the Bible represents the failures as well as the triumphs of the religious quest. The biblical authors and their interpreters have all too often succumbed to the violence, unkindness and exclusivity that is rife in their societies."

Source of Our Faith

I've written before that in my faith journey, I've spent time with different denominations and non-denominational churches.  My husband and I were Roman Catholic for a very long time, but have journeyed on for the last decade.  We've been a part of an Episcopal church for the past four plus years now. 

When we were thinking about putting down roots at the local Episcopal church, the pastor had a "what we believe" reception for those who were interested in possibly joining.  The pastor began by explaining the roots of Episcopal faith.  She noted that Evangelicals look solely to the Bible to inform their faith, and Roman Catholics rely on the Bible plus tradition.  She said that Episcopal tradition builds on that--the denomination's theology is based on the Bible, tradition and also reason.  She then noted that John Wesley added one more source; the Methodists rely on the Bible, tradition, reason and experience.

Over the years, I've thought often about those different sources that inform the faith of Christians.  The commonality to all Christians is, of course, the Bible.  But what is really interesting to me is that even those of us who study the Bible frequently and with much vigor rarely understand what the Bible is.  Many of us have no idea where it came from.  Some of us think it fell from the sky or someone found it laying around in the desert.

I've heard Christians cite verses as if they were a well-drafted legal code presented intact, in English for us to simply follow without the need to struggle over interpretations.  I wish it were that easy.  As I understand, in the Muslim tradition and in the LDS tradition, respectively, the Koran and Book of Mormon were essentially handed over in one piece to the followers of those religious traditions.  Not so for the Hebrew Bible or the Christian New Testament. 

Moreover, I've been to churches where both laypeople and pastors quote verses out of Scriptural context and without much, if any, cultural or historical context to inform the words.  I've also heard Christians focus on the precise wording of a particular translation, without recognizing that the meaning that translation seems to give in English is very different from other well-respected translations. 

These things all trouble me greatly.  To me, they signify a tragic disconnect as to the source of our faith.

When I began this blog, I wanted it to be ecumenical.  I wanted it to be a place where anyone, regardless of their brand of Christianity or their interpretation of Jesus's teachings, would be welcome.  (I also aspired that people who are agnostic, atheist or adherents of other religions might be interested to take a read as well.)  Because of this aim, I've tried to avoid theology.  My real interest in writing this blog is not to convert anyone to my denomination or my personal views on Scripture.  I'm not a pastor or a Bible scholar, that is not my place.  But in the reading and reflecting I've done over the years, I've come to realize that because the umbrella of Christianity is so vast, it is not possible to avoid theology entirely. 

I recently read an excellent book by journalist Jeff Chu who did a year long "pilgrimage" and study of different churches' approach to the topic of homosexuality.  In the book, Mr. Chu writes several times that there is so much variation in what we, who embrace the term "Christian," actually believe that it can be impossible to reconcile our differences.  He even goes so far as to characterize different Christians as embracing different religions.  I appreciate his point.  And it goes way beyond the issue of homosexuality, it goes to much broader, even more basic religious beliefs.  These end up manifesting themselves in different positions on hot button issues.  Moreover, these different positions then get carried over into the political landscape when people cite their Christian faith as justification for various political positions they advocate.

Because of this dynamic, I've come to the conclusion that before I go any farther in this blog, I need to back up a bit.  Before I can discuss the intersection of Christianity and the secular law, I need to go back to what Christianity is.  That may seem obvious to some, and thus unnecessary.  I think that was my initial view.  But I no longer feel that way. 

So, in coming posts, I will share and discuss some resources for understanding what the Bible is (and is not).  As that document is the common source that informs all Christians' faith, we need to spend some time considering what it is and even what it says.  I'm looking forward to this series and hope you do too.

"i repent" Post From "Our Exceeding Joy" Blog

I love blogs.  I love writing them.  And I love reading them.  I've got a list of a few I like on the right side of this page.  But it is certainly not an exhaustive list.  Time is limited.  I don't have time to read 100% of each blog that piques my interest.  I don't have time to read any on a regular basis.  From time to time, if I have a few minutes, I go to one of the blogs I've bookmarked to catch up.

This morning I had such a little break in my day and wandered over to "Our Exceeding Joy."  It is a blog by a woman named Sarah in Austin, Texas.  I went to college and met my husband in Austin.  I know first hand what a great town that is.  But what initially got my attention is that Sarah is an adoptive mom like me. 

I love the description of her blog.  She describes herself first and foremost as "an avid reader and writer."  She says her blog is an outlet where she writes "about the things that stir my soul" such as "Jesus, adoption, or human-trafficking."  What a woman! 

I read a lovely post that Sarah wrote earlier this summer on June 8th.  It was entitled "i repent."  Take a read of what she wrote.  I wanted to share it because it is beautiful and inspiring.  But I also thought it was very apropos of the new focus of my own blog.

In this post, Sarah explored her former hard-heartedness and judgmental tendencies towards people unlike her.  I particularly loved the following passages:

It never crossed my mind that I could be wrong.
 

Maybe this response is because I grew up in a culture where there was this prevalent fear of being invaded by the homosexuals and the abortionists. We talked a big game, but when it actually came to believing that God could love all these sinners, we battened down the hatches and only let in like-minded people.
 

Maybe it’s because I was taught that it was more important to be right than to love.
 

Or maybe it’s just a symptom of being a fallen, broken person.

 

Sarah really hits the nail on the head.  In our modern culture, it seems like everyone is yelling at everyone who disagrees with them.  We don't listen to others who are different.  We are not open to learning.  We think we're always right, like we have a monopoly on truth.  How arrogant.  Even the disciples were continually misunderstanding Jesus's teachings though they were with him 24/7 for several years.

And as Sarah points out so eloquently, we've tragically adopted the attitude that being right is more important than loving.  What a powerful statement.  As Christ followers, we can't fault nonbelievers from embracing and living that attitude.  But those of us who purport to have read and accepted the Gospels, we should know better.  Being right is NOT more important than loving God's people, whomever they might be.

Take a read of the whole blog post, which is available at the link below.  Meditate on it and keep it in your heart as you go through the day.  Beautiful sentiments.  Yeah, Sarah!

http://www.sarahdrinka.com/?p=572

Hiatus

Hello! 

Yes, I'm still here.  Just ended up taking a bit of a break.  Work was particularly hectic.  Family life too.  A lot more on my plate than normal.  Something had to give.  Eventually I had to push the pause button on blogging for a while.  That is over now.  I'm back at it.

Taking a step back from every day responsibilities and routines is deeply entrenched in Christian culture.  Jesus took breaks to spend time alone in prayer with his Heavenly Father.  He encouraged others to do the same.  Throughout the ages, Christians have periodically taken a step out of the hussle and bussle of the world for spiritual renewal and reflection.  Those of us who tend to be more like Martha need to follow Mary's example, at least sometimes.

Taking those breaks can be helpful on many levels.  Our weary souls need a little R&R sometimes.  But those breaks to listen to the Holy Spirit can also lead to epiphanies, both great and small.

During my time away from blogging, I read and listened to a lot of perspectives.  I was exposed to a lot of information relevant to the focus of this blog.  I believe I had at least a few epiphanies while I was away.  Some are going to shape the focus of this blog in the future.

For example, I had some time to get back to why I wanted to start this blog.  During my lifetime, I had been perplexed by the use of Jesus's name and teaching in secular politics and in the shaping of public policy. 

My first exposure to this was in the late 1970s.  Ronald Reagan was divorced, rarely went to church and was passionately devoted to his wife, who was an ardent follower of astrology.  Yet he was embraced so vigorously by the "Religious Right." He was touted by many as a president with "Christian values."  This was particularly perplexing to me because they embraced him over Jimmy Carter, who has tried hard throughout his life to integrate his faith and his politics.  You may not agree with his politics in all cases, but he did seem to be walking the walk, not just talking the talk.  I found Mr. Carter's efforts to use diplomacy over militarism in keeping with the teachings of the Prince of Peace.  His concern for the poor seemed to reflect the thrust of much of the Bible, which emphasizes economic vulnerability over and over again.  Yet I still don't understand where the Bible says anything that remotely endorses increasing military spending, tax cuts and trickle down economics.  I've read and thought about these issues a lot.  I just don't see any Biblical support for these political issues.

Then the use of Jesus for political gain seemed to reach fever pitch in the 2000s.  Based on what I've read, I do believe that George W. Bush had a meaningful conversion experience in mid-life that saved him from a life of drunken debauchery.  But with all due respect, his political life has not shown much evidence of his conversion.  As governor of Texas, he oversaw a racist, error-ridden capital punishment apparatus, which he made no effort to fix.  He apparently lied when he told us that he reviewed each case carefully before determining whether or not to intervene.  It turns out he had no interest in more than cursory reviews; human life was not important enough.  As president, he took us into two disastrous wars that were of questionable legitimacy or utility.  Misinformation and the use of fear enabled him to take us into those wars. Because of his policies, thousands of civilians have been displaced or killed.  He has created power vacuums in which the already vulnerable in society lead an even more perilous existence.  During his reign, we came to use torture--TORTURE--against our supposed enemies.  Instead of being a leader on human rights and setting an example for others to follow, we joined the ranks of rogue nations like Iran and the People's Republic of China.  Finally, to win reelection after all these horrors, Mr. Bush and his political cronies demonized gay people because homophobia apparently entices many to the polls in critical swing states.  In sum, Mr. Bush's political legacy is based on a lack of honesty, fear-mongering and disregard for human life.  I don't believe any of that is grounded in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I grew up inside the Beltway.  I'm not politically naïve.  I know full well that politicians embellish, stretch the truth and outright lie.  Those are sad realities.  But when you go exploiting the Son of Man to achieve earthly political power, that is where I have to draw a line.  I find that deeply offensive, more than I can even put into words.  Blasphemy is the only word to describe it.

But politicians get away with that only because Christians let them.  Shame on us if we fail to study God's word, to really dig deep for ourselves and try to understand it.  Shame on us if instead we let ourselves be duped by politicians who use the name of Jesus Christ to convince us to campaign for issues that have no grounding in Biblical teaching, but have everything to do with exaggerating plutocratic trends that are destroying our nation.  Shame on anyone who uses Jesus's blessed name to justify cutting the rates on capital gains, eliminating estate taxes on the wealthy or opposing meaningful efforts to protect God's creation.  If you support those political positions, that is fine by me.  But don't you dare use my Savior to justify those positions.  Jesus said nothing that would support coddling the rich at the expense of the poor.  Nothing in his teachings can justify our callous disregard for the harm we do to the beautiful planet our Lord gave us.

To be clear, I'm in no way saying one cannot be a Christian and also support politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush or the policies they've championed.  Both Messrs. Reagan and Bush were Republicans.  I'm certainly not saying you cannot be a Christian and a Republican.  I'm also not saying that the Democratic Party is more in line with the Gospel.  What I am saying, however, is that it is blasphemy to use Christ as the rationale for endorsing politicians or political positions when what they advocate is not supported by the Bible.  The Bible was written at different times several centuries ago, and unfortunately it does not speak to every issue we face in modern America.  We have to do our best in the gray areas.  But call a spade a spade.  Acknowledge the gray areas, don't propagate misinformation by saying the Bible supports things that it does not even address.

In that vein, I've decided that I'm going to get back to what I saw as the original focus of this blog.  Many of the hot button issues that have attracted some modern American Christians to the polls are complex.  I've shied away from them to some extent.  Not because I was afraid of wading into such areas of controversy, but because their complexity merits in-depth study and consideration.  In many areas of life, Christianity does not offer easy, quick answers.  Things are not always as clear cut as some of our brethren assert.  In the past, however, I have not had time to really dig deep to explore some of these issues.  I anticipate I will finally have some time this year, so that is the direction this blog will be going.

Bachmann and the “B” Word

In our culture, we have all kinds of preconceptions regarding gender that most of us barely even recognize.  For example, our society expects men to be strong and assertive.  Women are supposed to be warm and nurturing.

We make all kinds of judgments about people based on whether or not they live up to the gender roles we expect.  There is plenty of empirical evidence that people, who depart from those expected gender roles, are poorly received by those around them.  If men change their minds on an issue, they are potentially labeled “flip-floppers.”  If men are perceived as “too” sensitive, they are at risk for being branded a wimp.  If women are firm with respect to a position they embrace, they are often characterized as inflexible and overbearing.  If a woman is not warm and nurturing, people may describe her as cold. 

Ironically, these same traits in the opposite sex are typically well-received.  Rarely do women get branded flip-floppers or wimps; we expect them to change their minds and be sensitive.  Similarly, it is rare to hear people criticize men for being inflexible, overbearing or cold because that is simply how we expect them to be.

Such judgments are evident in myriad ways.  They impact with whom we associate.  They may influence which candidates get our votes.  They may determine whether an applicant gets a job or whether an employee is promoted.  And at an extreme, these judgments sometimes even result in violence against those who fail to fit preconceived gender roles. 

Such gender preconceptions are a difficult land mine for those in politics.  Men typically get the benefit of the doubt in my observation, but sometimes have to be wary of being too wimpy.  The first President Bush, for example, struggled with that in his presidential campaigns.

In my observation, gender roles are typically a trickier obstacle for women in politics.  There are sometimes preconceptions that female politicians get too emotional or are not sharp enough.  But there is also the overarching issue of being too tough or too assertive.  On the one hand, women can be judged as not tough and assertive enough for politics, but if they try to overcome such concerns, then they may be slapped with the “bitch” label. 

That label is of course not just a hazard for female politicians.  Ask any woman in a position of any type of authority.  Managers.  Pastors.  Police officers.  Committee chairpersons.  Lawyers.  Professors.  In pretty much any context, a woman is at risk for having the “bitch” label applied to her if she speaks up to voice an opposing view point, or uses the authority she has to set policy or require others to do something they do not want to do.  If men do these things, that is expected. There is no equivalent to the “bitch” label for such male behavior.  In my experience and observation, when people don’t like the decisions made by a male in authority, people criticize or complain about the substance of his decisions.  But there is not a personal attack based on gender.  The “bitch” label (as well as even more offensive sexist terms that I won’t list), and the underlying gendered judgment that is conveyed, are uniquely applied to women.

To be clear, I do not agree with or condone the use of the term “bitch.”  I am using it here to make a point.  But make no mistake, I find the term extraordinarily offensive.  It is sexist.  It implies a double standard.  It is demeaning to women.  It undercuts the advancement of women in our society.  I would strongly urge everyone to refrain from ever using that horrible word.  Not even privately.  Not even under your breath.  My advice would be to just banish the term from your vocabulary forever.

I would particularly flag for any women readers of this blog that the potential use of this term to deride any women in authority in your lives is counterproductive and can harm your own attempts to be taken seriously as a person.  Using such a sexist term to complain about a female supervisor, professor or peer implicitly condones gender based negative judgments against such women.  If a female supervisor, professor or peer is in your opinion not doing a good job, that is certainly a legitimate basis for critique.  But make sure to keep your critique based in gender neutral terms.  Otherwise you are serving to perpetuate a sexist mindset that will undoubtedly be used against you.  If not now, it will surely happen eventually.  It always does.

With that background on the “bitch” label, I was really saddened to read about an incident last fall during the GOP presidential campaign.  Representative Bachmann appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s Late Night show last fall prior to bowing out of the race.  To introduce Mr. Fallon’s interview with her, his band played a song with the “B” word.  The not-so-subtle message sent as Representative Bachmann walked out to be interviewed was: she is a bitch.

Mr. Fallon and NBC later apologized.  Big shock.  What else could they do?  It seems laughable to imagine they could even try to defend something so sexist and offensive. 

But I am concerned about how this incident was received by the public. 

First, I am concerned that most people never heard about the incident.  This was a pretty egregious insult on national broadcast television, but it didn’t seem to get a lot of attention.  Why the heck not?

  Many liberals find Representative Bachmann’s politics so distasteful that I suspect they may have agreed with the implicit message and even cheered the “bitch” label. 

But I fear that most other folks who heard about the incident probably thought it was not a big deal.  Much ado about nothing.  An over-emphasis on political correctness.  A Puritanical rail against profanity.  I disagree with such sentiments.  I think this was a big deal, and the mainstream media dropped the ball in not examining it more.

The “B” word is a very ugly term.  It hurts to be called that word.  It cuts you off at the legs.  It is a slap in the face. 

Like Representative Bachmann, you can be a lawyer with an advance degree in tax law, be elected to Congress, rally thousands in rousing Tea Party speeches, and even become a serious candidate for the presidency of the most powerful nation on this planet.  But being called the “B” word just slaps you back to the starting line. 

The underlying purpose of the epithet is to convey that no matter what, you are just a woman and thus a second class citizen.  In that sense, I think it is analogous in many ways to the “N” word used against African Americans, the “F” word used against gay men and the “D” word used against lesbians.  These are vile words that carry emotionally toxic baggage.  They are meant to protect the privilege of those who have historically wielded most of the power in our society.

Because of the toxicity of the “B” word, I cannot even imagine how humiliating it would have been for Michele Bachmann to walk out to begin a televised interview with Jimmy Fallon with that particular song to introduce her.  If it were me, I think it would have sabotaged my ability to coherently answer questions on national television.  I would have been shaken.  My confidence going into a stressful situation would have detrimentally impacted.  And as I describe what my own reaction would have been, you should know I've got a pretty thick skin, and am not easily intimidated.  Nonetheless, talking to a national audience with that kind of a disrespectful introduction would have been humiliating.  As a result, on a personal level, for Representative Bachmann’s sake, I hope that as she walked onto the stage to speak with Jimmy Fallon last fall, she did not recognize the song that was played.

This incident is like if President Obama had appeared on the show and a song using the “N” word was played as he was walking towards Mr. Fallon.  That would have been unthinkably disrespectful, hurtful and racist.  If anything like that happened, it would certainly have led to tremendous public outcry.  Mr. Fallon would probably have lost his show and been banished to some lesser cable network—if he ever worked again.  But nothing like that happened after the Representative Bachmann incident. 

Similarly, can you imagine if Mr. Fallon began an interview with Representative Barney Frank with a song using the "F" word?  There would have been protests, editorials.   It would have been unthinkably rude, offensive and homophobic.  Why wasn't there more of a backlash over this incident with Representative Bachmann?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jimmy-fallon-apologizes-michele-bachmann-offensive-song-135543325.html

Judges 4:6-9

And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedesh-Naphtali, and said to him, Hath not Jehovah the God of Israel commanded? Go and draw towards mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun,

and I will draw unto thee, to the torrent Kishon, Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, and his chariots and his multitude, and I will give him into thy hand.

And Barak said to her, If thou goest with me, then I will go, but if thou goest not with me, I will not go.

And she said, I will by all means go with thee, only that it will not be to thine honour upon the way which thou goest, for Jehovah will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.