Forum Thread
Women priests and the Uzziah factor

This story emphases that danger of going against the will of God. similar warnings can be found for example in Annanias and Saphira or Jonah. It does not however say anything directly relevant to the question of the ordination of women.

David

paragraph 3 of my previous should of course include:

"and usually pronounces kings bad in the end"

Aplogies

Dan, you write:

"If we imagine to ourselves the reasonable-sounding arguments which Uzziah might have urged to allow him to work as a priest, it doesn't take much awareness to realise that in essence, they are identical to the positive arguments used today to support the ordination of women in the CoE and elsewhere."

Imagine....might......awareness......in essence.....identical.  This is an interesting progression, like those intelligence tests where the candidate is invited to supply the next item, which in this case, I suspect, is "ban it!"  I also suspect that Uzziah didn't really have any arguments beyond  the usual kingly one - "might is right".  But then the text doesn't tell us explicitly what the background to the dispute actually was.

The clash between Uzziah and the priests is a good old demarcation dispute: kings are kings and should be fighting, building and protecting; priests are priests and should be sacrificing, burning incense and taking their tithes.  It looks like a set-piece confrontation, threatened and expected for some time and about political power.  The priests saw Uzziah's action as clear interference in their sphere of action.  He lost so we don't have the story from his side.  The writer of Chronicles is always on the side of the priests and usually pronounces them bad in the end, however well they start off.  The Emperor Nero and Henry VIII earned similar verdicts from history.  Sometimes the priests needed shaking up, when they got too comfortable, and had to be reminded of their duties, as in 2 Kings 12.

An interesting point from a commentary I have: "The fact that the leprosy breaks out on the king's forehead is significant (v 19).  Not only is it a very visible place, it is also an unfortunate contrast with the plate of gold worn by the legitimate high priest, as described in Exodus 28:36-38."

I too find it difficult to see what relevance this story has to the women's ordination issue, if only because Uzziah's action arose from his own evaluation of his power, whereas women had none in the priestly sense until given it (if power is the right term in their case - doubtful) and the solidarity of the priests is far from paralleled in the present-day context, since many perfectly orthodox clergy have a high appreciation of the gifts and ministry of women.

Dan

I find the Uzziah story hard to apply to the issue of WO. In Uzziah's case, there was a clear law stating that the priest had to come from the line of Aaron. This he ignored. In the case of WO, it is the existence of an equivalent law that is in dispute. I agree with you that arguments about fairness and rights are rather beside the point. But it is the failure of anyone to provide a proper argument for denying ordination to women that is what needs to be rectified by those who would ban WO.

Dan hi!

No I do not believe that the inspired writer "is just plain wrong" what i believe is that, that is what the people of the time earnestly believed that if someone was ill it was an affliction "of God" "sent by" God. This has a humanistic witchcraft sound to it which is neither healthy or helpful.

It is true however that if for instance people sleep around without protection they could get ill. In the same way as some skin disorders were come about because people did not know how to prevent them. I  believe the inspired word of God but remember the old testament preached an eye for an eye, until Jesus came.

You asked a very astute question though, it goes alongside questions like why did God give Adam and Eve a choice, when he knew they would choose against him? Does that make Gods statement of "in my image" wrong? Gods inspiration was to create the earth  and share it, like every other artist we know he shared the finished product, it was not meant to be added to, after all an artist would not ask us to finish their work, but once Adam and Eve made that decision there was maintenance to carry out, clothes to be made etc. 

This was followed as we know by a series of selfish acts by kings who usurped. It took Isaiah to give the hope to the way wood people that there would be a Saviour born and he would be called wonderful councilor and Saviour.Yet still more time passed before the Gospel of hope was fulfilled in humanity through the birth of Jesus Christ   Jesus preached not that the previous word was wrong, but that it was misinterpreted and what was wrong was people hurting one another.

He bought us a Gospel of Forgiveness Love and peace.. BUT they crucified him for it. People clergy included will always get rid of people who are considered a threat to their INDIVIDUAL power, so like the userping kings, so can all others including "inspired clergy"  fall into the waywoodness (is that a word)?  of userping. Why crucify when you can isolate? The living dead comes to mind.

The message is the same now as it was then and will be forever more Love me as I have loved you considering others better than yourself..None of us are very good at it..

I hope that is clearer, sorry if i confused you.

Waterangel

"of course, it was seen in ignorance as an affliction sent by God"

Hold on a minute - so when the text says (v. 20) that "the Lord had afflicted him", the inspired writer is just plain wrong?  What is your doctrine of Biblical inspiration?

Dan

As i understand it the essence of Uzziah was about userping ie to take a position by force, of course this is how things have been since the beginning of time,well almost Adam was not forced to eat the apple he chose to take it. So as i see it this was about two people male and female making a choice together to go against the original command "do not eat from the tree of knowledge"Uzziah had leprosy which would have made it quite difficult for him to be King at that time as at the time it was seen as an unclean illness, and of course, it was seen in ignorance as an affliction sent by God.

Halleluiah we have moved on in most cases people do not get sick because of sin. Some may if they do not take the right precautions but most do not. The rules changed when Jesus came and the old testament was part of the journey towards a fuller more enriching relationship with God "leaving his spirit till his work on earth is done" we are all a work in progress, the church is a work in progress , Gods people men and women are works in progress. That work can only proceed if we have the motivation of "freeing captives" the term of freeing captives refers to anyone anywhere who is being prevented from movement or having their contact cut in order to prevent communication.

Communication is a two way process usually and in some cases a man will enable communication with God and sometimes a woman will enable communication with God communication may come in other ways too but we are looking at the issue of Gods chosen people and the sharing of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing should prevent that. Communication with God is not clear if it has been userped, for it is against the very message of Christ .    Freedom to choose..

Thankyou Dan for inspiring me to  look that up.

(Note:  as a new poster I naturally didn't want to duplicate an existing discussion, so I checked on Search, where "Uzziah" returned zero entries.  All clear then.)

In 2 Chronicles 26 we read the story of one of the relatively few good kings of Judah.  In order to keep this OP manageable I'd like to summarise salient points as follows:

(1) Uzziah was not only a true believer in Yahweh, he was highly successful in the secular realm of his anointed life occupation.

(2) However, none of this counted for anything to his misguided cause when he attempted to function as a priest in the temple.  81 priests massed ranks as one man to bar his way.  When he resisted them, God struck him directly with leprosy which never left him all his life.

(3) If we imagine to ourselves the reasonable-sounding arguments which Uzziah might have urged to allow him to work as a priest, it doesn't take much awareness to realise that in essence, they are identical to the positive arguments used today to support the ordination of women in the CoE and elsewhere.

(4) For example, if it's unjust to discriminate between woman and man, how much more so to discriminate between man and man!

(5) The debates in the CoE in our day tend to assume that natural justice itself demands WO, and its opponents often seem awkward when faced with this central argument.  But the careful consideration of the application of the case of Uzziah has the potential to turn the burden of proof upside-down, by requiring supporters of WO to explain why God wasn't unjust to bar Uzziah from the OT priesthood.

Much more could be said, but there's a start for what could be a cracking (and crackling) thread!