Effective Leadership in the Old Testament

Contents

1)     Introduction

2)     Biblical Leadership in the Old Testament

3)     Psycho-Cultural leadership

4)     Theological Perspective

i)      Leadership in Eden

ii)   Leadership in Exodus

iii)Leadership in the Promised Land

iv)  Leadership in the Prophets

5)     Personal and Strategic leadership in the Old Testament

6)     Conclusion

7)     Bibliography

Introduction

The Old Testament is the inspired word of God, yet a continuous debate questions its force for deciding religious issues today. (10 particularly with controversial topics the Hebrew Bible lack the decisive strength of the New Testament. In discussing that most unsettled topic of women priests, writers tend to bypass those very scriptures which Jesus and His first disciples relied upon very heavily Moreover, during the early patristic age, the Old Testament style of priesthood sharpened or even imposed some very clear lines upon the Christian image of priest

This chapter avoids the simple route of transferring the qualities of Old Testament priesthood to our own priestly leadership. Nor will we delay over the religious role of women in the centuries before Christ, in order to discover Biblical models for women priests today In fact, a gap so deep and extensive separates the Old Testament from our late twentieth century, that quick, thoughtless leaps from ancient biblical times to our own can be disastrous. For that matter, neither is it wise for us to copy slavishly the religious forms of New Testament times nor to condemn our ways if they do not literally conform to biblical details.[1]

All the chapters of this book study the priesthood as it evolved in its theology and ideals, practice and regulations. The eighteen hundred or more years of Old Testament history provide the ideal setting for investigating the evolution of religion with its slow progress and quick transitions, its confrontation and overreactions, its challenges and responses, its set-backs and collapses, its continual renewal and basic continuity. In the first and somewhat lengthy section of this chapter we present some general but very important data about the origin and development of religious forms in ancient Israel, crucial for theological development of any age and certainly applicable to the question of women priests. The second part of this chapter traces in broad outline the origin and principal stages of Old Testament priesthood under internal and external pressures. Finally, we inquire into the impact of biblical symbolism upon priesthood today.[2]

Biblical Leadership in the Old Testament

In Old Testament times styles of leadership were never revealed directly and immediately by God [3]Every form of exercising authority, be it religious or civil, that is represented in the Hebrew Bible, can also be found in extra-biblical sources where it antedates Abraham (1850 B.C.) and Moses (1240 B.C.). We conclude then that God did not dictate the institutions of judge or king, prophet or elder, priest or sage. Yet, God was directing the process by which Israel was formed into a nation with lines of authority, and led forward in her history. The record of the legislation and history is called the inspired word of God, the Holy Bible. After giving a number of examples how Israel absorbed culture and forms of leadership from her neighbors, we will look into the way such “pagan” material became the word of God. 

Even though Samuel opposed the monarchy, nonetheless, he accepted the action of the elders as indicative of the Lord’s will and arranged a compromise and anointed Saul and later David as a prince or nagid. David later assumed the title of king or melek. Through another prophet, Nathan, God blessed David with extraordinary promises: “Your throne and your kingdom shall endure forever before me; your throne shall stand firm forever” (2 Sam 7:16). A dynasty, born of political expediency and furthered by military might and charming diplomacy, eventually collapsed under the fierce Babylonian invasion. After August 587 B.C., no king ruled from Jerusalem. The divine promises had to be spiritualized and redirected in a way never anticipated by earlier traditions. Divinely sanctioned institutions could disappear in their original form and surface again in styles never foreseen in their first endorsement.[4]

Two other, very important developments—prophecy and wisdom— were also absorbed into Israelite life from foreign sources. The first extended discourse about a prophet occurs when the Moabite king Balak ben Zippor summoned Balaam ben Beor from Pethor on the Euphrates (Numbers ch 20-24). The origins of wisdom from outside Israeliate religious tradition is disclosed, not only in its almost exclusively secular interests (1 Kings 5:9-14; Prov (10-31) but also in the geographical origin of many of its great patrons: “Agur teen Jakeh the Massaite" (Prov 30:1); “Eliphaz the Temanite” (Job 4:1); “Bildad the Shukite” (Job 8:1); “Zophar the Naamathite” (Job 11:1).

Psycho-Cultural leadership

Israel’s institutions, we say, originated in surrounding polytheistic cultures. At times the Bible openly admits this fact. Several examples will aid our discussion. One of the first historical manifestations of priesthood occurs in Genesis 14: Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram. (Gen 14:18). While this chapter has many difficulties, its significance cannot be overlooked. Centuries before Moses had formally established the Levitical priesthood, a priest from Canaanite stock blessed Moses’ ancestor, Abraham. Later, one of the royal Davidic titles granted to the crown prince on the occasion of his coronation was ‘“priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Ps 110:4). This title, originally of a pagan king, absorbed more and more of Israel’s messianic hopes, especially at Qumran and later in the Epistle to the Hebrews, [5]in each of these cases politics, even at times on an international scale, provided the setting and catalyst for a vigorous religious development of the Melchizedek title. In fact, chapter 14 of Genesis, where the title first appears, opens with a military invasion. Therefore, when priesthood is first introduced, it was already a fully developed institution; worthy of Israel’s chosen ancestors and influential in the long political-religious struggle of God’s people. This interaction of religion and culture in Old Testament times can direct the Church today. Many important movements, like women’s liberation, originate and develops outside the Church, at least outside the Catholic priesthood and episcopacy. As the Church begins to adopt these non-religious movements, we can turn to the Old Testament for guidance and peace. In such a multiple relationship of conflict, challenge and assimilation, the Old Testament indicates how God’s will is learned and implemented.[6]

Another institution which became a carrier of great messianic expectations was the Davidic dynasty. Royalty, however, was not anticipated by Moses, and the first movement towards monarchy admitted its foreign origin.

All the elders came in a body to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘’Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us.’ (l Sam 8:4-5).This interaction of religion and culture in Old Testament times can direct the Church today. Many important movements, like women’s liberation, originate and develop outside the Church, at least outside the Catholic priesthood and episcopacy. As the Church begins to adopt these non-religious movements, we can turn to the Old Testament for guidance and peace. In such a multiple relationship of conflict, challenge and assimilation, the Old Testament indicates how God’s will is learned and implemented.

Another institution which became a carrier of great messianic expectations was the Davidic dynasty. Royalty, however, was not anticipated by Moses, and the first movement towards monarchy admitted its foreign origin.

All the elders came in a body to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘’Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example appoint a king over us, as other nations have, to judge us.’ (l Sam 8:4-5)

The many cultural transitions of Old Testament times took place within a country of only six thousand square miles with no more space than the state of New Jersey and much less arable soil. The church today occupies the globe which may be one world and yet manifests an extraordinary variety of cultures. A world wide church must adapt itself to each situation so that its emphases in doctrine and morals as well as its sty/es of leadership and its prophetic stance for the oppressed will vary greatly. If women have acquired more respectable and productive roles of leadership in some areas of the world than they have in others then the Church is expected to absorb the progress of women according to each country or district where she is present. The Church today has to live at once the many styles of organization spread over a longer period of time in the Old Testament period

Theological Perspective

Leadership in Eden

Biblical leadership is established in Genesis 1:26-28 when man is created in the image of God and is given the task of ruling over God’s creation. The role of image-bearer and the task of exercising dominion are both fundamental to man’s leadership. An essential meaning of bearing the image of God is to “represent the authority of God.”[7]Man serves as vice-regent over the creation. One critical aspect of exercising dominion over the created order is “to lead the creation in worship of the God who had created all things.”[8] It is important to note that this leadership is a leadership by example. Man leads all of creation in worship by being a perfect worshipper of God, and this entails obedience to God’s proscriptive and prohibitive instructions. The order, harmony, and wholeness of God’s design for human leadership can be seen in the fact that God creates man as male and female. While Adam “is the leader in the world which God creates,” Eve “is to help him as he leads.”[9] This one-flesh union of a man and woman is a loving relationship comprised of two unique roles coming together in complementary fashion with singleness of purpose.

This order, harmony, and completeness is tragically disrupted when sin enters the world. When our first parents disobey God’s instruction, “they repudiate their role and task [10]Eve takes the initiative to listen to Satan instead of her husband. Adam, who should have been faithfully leading, instead follows the lead of his wife. The consequences are disastrous. Since “it was his duty as leader to maintain the purity of the garden by ensuring that its inhabitants followed the Word of the Creator,” it is Adam whom God seeks out [11]because the man abdicated his leadership, it is his leadership that is most affected by the curse. While he is still under obligation to be the leader, it is Satan who has been given authority over this fallen world (Mt. 4:8-9; Jn. 12:21; 2Cor. 4:4; 1 Jn. 5:19). Under the curse, man’s leadership over creation is susceptible to being undermined because now the land fights back, the woman fights back, and the serpent is allowed to wreak havoc in the world. Rather than lovingly leading, he is now tempted to selfishly rule as a despot. The rest of the biblical storyline involves the failures of human leadership under the curse and the hope of a restoration of faithful leadership as God takes the initiative to establish a people who will rightly lead his creation.

Leadership in Exodus

Prior to King David, the archetypal leader in the history of Israel was Moses. The derivative nature of leadership is clearly seen in his calling as a leader. Contrary to the view that Moses possessed “unique characteristics … that qualified him to be selected as a leader,” the Bible portrays Moses as initially ungifted as a leader.[12]He had displayed all the effects of the curse; he had lost his temper, killed an Egyptian, hid the body, and fled to Midian when the Lord commissioned him (2:11-15). Moreover, he had “never been eloquent” but was “slow of speech and slow of tongue” (4:10). God first called him as a leader and then graciously equipped him for the task (4:11-12). The life of Moses demonstrates that “a human leader is none other than God leading his own people through an anointed servant.”[13]

Moses also demonstrates leadership that is marked by obedience to God. He leads the people out of Egypt in obedience to God even when the people’s faith in God falters. While the people grumble and doubt God’s provision in the wilderness, Moses trusts the Lord for food and water. The greatest contrast is drawn when Aaron and the people defy Yahweh by worshipping the golden calf while Moses obediently meets with God on Sinai to receive the Law. As obedient a leader as Moses was, however, the fact that he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land because he failed to treat God as holy serves as a reminder that a full restoration of proper leadership is still needed. It also introduces a new factor to the leadership quality of love. In the fallen world, loving leadership involves not merely love for those who are led but also sacrifice and suffering. Moses becomes “a type of vicariously suffering servant” who experiences the punishment of the rebellious generation whom he led

Leadership in the Promised Land

Joshua, as a type of second Moses, takes up the mantle and leads the new generation of Israelites into the Promised Land. He leads the people in obedience to God, by calling on them to forsake all idolatry (Josh.24:14) and by modeling true obedience to God (24:15). The death of Joshua ushers in the period of the judges, which is marked by a lack of proper leadership. The book of Judges ends with the comment that “in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25; cf. 17:6; 18:1; 19:1). This is a repeated refrain in the last half of the book, as it closes out with descriptions of appalling incidents of rebellion and apostasy. The implication seems to be that what was missing during the period of the judges was a righteous ruler on earth who could bring order to the chaos by representing God’s reign over his people as a good shepherd.

God had prescribed just such a king when he established his covenant with Israel at Sinai (Deut. 17:14-20). The first act of a king of Israel upon his coronation was to take from the high priest a copy of the law and to make it his own personal copy to read every day. His obedience was to be representative of the people’s obedience, so that as he prospered in his obedience, God’s people also prospered. It is King David, the man after God’s own heart, who is the most promising character in the Old Testament to fulfill this role and restore proper leadership. Indeed, God promises David an everlasting kingdom (2 Sam. 7). Sadly, while his “early reign over Israel is marked by divine blessing,” the end of his reign is marred by one of the most infamous and egregious abuses of authority in the entire Old Testament. Over the course of their four hundred years of rule over the Southern kingdom of Judah, David’s family fell short of what a true king was supposed to be. David’s son Solomon introduced court-sanctioned idolatry. Manasseh, the most wicked of David’s heirs, actually built altars to pagan gods inside the temple in the very presence of the holy of holies, an act which provokes God to decide to “cast off Jerusalem, the city I have chosen” (2 Kings 23:27) and to send her people and her Davidic king into exile. While the Davidic kings were supposed to be representatives of God’s righteous and compassionate rule to his people and representatives to God of his obedient and worshipful people, what they became, in fact, was a demonstration of the need for a more faithful leader who would truly be a good shepherd and would follow in God’s commands blamelessly.

Leadership in the Prophets

[14]During the darkest years of Israel’s history, when the leaders were evil and the exile was looming, the prophets exhibited true leadership despite the fact that they were often “isolated individuals, rejected by the community and in conflict with it.”The derived nature of their leadership is clearly shown from the prophetic introductory formula: “thus says the Lord.” During rampant apostasy and opposition, the prophets remain obedient to God and warn the people, kings, priests, false prophets, and foreign nations of the consequences of disobedience. While decrying the appalling lack of biblical leadership, the prophets also provide hope by prophesying of the restoration of true leadership through the line of David. Israel’s Messianic hopes were all wrapped up in the anticipated restoration of the leadership of the house of David that they knew would someday come.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zechariah all depend on the promises of 2 Samuel 7 as the source of their hope in a future leader. Amazingly, Isaiah 9:6-7 not only promises a future ideal king who will ultimately be the greatest of David’s line, but it also calls him “mighty God.” Jeremiah 22:30 prophesies against Jehoiakim, declaring that no man of his descendants will sit on the throne of David. With this, “the prophet is calling into question the permanence of the Davidic covenant.”However, the prophet follows this prophesy with the promise that “the days are coming” when “a righteous branch” will be raised up for David who “will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land” (23:5). Ezekiel decries the leaders of Israel who destroy the people “like wolves tearing their pray” (22:27) and highlights the disharmony and chaos created by their lack of biblical leadership by comparing Israel to an unfaithful wife (16:1-59). The prophet goes on to prophesy of the hope of a new age where God will appoint a new Davidic shepherd, so that “a new era of peace, security and blessing will begin with a change in leadership.”Over and over again, the prophets condemn the current leaders for failing to reflect and represent the leadership of God, for disobeying God, for failing to love the people, and for creating disorder. At the same time, the recurring prophetic hope is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant in which the son of David will restore true, biblical leadership that will be characterized by faithfully representing God, obeying God righteously, caring for the people as a shepherd cares for his sheep, and restoring order.

Personal and Strategic leadership in the Old Testament

After Moses’ death and the settlement of the Promised Land, a complementary and sometimes rival form of religious leadership appeared in the charismatic bands or communities, simply called “prophets” in the Bible. These are to be distinguished from the “classical” prophets, individuals like Amos or Jeremiah with books to their name, who at first denied the name “prophet” and were not associated with any band or community.(28)The charismatic groups first show up in 1Sam l0:5-6. Clearly distinguishable in lifestyle and work. Later in 1 Kings 17 to 2 Kings 6 the characteristics of their organization become still more evident. They shared many qualities with the Canaanite prophets; the two groups, nonetheless, opposed one another, even violently (1 Sam 19:2224; 1 Kings 18). These “charismatic prophets” became ever more popular and powerful. They acquired the right to anoint or depose kings (2 Kings 9) and stood next to the royal throne as advisors directing the wave of the future (2 Sam 7).

Because many abuses surfaced among the charismatic prophets, a change was necessary. God summoned a whole new series of prophets: we give them the name “classical prophets.”[15]The first of them, Amos. Was determined not to be associated even by name with the other group. He even denied being a prophet or a member of any prophetic band (Am 7:10-15). Such was his non-conformity that king and high priest banished him, prodded into action by the ladies and gentlemen whom Amos lashed with his bitter, sarcastic tongue (cf., Amos 4:1-3; 6:1-8).

Although rejected by the institution, Amos developed his preaching within the larger context of Israel’s traditions. At first in angrily championing of the rights of the poor (Amos 4:1; 5:7-15), he seemed to be profaning sacred places and people (4:4-5; 7:16-17) as well as denying sacred traditions (3:2, 12; 5:18; 9:7). Actually, Amos was making the “heart of the matter” more visible as a reforming power in people’s lives and in the institutional forms of religion. To be a chosen people, he insisted, did not consist simply in biological birth from Abraham’s stock (Amos 3:2): one must also manifest Abraham’s justice, humility and kindness, as another prophet Micah declared (Mic 6:8). The promised “Day of the Lord” can turn into darkness if that be the only way to sweep away pride and oppression (Amos 5:18).[16]

If Amos had simply repeated traditional theology by rote, then he would have been, according to a recent work of James A. Sanders among “false prophets [who] invoked an otherwise decently good theology but at the wrong time, supporting leaders and people when they needed a challenge.”[17]Amos’ challenge was remembered. Who could ever forget his sentences, at once brilliant, sarcastic, devastating and crude? They were gathered together into convenient blocks or sermonettes, producing one of the most orderly books of the Bible. The prophet, “excommunicated" by the priest Amaziah, is incorporated within the Bible by postexilic priests at Jerusalem!

Prophecy and priesthood merge in still another way than by priestly editing and accepting of prophet’s words. During the Babylonian exile and particularly in the early postexilic period, between 539 and 400 B.C., the prophets Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah and Joel turned out to be quite different from their predecessors. Some were priests, others preoccupied with priestly matters. The book of this late period closest in form and spirit to pre-exilic prophecy is that of Malachi, yet here again the prerogatives of the levitical priesthood are seriously defended (Mal 2:1-9) and the site of messianic fulfillment, where the prophet Elijah will suddenly appear, is the temple (Mal 3:1).

Looking back on this development, we see that organizational leadership will always need its “’Amos.’’ At first it will usually oppose such spontaneous unconventional leaders, but if the prophet perseveres, remaining in the council of the Lord (Jer 23:18, 22) and within the community of Israel, even through agony and destruction as did Jeremiah (Ch 39-40), then their ministry will be absorbed within the structure of traditional leadership. Charismatic authority will be institutionalized, while more ancient structures will be radically transformed.

The example of Old Testament prophecy, as studied here, has provided us with one example among many how a priestly institution can be challenged and eventually enriched by loyal, prophetic opposition. The steps in biblical times consisted in prophet, disciples, remembered words, accepted tradition, book of prophecy. The movement which began as a bitter challenge and even a condemnation of priesthood eventually produced a prophetic priesthood. For today the steps might be summarized thus: the women movement in society at large; its prophetic challenge to church authority; a growing number of disciples within the movement; articles and books which document the movement and direct its progress; hesitancy, rejection, re-study and gradual acceptance by church authority; incorporation within Church law with an enriched form of priesthood.

Such a new prophetic priesthood does not simply reproduce the former manner of priestly life and activity, but manifests new models within the traditional structures. Women aspiring to ordained priesthood do not want to take over the position of the male priests, robe themselves in the same vestments and function in the same way.[18]Rather, they look towards an enlarged, diversified priesthood. With a particular outreach to minorities.

Up till now we have remained almost exclusively on the historical plane in discussing the interaction of Old Testament religion with surrounding cultures. We now turn the coin to its theological side and seek the religious principle by which Israel discerned what and how to accept from the culture of her neighbors. An intuition about God’s personal love, breathed by divine initiative into Israel, enabled her to choose what was fitting, to purify and even transform it and then to turn it into something quite different from its expression outside of her own community.

Before Israel could react to God’s goodness on her own initiative, she had to be called into existence. It was this part of the Lord’s personal love which gave birth to a people uniquely His own, distinct from all other nations. This idea of a chosen people is expressed with tender eloquence:

Tell the Israelites: You have seen for yourselves how I treated the Egyptians and how I bore you up on eagle wings and brought you here to myself. Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my special possession, dearer to me than all other people, though all the earth is mine. You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites. (Ex 19:4-6)

First, we notice that in His goodness God intervened and called Israel in the midst of her history. She was already a part of the ancient Near Eastern Fertile Crescent, manifesting the cultural strengths and weaknesses of its inhabitants. Deuteronomy ch 26 expressed it this way in a very early credal statement: “My father was a wandering Aramean who went down to Egypt , while another credo in Joshua ch 24 admits: ”In times past your fathers, down to Terah, father of Abraham and Nahor, dwelt beyond the river and served other gods." With loving concern God then accepted the people as they were not only at the starting point of salvation history, but also at each new transition along the way.

            Israel, as a result, was always conscious of a forward movement in her theology. No matter where she was, God would be there, living among His people, beckoning them onward. Naturally, she looked backward to great moments of salvation, yet the past was not considered the golden model which every subsequent age must reconstruct.(370 Rather, the past was being relived with new and greater possibilities. In historical continuity with her past, Israel was able to fulfill ancient hopes with dramatic leaps forward (cf., Is 43:18-19; 48:3, 6b-S, 11-12)

At the roots of her origin and major developments, Israel was radically different from her neighbors. All other peoples traced their origin to the founding of their city and especially of their temple. Here on great feast days, especially New Years, they celebrated the act of creation, primeval paradise and first innocence. (390 Israel, instead, commemorated her freedom from sin, slavery and oppression and awaited a new creation in the future. With the non-Israelites the gods came to be regarded as omnipotent powers, following the seasons of the year, yet like weather capable of erratic change and uncontrollable violence. Seldom if ever do these gods sustain a prolonged personal interest in the people, and in these cases the object of their divine concern must be of noble, if not of royal blood.[19]

Religion outside the Bible did manifest a limited forward vision, that winter shall be followed by a new spring or that victory shall crown a military expedition. Yet, neither surge of life nor any triumph in battle could ever equal first creation with its explosive energy, its titanic struggle of the gods, and its idyllic first paradise. Non-Israelite religions then sought balance and fertility in nature, victory in war, protection against evil spirits, wisdom to anticipate and control life’s fortunes and misfortunes. Basically, non-Israelite religion attempted to placate divine powers and so to recover as much as was humanly possible of primeval paradise. Israel’s religion, on the contrary, provided the liturgical and moral opportunities to respond to God’s personal love and to await a new paradise beyond human possibilities.

The essential difference between Israel’s religion and that of her neighbors helps to explain Israel’s determination that her future must be far superior to anything experienced in the past and that this mysterious development is to be instilled, furthered and finally accomplished by the Lord’s very personal love for His people. Israel’s normal evolution, therefore, was bound to spring many surprises which only afterwards would be perceived in continuity with the country’s previous history!

At important transitions Israel was often shocked into the reality of what God can do: destroy Jerusalem and wipe out the Davidic dynasty, bring an end to such noble institutions as judgeship and prophecy, build a new people out of the catastrophe of the exile and grant unrivaled authority to priests (Neh 8-13; Zech 6:11) and later to the Maccabean-Hasmoneans, a non-Davidic and non-Zadokite family (1 Mac 10:21). Furthermore, all of Israel’s institutions were seen as absorbed into the mystery of God, the Davidic dynasty acquired such honorific titles as “Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, and Prince of Peace” (Is 9:5). Wisdom was the Lord’s “firstborn, poured forth at the first, before the earth’’ (Prov 8:22-23). Prophecy was present, standing “in the council of the Lord” (Jer 23: 18).

            This basic attitude of the devout Israelite—continuity with overwhelming surprise, leading to a future golden age—meant that all institutions, once taken over from their pagan neighbors, were no longer controlled by a past model Ab initio but were open to surprising developments. As we saw earlier, these developments happened within the societal, military and political interlocking of Israel’s life; yet they were interpreted as the mirabilis Dei, God’s wondrous works. Israel, consequently, was able to survive cataclysmic disasters and still trust God.

Conclusion

In the prophetic evolution of symbols and institutions, continuity with tradition is maintained yet a fresh and vigorous form is most of all in evidence. The priest would not simply imitate what the men are doing. They would introduce the priesthood and Eucharistic piety into new areas of ministry, with new styles of action, within neglected and non-evangelized neighborhoods. The priest will call forth a prophetic spirit within priesthood. They will diversify and enrich its ranks. With a new enthusiasm, they will inspire a wide variety of capable people to join the various types of priesthood, be they religious orders or diocesan groups. This Old Testament hope must be tested against the fuller revelation of the light of Christ and the long tradition of the church

Bibliography

D. L. Baker, Two Testaments: One Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976

Robert, B. Lauren, Contemporary Old Testament Theologians (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1970)

Elizabeth, Achtemeier,  The Old Testament and the Proclamation of the Gospel (Philadelphia: West minster

Clarence J.Vox, Woman in Old Testament Worship (Delft: Judels and Brinkman, 1968

 Lucien, Deiss, God's Word and God's People (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976).

Edgar, Bruns, God as Woman, Woman as God (New York: Paulist, 1973)

Anthony, A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986),

Noel, Due, Created For Worship (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2005),

David, Lee Talley, “Gender and Sanctification: from Creation to Transformation: Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8 (spring, 2003):

Stephen, G. Dempster, “The Servant of the Lord,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007):

Ari Z, Zivotofsky, “The Leadership Qualities of Moses,” Judaism 43 (1994):

Timothy, S. Laniak Shepherds after My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2006)

Patrick, D. Miller, “Toward a Theology of Leadership: Some Clues from the Prophets,” The Asbury Theological Journal 47 (spring, 1992)

W.Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961) Vol I, p.

Richard, V. Bergren, the Prophets and the Law (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974).

James, A. Sanders, "Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy," Canon and Authority, ed. by G.W. Coats & B.O. Long (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977)

Elizabeth, Carroll, "The Proper Place for Women in the Church,'' Women and Catholic Priesthood, ed. by Anne Marie Gardiner (New York: Paulist, 1976)

R. de, Vaux. Ancient Israel, Vol II

---

[1] D. L. Baker, Two Testaments: One Bible (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1976 p.68-70

[2] Robert B. Lauren, Contemporary Old Testament Theologians (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1970).p.45-50

[3] Elizabeth Achtemeier, The Old Testament and the Proclamation of the Gospel (Philadelphia: West minster 60-62

[4] Clarence J.Vox, Woman in Old Testament Worship (Delft: Judels and Brinkman, 1968 p 38-42

[5] Lucien Deiss, God's Word and God's People (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1976).p68-72

[6] Edgar Bruns, God as Woman, Woman as God (New York: Paulist, 1973);p 101-104

[7] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 68.

[8] Noel Due, Created For Worship (Scotland: Christian Focus, 2005), 40.

[9] David Lee Talley, “Gender and Sanctification: from Creation to Transformation: Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8 (spring, 2003): 7-8.

[10] Stephen G. Dempster, “The Servant of the Lord,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007): 137.

[12] Ari Z. Zivotofsky, “The Leadership Qualities of Moses,” Judaism 43 (1994): 258.

[13] Timothy S. Laniak, Shepherds after My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2006), 92.

[14] Patrick D. Miller, “Toward a Theology of Leadership: Some Clues from the Prophets,” The Asbury Theological Journal 47 (spring, 1992): 43.

[15] W.Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961) Vol I, p. 338.

[16] Richard V. Bergren, the Prophets and the Law (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974).

[17] James A. Sanders, "Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy," Canon and Authority, ed. by G.W. Coats & B.O. Long (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) 31.

[18] Elizabeth Carroll, "The Proper Place for Women in the Church,'' Women and Catholic Priesthood, ed. by Anne Marie Gardiner (New York: Paulist, 1976) 21-22.

[19] R. de Vaux. Ancient Israel, Vol II, p 370-1.