Guest post: Does head mean authority over?
Are men superior to women as their head?
This post is the second part in a “first” for Women in Ministry blog. I have never before taken the writing of a complementarian and posted it on my blog. To facilitate dialog, I have agreed to post Mark’s articles so that we can have a jolly good discussion/debate with those who care to participate on the issue of what “head” means. The first part of Mark’s article dealing with the context of 1 Corinthians 11 is here. These posts are carried forward from a previous post that had a lot of good discussion regarding my youtube videos on the issue of women in ministry. If you would like to get a good idea of where this discussion comes from, I refer you back to the post called Women on Trial.
Mark is a complementarian from Australia. Mark believes that the meaning of kephale in the Greek used in Paul’s writings should always be defined as authority over or superiority. While we debated with Mark on the context of 1 Corinthians 11 from his last post, this one will allow us to get into more detail about the Greek word usage. Just remember when we discuss and debate with Mark that we are to treat him with respect and deal with the argument itself. This is not the place for an attack on the person, but for a passionate debate on the issues.
I have purposely left this article of Mark’s to be the second one online since I firmly believe that any issue of word meaning is always dependent on the particular context. However, it is good to talk about meanings, and so this will be the discussion on this post.
The following is from Mark the complementarian from Australia and interaction with Mark will be in the comment section.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Mark the complementarian from Australia
Preface: What I hope to address in this short post is the question of whether or not ‘kephale’ would have been used by Paul in the New Testament to denote a position of authority over another. If it was a possibility was it then Paul’s intended meaning in using this word in 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5. The interpretation of this word is vital for both the Egal and Comp position to ‘prove’ their theological standpoint.
1. Let’s first address the Lexicon. As helpful as dictionaries may be to give a meaning to a word, ultimately it is the context that plays the determining factor. The most accurate and helpful Lexicon which covers the New Testament period, both biblical and non-biblical works, is the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich. Let me again note that this is the most accurate Lexicon for the NT period, as its focus is on this specific period. I’m aware that other Lexicons have ‘source’ as a translation but no other Lexicon focuses primarily on the NT period. Let’s see its entry for ‘kephale’
“2.fig.-a. In the case of living beings, to denote superior rank…head of the husband in relation to his wife 1 Cor 11:3b; Eph 5:23a. Of Christ in relation to the church Eph 4:15; 5:23b. But Christ is not only of the church, but of the universe as a whole: Eph 1:21 and of every cosmic power: Col 2:10. The divine influence on the world results in the series: God the k. Of Christ, Christ the k. Of the man, the man the k. Of the woman 1 Cor 11:3 c, a, b.”
So convincingly the Lexicon that deals with NT texts and the NT period does see ‘kephale’ “to denote superior rank”. Interestingly it does not see ‘source’ as an acceptable translation for ‘kephale’ during this period of Greek literature. Also note although some other Lexicons (although not dealing exclusively with the NT period) do see ‘source’ as a possible translation, not one of them has ever listed ‘source’ as a metaphorical meaning for kephale when applied to persons. When ‘kephale’ is used in relation to people, the accepted meaning is always one has superiority over another.
2. One of the most helpful texts for determining Greek meanings is found in the Greek translation of the OT- LXX. But the question must be asked, does the LXX even have ‘kephale’ in it and if so, is it used to support either a translation for ‘source’ or of ‘superior rank’. Also, note the LXX was translated somewhere in the 3rd Century BC. Many scholars on both sides of the debate have recognised that the LXX does use kephale to denote a position in superior rank, even if its usage is limited. For example-
2 Samuel 22:44- You shall keep me as the head of the Gentiles: a people which I knew not served me.
Psalm 18:43- You shall keep me as the head of the Gentiles: a people whom I knew not served me.
Isaiah 7:9- The head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah
There are many others which are debated due to ‘variant readings’ (Judges 10:18, Judges 11:8, Judges 11:9, Judges 11:11, Isaiah 7:8) so I will not attach them to this post. But none the less it must be concluded that the translators for the LXX saw ‘kephale’ to denote some sort of authority. That means that Paul’s ‘bible’ used ‘kephale’ in this way. Please also note, not once is ‘kephale’ ever able to be translated as ‘source’ in the LXX.
3. Other ancient non-biblical literature–
Hermas Similitudes 7.3- “Cannot be punished in any other way than if you, the head of the house, be afflicted.”
Plutarch, Galba 4.3- “Vindex…wrote to Galba inviting him to assume the imperial power, and thus to serve what was a vigorous body in need of a head.”
Plutarch, Cicero 14.4- “ There are two bodies, one lean and wasted, but with a head, and the other headless but strong and large. What am I doing wrong if I myself become a head for this?”
Post script: Again there are many more which I could contribute here but the debates over these texts have stemmed for decades now and there is no point repeating them here. The fact is, ‘kephale’ was used and understood by other ancient Greek writers to denote an authority.
So whether one looks at Lexicons, The LXX or other ancient literature, it is evidently clear that “superior rank” was a possible meaning for ‘kephale’ in the New Testament. Not to mention the ease at which such a definition fits into the biblical framework. Paul was familiar with the LXX as a Jewish Rabbi and could easily have used ‘kephale’ in this context.
Let me finish with a challenge for everybody else. At this point, I strongly agree with Mr Grudem
Where is even one clear example of kephale used of a person to mean ‘source’ in all of Greek literature before or during the time of the New Testament? Is there even one example that is unambiguous?
Let’s be honest about things. One cannot say they are not closed to what the Bible teaches but yet ignore the bombardment of evidence to support ‘kephale’ authoritatively. If one chooses to be realistic about the evidence, they will see the error in attempting to understand 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 as ‘source’- it is not only wrong, but a distortion of the truth of the Bible.
484 thoughts on “Guest post: Does head mean authority over?”
Re: Lexicons
Funny how Bauer leaves out 1 Cor 12 where it clearly does NOT mean superior rank. All Mark’s protestations and obfuscations aside, 1 Cor 12 most certainly is about living beings.
I’m sorry but this is all still presumption. I know these are great scholars and everything but I find the quote from the Lexicon to be stark, prejudiced opinion. Nowhere in the verses that Bauer sites is authority between the living beings even in view. Authority is not granted, exercised, or even discussed between the living beings in the relationships. Authority as a topic is completely foreign to those verses so to derive that those verses denote authority is presumptuous at best and disingenuous at worst (the original work that Bauer was derived from was written in 1910 in Germany, right at the outset of the suffrage movement. It could be a coincidence…)
I find this interesting entry by Edward Hobbs, Professor of Religion at Wellesley College, on a message thread at the ibiblio web site. Note that the entry recommends this Lexicon as the “only…answer” for students looking for a English-Greek Lexicon.
He goes on to offer this assessment of the English translators Arndt and Gingrich.
Apparently even the “best” Lexicons can have their issues. As such, I stand by my objection above.
Re: Lexical battles
“Little or no salient support…outside of his personal interpretation” – exactly my point
Good stuff, gengwell.
Of course, we can all line up plenty of resources to support our viewpoint. That has been a hallmark of these discussions with mark. But I can;t get past the text of scripture itself. I really don’t care for the opinion of anyone, great or small, educated or common, scholar or student, theologian or pew sitter. All I care about is what the text says. And the text of the New Testament NEVER says or even implies that kephale means authority over. Conversely, in several instances, the text expressly says that kephale DOES NOT grant authority. Moreover, in several places, “origin” or “source” fit better than authority even if we are speculating on the meaning. To me, the text is clear. The New Testament in general, and Paul very much in particular, is not granting any authority by using the word kephale. Talking heads can talk and write all they want to the contrary, but until they can support what they say from the text itself, it is all babble.
“But I can;t get past the text of scripture itself. I really don’t care for the opinion of anyone, great or small, educated or common, scholar or student, theologian or pew sitter.”
I totally agree. Give me a born again, sold out to Jesus Christ, steeped in the Word and prayer, echanic or janitor anyday.
But even within the entire pericope you cannot get earthly authorities out of spiritual relationships as taught in scripture.
That takes the place of the Holy Spirit and is dangerous stuff. Too much ‘chain of being’ Greek thinking. Too much bringing the worlds thinking into the Body and marriage. It is sad stuff and keeps us focused on roles, rules, preeminance, etc instead of abiding in Christ alone.
the best earthly relationships are when we are mutually submitting to one another. Serving each other and thinking less of ourselves and more of others.
@ Lin:
This is what I meant when I posted the Philippians 2 verses in one of the threads (I don’t remember which one it was). It IS sad when we are focused on roles, authority and preeminence, instead of focusing on serving one another in love. You are very right, that “the best earthly relationships are when we are mutually submitting to one another. Serving each other and thinking less of ourselves and more of others”.
From that, might iteven be seen that Jesus was “submitting” to His disciples when He washed their feet on the night He was betrayed? If I remember right, foot washing in that day was considered so lowly a job that no respectable person would even consider it; it was given to the lowest of slaves. Through that example, Jesus showed what real leadership is: lowering oneself to the least position for the benefit of the others. Unwillingness to see this is an indication of pride and worldly attachment to status, more than it is a willingess to serve as Jesus served (a willingness that is the heart of submission, not necessarily blind obedience to someone else).
PS: I’m with you, gengwall….so many talking heads out there, yet many of them,m it seems, are talking nonsense.
For other viewpoints we have the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
Notice that kephale is what is “first” as in the start. The very first meaning is not authority at all.
The second meaning is prominent but “authority over” is not attached to this:
The third usage is also nothing to do with authority:
Also kephale is not used in secular usage as the “head” of a society”:
There is also an interchangeableness with the term beginning in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures:
I don’t think in all fairness that anyone should try to claim that only one group of people produced an acceptable lexicon. They may be good in some things and no so good in others. Personally I find Liddel and Scott to be more balanced. 🙂
TL,
Good point! That is why I always look at several lexicons. It helps to get a wider feel of what the meaning of the word is.
The church fathers until well after the Reformation, taught that woman was subordinated by Eve’s transgression and the fall. Once that was refuted, they had to come up with something more difficult to refute. Imagine how short Cheryl’s blog would need to be if we were discussing women forever bearing the shame of Eve.
Looks like there is ample evidence that kephale has several well attested meanings, including ‘authority’ and ‘source.’ Now, it’s back to the text in context to see if any believer should have ‘authority’ over any other believer.
I am impressed by the depth of discussion concerning the lexicons. Lots of stuff I hadn’t seen before. Thanks.
It is a very common misconception that the Liddell Scott Jones is not the most accurate lexicon for Greek at the time of the NT. In fact, it spreads from 8th century BC to the Byzantine era, at least 4th century AD.
I also note that the entry supplied by Mark provides only evidence from the NT to prove the meaning of the word in the NT. Unfortunately, this is not evidence. These references are examples, but not evidence.
In fact, kephale is used to denote a person who is the origin of everything – Zeus. Of course, one may argue that Zeus was also the ruler, but the line from which this is taken does not provide this information.
Regarding the LXX, it is interesting that you only provided a part of the verse for Is. 7:9. It goes like this,
The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
In the first line, kephale is used because rosh was used to mean “capital city.” Then in the second line the translator chose to maintain concordance with the first line. I think the translator did the right thing for a translation of Hebrew poetry. I do not find this to be evidence for authority over with reference to person.
In Ps. 18, we also find an overliteral translation of rosh. It is hard to decide if David was the ruler of the gentiles, the conqueror of the gentiles or would have greater prosperity and success than the gentiles.
This ambiguity in the original Hebrew would very likely lead the translator to fall back on a literal translation.
I know that not everyone agrees with this. Some see a possibility that kephale could provide the meaning of hierarchy. Both authority over and origin/source, are secondary senses of the word. Origin has the distinction of being a native Greek use of the word, and authority or leader, has the distinction of belonging to translation literature.
All in all, it seems to me to be a rational decision of the intellect, to make the judgment, based on our human faculties, that the sense is either authority over, or origin. Therefore, I think each person is accountable to God to never use their interpretation of this verse to restrict the liberty of another human being, whether their wife or other women with whom they associate.
“Therefore, I think each person is accountable to God to never use their interpretation of this verse to restrict the liberty of another human being, whether their wife or other women with whom they associate.”
Well put, Sue.
I just can’t get it to jibe with Jesus words:
“Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” Luke 22
I’m sure everyone following this blog is tired of me posting that passage, but I don’t believe we can emphasize enough that if our interpretation of kephale does not line up with what Jesus clearly taught – He is not the one in error.
I post the same message over and over also. While non-Christians and secular thinking can be the cause of much suffering, the teaching of the submission of women is the cause of intolerable spiritual and psychic distress. If I had my way, it would be a legal crime to make anyone suffer in this way.
Hey kay, don’t tire in well doing. I love those words of Christ also. I teach them in my Bible Studies repeatedly.
And Sue, your words need to be repeated as well. There should be a law. Look how long it took for societies (other than Judaism) to make rape a punishable crime. Maybe someday we’ll have a better handle on it and fewer will be able to strut around claiming dominance because of their gender.
The epiphany has arived!
The problem with the lexicons, especially Bauer, is that they discuss only literal uses and meanings of kephale. They completely miss that Paul is unique in Greek in his metaphor’s. I do not know of any other place where the literal anatomical context of kephale is superimposed over living being relationships. The problem with Bauer is that he views Paul’s usage in the literal context of relationships between living beings. But that isn’t how Paul is using it! It is a metaphor. Bauer compeltely misses the point.
Before I look at Paul’s head/body metaphors it may be useful to look at another metaphor using “head”. Matthew 21:42 (and others): “Jesus said to them, ‘Did you never read in the Scriptures, THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF (kephale CORNER {stone;} THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES?” This verse is about Jesus, a living being. But the literal context which is applied to living beings is the one of orientation of objects. It would be utter nonsense for us to say this verse means that jesus is the “leader” of the stones used for building. Why? Because in the metaphor, the correct context to use is the literal one being applied to the living being. Therefore, “chief”, “prominent”, “first”, etc. are the correct definitions of kephale. These are all definitions which fit the context for “head” dealing with the orientation of objects to each other. Incidentally, we employ the same type of metaphor in English when we say about a living being that the should “go to the head of the class”.
Now we turn to Paul. In Paul’s metaphors, he uses the literal context of anatomy and superimposes it onto living beings. Therefore, we have to view the relationship of those living beings not in the literal, hierarchical sense that we do when we say things like “head of the company”, “head of the clan”, “head of state”, etc., but in the symbiotic sense that we do when we think of the parts of the body. There is no hierarchy in the body. In particular, the relationship between the head and the rest of the body is one of complete interdependence and mutuality. Neither can exist without the other. Both contribute equally (although differently) to the person’s existense. The body can not function (fully) without the neuro-transmitions from the brain (head) and the brain can not function without the blood and other nutrients supplied by the body. The relationship is one of mutual support and reliance. To say the head is the “leader”, or “authority over”, or “superior member” of the body would be nonsense.
It is that context that applies to Paul’s metaphors. It is that type of relationship that Paul is imposing on living beings. To miss the anatomical context is a fatal flaw in anyone’s analysis of kephale as Paul uses it. Bauer, especially, falls to this error. He seems completely blind not only to the correct context of anatomy but even to the simple fact that this is metaphor. It is quite astonishing.
But…yes there’s more…Paul doesn;t leave us hanging with a naked metaphor and no definition. First, in 1 Cor 12:14-27 he hammers home that anatomy is the context that governs his discussion of head and body. He stresses the mutuality and equality of all the parts of the body – an anatomical fact. He insists that we view the relationships of living beings in the church through this anatomical lense.
Then, seemingly to make sure we have proper definitions for his unique metaphor, especially for kephale, he describes in detail in Ephesians 5 how the living being that is the kephale relates to the living being(s) that is his body within this anatomical context. Is authority of the “head” the defining characteristic of this relationship between living beings as it is when kephale is being used literally to describe living being relatedness? Absolutely not! Love, sacrifice, service are the defining characteristics of the “head” when living beings are embedded in the anatomical context.
There is not need to search Greek literature for a definition of “head” as Paul uses it. Frankly, if you look outside of Paul, you will not find a similar usage. But we are not stranded, for Paul himself provides us the definition. Ephesians 5 shows us all we need to know about the “head” and that definition applies throughout ALL of Paul’s head/body metaphors. The most important point is that authority is nowhere in view. To be the head is to agapeo; to love unconditionally. We need know no more about Pauline kephale than that.
“There should be a law. Look how long it took for societies (other than Judaism) to make rape a punishable crime.”
And slavery, too. So what, if the master treats the slave “lovingly?” He/she is still bound under by another person. Seems like it would be a short walk back to that if wives/women can be under the authority of men.
Sue -Wasn’t it you, who pointed out that slaves had no right to wear headcoverings or refuse sex with their owners?
1 Cor 11 is a little different animal. The body is not in view so we can’t use the anatomical context. That doesn’t mean 1 Cor 11 is speaking of hierarchical relationships. Ironically, that is why “source” fits so well there, but doesn’t exactly fit in Ephesians 5. But that is a discussion better left to the sister post of this one.
gengwall,
That last post could be your magnum opus!
“Both contribute equally (although differently) to the person’s existense. The body can not function (fully) without the neuro-transmitions from the brain (head) and the brain can not function without the blood and other nutrients”
Ooowwh! I like that.
“But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” 24-27
“Both contribute equally (although differently) to the person’s existense. The body can not function (fully) without the neuro-transmitions from the brain (head) and the brain can not function without the blood and other nutrients”
As a professional LMT, I deal with the relationship between brain and body all the time. It is a truly symbiotic relationship in which brain and muscles, nerves, heart, lungs, lymphatic, fascia and ALL systems work in mutuality. If certain muscles are stuck, often I have to maneuver certain ways in order to encourage the brain that it’s acceptable for the muscles to let go. They are in constant communication and support of one another via the nervous system. What it is not is a situation where the brain is in charge and tells the muscles what to do. It just doesn’t work like that. It’s almost more emotional. If muscles remit pain or ‘fear’, then the brain has a choice of response to protect. But even then muscles can remit back that pain is good or bad or inbetween and brain responds appropriately. And then there is the added problem when the individual steps in to try to intellectually decide in spite of what body and brain are communicating. 🙂 We, the person using this body can royally mess everything up and often do, by ignoring what the body is saying and by overriding the usual responses of the brain. There are parameters to our righteous use of this vessel that brain and body should have equal input into.
It’s a lot more complicated than we think. 🙂
Thanks TL. What great and more detailed insight into the anatomical relationship than I certainly could have provided. Its also nice to know I’m not talking out of my……well, that’s one anatomical reference we need not explore.
Thanks gengwall. 🙂
The interesting question is how much did Paul know and what did he know. If I recollect rightly, Paul had some ideas from his era that are incorrect. But nevertheless we should take them into consideration in order to understand what he was trying to say. In his era it was thought that the head of men contained the source of new life. We have pictures of Zeus as a water fountain with water coming out of his head. I believe they also thought that the head of a person represented the whole person, because that is what we look at when we converse with someone.
Add that to the equal consideration that the body also represented the whole person and disconnect the head from the body or vice versa and we have loss of life, and we have an interesting metaphor of mutuality of strength/power and life essence. The body is the life, and the head represents or protects that life. What Paul was trying to say that made astonishing sense to people of that era, is really so far removed from what the hierarchalists claim as the Sun is from the earth.
And then, I have to wonder. Obviously Paul was inspired by the HS in this metaphor since its used several times, so that we can say God had plans for us future dwellers, who understand so much more about the body than they did.
“And then, I have to wonder. Obviously Paul was inspired by the HS in this metaphor since its used several times, so that we can say God had plans for us future dwellers, who understand so much more about the body than they did.”
I think that reality can not be ignored. There are scores of instances in the bible where the inspired writers communicate information far beyond the knowledge of their time, especially in the areas of the sciences and specifically in the area of biology. For example, many of the cleanliness laws in the OT have an immunological basis even though an understanding of immunology was non-existent at the time.
I don’t know if Paul was given additional knowledge and wrote from a understanding perspective, or wrote what he did not understand from a faith perspective. It would be an interesting study. I bet there are clues within his writing that would tip the scales one way or another.
“There are scores of instances in the bible where the inspired writers communicate information far beyond the knowledge of their time, especially in the areas of the sciences and specifically in the area of biology. For example, many of the cleanliness laws in the OT have an immunological basis even though an understanding of immunology was non-existent at the time.”
Perfect example. 🙂
At this point I suspect he was writing both from inspiration and from the knowledge from his era. But go ahead, gengwall, see if you can prove one way or the other, or both. 🙂 🙂
I meant it would be an interesting study for someone else :-O
Before Wesley declared that cleanliness was next to godliness, Satan was seen in causing pestilences, using his emissaries especially Jews and witches. The proof of this belief in the case of the Jews was seen in the fact that they escaped with a less percentage of disease than did the Christians in the great plague periods. This was doubtless due in some measure to their remarkable sanitary system, which had probably originated thousands of years before in Egypt, and had been handed down through Jewish lawgivers and statesmen. Certainly they observed more careful sanitary rules and more constant abstinence from dangerous foods than was usual among Christians; but the public at large could not understand so simple a cause, and jumped to the conclusion that their immunity resulted from protection by Satan, and that this protection was repaid and the pestilence caused by their wholesale poisoning of Christians.
but you do such a good job, gengwall. LOL hehe
TL, gengwall,
Certainly something to look into…off the cuff, it seems that it could be Inspired so that the original readers/hearers would understand and also all those who come after.
There may be significance in the fact that Paul so carefully outlines the interdependence of the body parts in 1 Cor 12 and even in Ephesians 4:15. He may be giving the audience a little biology lesson on top of everything else, just so they understand his usages of head and body.
Careful now, gengwall…I thought this study was for someone else :-O
🙂
I wish I knew the smiley for *puts hands over mouth*
:-8]
Mark says Where is even one clear example of kephale used of a person to mean ‘source’ in all of Greek literature before or during the time of the New Testament? Is there even one example that is unambiguous?
(Future posters can refer to me as “B-W” if that helps avoid confusion)
Leaving aside whether or not someone might be able to answer this question to Mark’s satisfaction, am I the only one who sees this question as irrelevant? The question seems to imply that, unless an unambiguous example exists showing that kephale must mean “source,” it cannot mean “source.” Clearly that doesn’t acknowledge how language actually works. A word may well have a primary meaning in most contexts, yet be used with a different (although generally related) way in a different context. Indeed, kephale’s primary meaning seems to be “head” (meaning a particular physical portion of a creature’s body), and other meanings (such as “authority”) stem from that. To see “head” as “source” is really no further of a stretch, and examples of this in ancient literature have been cited. If they aren’t “unambiguous” enough for Mark and/or Wayne Grudam, I would submit that it’s because the art of translation is very seldom “unambiguous” to begin with.
I like sticky tape :-#
I should probably apply some right now…LOL
or “zip your lip”
:-Z
“To see “head” as “source” is really no further of a stretch, and examples of this in ancient literature have been cited. If they aren’t “unambiguous” enough for Mark and/or Wayne Grudam, I would submit that it’s because the art of translation is very seldom “unambiguous” to begin with.”
B-W,
And if it unquestionably meant ‘authority’ in the verses at hand – it begs the question why translators would choose not to simply be clear and use the word ‘authority’ instead of ‘head’? Why make it confusing – isn’t understandability the reason for translating in the first place?
I wonder if people realize that whenever Christ and the Church are mentioned, the anatomical context is present. The bible never says “Christ is the head of the church” and leaves it at that. If he did, we could assume the normal literral living being relationship. Instead, Paul always says “Christ is the head of the body, which is his church” and the like. When it pertains to the Christ/Church relationship, the anatomical context is always there.
Nor does the bible, in Ephesians 5, say “the husband is head of the wife” without the anatomical context. It says, “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.” And of course, the head/body anatomical theme is further emphasized as Ephesians 5 continues.
It seems that Paul is emphatically making the point that Christ as head of the church NEVER parallels the normal literal living being “head over” context.
But, Christ is “head over” in other relationships. Note Colossians 2:10 – “and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;” The world is definately NOT Christ’s body and therefore, when talking about Christ’s relationship to the world, the anatomical context is absent and, conversely, the normal literal living being hierarchical context is very obvious.
Ephesians 1:18-23 shows the difference and contrast in stark fashion.
Christ is both head over and head of. He is head over the world and all of its “rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named”. But we are not of the world. We are the body and Christ is the head and his authority is exercised FOR us, not toward us. I hope Mark can see the distinction. Both contexts are present in this verse – the literal living being relationship which is hierarchical and grants the head authority and the metaphorical, anatomical relationship which is reciprocal (see Eph 2:6 to see exactly how reciprocal this relationship really is).
To summarize – whenever Chirst is referenced as head of the church it is in the anatomical context and therefore the relationship must be viewed as reciprocal, not hierarchical. The same is true when that relationship is used as the model for husbands and wives in Ephesians 5 – the marriage relationship, just like Christ’s marriage to his bride the church, must be viewed as reciprocal. No hierarchy exists. But that isn’t to say that Christ is never “head over” with authority. He most certainly is. The literal living being hierarchical context is very present in scripture. But the participants in that relationship are Christ and teh world, and, and this is a crucial point, His body SHARES that authority with him.
Aa mentioned above, 1 Cor 11 is a different animal. There is no body present and therefore the anatomical context doesn’t fit (even though a number of the “head” usages reference the literal anatomical head of a person). So, that discussion needs to continue in paralle with this one. But as for this topic, it is patently false to conclude that “head” means authority over just because living beings are involved. Paul is clear and consistent. His diligence demands that we understand which context he is employing before assessing what “head” means in any given text.
Imagine what an affront it was to free (non-slave) Christians when the Spirit bestowed gifts for the Body on believers who were slaves.
“But we are not of the world. We are the body and Christ is the head and his authority is exercised FOR us, not toward us. I hope Mark can see the distinction. Both contexts are present in this verse”
gengwall,
Yet another excellent point!
Thanks Kay.
You know how people say that the scriptures “come alive” for them. That is how I am feeling about this topic. These truths are just bombarding me, leaping off the (web) pages and filling my mind and it all seems so clear. The night before last I woke up at 4am and couldn’t fall back asleep because my mind was pondering Paul’s words over and over again. I literally have sat with my mouth open and thought to myself “well duh, how could I not see that before”. The last few days have been quite illuminating and stimulating.
“But we are not of the world. We are the body and Christ is the head and his authority is exercised FOR us, not toward us.”
Wonderful observation!
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” Gal.2
“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” Eph.1:22-23
-“the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
Wow – Mark probably had no idea exactly what thoughts his post would spawn. If he did he probably would not have posted it!
Gengwall – your the man…I mean your the person!
With regards to anatomy and how complex the head body relationship is, it is also amazingly simple. I once heard someone say that everybody dies from the exact same condition. A lack of oxygen to the brain. It is true!
I love what I have just learnt. Thanks guys!
I hope Mark reviews all of the Christ/Head – Church/Body verses. I list them below. The reciprocal language is overwhelming. Conversely, authoritarian language is completely absent. I know it is a difficult concept to envision Christ as not in an authority position over the church regardless of context. Indeed, in other contexts, Christ is in authority over the church. But not in the anatomical, marital metaphors. That is a hard truth for any of us. But Jesus himself said “I have not come to be served, but to serve”. Jesus and his bride do indeed have an egalitarian marriage. Scripture loudly, inarguably, and unequivacably proclaims this truth.
1 Corinthians 12 (the whole chapter, but vs. 21 in particular) Although not an actual Christ/Church passage, it is a passage which clarifies Paul’s ideas about the body including the head. It is also the clearest statement Paul makes about the equality across the body.
Ephesians 1:18-23 Make sure to read through to 2:7 to see all that is in store for the body.
Ephesians 4:4-16
Ephesians 5:21-32
Colossians chapters 1 and 2. There is so much here it really all needs to be read.
p.s. Of course, I don’t know if this will help. Mark doesn’t see any unity or equality in Genesis 2 and I think the chapter screams of unity and equality between Adam and Eve. Conversely, he sees authority there while I have searched in vain to find it. So Mark may also be deaf to what the NT verses have to say about Christ and His bride. We shall see.
“Gengwall – your the man…I mean your the person!”
Dave,
Awake and in a good humor, I see!
Yes, gengwall has really been “illuminating.” I think he’s plugged into the main socket today.
Wonder if Mark’s awake yet…
I’ll try to tune in over the weekend but I have a jam packed schedule. Y’all may have to pick up the ball for me.
I haven’t had a chance to read all the posts so forgive me if i comment on something someone already said.
1. Lexicons are only helpful, not the determining factor. I said that at the beginning. However Bauer’s lexicon covers extensively the Nt period which is what we are interested in. The Lidell-Scott does not. It does a broad survey. Also not sure if any one else is aware of this, but the editor of the Lidell Scott publicly stated his mistake in having ‘source’ as a rendering for ‘kephale’. But that aside i think we all agree that the context decides.
2. The LXX, like it or, whether it is limited or not does have an authoratative meaning in some uses of kephale. NOT ONCE COULD ‘SOURCE’ EVER BE A POSSIBLE TRANSLATION FOR KEPHALE IN THE LXX (capitals for emphasis not shouting).
3. The text Sue quotes, is a variant reading. I know she will dispute this, but it is. Since i have ignored all variant reading which show authority, and there are alot, we should also ignore the Orphic Fragment. But of course Egals won’t do this, because it is the closest thing they have to remain on a ‘source’ interpretation. BUt the truth is, it is a weak example, and should not be used as the basis for interpretation for the NT. It was written 6th Century BC, where as the Bauer Lexicon and the LXX are much closer to the period we are interested in.
4. Regarding Bauer ignoring the metaphorical uses- gengwell you are wrong. IF you again look at the entry i gave from that lexionary you will see that this entry is for ‘figurative’ uses, ie metaphorical. His entry for ‘literal’ translations, is the literal head on top of our shoulders.
This is all i can offer atm. I haven’t been able to comment more on the other post yet. I’ll get there soon. I hope people can see that ‘authority’ was a possible rendering for kephale in Paul’s letters, and in fact there is far more evidence to support this view over a ‘source’ translation.
I love the posts you guys have put up here while I have been away. Good work! Today is a study day for me so it is busy, busy, busy.
I will have to catch up more after the weekend.
Ah, I see that Mark is indeed awake! Good day (is that how you say it in Aussie territory?)
I don’t have time to comment right now, but I appreciate that the lexicons are not the determining factor of what the word means. It is indeed the context which is what the previous post was about. I do hope that you will find time to go back and catch up on all the questions to you that people had.
“4. Regarding Bauer ignoring the metaphorical uses- gengwell you are wrong. IF you again look at the entry i gave from that lexionary you will see that this entry is for ‘figurative’ uses, ie metaphorical. His entry for ‘literal’ translations, is the literal head on top of our shoulders.”
““2.fig.-a. In the case of living beings, to denote superior rank”
The case of living beings and their relationships may be figurative in Greek (it is not in English where “head” has multiple literal meanings) but Bauer still misses the metaphor Paul is using. In all of the cases Bauer lists (and in several more), “head” is used in the anatomical sense and then applied in that sense to the relationships of living beings. Where is Bauer’s recognition of the anatomical context? It isn’t there. Bauer thinks these verses are synonymous with “head of the clan”, etc., but they aren’t. “Head of the clan” and its equivalents have no anatomical reference. These verses do. Bauer makes a false comparison by ignoring the existence of the anatomical context. Yet it is the anatomical context that is the preeminent context for the verse, for in the anatomical relationship between head and body, authority is not in view.
Also – All metaphors are figures of speech but not all figures of speech are metaphors. Bauer’s recognition of kephale as figurative in Paul’s usage is NOT an admission or recognition that kephale is being used metaphorically. Metaphors compare two things, saying one is the other. What two things are being compared in Bauer’s entry?
I was certainly not aware that the editor had made a public statement. I was aware the Grudem claims he has a letter from him…but I am not aware of other people seeing the letter! I might also add that Lidell & Scott said what they said (before feminism) for a reason. Sadly, if indeed the editor has said it was a mistake, he has listened to Grudem’s conclusions without looking at Grudem’s research. Hardly sounds like a good editor to me! 🙂
It is a beautiful morning in Sydney town and my son’s team is batting!
In Paul’s metaphors, the anatomical context is clearly the vehicle and Christ is clearly the tenor. Note – the tenor is ascribed the attributes of the vehicle. Christ is ascribed the attributes of an anatomical head and the church is ascribed the attributes of an anatomical body. Those attributes in the anatomical context are reciprocal and interdependent. Moreover, the are not hierarchical.
Bauer completely misses this because he completely misses (or ignores or purposely omits) that the usage is metaphorical.
Given the relationship between the body and the head, as you have described gengwall, why do comps NOT talk about “bodyship”? Such is the emphasis on what is seen as more important (because of a human obsession with authority)!
I have searched and searched for anyone who has actually laid eyes upon the supposed letter Grudem is claimed to have received – I think he must have read the top secret letter and then eaten it. Surely the editor would have had more folks to apologize to than just Grudem for an error like that.
“bodyship”?
I can’t imagine why. 😉
It isn’t a public letter unless it is in the public domain. I am wondering if it is possible that Grudem reinterpreted the letter too. Kind of like a lettership. 8)
“editor of the Lidell Scott publicly stated his mistake in having ’source’ as a rendering for ‘kephale’”
Actually he never states his mistake at all. First it was not his mistake (if indeed it was a mistake) as he is the editor. They did not have the funding for a full rework so the meaning for kephale was not changed. He has not made any mistake, nor does he say he has. Personally I think it would have been a mistake to change it!!
Also, he never says it was a mistake if you read thequotes closely. Although he says he is in “broad agreement” and says things like “unfortunate”, I think he is actually careful (and polite) to not simply say it is falt out wrong.
But I understand you taking it the way you did Mark, as I think it was the way Grudem was hoping you would interpret what he wrote!
Anit-spam word is “charge” and my battery is going flat……………
Sorry, he says “unwise”, not “unfortunate”…
Anit-spam word is “toast” and I have 8% power remaining.
Dave,
Huh? You use batteries on your computer? You Aussies are really strange.
I was at the cricket on the laptop Cheryl which has a battery. Regarding your second point, yes, we are strange!
Oh, boy, a blond moment. Yes, some people use laptops away from electricity.
Huh, you let crickets run on your computer? 😉 Yup strange, very strange.
I should say that the reason I had a blond moment is ’cause my laptop battery is always dead. It won’t work without power. Its very old.
Cheryl Cheryl Cheryl…
Please look at what I wrote with the same attention to detail as you would use with 1 Tim 2! I was AT the cricket (capitals NOT for emphasis…I AM SHOUTING!!). The crickets were not on the computer…I was on the computer, which is why the battery was flat. I weigh 105kg.
🙂
Hey, I was reading carefully!
yada yada yada…cricket on the laptop…yada yada yada
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well you definitely corrected me!
.
.
.
yada, yada, yada, …I was on the computer, which is why the battery was flat.
Yup, like I said, you blokes are strange! (We are literalists here in Canada, no pun intended!)
I cannot compete with your pics!
Who is this yada of whom you speak? Brother of yoda?
.
.
.
.
Cheryl, are we the only two people without a life hanging out for some one, anyone to make a comment?
Sorry, I didn’t know how to translate “yada” into Aussie slang. Definitely not a brother of yoda!
I guess we are the only two hanging out here tonight (its Friday night). I am procrastinating on the dishes. Kind of feeling guilty too….. Okay, guilty enough, I’m leaving too. See you! 8)
““editor of the Lidell Scott publicly stated his mistake in having ’source’ as a rendering for ‘kephale’”
Actually he never states his mistake at all. First it was not his mistake (if indeed it was a mistake) as he is the editor. “
An editor has no business adding or taking away from the authors words, without the author’s permission, especially in the case of a lexicon. He didn’t do the research.
hey Cheryl and Dave. It’s only 4:16 here.
You guys need to plug in to some power. I’m always plugged in. 🙂
Sorry, Dave, I just had to edit your comment so you could compete. I have a silly bug tonight.
I am really going to go and do the dishes!
where have you two been getting the pictures. I’m jealous!!
Hey, there TL,
Glad you popped in. I was having way too much fun and couldn’t keep myself serious. I’ll leave Dave in your hands.
but I don’t know where the pics are!! 🙁
Just one more comment….
TL,
I am a video editor. I have lots of pictures. I also can make them appear on this blog. If you need one…I’m the gal.
G’day I am really out of here now.
LSJ is quite authoritative and does not reflect the theological presuppositions of those who want to prove something about a certain text. It is a general lexicon for the language.
Grudem wrote about Glare,
“With regard to my study of kephal?, he writes, “I am in broad agreement with your conclusions.” He adds, speaking of the usage in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), “kephal? is the word normally used to translate the Hebrew r’osh, and this does seem frequently to denote leader or chief without much reference to its original anatomical sense, and here it seems perverse to deny authority” (italics added). ”
This is a very odd statement since kephale is NOT normally used for r’osh when it refers to a person. This is one sure clue that Grudem does not have the evidence he needs because here he has manufactured support that is entirely unwarranted. This is based on a false premise.
The text Sue quotes, is a variant reading. I know she will dispute this, but it is. Since i have ignored all variant reading which show authority, and there are alot, we should also ignore the Orphic Fragment.
Mark,
This is completely ridiculous. You don’t know any such thing.
Of course, the Orphic fragment is a variant. The phrase appears 6 or 7 times in Greek literature, sometimes with arche and sometimes with kephale. That is the whole point of the thing. Kephale is a variant of arche.
Now what do I disallow for being a variant? I can only think of the translation phrase “the heads of staffs” for “heads of tribes.” This is easily shown to be a literal translation of a certain Hebrew phrase. I’ll check what the other variants are but I can hardly discount them if I don’t know them, can I?
The Orphic example was an important text in Orphism, which is an important rival to Christianity. The example was first found in the 6th century but has many other occurrences.
Once again, Mark, if God has left it up to our human judgement whether to allow slavery or not, and we decide against it, why should we not all decide against the submission of women, which holds substantial terror for every women under the authority of a fallible human male.
I don’t discount Judges 10:18 for example. I regard the use of kephale for Jephthah to be a possible counter example because I don’t think Paul would chose a usage that was associated with Jephthah. That is my human opinion, that’s all.
Thank you for your faithful research Sue. There are not many who can do the research who are willing to take the time, as you have.
And Cheryl, thanks for the pic. 🙂
Sue,
Thanks for that information! It sure helps to have someone here who is a good Greek scholar who has studied the evidence outside of the Scriptures.
I just purchased Liddell & Scott Greek-English Lexicon today along with a Jewish encyclopedia and a 4 Vol Jewish Law set to add to all the other resources I have. I think they will be very valuable additions to my work in the Scriptures.
“An editor has no business adding or taking away from the authors words, without the author’s permission, especially in the case of a lexicon. He didn’t do the research.”
TL,
You can be sure the author would not appreciate it, God rest his soul. Maybe Glare felt some remorse and that explains his less than adamant denunciation. It reminds me of a sideways apology.
Cheryl,
Is there some way you could link to or move the two comments Susanna Krizo made on “Do the Genders have different functions?” Lots of relevant information for this post.
Here is Catherine Clark Kroeger on the Orphic fragment,
“In the case under discussion, a line of Orphic poetry has been found in the works of seven later writers, running all the way from the sixth century b.c. to about a.d. 1,000. Here we discover the word kephal? (head) being used interchangeably
with arch? (beginning, source or point of origin). The fragment speaks of Zeus as the beginning, middle, and end of all things. The interchange of two terms recurring in the same quotation
is important because it demonstrates that in the seven writers’
minds they have the same semantic value and may be freely exchanged. It is the more valuable because the usages extend over so long a period of time.
For example, the oldest, an Orphic fragment probably from the sixth century b.c., declares:
Zeus was born first, Zeus last, god of the bright bolt:
Zeus is the head [kephal?], Zeus the middle, from Zeus are all things made.
Sometimes, however, the last line runs, “Zeus the beginning [arch?], Zeus the middle, and Zeus the end.”
Four times Zeus is called head, kephal?,26 and three times arch?, source or beginning.27 Thus, the two terms appear synonymous in this context, as has been noted by various classical scholars.”
Hi everyone,
Curious as to whom to believe – egalitarians or complementarists – I begun a research four years ago. I found that despite all the fancy rhetoric and emotional appeals, modern complementarists uphold a reversed theology compared to the one which begun at the end of the second century when Gen 3.16 became the source of the woman’s subjection. By the fourth century the belief in the sole guilt of Eve and female subjection as a punishment for her sin had become a permanent part of traditional theology. Jerome would immortalize it for the generations to come in the Vulgate by his change of Gen 3.16 from “Your turning shall be to the man” into “Under the man’s authority will you be.” During the Millennium of the Vulgate few knew of the change and the Reformers did not do much better with their choice of “desire” which fueled the witch craze and is still used to argue that women desire to rule over men. Jerome, Augustine and Chrysostom all agreed: the woman was created equal to the man and it was only after sin that the woman was subjected to the man. Due to the heavy emphasis on virginity and celibacy, as a replacement for a martyr’s death, Jerome argued that a virgin and continent wife was equal to the man, while the sexually active married woman was subject and inferior to the man. Already Cyprian (middle third century) had argued the same.
For eleven centuries Gen 2.18-24 was considered to teach equality, but with the rise of Scholasticism and the synthesis of Aristotle’s philosophy and neo-Platonic Augustinianism, the creation account was changed. In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas argued in Summa Theologica that the woman is a misbegotten male who lacks the man’s reason, wherefore she must be ruled by the man. He also considered Gen 3.16, which he considered servile in nature, a fitting punishment for the woman’s sin. Thomas’s twofold subjection, based on Aristotle’s philosophy and Jerome’s mistranslation of Gen 3.16, was absorbed by Scholastic theology and although the reformers rejected Scholasticism, their followers quickly reverted to Scholastic logic (Melanchton changed Luther’s theology and Beza Calvin’s) in an effort to support their reformed theology in the face of Catholic opposition. Thus the twofold subjection was not challenged until Aristotle fell from grace at the end of the nineteenth century with the rise of modern biology, sociology and psychology. The inferior woman disappeared from secular thinking and the church dropped the term although they continued to uphold the dogma which was based on the woman’s assumed inferiority. In 1980’s egalitarians successfully challenged the old dogma of Gen 3.16 being God’s commandment which opened the door for the full rejection of the reversed complementarist theology.
To summarize:
1. The first 150 years: the church taught the full equality of all humans
2. 3rd to 13th century: Gen 3.16 becomes the source of the woman’s subjection
3. 13th- 20th century: Gen 2.18-24 and Gen 3.16 teaches female subjection
4. 1980- : Gen 2.18-24 is the source of the woman’s subjection, Gen 3.16 is a consequence of sin
I found that kephale (head), hypotasso (submit), kurios (lord) and hypoakouo (obey) were all Latinized as a result of the era of the Vulgate when theology was thought and written in Latin. Kephale, for example, was given the meaning “ruler” in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa, but I could not find it earlier in Christological writings. The following writers all gave the word the meaning “beginning.”
Ignatius, disciple of John the Apostle (30-107)
Irenaues (ca 180)
Tertullian (145-200)
Clement of Alexandria (153-217)
Origen (185-254)
Cyprian (200-258)
Novatian (210-280)
Arnobius (297-303)
Athanasius (298-373)
St. Basil (329-379)
Gregory of Nazianzen (329-389)
St Ambrose (340-397)
Rufinus (344-408)
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (359)
Four discourses against the Arians (356-360)
Hilary of Potiers (died 367)
John Chrysostom (347-407)
Aurelius Augustine (354-430)
Socrates Scholasticus (born 379)
Leo the Great (Ca. 390- 461)
The majority of the writers are from the fourth century because most of what we have left from the early church is from the High Patristic era when the church was safe from persecution. The most enlightening aspect of the usage of kephale was Augustine who used the word frequently (I found about 350 pages worth of quotes from his writings). When writing about men and women, he gave the word the meaning “ruler,” but when he wrote about Christ and the Church, he gave the word the meaning “literal head” or “beginning.” When the factor that Augustine synthesized Neo-Platonism with his theology is taken into consideration, it becomes evident that he used Plato’s soul-body dichotomy to explain the relationship between men and women, but he would not compromise his Christology with such a departure from orthodox Christianity. He was also careful to point out that the man’s rule began after sin and did not belong to original creation.
Grudem claims in the Appendix found in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” that the Septuagint proves that kephale meant ruler in the third century BC. I checked every instance in which rosh is translated with kephale and found his claim to be false. The Septuagint uses overwhelmingly words such as archos (“leader”), arche (“beginning,” “ruler”) and hegeoumai (“leader”) when the meaning “ruler” is needed in the text. Kephale is used when the context speaks of a literal head, “a beginning,” “summing up” or the extreme end of an object. His other proof was Hermas, in which kephale tou oikou is found, and although Grudem uses it as an early proof, the term is not found in Greek writings, for the correct Greek term is oikodespoteo. Incidentally Hermas was an Ebionite, a Hebrew Christian, and thus he did not choose the right idiom in his writing, for “head of household” in Hebrew becomes kephale tou oikou when translated literally into Greek. The strongest proof Grudem offers is from Plato, but as I argue in my book, that a fourth-century BC Greek philosopher gave the word the implicit meaning “ruler” does not mean that a first-century theologian would give the word the explicit meaning “ruler.” As already noted, this meaning, when relating to men and women, was popularized by Augustine who used Plato’s arguments in his theology.
I found that most of the arguments used by Grudem & co in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” are based on contradictions, paradoxes and false exegesis because they wish to uphold a theology which is based on Thomas Aquinas’s Scholasticism, while trying to, at the same time, reject the foundation. If anyone is interested, the full research is available in book form, “When Dogmas Die,” published by Creation House, Strang Communications. I am also happy to share more with you here.
Susanna Krizo
Here are two excerpts from my book which deal with the question of the subjection of the Son to the Father and how it relates to the assumed subjection of the woman to the man. (I didn’t feel like re-writing the text again, which is why is so great to have the copyright to an already written text!)
Chapter 8
Kephale is given the meaning “authority over” in 1 Corinthians 11:3 in order to create a hierarchy in which the man rules over the woman. But although complementarism models the woman’s subjection after the Son’s assumed subjection to the Father, in the early church, as the inferiority of the woman was incorporated into theology, the subjection of the woman became the model for the subjection of the Son in the many heresies that challenged the church. Thus we find that in Arian theology, Christ owes thank to humans for He was believed to have been made for them.
“First, the Son appears rather to have been for us brought to be, than we for Him; for we were not created for Him, but He is made for us; so that He owes thanks to us, not we to Him, as the woman to the man. ‘For the man,’ says Scripture, ‘was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.’ Therefore, as ‘the man is the image and glory of God, and the woman the glory of the man,’ so we are made God’s image and to His glory; but the Son is our image, and exists for our glory. And we were brought into being that we might be; but God’s Word was made, as you must hold, not that He might be; but as an instrument for our need, so that not we from Him, but He is constituted from our need.”
The early church theologians of the patristic era refused to make the Son subject to the Father although they subjected the woman to the man. Chrysostom, for example, explicitly refuted the heresy of the Son’s inferiority and subjection, which was modeled after the subjection of the woman.
“But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if “the man be the head of the woman,” and the head be of the same substance with the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” the Son is of the same substance with the Father. “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.” What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? “Why, as the man governs the wife, saith he, “so also the Father, Christ.” Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. “For the head of every man,” we read, “is Christ.” And who could ever admit this?”
Chrysostom argued that it was impossible for kephale to mean “authority over,” for had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection he would have used the example of a slave and a master instead of marriage. Neither did Chrysostom agree with those who found a similarity between 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5, for if we were to understand kephale in the same way in both, “extreme absurdity will result.” Therefore he argued that we should reject “these particulars,” and “accept the notion of a perfect union, and the first principle,” and even here recognize that which is “too high for us and suitable to the Godhead, for both the union is surer and the beginning more honorable.”
Gregory of Nazianzen called the subjection of the Son to the Father “a new theology,” indicating that it was not part of the apostolic tradition.
“For as these low earthly minds make the Son subject to the Father, so again is the rank of the Spirit made inferior to that of the Son, until both God and created life are insulted by the new Theology. No, my friends, there is nothing servile in the Trinity, nothing created, nothing accidental, as I have heard one of the wise say. ”
Yet, Thomas R. Schreiner maintains in his essay Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity that there is subordination within the Trinity, because “the Son has a different function or role from the Father,” and because “the Son willingly submits Himself to the Father’s authority.” This subordination to authority is seen in that the “Father commands and sends; the Son obeys and comes into the world to die for our sins.” Schreiner attempts to prove the subordination of the Son from 1 Corinthians 15:28, but by doing so He contradicts himself, “It is clear that this subjection of the Son to the Father is after his earthly ministry, so how anyone can say that there is no hint of a difference or order or role within the Trinity is difficult to see.” But if the subjection of the Son begins after his earthly ministry, how could the Son have been subject to the Father before his incarnation? Because complementarists give kephale the meaning “authority over” in 1 Corinthians 11:3, they create a triple subjection of the Son, which resembles the twofold of the woman found in the Summa, for if the Son was subject to the Father from the beginning, his subjection became less voluntary after His incarnation and will become even less voluntary after He delivers the kingdom to the Father. But such a concept is not only absurd, it is impossible, for how can the Son be forced into subjection? Tertullian rejected the subjection of the Son due to the impossibility of the proposition.
“Since therefore he [Marcion] is obliged to acknowledge that the God whom he does not deny is the great Supreme, it is inadmissible that he should predicate of the Supreme Being such a diminution as should subject Him to another Supreme Being, for He cases (to be Supreme), if He becomes subject to any. Besides, it is not the characteristic of God to cease from any attribute of His divinity – say, from His supremacy. ”
…
Chapter 9
The twofold subjection of Thomas Aquinas altered the translation and interpretation of 1 Corinthians perhaps more than any other chapter in the Bible; consequently it is considered one of the most difficult chapters to interpret. Thomas R. Schreiner writes in his essay Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity, ”The difficulties with this text could lead one to say that it should not be used to establish any doctrine or teaching on the role relationship of men and women.” Although he is correct in rejecting the proposition that we should not use the chapter, he rejects also the interpretation of the chapter which removes the inherent difficulties.
As the woman’s subjection as a created order was challenged, 1 Corinthians 11 was re-interpreted to reflect the change, or, rather, the return to the theology of the early church. Instead of rule and submission, the text was viewed as teaching the interdependency of men and women based on their equality as a created order. Because 1 Corinthians 11 is one of the cornerstones of complementarian theology, the re-interpretation has not been accepted largely due to the false interpretation of the word kephale found in verse 3.
“Another argument used for the translation “source” in 1 Corinthians 11.3 is that Paul says woman came from man in verse 11:8, and this obviously suggests the idea of source. Surely this understanding of verse 8 is correct, but verse 8 does not explicate the meaning of head in verse 3. Instead, Paul uses this argument from source to prove that woman is the glory of man.”
Schreiner neglects the connection of eikoon (“image”) and kephale (“head”) in verse 7 because he gives kephale the incorrect meaning “authority over.” “A beginning” and “a first principle,” the meanings Chrysostom gave kephale in his homily are synonymous to an archetype of which the other person is an image, “for images are the forms of their archetypes.” According to Origen, “The true God, then, is ‘The God,’ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God.” Gregory of Nyssa explained, “[T]hen all the Cause beyond, which is God over all, is found through Our Lord, Who is the Cause of all things; nor, indeed, is it possible to gain an exact knowledge of the Archetypal Good, except as it appears in the (visible) image of that invisible.” In other words, the archetype is the source of the image, which possesses the characteristics of its source.
According to Gregory of Nazianzen, the same attributes that are found in the archetype must also be found in the image. However, the image is not an identical copy of the archetype, as described by Theorodet (d. 458) in a dialogue between Eranistes and Orthodoxus.
Eran.—The type must have the character of the archetype.
Orth.—Is man called an image of God?
Eran.—Man is not an image of God, but was made in the image of God.
Orth.—Listen then to the Apostle. He says: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”
Eran.—Granted, then, that he is an image of God.
Orth.—According to your argument then he must needs have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and have been uncreate, uncompounded, and infinite. He ought in like manner to have been able to create out of the non existent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labour, in addition to this to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger, and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype.
Eran.—Man is not an image of God in every respect.
Orth.—Though truly an image in the qualities in which you would grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by a wide interval from the reality.
Eran.—Agreed.
Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine Apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says “Who is the image of the invisible God?”
Eran.—What then; has not the Son all the qualities of the Father?
Orth.—He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not unbegotten.
Eran.—If He were He would not be Son.
Orth.—Then does not what I said hold good; the image has not all the qualities of the archetype?
Eran.—True
A copy is called a “shadow” in the New Testament (Heb. 8:5). For example, the Law was a shadow of Christ, whom Paul portrays as the body or true substance (Col. 2:17). A shadow is the opposite of an image (Heb. 10:1) for whereas the copy is temporary and is destroyed when the substance is provided (Heb. 10:9) an image co-exists with the archetype, its source. Thus, as the image of the Father, the Son is similar to the Father in essence and power, but He is not the identical to the Father, for He is not unbegotten. The man is in the image of God in the inner person, but he is enclosed in a body, whereas God is a spirit. The woman is also in the image of God in the inner person for she is a human being, but her body is in the image of the first man, wherefore it is different from his.
Thank you Susanna for posting this information. I have transferred it from the original location where you posted at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/10/16/do-the-genders-have-different-functions.
I hope that you continue to follow this blog as I think you have a lot of value to add here.
Again, welcome to my blog!
Susanna,
Good stuff! I found it fascinating, and I hope, with Cheryl, that you’ll hang around here. Thanks for bringing the discussion up a couple of intellectual notches. 🙂
“Once again, Mark, if God has left it up to our human judgement whether to allow slavery or not, and we decide against it, why should we not all decide against the submission of women, which holds substantial terror”
Sue,
If I may add to that, we are all familiar with the argument Jesus chose 12 male disciples as a reason to withhold some ministry positions in the Church from women. It is also important to note that Jesus did not publicaly condemn slavery during his earthly ministry either. The teachings of Christ and the salvation that He offers changes hearts. That changed slavery.
We also should note that Jesus only picked 12 Jews. Was this showing us that Gentiles are not to be in ministry or in leadership? Who would dare to suggest such a thing? But prejudice allows men freely to “suggest” such a thing regarding women.
To understand the meaning of kephale we must also take a look at hypotasso (submit) because it is given the meaning “under authority” in complementarian theology. First of all, the English word “submit” is derived from the Latin word “subicio” which has the meaning “to place under, to subject” which is a literal translation of hypotasso (hypo: under and tasso: set). However, “hypo” means also “with,” hence hypotasso has also the meaning “to associate with.” In 1 Cor 16.15-16 “tasso” is translated “devoted” wherefore hypotasso can also be translated “devoted to.” Although “subicio” is a literal translation, it does not carry over the finer nuances of the Greek word, hence when the Latin Bible was solely in use, the word begun to be understood in its Latin meaning, instead of its original Greek.
It is common to understand hypotasso as a military term (as someone set under the authority of a superior), but in Luke 7.8 the centurion referred to himself as being “placed under authority” (hypo exousian tassomenos), signifying that he possessed authority. The soldiers were “hypo” (under) him, not hypotasso. If hypotasso has the meaning “under authority” in Luke 7.8 the centurion’s words become meaningless, for he compared himself to Jesus who needed only to say a word to heal his child, i.e. he had the authority to just say a word and things were done. We find the same in Eph 1 where the powers and authorities are said to be “hypo” (under) the feet of Christ, whereas the Church, the body of Christ, is seated with Him in the heavenly places. It is impossible for kephale to mean “authority” or “ruler” in Eph 1.22 for it would leave a decapitated head over which Christ rules and would make Eph 4 meaningless. Note that Eph 1 comes before Eph 4 and the latter context assumes that the reader is already familiar with the concept of Christ being the literal head of the Church, his literal body, in a metaphorical sense. Even Grudem cannot get around this fact for he argues that kephale must mean a literal head in Eph 4 for the metaphor to make sense, although he tries to make kephale in Eph 1 to mean a “ruler.” But as already mentioned it would make the Body of Christ headless. Also note that hypotasso is not present in Eph 1, but it does appear in Eph 5, where hypo is absent, wherefore hypotasso and hypo do not have the same meanings.
Have you ever noticed that complementarists never cite a verse which describes how the Church submits to Christ? This is because the only place in the Bible which mentions the subjection of the Church to God is Jas 4 and there we find the word “antitasso” (resist). It is commonly assumed that the antonym of hypotasso is “epitasso” (command) but these two are never found together. Instead we find hypotasso and antitasso together in three contexts: Rom 12.16-13.7, James 4:1-10 and 1 Pet. 5:4-11. The reason for this is that hypotasso means to cleave to someone with such devotion that one is not moved regardless of circumstances, as a soldier would never leave his fellow soldier alone in the battle. Antitasso describes the opposite: resisting someone like an enemy would. As has so often been pointed out by egalitarians, kephale is not a military term, hence it cannot describe a “general” in a marriage, wherefore hypotasso cannot signify a “private” who must obey the commands of the superior. Instead both are soldiers of Christ and ought to cleave to each other (literally be glued to each other), for the purpose of Ephesians 5 is not to describe a relationship of authority and obedience, but to describe the creation of a one flesh union which cannot be absolved without destroying both the head and the body.
To summarize: Kephale cannot mean “authority over” since its corresponding word hypotasso does not mean “being under authority.”
Kephale is, in fact, a military term and is found in certain annals of warfare. It means a small unit, a raiding party, or the right hand phalanx, a group which can be easily deployed to go ahead. This meaning is also found in the LXX in the first chapter of Job.
This is one reason why it is highly unlikely that it could ever have been used in conversation to refer to a leader or general. The fact that this expression is found in later Greek in a comparison as refering to the leader, is simply because in an explained simile, anything can be compared to anything, as long as the author makes this explicit. It is also likely that Latin had influenced the use of the term with reference to warfare, since warfare was in the hands of the Romans, and caput did mean leader in Latin.
But standing alone, no kephale in native Greek cannot refer to a leader.
Susanna,
I just want to say hi and I do look forward to reading your book, when I get a chance. I may quibble with a few details, but overall I agree that complementarians have constructed a novel theology that has little in common with historic Christianity.
Susanna,
Again, very good thoughts.
As you said, it is interesting to note that the church is not placed “under” the feet of Christ as we are the feet of Christ as we are His body.
The idea that only men ought to be in leadership because the Twelve were all men is found in the fourth century document called “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,” which the creator attempted to pass as a first century work. In the same work the idea that the body should not govern the head appears, which is consistent with the fourth century theology of Augustine. Earlier theologians such as Barnabas (100) and Irenaeus (180) compared the Twelve disciples to the twelve tribes of Israel since the early church believed -rightly or wrongly – that they were the new Israel. The same thought is expressed in Rev 21.14 where these two are grouped together.
In the same era the infamous Epiphanius made Junia a man. Grudem’s attempt to use Epiphanius as a proof that Junia was a man is a prime example of sloppy scholarship. Epiphanius wrote: “the Iounias, of whom [hou] Paul makes mention, became bishop of Apameia of Syria.” Hou is a masculine pronoun and hence Junia ought to be a man. But as Epp so well argues in his book Junia, the First Woman Apostle, Junia was a woman and there really is no getting around it. Since Junia was a woman, Epiphanius and Grudem provide a very compelling argument for the existence of a woman bishop. (We know from Cyprian that apostles were often called bishops) And if even one woman was an apostle, the sex of the Twelve has absolutely nothing to do with modern church leadership since it did not restrict leadership to men.
Consider when the meaning of kephale became a problem. It was after Gen 3.16 was returned to its original position as a description of a consequence of sin. Since complementarists have to use a solely creation based argument for female subjection, 1 Cor 11 and Eph 5 must support the argument or they do not have one to begin with since 1 Cor 14.34-5 has lost its force for what is “the law” if it is not Gen 3.16? (the new argument that it refers to Gen 2 does not work for the creation account is always called “the beginning,” never “the law”) If kephale does not mean authority over, Gen 2 cannot describe the beginning of the man’s authority.
Hi Cheryl,
thanks for the welcome!
Sue, yes, kephale is used in the Septuagint for a military leader (such as in the judges) but it does not refer to a Roman army general, such as an centurion, which would have had to have been Paul’s metaphor since he lived in a world controlled by the Romans, and Ephesus was part of the Roman world. So, yes, I agree with you.
You can argue about any detail I write for I know I am not always right and welcome any correcting comments.
Mark, any comments?
Susanna,
The only time in the LXX that kephale is used as a person as leader is for Jephthah, so I do think you are quite accurate that it does NOT mean leader. IMO this use for Jephthah reflects a fall back on a word for word translation from the Hebrew.
The times that kephale is used both in the LXX and in Greek literature for a small fighting unit is, in my opinion, proof that kephale never had the meaning in Greek of leader or general.
So, I am trying to reinforce what you are saying. I am sorry if I did not make this clear. I feel that the military use for a small mobile unit is PROOF that it cannot also mean leader.
Imagine the confusion if someone said in Greek “This is a task for the kephale,” and no one knew if that meant the general of the advance troops. It would be untenable.
So, once again, this is a detail to support your point of view. I feel that complementarians are grasping in their desire to be an authority over women.
However, oddly, this does not mean that many of them are not very nice folk and not above cleaning up and helping around the house. 🙂
Oops,
Should have been –
“Imagine the confusion if someone said in Greek “This is a task for the kephale,” and no one knew if that meant the general OR the advance troops. It would be untenable.”
No army could tolerate this kind of ambiguity, nor could they necessarily fall back on context as Mark and others so often assert.
Hi Sue,
I agree with you, but I found something else that was interesting.
I did a detailed study on rosh/kephale in the Septuagint and I found the following:
(the following is an excerpt from chapter 4)
If kephale truly had the universally accepted meaning “leader” or “authority over” in the second century B.C., we should find it regularly in the Septuagint.
The Hebrew word for ‘head’ is ro’sh and it is often translated with words such as “chief,” “prince” and “captain,” in addition to “head,” “beginning” and “to sum up.” Kephale is used to translate ro’sh when the context gives it the most common meaning, a literal head of a literal body. But when ro’sh has other meanings, such as “leader” and “chief,” the Septuagint overwhelmingly favors words such as archos (“leader”), arche (“beginning,” “ruler”) and hegeoumai (“leader”). We see this in archontes oikon patrioon (“head of their father’s house,” Josh. 22.14), archontos ethous (“head of the people,” Num. 25:15) and hegoumenoi toon thuloon (“heads of your tribes,” Deut. 5:23).
The Book of Numbers offers a crucial insight into the usage of archos, arche and kephale in the Septuagint: Archos is used to translate ro’sh when the text speaks of leaders, captains and chiefs (Num. 1.4; 1.16; 10.4; 13.3; 14.4; 25.15; 30.2; 32.28; 36.1). Kephale and arche are used when the text speaks of summing up (Num. 1:2; 4:2; 5:7; 31:26). Kephale and arche are found together also in Isa. 9:14-15: “Therefore the LORD will cut off head (kephale) and tail from Israel, Palm branch and bulrush in one day. The elder and honorable, he is the head (arche); the prophet who teaches lies, he is the tail.” Kephale is used to preserve the literal meaning of the text, but instead of denoting a leader it has the meaning “first” in the sense of a beginning – contrasted to a tail, which is the end – which is also the literal meaning of arche. That kephale describes the extreme of an object is seen in 2 Chronicles 5:9, Kephalai toon anathoreoon (“end of the poles”), yet another literal meaning of arche.
In Deuteronomy 28:13-14, being the “head” (ro’sh, kephale) refers to the blessings of prosperity and safety from war which follows obedience to God’s commandments, and to being the “head” over the enemy, who is the “tail.” The blessing is contrasted to the curses which follow disobedience. In Lamentations 1:5, Israel is described as being afflicted by the enemy which is her ro’sh (Septuagint, kephale). In Judges, kephale has a similar military connotation.
And the people and princes of Gilead said one to another, What man is he that will begin to fight against the children of Ammon? he shall be head [kephale] over all the inhabitants of Gilead. …And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, Therefore we turn again to thee now, that thou mayest go with us, and fight against the children of Ammon, and be our head [kephale] over all the inhabitants of Gilead. And Jephthah said unto the elders of Gilead, If ye bring me home again to fight against the children of Ammon, and the LORD deliver them before me, shall I be your head [kephale]? And the elders of Gilead said unto Jephthah, The LORD be witness between us, if we do not so according to thy words. Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head [kephale] and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the LORD in Mizpeh. (Judg 10:18; 11:8-11 KJV)
The most important verse in determining the meaning of kephale in the Septuagint is 1 Chronicles 29.11: “Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all” (NIV). The Septuagint translates the text Basileus kai ethos (“king over nations”).
Kephale is never used of a husband, a head of a household, or God in the Septuagint. Instead it refers to a beginning, summing up and a military leader who is portrayed as a “head.” The head leads the group, followed by the tail, but the head can be changed at any time, which is not true of the literal head of a literal body, which is Paul’s metaphor in the New Testament.
(Here ends the excerpt)
The reason why comps claim kephale means “a leader” in the Septuagint is that it is used to refer to the judges who are said to be the head (rosh/kephale) over the whole city. But what they ignore is that the OT metaphor is that of head/tail, not head/body. Kephale paired with “tail” does not have the same meaning as kephale paired with “body,” and hence comps. must use Plato’s soul-body dichotomy to give kephale the meaning “ruler over a body,” as did Augustine. This is however not the biblical principle found in the NT.
And as far as the concept that we can rely on dictionaries is concerned I find it utterly preposterous. First of all the compilers of the dictionaries are as biased as everyone else and their choices reflect their own prejudices as well as the era they were created. Strong’s for instance is riddled with errors and is a good case study. Even in the otherwise excellent Perseus Online Dictionary hypotasso is given the meaning “obedience” when it cites Colossians 3, which is not the correct meaning. A good example of giving a word a wrong meaning is ekklesias which can refer either to an general assembly, a church, or the Athenian governing assembly which included only males over 21. Someone has suggested that Paul deliberately chose ekklesias to describe the church because it excluded women from the governing body. But such a notion is utterly ridiculous considering that the biblical ekklesias includes all Christians, not only males over 21. Tertullian did in fact make the church into a political body in imitation of the Roman senate, and he effectively excluded women from the laity. But although he managed to make the former ministries into legal offices, and thus exclude both women and slaves from leadership, women had to be incorporated back into the church somehow. It became the task of the synods to try to justify the exclusion of women from leadership while affirming their full participation in the church. An impossible task as is seen that they didn’t quite succeed.
Susanna,
I totally agree with you. What I want to do now is provide the circuitous Hebrew – Greek – English sequence for 1 Chronicles 29:11.
?????? ????????????, ???????????????? ????? ???????
Lord, the kingdom is yours
you are exalted above all.
??? ???????? ??? ?????????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????
Every king and nation quakes from before your face.
The fact is that the LXX is sometimes an overliteral translation, and sometimes not a translation at all but digresses from the Hebrew. Of course, if kephale meant leader then this passage would have used kephale in the Greek but it didn’t. You are quite right, but I am just trying to add the details.
You also correctly write,
“Kephale is never used of a husband, a head of a household, or God in the Septuagint.”
To my knowledge kephale is never used of a leader of his own people, tribe, family, house, etc. in the LXX or other Greek literature with one exception, Hermas.
This makes it truly disturbing that Grudem writes,
“In these texts the word kephal¯e is applied to many people in authority, but to none without governing authority:
* the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation
* the general of an army is called the “head” of the army
* the Roman emperor is called the “head” of the people
* the god Zeus is called the “head” of all things
* David as king of Israel is called the “head” of the people
* the leaders of the tribes of Israel are called “heads” of the tribes
* the husband is the “head” of the wife
* Christ is the “head” of the church
* God the Father is the “head” of Christ”
Examples 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 have been restructured from the original which go like this,
King of Egypt is called the head of of kings because he is the most illustrious in his family (he is not the founder of the family line, his father is.)
The general of the army is said to be LIKE the head of a body.
The Roman Empero rcould be the head of a vigourous body.
David was “head” to the Gentiles not his own people.
The leaders of the tribes are called the heads of poles or staffs which is a metaphor for a tribe.
My question is why did Grudem restructure all these citations to give the impression that kephale meant head of a family, tribe and nation.
Woops. I didn’t know that your blog is not set up for unicode. It needs to include somewhere in the settings that it allows UTF 8.
Anyway, the Greek says
“Basileus kai ethnos” which means “king and nation.”
The main point is that complementarians have to dig pretty deep and then rearrange everything in order to prove their point. I think egaliatarians just have to suggest that people use their common sense.
Common sense tells me that if men say that men are to have final say, I smell a fish.
To your last question, the answer is very simple: because he needs kephale to mean “authority” or “ruler” and he has no proof of it outside of Greek philosophy and Greek literature. If kephale does not mean “ruler” in the Bible, his entire argument for a creation based subjection of women is found to be false. This is not the only instance in which Grudem changes facts to accommodate his complementarian view. His interpretation of ezer (help) is another good example.
Cheryl,
Your source code says utf-8 so perhaps it is only the comments that can’t contain Greek or Hebrew. I don’t know.
Susanna,
Yes, he plays fast and loose all the time. There are two possible reasons why he gains so much approval. His team shouts louder, and simply brainwashes the crowds into believing this view OR men (and perhaps some women) WANT to believe that this view is true.
Perhaps though it is simply the wait of tradition. After all slavery lasted in Christian countries until not that long ago.
It used to seem so easy. I thought I could just make the facts public and people would see how the kephale, authentein and Junia studies had been rigged. But evidently not.
No, it isn’t easy because people have been listening to the debate for two decades now and most of the books and sermons have said the same thing: equality is unbiblical. I hope that my research will change some of it, make people willing to listen and consider the facts instead of the scare tactics. It really doesn’t matter how many times it is shown that Junia was an apostle, Phoebe a deacon and Deborah a judge; unless we destroy the dogma of a creation based female subjection, there is always going to be a new explanation why women cannot be in leadership despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Sue,
I have looked to fix the problem concerning why my blog won’t accept the Greek lettering, but so far we haven’t been able to find a fix. It is frustrating but not sure what to do at this point.
I enjoyed Submission Tyranny, in church and society’s parable of recent.
The parable of the Divinity’s: http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009/11/parable-of-divinitys.html and then her followup with the explanation of the parable: http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009/11/parable-of-divinitys-explained.html
Like in the parable, God does provide a way to escape. By insisting that wives live with rules that are contrary to God’s word, (elevating husbands to a place of authority and superiority which belongs to God alone), husbands force wives to live in idolatry. If a wife chooses to do a sinful act that her husband is demanding of her, that is obviously sin. But church leaders fail to recognize that wives who are forced to live as inferior to their husbands are also disobeying God. That disobedience is both idolatry (putting husbands and church leaders above God) and sin.
Thanks Hannah, that was a very good read and thought-provoking.
Susanna & Sue,
I hope that you will continue to publish the information you’ve found at every opportunity.
I have to hand it to the complementarians – they have done a masterful job of spreading only the information they say lines up with their position.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not read or heard a comp say that a woman preaching or teaching men is a sin. It amazes me that their followers don’t seem to notice that for all their supposed “slam dunk” posturing and “slippery slope” warnings, the act of women teaching or preaching to men is not straight out called ‘a sin.’
Cheryl and I have both asked Mark if he believes that it is a sin for women to teach or preach to men and he has not yet given us an answer even after 3 inquiries.
Thanks Kay,
I have been discussing on a Christian message board with a (male) complementarist and here is how his reasoning goes: he does not care what the early church said on the subject and he also rejects the modern interpretation of Gen 3.16 for he gets his information by reading “only the Bible.” In other words, he proved my hypothesis that without Gen 3.16 as God’s commandment complementarists do not have a case. He quotes the usual texts (1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2) as if no more explanation is needed. This is the only method he has since he rejects everything else (even Grudem’s theology!).
Sue does it right. She picks everything apart and questions everything. This is the only safe method to do theology.
Susanna,
I’ve had many people tell me that God just couldn’t have made the Bible so difficult to understand that we can’t simply trust what is says “right there in plain english.” They usually mean KJV english – as though IT has the ‘plain’ english we speak every day. >Huunh??<
Susanna, men like the one you describe probably really don’t know much about how to read the Bible in context. So many today think one can pull a sentence here and a piece of a sentence there, and piece them together to form their ideas. It’s actually a mystical and cultic approach, rather than true diligent Bible study.
But once some men get the concept in their thinking that as men they naturally hold authority, then they feel no need to have to listen to others, especially women.
TL,
You make a good point. Along with that, at least here in the U.S., we are also suffering from what I’d term ‘formula drivin’ church. Our Christian bookstores are full of ‘how to’ books for having the best Christian life possible – which really holds great appeal to those conditioned to strive for The American Dream. I see the comp’s ‘Role’ books, seminars and websites as fitting right in – as in, if all you men and women just line up in your proper god-given ‘role’ then God will bless you, because all the problems in your marriage and home are due to not being in your proper ‘role.’ Simply, get out your Bible promises book and pick and choose some. What ever happened to fasting and prayer and meditating on the Word? 🙁 sorry if that’s drifting from topic, but I think there is a connection.
Suzanna #106 – This is exactly the conclusion I have arrived at. I am preparing a series of blog posts tentatively titled “The Biblical Show Stoppers in the Gender/Authority Debate”. After going round and round AND ROUND on these issues, I have observed that it is the interpretation of a few biblical passages that drive everything.
Does Genesis 1 and 2 support equality or hierarchy in the original marriage design?
Is male “rule” in Genesis 3 a negative consequence or a positive remedy?
Are Paul’s head/body texts a metaphor or do they simply describe normal “living being” arrangements?
Is the second half of 1 Timothy 2 about women or a particular woman?
If you can’t get a complimentarian to change their understanding of these biblical passages, there is little sense in talking to them about anything else (especially kephale. That is why I am done talking to Mark here. His dogma about Genesis is thoroughly ingrained and it influences, even dictates, how he sees every other passage being discussed. Until he can shed the idea that male authority is present in Genesis, he will never be able to see gender equality anywhere else in scripture.
BTW Suzanna – I just bought your book. Can’t wait to dig into it.
“His dogma about Genesis is thoroughly ingrained and it influences, even dictates, how he sees every other passage being discussed. Until he can shed the idea that male authority is present in Genesis, he will never be able to see gender equality anywhere else in scripture.”
gengwall,
So true. That’s why on the previous thread I pointed out to him that comps never quote what Jesus had to say about authority (“All authority (exousia) has been given to Me”) and the meaning of exousia there is uncontested. But, Mark is still back there in Genesis with no clear statements telling us we are the ones with “blinkers” on.
Looking forward to your Show Stopper posts.
TL, you are absolutely right. Most modern evangelicals think that they have come to their conclusions on their own and therefore any questioning of their beliefs is perceived as a personal attack. Arrogance is never pretty, but when it takes the shape of ecclesiastical pettiness, it is downright harmful.
Kay, you are also absolutely right. Curiously, or I should say, inevitably, since the roles as too narrow, Piper and Grudem concede that “headship does not describe the exact activity” of the husband and wife – that is, as long as the husband has the authority and final say in all things. No wonder Christians feel disoriented and confused and everyone is doing their own theology, as I have witnessed the past few days in debating with a few comps.
Gengwall, bless your heart! I would love to give a free copy to everyone but I have to eat too… and I gave away books, no one would buy one and then I would never get to publish another since my first one was considered a failure.
Wonder what has happened to Mark? He has not yet commented on my posts, even though I have asked him to do so.
Hey, Mark! “When Dogmas Die” is already available in Australia via an online store. 🙂
(Sorry, the text should say: …and if I gave away books…)
“no one would buy one and then I would never get to publish another since my first one was considered a failure.”
LOL:)
Hopefully, Mark is just busy for a few days and/or prayerfully considering what has been put forth for him to consider here.
I also hope the fact that he has not been willing to state that women teaching/preaching to men in ‘formal’ church is a sin indicates that he is pondering: if not, why not.
This is one of my favorite contradictions that I found in “Recovering BIblical manhood and womanhood.” I sent it to CBMW but of course did not receive a reply (what a surprise…)
(Excerpt from Chapter 3)
Ortlund recognizes that his theology has an error – the clear contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 – and he tries to correct it by resorting to a paradox, but it is a perilous path, as philosopher Manuel Velasquez points out, “Once a single contradiction is allowed, it is easy to prove with rigorous logic that any statement whatsoever is true. That is anything can be proven once you accept a contradiction.” Accordingly, Ortlund and Grudem give two entirely different and contradictory meanings to ‘ezer (“help”) which are both considered true.
Ortlund
It is the word “helper” that suggests the woman’s supportive role. Spencer argues, however, that this description of Eve “does not at all imply inherent subordination.” She adduces the fact that God Himself is portrayed in Scripture as our “Helper,” which He is. She then interprets this fact: “If being ‘one who helps’ inherently implies subordination, then, in that case, God would be subordinate to human!” This reasoning is not really Fallacious. The Fallacy lies in the implication of what she says, namely, that God cannot be subordinate to human beings. He does so whenever He undertakes to help us. He does not “un-God” Himself in helping us; but stoops down to our needs, according to His gracious and sovereign will. Similarly, I subordinate myself to my children when I help them with their homework. … So it is with God. When He helps His people, He retains His glorious deity but (amazingly!) steps into the servant role, under us, to lift us up. He is the God who emptied Himself and came down to our level – below us, to the level of slavery – to help us supremely at the Cross. Therefore, the fact that the Old Testament portrays God as our Helper proves only that the helper role is a glorious one, worthy even the Almighty. This Biblical fact does not prove that the concept of helper excludes subordination. Subordination is entailed in the very nature of a helping role.”
Grudem
It is true that God is often called our “helper,” but the word itself does not imply anything about rank or authority. The context must decide whether Eve is to “help” as a strong person who aids a weaker one, or as one who assists a loving leader. The context makes it very unlikely that helper should be read on the analogy of God’s help, because in Genesis 2:19-20 Adam is caused to seek his “helper” first among the animals. … Yet in passing through “helpful” animals to woman, God teaches us that the woman is a man’s “helper” in the sense of a loyal and suitable assistant in the life of the garden. The question seems to assume that because the word (like helper) has certain connotations (“Godlikeness”) in some places it must have them in every place.
What becomes clear from the above quotes is that the analogy of God and woman can be used if it proves that the woman is subordinate, but not if it makes the woman superior to the man. Not surprisingly, Ortlund and Grudem never propose that the word ‘ezer means that the woman is an equal, for it would destroy their concept of male headship. Instead they focus on refuting a scenario in which the woman is the stronger and the man the weaker, which they perhaps expected to create an instant negative response as seen in Ortlund’s response to Spencer’s comment on Genesis 2. Ortlund expresses indignation that she would even suggest that the “helper” could be superior to Adam. But however indignant Ortlund is, his own argument makes the woman superior, since he compares her to God who stoops down to help us and to a parent who comes down to the child’s level. If God subordinates Himself, He must be under human authority, for subordination signifies occupying a lower position in a hierarchy. Tertullian refuted such a belief in already the third century when he wrote, “[Y]our divinity is put in subjection to Christians; and you can surely never ascribe deity to that which is under the authority of man.” Thus God does in fact “un-God” Himself if He subordinates Himself to human beings.
(Here ends the excerpt)
Ortlund and Grudem also focus too much on the English conotation of “helper”. In the God=ezer passages, God is either portrayed as a fellow warrior, worker, etc., i.e. a peer, or even more significantly, a heroic savior, i.e. a superior practitioner of whatever action he is helping us in. God does not subordinate himself at all in the ezer passages.
Eve is no different. Part of her ezer role is as fellow manager of the garden and the earth. The other part of her ezer role is as savior for Adam’s “not good” state.
“I subordinate myself to my children when I help them with their homework”
This may be the most absurd statement ever in a long line of absurd statements from these people. I certainly do not subordinate myself to my child when helping with homework. Does my child have authority over me in that setting? Certainly not. Nor do they view me as their servant. They view me, and I am, mentor, friend, savior. There is nothing inferior, lowly, or subordinate about my contribution to their homework effort.
But I suppose if they want to go their, then that makes Eve parent to Adam. Certainly then, when she is not his ezer, she is his mommy and has all due authority over him!
Victory!
I finally got a comp to agree that kephale means “beginning” as a source of another. As a defense he wrote that it doesn’t matter what kephale means since 1 Tim 2 supersedes everything else. Of course it is a child’s play to refute such theology, and I hope it won’t take him too long to see the point. Every comp that “sees the light” is a victory for the truth.
For your benefit, here’s the list I compiled of kephale in early church writings. Use freely.
Ignatius, Apostolic Father (30-107) “Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death- bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible. By it [Through the Cross], He calls you through His passion, as being His members. The head, therefore, cannot be born by itself, without its members; God, who is [the Saviour] Himself, having promised their union. (Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter XI)
Irenaues (ca 180) “As the Head rose from the dead, so also the remaining part of the body – of everyman who is found in life… Remember, therefore, my beloved friend, that thou hast been redeemed by the flesh of our Lord, re-established by His blood; and “holding the Head, from which the whole body of the Church, having been fitted together, takes increase”—that is, acknowledging the advent in the flesh of the Son of God, and [His] divinity (deum), and looking forward with constancy to His human nature (hominem)” (Against Heresies, Book III, XIX; Book V, XIV.4)
Tertullian (145-200) When, therefore, he speaks of their “following the commandments and doctrines of men,” he refers to the conduct of those persons who “held not the Head,” even Him in whom all things are gathered together; for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him as their initiating principle —even the meats and drinks which were indifferent in their nature. (Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, Ch XIX)
Clement of Alexandria (153-217) And it is the name of God that is expressed; since, as the Son sees the goodness of the Father, God the Saviour works, being called the first principle of all things, which was imaged forth from the invisible God first, and before the ages, and which fashioned all things which came into being after itself. Nay more, the oracle exhibits the prophecy which by the Word cries and preaches, and the judgment that is to come; since it is the same Word which prophesies, and judges, and discriminates all things. …. This discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle. For since the first principle of everything is difficult to find out, the absolutely first and oldest principle, which is the cause of all other things being and having been, is difficult to exhibit. For bow can that be expressed which is neither genus, nor difference, nor species, nor individual, nor number; nay more, is neither an event, nor that to which an event happens? No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form and name. And if we name it, we do not do so properly, terming it either the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator or Lord. (Stromata, Book V, Ch VI, XII)
Origen (185-254) “Who is the head of all things, alone having as head God the Father, for it is written, “The head of Christ is God,” seeing clearly also that it is written, no one knows the Father, save the Son, nor does anyone know the Son, save the Father” (for who can know what wisdom is, save He who called it into being) who can investigate with certainty the universal nature of His Word, and of God Himself, which nature proceeds from God, except God alone, with whom the Word was.” (Origen de Principiis, Book II, ch IV.3, VI.1)
Cyprian (200-258) So that, while they feign things like the truth, they make void the truth by their subtlety. This happens, beloved brethren, so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master … As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from he womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated. (Treatise I, On the Unity of the Church, 3, 4)
.
Novatian (210-280) But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten, whether as being the Word, whether as being the Power, or as being the Wisdom, or as being the Light, or as being the Son; and whatever of these He is, in that He is not from any other source, as we have already said before, than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods, since He gathered His beginning by being born of Him who is one God. In which kind, being both as well only-begotten as first-begotten of Him who has no beginning, He is the only one, of all things both Source and Head. And therefore He declared that God is one, in that He proved Him to be from no source nor beginning, but rather the beginning and source of all things (A treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity, Ch XXXI)
Arnobius (297-303) But let this monstrous and impious fancy be put far from us, that Almighty God, the creator and framer, the author of things great and invisible, should be believed to have begotten souls so fickle, with no seriousness, firmness, and steadiness, prone to vice, inclining to all kinds of sins …then that, forgetting that they have one origin, one father and head, they should shake to their foundations and violate the rights of kinship. (Arnobius, Adversus Gentes, Book II, 45)
Athanasius (298-373) For neither is safe to say that the Son is from nothing, (since this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired Scripture,) nor again of any other subsistence before existing beside the Father, but from God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated. For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate and Unbegun, the Father of Christ, is One.
Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position, ‘There was once when He was not,’ from unscriptural sources, imagine any interval of time before Him, but only the God who has generated Him apart from time; for through Him both times and ages came to be. Yet we must not consider the Son to be co-unbegun and co-ingenerate with the Father; for no one can be properly called Father or Son of one who is co-unbegun and co-ingenerate with Him. But we acknowledge that the Father who alone is Unbegun and Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably and incomprehensibly to all: and that the Son hath been generated before ages, and in no wise to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but to have the Father who generated Him as His beginning; for ‘the Head of Christ is God.’ (1 Cor. xi. 3.) (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part II, History of Arian opinions, Council of Sirmium)
Basil, Doctor of the Church (329-379) “If, say they, the Saviour is a vine, and we are branches … He called US branches not of His Godhead, but of His flesh, as the Apostle says, we are ’the body of Christ, and members in particular, and again, know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ ?’ If the head of the ’man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God, and man is not of one substance with Christ, Who is God (for man is not God), but Christ is of one substance with God (for He is God) therefore God is not the head of Christ in the same sense as Christ is the head of man. The natures of the creature and the creative Godhead do not exactly coincide. God is head of Christ as Father; Christ is head of us, as Maker. (Prolegomena Sketch of the Life and Works of Saint Basil, II. Works On John XV. I. “I Am the Vine.”)
Gregory of Nazianzen , Doctor of the Church (329-389) “God begetteth not a false god, as we have said, nor did He deliberate and afterwards beget; but He begat eternally, and much more swiftly than our words or thoughts: for we speaking in time, consume time; but in the case of the Divine Power, the generation is timeless. And as I have often said, He did not bring forth the Son from non existence into being, nor take the non-existent into sonship: but the Father, being Eternal, eternally and ineffably begat One Only Son, who has no brother. Nor are there two first principles; but the Father is the head of the Son; the beginning is One. For the Father begot the Son VERY GOD, called Emmanuel; and Emmanuel being interpreted is, God with us (Lecture XI.14)
Ambrose, Doctor of the church (340-397) “It is written, say they, that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” Let them, if they please, tell me what they mean by this objection—whether to join together, or to dissociate, these four terms. Suppose they mean to join them, and say that God is the Head of Christ in the same sense and manner as man is the head of woman. Mark what a conclusion they Fall into. For if this comparison proceeds on the supposed equality of the terms of it, and these four—woman, man, Christ, and God—are viewed together as in virtue of a likeness resulting from their being of one and the same nature, then woman and God will begin to come under one definition. But if this conclusion be not satisfactory, by reason of its impiety, let them divide, on what principle they will. Thus, if they will have it that Christ stands to God the Father in the same relation as woman to man, then surely they pronounce Christ and God to be of one substance, inasmuch as woman and man are of one nature in respect of the flesh, for their difference is in respect of sex. But, seeing that there is no difference of sex between Christ and His Father, they will acknowledge then that which is one, and common to the Son and the Father, in respect of nature, whereas they will deny the difference lying in sex. Does this conclusion content them? Or will they have woman, man, and Christ to be of one substance, and distinguish the Father from them? Will this, then, serve their turn? Suppose that it will, then observe what they are brought to. They must either confess themselves not merely Arians, but very Photinians, because they acknowledge only the Manhood of Christ, Whom they judge fit only to be placed on the same scale with human beings. Or else they must, however contrary to their leanings, subscribe to our belief, by which we dutifully and in godly fashion maintain that which they have come at by an impious course of thought, that Christ is indeed, after His divine generation, the power of God, whilst after His putting on of the flesh, He is of one substance with all men in regard of His flesh, excepting indeed the proper glory of His Incarnation, because He took upon Himself the reality, not a phantom likeness, of flesh. Let God, then, be the Head of Christ, with regard to the conditions of Manhood. Observe that the Scripture says not that the Father is the Head of Christ; but that God is the Head of Christ, because the Godhead, as the creating power, is the Head of the being created. And well said [the Apostle] “the Head of Christ is God;” to bring before our thoughts both the Godhead of Christ and His flesh, implying, that is to say, the Incarnation in the mention of the name of Christ, and, in that of the name of God, oneness of Godhead and grandeur of sovereignty. But the saying, that in respect of the Incarnation God is the Head of Christ, leads on to the principle that Christ, as Incarnate, is the Head of man, as the Apostle has clearly expressed in another passage, where he says: “Since man is the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the Church;” whilst in the words following he has added: “Who gave Himself for her.” After His Incarnation, then, is Christ the head of man, for His self- surrender issued from His Incarnation. The Head of Christ, then, is God, in so far as His form of a servant, that is, of man, not of God, is considered, But it is nothing against the Son of God, if, in accordance with the reality of His flesh, He is like unto men, whilst in regard of His Godhead He is one with the Father, for by this account of Him we do not take aught from His sovereignty, but attribute compassion to Him. But who can with a good conscience deny the one Godhead of the Father and the Son, when our Lord, to complete His teaching for His disciples, said: “That they may be one, even as we also are one.” The record stands for witness to the Faith, though Arians turn it aside to suit their heresy; for, inasmuch as they cannot deny the Unity so often spoken of, they endeavour to diminish it, in order that the Unity of Godhead subsisting between the Father and the Son may seem to be such as is unity of devotion and faith amongst men, though even amongst men themselves community of nature makes unity thereof. (Exposition of the Christian Faith, Book IV, Chapter III, 28- 34)
Rufinus (344-408) “For He is born One of One, because there is one brightness of light, and there is one word of the understanding. Neither does an incorporeal generation degenerate into the plural number, or suffer division, where He Who is born is in no wise separated from Him Who begets. He is “only” (unique), as thought is to the mind, as wisdom is to the wise, as a word is to the understanding, as valour is to the brave. For as the Father is said by the Apostle to be “alone wise,” so likewise the Son alone is called wisdom. He is then the “only Son.” And, although in glory, everlastingness, virtue, dominion, power, He is what the Father is, yet all these He hath not unoriginately as the Father, but from the Father, as the Son, without beginning and equal; and although He is the Head of all things, yet the Father is the Head of Him. For so it is written, “The Head of Christ is God.” (Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 6)
Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia (359) The Creed according to the Council of the East. “If any man says that the Son is incapable of birth and without beginning, saying as though there were two incapable of birth and unborn and without beginning, and makes two Gods: let him be anathema. For the Head, which is the beginning of all things, is the Son; but the Head or beginning of Christ is God: for so to One who is without beginning and is the beginning of all things, we refer the whole world through Christ. To declare the Son to be incapable of birth is the height of impiety. God would no longer be One: for the nature of the one Unborn God demands that we should confess that God is one. Since therefore God is one, there cannot be two incapable of birth: because God is one (although both the Father is God and the Son of God is God) for the very reason that incapability of birth is the only quality that can belong to one Person only. The Son is God for the very reason that He derives His birth from that essence which cannot be born. Therefore our holy faith rejects the idea that the Son is incapable of birth in order to predicate one God incapable of birth and consequently one God, and in order to embrace the Only-begotten nature, begotten from the unborn essence, in the one name of the Unborn God. For the Head of all things is the Son: but the Head of the Son is God. And to one God through this stepping-stone and by this confession all things are referred, since the whole world takes its beginning from Him to whom God Himself is the beginning” (Council convened at 359, On the councils, or the faith of the Easterns, XXVI, 59-60)
Hilary of Potiers, Doctor of the Church (died 367) “But concerning the dispensation by which He assumed our body, he adds, and He is the head of the body, the Church: Who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead: that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell, and that through Him all things should be reconciled to Him. The Apostle has assigned to the spiritual mysteries their material effects. For He Who is the image of the invisible God is Himself the head of His body, the Church, and He Who is the first-born of every creature is at the same time the beginning, the first born from the dead: that in all things He might have the pre-eminence, being for us the Body, while He is also the image of God, since He, Who is the first-born of created things, is at the same time the first-born for eternity; so that as to Him things spiritual, being created in the First-born, owe it that they abide, even so all things human also owe it to Him that in the First-born from the dead they are born again into eternity. For He is Himself the beginning, Who as Son is therefore the image, and because the image, is of God. Further He is the first-born of every created thing, possessing in Himself the origin of the universe: and again He is the head of His body, the Church, and the first-born from the dead, so that in all things He has the pre-eminence. And because all things consist for Him, in Him the fullness of the Godhead is pleased to dwell, for in Him all things are reconciled through Him to Him, through Whom all things were created in Himself. (On the Trinity, Book VIII, 50)
Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church (347-407) “But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if “the man be the head of the woman,” and the head be of the same substance with the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” the Son is of the same substance with the Father. “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.” What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? “Why, as the man governs the wife, saith he, “so also the Father, Christ.” Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. “For the head of every man,” we read, “is Christ.” And who could ever admit this? For if the superiority of the Son compared with us, be the measure of the Fathers’ compared with the Son, consider to what meanness thou wilt bring Him. So that we must not try all things by like measure in respect of ourselves and of God, though the language used concerning them be similar; but we must assign to God a certain appropriate excellency, and so great as belongs to God. For should they not grant this, many absurdities will follow. As thus; “the head of Christ is God:” and, “Christ is the head of the man, and he of the woman.” Therefore if we choose to take the term, “head,” in the like sense in all the clauses, the Son will be as far removed from the Father as we are from Him. Nay, and the woman will be as far removed from us as we are from the Word of God. And what the Son is to the Father, this both we are to the Son and the woman again to the man. And who will endure this? But dost thou understand the term “head” differently in the case of the man and the woman, from what thou dost in the case of Christ? Therefore in the case of the Father and the Son, must we understand it differently also. “How understand it differently?” saith the objector. According to the occasion . For had Paul meant to speak of rule and subjection, as thou sayest, he would not have brought forwardthe instance of a wife, but rather of a slave and a master. For what if the wife be under subjection to us? it is as a wife, as free, as equal in honor. And the Son also, though He did become obedient to the Father, it was as the Son of God, it was as God. For as the obedience of the Son to the Father is greater than we find in men towards the authors of their being, so also His liberty is greater. Since it will not of course be said that the circumstances of the Son’s relation to the Father are greater and more intimate than among men, and of the Father’s to the Son, less. For if we admire the Son that He was obedient so as to come even unto death, and the death of the cross, and reckon this the great wonder concerning Him; we ought to admire the Father also, that He begat such a son, not as a slave under command, but as free, yielding obedience and giving counsel. For the counsellor is no slave. But again, when thou hearest of a counsellor, do not understand it as though the Father were in need, but that the Son hath the same honor with Him that begat Him. Do not therefore strain the example of the man and the woman to all particulars. (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXIV)
Augustine, Doctor of the Church (354-430)
1. Mutually Connected Objects: “And with respect to the circumstance that, in that enumeration of mutually connected objects which is given when it is said, “All things are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s,” as also, “The head of the woman is the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God,” there is no mention of the Holy Spirit; this they affirm to be but an application of the principle that, in general, the connection itself is not wont to be enumerated among the things which are connected with each other. Whence, also, those who read with closer attention appear to recognize the express Trinity likewise in that passage in which it is said, “For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” “Of Him,” as if it meant, of that One who owes it to no one that He is: “through Him,” as if the idea were, through a Mediator; “in Him,” as if it were, in that One who holds together, that is, unites by connecting. (A Treatise on faith and the creed, 19)
2. Unity: “For one man He hath taken to Him, because unity He hath taken to Him. … But they that abide in the bond of Christ and are the members of Him, make in a manner one man, of whom saith the Apostle, “Until we all arrive at the acknowledging of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” Therefore one man is taken to Him, to which the Head is Christ; because “the Head of the man is Christ.” (Commentary on Psalm LXV)
“Nor is it strange that though distant we are near, though unknown we are well known to each other; for we are members of one body, having one Head, enjoying the effusion of the same grace, living by the same bread, walking in the same way, and dwelling in the same home. In short, in all that makes up our being,—in the whole faith and hope by which we stand in the present life, or labour for that which is to come,—we are both in the spirit and in the body of Christ so united, that if we fell from this union we would cease to be. (Letters of Saint Augustine Letter XXX, 2)
3. Startingpoint: If, then, the baptizer is not his origin and root and head, who is it from whom he receives faith? Where is the origin from which he springs? Where is the root of which he is a shoot? Where the head which is his starting-point? Can it be, that when he who is baptized is unaware of the faithlessness of his baptizer, it is then Christ who gives faith, it is then Christ who is the origin and root and head? Alas for human rashness and conceit! Why do you not allow that it is always Christ who gives faith, for the purpose of making a man a Christian by giving it? Why do you not allow that Christ is always the origin of the Christian, that the Christian always plants his root in Christ, that Christ is the head of the Christian? …But unless we admit this, either the Apostle Paul was the head and origin of those whom he had planted, or Apollos the root of those whom he had watered, rather than He who had given them faith in believing; whereas the same Paul says, “I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase: so then neither is he that planteth anything, nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.” Nor was the apostle himself their root, but rather He who says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” How, too, could he be their head, when he says, that “we, being many, are one body in Christ,” and expressly declares in many passages that Christ Himself is the head of the whole body? (Augustine, In answer to the letters of Petilian, the Donatist, Bishop of Certa, Book I, Chapter 4.5)
4. Beginning: “Begetter, the latter the Begotten; the former not of the Son, the latter of the Father: the former the Beginning of the latter, whence also He is called the Head of Christ, although Christ likewise is the Beginning, but not of the Father; the latter, moreover, the Image of the former, although in no respect dissimilar, and although absolutely and without difference equal (omnino et indifferenter aequalis) (A Treatise on faith and the creed, Chapter 9.18.)
5. Incarnation: ”But as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” the same Wisdom which was begotten of God condescended also to be created among men. There is a reference to this in the word, “The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways.” For the beginning of His ways is the Head of the Church, which is Christ endued with human nature (homine indutus), by whom it was purposed that there should be given to us a pattern of living, that is, a sure way by which we might reach God. (A Treatise on faith and the creed, Chapter 4.6)
6. Servant: According to the form of God, it is said “Before all the hills He begat me,” that is, before all the loftinesses of things created and, “Before the dawn I begat Thee,” that is, before all times and temporal things: but according to the form of a servant, it is said, “The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways.” Because, according to the form of God, He said, “I am the truth;” and according to the form of a servant, “I am the way.” For, because He Himself, being the first-begotten of the dead, made a passage to the kingdom of God to life eternal for His Church, to which He is so the Head as to make the body also immortal, therefore He was “created in the beginning of the ways” of God in His work. For, according to the form of God, He is the beginning, that also speaketh unto us, in which “beginning” God created the heaven and the earth; but according to the form of a servant, “He is a bridegroom coming out of His chamber. ”According to the form of God, “He is the first-born of every creature, and He is before all things and by him all things consist;” according to the form of a servant, “He is the head of the body, the Church.” According to the form of God, “He is the Lord of glory.”(On the Trinity, Book I, Chapter 12)
7. One Man: “Christ is speaking: whether Head speak or whether Body speak; He is speaking that hath said, “Why persecutest thou Me?” He is speaking that hath said, “Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of Mine, to Me ye have done it.” The voice then of this Man is known to be of the whole man, of Head and of Body: that need not often be mentioned, because it is known. (St. Augustine on the Psalms, Psalm LXX) “…But since there were to be His members, that is, His faithful ones, who would not have that power which He, our God, had; by His being hid, by His concealing Himself as if He would not be put to death, He indicated that His members would do this, in which members He Himself in fact was. For Christ is not simply in the head and not in the body, but Christ whole is in the head and body. What, therefore, His members are, that He is; but what He is, it does not necessarily follow that His members are. For if His members were not Himself, He would not have said, “Saul, why persecutest thou me?” For Saul was not persecuting Himself on earth, but His members, namely, His believers. He would not, however, say, my saints, my servants, or, in short, my brethren, which is more honorable; but, me, that is, my members, whose head I am.” (25. (h1) Tractate XXVII, John VII. 1–13.)
8. Universal Body: “…. or this same Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, the Word of the Father, equal and co-eternal with the Father, by whom all things were made, was Himself also made man for our sakes, in order that of the whole Church, as of His whole body, He might be the Head. … so all the saints who lived upon the earth previous to the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, although they were born antecedently, were nevertheless united under the Head with that universal body of which He is the Head. (On the catechizing of the uninstructed, Chapter 19)
9. Mediator: ”That they are made alive in Christ, because they belong to the body of Christ? that they belong to the body of Christ, because Christ is the head even to them? and that Christ is the head even to them, because there is but one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus? But this He could not have been to them, unless through His grace they had believed in His resurrection. (A treatise on the grace of Christ and the original sin, in two books, Book II, On Original sin, Ch 31)
12. One Flesh: ”…Our Lord Jesus Christ speaketh in the Prophets, sometimes in His own Name, sometimes in ours, because He maketh Himself one with us; as it is said, “they twain shall be one flesh.” Wherefore also the Lord saith in the Gospel, speaking of marriage, “therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” One flesh, because of our mortality He took flesh; not one divinity, for He is the Creator, we the creature. Whatsoever then our Lord speaks in the person of the Flesh He took upon Him, belongs both to that Head which hath already ascended into heaven, and to those members which still toil in their earthly wandering. (Psalm CXXXIX)
13. Cornerstone: “We recognize the corner stone: the corner stone is Christ. There cannot be a corner, unless it hath united in itself two walls: they come from different sides to one corner, but they are not opposed to each other in the corn corner. The circumcision cometh from one side the uncircumcision from the other; in Christ both peoples have met together: because He hath become the stone, of which it is written, “The stone which the builders rejected, hath become the head of the corner.” (Psalm XCV.6)
Socrates Scholasticus (born 379) “But we know that the Father alone being inoriginate and incomprehensible, has ineffably and incomprehensibly to all begotten, and that the Son was begotten before the ages, but is not unbegotten like the Father, but has a beginning, viz. the Father who begat him, for “the head of Christ is God.” (The Ecclesiastical History Book II, Chapter XIX)
Leo the Great, Doctor of the Church (Ca. 390- 461) “There is no doubt therefore, dearly-beloved, that man’s nature has been received by the Son of God into such a union that not only in that Man Who is the first-begotten of all creatures, but also in all His saints there is one and the self-same Christ, and as the Head cannot be separated from the members, so the members cannot be separated from the Head. For although it is not in this life, but in eternity that GOD is to be “all in all ,” yet even now He is the inseparable Inhabitant of His temple, which is the Church, according as He Himself promised, saying, “Lo! I am with you all the days till the end of the age.” (Leo the Great, pope of Rome, 440, Sermon LXIII, ch III)
Susanna,
Excellent set of quotes! Thanks for posting them here.
gengwall, #23
Thanks for making that comment ;P
“They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” Mark 12:14
Get busy and turn my head for one moment, and everyone adds some great comments!
Sadly, I am now thinking we may have lost Mark though…but, I don’t think he ended up here by accident.
Thank you pinklight. I would very much like to take your post verbatum and quote it in my upcoming blog post on Paul’s head/body metaphors, if that’s ok.
As I see more and more entries about lexicons, dictionaries, the LXX, and so on, it seems more and more clear that kephale was not EVER used for human relationships like rosh was and like our “head” is. Bauer’s entry not withstanding, it appears that in Greek, other words are used when one wants to designate that a person has authority over another or others. In other words, Bauer’s figurative usage is a complete fabrication. This is just starting to sink in. I mean, I knew that Bauer’s definition was not how Paul was using kephale, but it is just now dawning on me that no Greek speaker would use kephale in the way Bauer claims is a common figurative usage for Greek speakers. That elevates the effort to promote an authoritarian definition for kephale to almost conspiratorial levels.
gengwall,
Maybe Bauer simply missed this quote of Irenaues:
“holding the Head, from which the whole body of the Church, having been fitted together, takes increase” (thanks Susanna!)
…part of me recoils at the term “conspiratorial” but after a while we see the choice between sloppy scholarship or on purpose.
“after a while we see the choice between sloppy scholarship or on purpose”
I guess that is my point. If one of the worlds leading lexicographers (or one of his English translators) puts forward a usage for a Greek word that would never be employed by a Greek speaker, it doesn’t pass the sniff test. He simply can’t have made that ignorant of a mistake, so I must assume an agenda.
So how can complimentarians argue that there is a context where “head” in Greek means authority over when no such context exists, and at the same time argue that “head” in Greek never means source when there is documented evidence that that was an actual usage? I mean, Grudem wrote a big huge paper on both usages with “proof”. I wonder if they also have a bridge to sell me?
#128 Kay,
I agree. I think we have lost Mark. But it is understandable. I think he thought that egalitarians did not have a solid argument and his argument would easily trump the opposition. That didn’t happen and I think he may have been overwhelmed by the evidence that has come out that he simply cannot answer.
What does one do when one cannot answer the arguments? There are several options. One can run away and cry without doing anything about it, one can be angry and pout, one can ignore everything that has been said and pretend the debate never happened, one can turn the argument into an ad hominem (attack on the man) or one can turn away from what has been proven as false and turn towards the truth. Those who are lovers of truth would logically resort to the latter option.
All we can say is that we have planted the seed. The Lord must see to it that the seed is watered and God will give the increase so that He gets the glory.
“…and God will give the increase so that He gets the glory.”
Amen
Mark has exams until probably early/mid next week…so he might yet be back!
I personally was admiring his staying power (like a dog with a bone…any graphics available Cheryl?) and would have put money on him coming back…if I was a gambling man!
Dave,
I too was admiring his staying power and good to know that he may still be coming back. I wouldn’t want him to retreat with his dog bone and just leave us.
How’s this for a word picture?
I never suspected he was gone…just reloading.
Ah, reloading….yes another great word picture!
You made me laugh gengwall!
I love the word picture Cheryl! My only criticism is that you have portrayed Mark as having many bones (to pick?). I am not sure if he has a bucket load in his arsenal!
Are any of them head bones?
I should go and do some work…
Dave,
No “kephale” (head) bones at all in that bucket, but I didn’t want to be unfair to Mark so he got four juicy ones (of the leg variety). Just enough for a few more go-arounds!
My adversary bowed out of the discussion since he could not prove that the church has always taught a creation-based hierarchy. After conceding that kephale means “beginning” he still claimed that Gen 2 teaches female subordination and he based his entire claim on 1 Tim 2. When I pointed out the flaw in his thinking (i.e. if kephale does not mean “authority” in 1 Cor, Gen 2 cannot teach the man’s authority and 1 Tim 2 is conspicuously out of harmony with the rest of the Bible) he removed himself from the debate.
Ok, so what does 1 Tim 2 say. One night as I couldn’t sleep (due to insomnia) I thought about Paul’s choice of the word “epitrepo” (permit). Why would he choose the word over “paraggello” (command)? And suddenly it hit me: where is the commandment? “Epitrepo” is always used of with a commandment, either permitting an activity according to a commandment or denying permission due to a commandment. Thus Moses is said to have permitted divorce but Jesus said, in that the permission went against the purpose of marriage, which was to create a one flesh union of the two and “what God has joined, let no man put asunder.” In 1 Cor 14.34-5 we find that women are not permitted to speak for they ought to be in submission because the law says so. (I agree with those who say 1 Cor 14.34-5 is an interpolation, a later addition and I use it here only to show that “epitrepo” needs a commandment, or a foundational truth based on creation, for it cannot stand alone). So, where is the commandment that women ought not to dominate or teach men? Comps try to find it in Gen 2 and make the inference that
1. Because Adam was created first, he has authority over the woman.
2. Adam taught Eve and Eve received all her knowledge from Adam.
3. Eve “ruined” Adam when she took the fruit and did not ask her husband for permission.
4. Eve desires to rule over Adam as a consequence of sin.
But is this what the creation account says? No it is not.
1. Adam was created first to prevent the woman to be the source of all life since women give birth to children.
2. Eve told the Serpent, “God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ (Gen 3.3) She did not say, “Adam told me, “We should not eat it…” God speaks directly to Eve after the Fall, which makes it clear that He had done so before. God does not only summon Eve, for He calls for “the human,” or “humankind” which included both the man and the woman.
3. Adam was present throughout the entire event, took the fruit from Eve and was therefore equally culpable. They both sinned and would experience the consequence of their sin.
4. The man rules over the woman as a consequence of sin.
Thus we find that the entire Creation and Fall accounts must be changed to accommodate the complementarist model and hence they do not have the creation-based principle they need for “epitrepo” to deny an activity which is against a commandment. Instead we find that a woman was dominating men and teaching heresy in Ephesus. Note that the text can also be read, “I do not permit a woman to teach (in general) or to dominate men.” There is no commandment that forbids women from general teaching in Israel or the church. Nor is there a commandment that men must have authority over women, although there has been an attempt to make Eph 5 say as much. These are all based on inferences because of the complementarist’s need to find them in the Bible to support their theology.
Let me see if I followed you correctly all the way to the end Suzanna. There must be a commandment with epitrepo and there is, just not the fictional commandment complimentarians present. The commandment, in keeping with the general theme of 1 Tim 1 and 2, is to not engage in false teaching, with a secondary commandment to not “lord it over” anyone. Did I get it right?
“There is no commandment that forbids women from general teaching in Israel or the church. Nor is there a commandment that men must have authority over women, although there has been an attempt to make Eph 5 say as much.”
Hi Suzanna. I am trying to follow your thoughts. I am from Australia and therefore a bit slower than normal! As there are no commands regarding women not teaching, 1 Tim 2 must be referring to some other relationship command…such as a command to submit to each other? i.e. Eph 5:21? Or even “love one another”? If it was suggesting a man can have authority over a woman (because a woman is not permitted to have authority over a man), then there must be a command stating this somewhere. Correct?
You beat me gengwall…what it would be to one of the sharper tools in the shed…
I can’t even talk proper…”what it would be to BE one of the sharper tools in the shed…”
So what Suzanna is saying, if we have understood it correctly, reminds me of CHeryl asking Mike Seaver for a second witness to the “law” that women cannot teach men. Interesting!
Susanna,
I have a little different take on some of your points.
While I agree that Adam being created first equalizes things so that the woman wouldn’t be the source of all things. However I do think that there is a higher purpose because of the sin issue. Because of sin there needs to be a line back to Adam without the issue of sin. Jesus then is a descendant of Adam’s through Eve but without the stain of Adam’s sin. I have used graphics here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/ to draw out the idea of the necessity of Adam being the source of Eve before sin entered the world.
Excellent! My only difference is that I believe that “human” refers to them both, but “the human” refers to one particular human. I believe that only Adam was kicked out of the garden and only one human (Adam) was charged with bringing sin into the world. (Romans 5:12)
I believe that Adam did sin but his sin was different than Eve’s as he sinned with his eyes wide open. Hosea 6:7 shows that God sees Adam’s sin as treacherous. Eve’s sin was the fall through deception. She still sinned but her motive was not the same as Adam’s.
Right! I think it would be good to add that God did not pronounce this “consequence” as a necessity or a command. God prophesied what the woman’s life would be like in this sin filled world. Not a pretty picture at all.
You guys think much deeper than I. I never saw any significance in Adam being created first. I always figured “it is what it is” and nothing more. Lots of eye opening today. WhooHoo!
Lastly, Susanna, I love what you are saying. However I believe that we can take see 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as a quote from the Corinthian’s letter to Paul rather than an interpolation. The reason is because verse 36 shows a rebuttal of a previous view. If verses 34 & 35 are missing what would Paul be refuting?
Connecting together the commands and showing what really is forbidden is important. It provides for the Word of God to be clear and understandable with a second witness. God never gives commands not to do something without making sure that the commands are clear since sin is a very serious issue with God. It certainly is never clear that God is forbidding all godly Christian women from teaching correct Biblical doctrine to men in all times, in all places and for all reasons as CBMW has written in their book.
Dave, i hope you put lots of money on me….because you were right.
I am in the middle of exams (and house moving preperation), so things are a bit hectic ATM. I haven’t read everything yet here or on my other post so i wont comment regarding them yet.
I am sad to think that people would think i would just leave and chase after my own bone. We may disagree but i would at least tell you if i was no longer going to dialoguw with you all.
Speak soon 8)
Note Mark that it was the guys who believed in you. Three cheers for male bonding! I must now go duck and cover from the inevitable grenades that will be launched my way.
“I am sad to think that people would think i would just leave and chase after my own bone.”
It’s really no reflection on you Mark. It is what others have done. That’s all. Time will show forth your good nature. 🙂
gengwall,
Bonding, schmonding – chances were at some time a comp would finally stick with us past the usual point of exit. 😉
I’m man enough…uhh err uhh…”person” enough to say, I’m glad Mark is the one in a million.
(so there- only a small grenade. LOL)
“You guys think much deeper than I. I never saw any significance in Adam being created first. I always figured “it is what it is” and nothing more. “
Well, that is a whole lot better than assigning preferential meanings to it as so many other men have tried to do. Personally, I always figured there had to be some reason, I just didn’t know for certain what it was. But because God is good, then it had to be beneficial to all. 🙂
“But because God is good, then it had to be beneficial to all. :)”
The Best Benefit, Amen!
Ok, let’s look at 1 Cor 14.34-5. I don’t really mind the quote hypothesis for at least it recognizes that the verse is not a mandate, but personally I think there is more evidence for an interpolation. The entire chapter 14 is about two things: prophecy and speaking in tongues and the purpose is to set guidelines as to their use in the church. In the below excerpt I have removed the two verses which restores the flow of the text and removes the repetition “in the churches.”
1 Cor 14:26-40
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Now “as in all the churches of the saints” is linked to “did the word come originally from you.” In other words, do you know something that other churches do not know wherefore your practice is different from theirs. The same idea is found in chapter 11,
“But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
Again we find Paul asking why they would uphold a custom other churches did not. In this case the Corinthians were cropping women’s hair in a misguided effort to make them all equal i.e. men. the same custom is found still in the fourth century. A synod which met a Gangra condemned a sect which had women cut their hair and wear man’s clothes in order to fulfill Gal 3.28.
If we keep 1 Cor 14.34-5, we keep also the awkward repetition of “in the churches” which is (most likely) due to its first location after v.40. In all Western Manuscripts, verses 34-35 are found after v.40 and it was gradually moved to its current location. Payne has made a convincing case for the interpolation, citing Bishop Victor’s ordering of a re-writing of the text in the margin without the two verses, indicating that the Vulgate was in error. He compared the text to Old Latin, and obviously the verses weren’t there. He omitted also 1 John 5:7-8 ,”For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one,” which is universally believed to be a later addition, added during the Christological disputes.
When we consider that Corinth was a Greco-Roman city and although it had Jews, as did all cities, the customs Paul is correcting in his letter can all be traced back the practices of their own culture. He writes about philosophy, meats offered to idols, sexual immorality etc. We find that the Jews who lived in Corinth were thoroughly Hellenized and that they were removing the sign of their faith – circumcision – in an attempt to become fully Greek, i.e. Gentile. Why would a congregation such as the Corinthian write about the Jewish law and its implications on equality? This becomes even more suspect when we realize that they were trying to make all equal by erasing the distinction of male and female. The hermaphrodite – the androgynous person – shows up in the Hellenistic period and with it the stigma of the male resembling the female is lessened and statues from this era exhibits young men with long flowing hair. The Corinthians clearly had both men and women praying and prophesying in the church for Paul is only objecting to their custom of cutting the women’s hair short, not that they did not allow women to pray out loud. Hence, why would they have argued for the silencing of women?
You all had great comments; I’ll get back to you on those ones a little later today.
And Mark, welcome back! I almost emigrated to Australia in 2000 when I was visiting relatives in Melbourne, but I ended up moving to the US when I married Ira. Perhaps it was a good thing, I don’t know about those spiders and snakes….
Dave, regarding “epitrepo,” you got it right. There is no commandment which states that a man must have authority over the woman, neither is there a commandment which forbids women from teaching men. The only place they can find it is – surprise! – in 1 Tim 2! Perhaps Paul thought of Eph 5.21, but if you look around, the Bible is filled with general statements of equality: “Love another,” “serve another,” “if anyone teaches,” “If anyone ministers,” etc. These are all twisted to mean, “women, love men,” “women, serve men,” “men, teach women,” “women, minister to men (i.e serve).” If Paul really meant business he would have used the word paraggello as he did in 1 Cor 7:10 “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.” (NIV) This is based on the creation account and the words of Jesus:
Mark 10:5-9
And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7’For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8’and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
In creating doctrines which govern the church, the rule of thumb is that it must be found in the Old, the Gospels and the Epistles. I.e. We must find at least a shadow of it in the Old Testament, it must be found in some form in the Gospels and expounded on by the apostles. If a concept is found only in the epistles, the likelihood of it being a local problem is evident. For instance the offerings the apostles were gathering from the Gentile churches to the church in Jerusalem can hardly be constructed as a permanent command for all churches at all times. The holy kiss was omitted as the accusation of sexual immorality was getting the church in trouble in the early centuries. And consider the spiritual gifts, which many believe ceased with the creation of the canon (a reaction against Montanism and the abuse of the prophetic gift for sure, but perhaps a valid argument). Hence, in 1 Tim 2 we find an argument against a woman who is teaching heresy and dominating men. Certainly we find women who taught heresy in OT but where is the universal condemnation of women teaching men? Where does an OT writer say that because Adam was created first, women should be silent and in submission? On the contrary, we find that women taught men (Miriam, Deborah), even kings (Huldah) and they were certainly not silent. Eve’s creation from Adam is regarded only as creating one flesh (repeated in Eph 5) for the purpose of godly offspring (Mal 2.15) (a thought repeated in 1 Cor 7.14.).
Cheryl, I have to go to work, but I’ll get back to you on Adam’s prior creation a little later.
“If Paul really meant business he would have used the word ‘paraggello’ as he did in 1 Cor 7:10 “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.'(NIV)”
But instead he used “epitrepo” (permit).
And he could have used the uncontested ‘exousia'(authority),
but instead he used ‘authenteo.”
In 1 Cor. 11 –
Paul could have used the word ‘arche’ the common clear word for ruler.
But instead he use ‘kephale’ which is known to have other shades of meaning.
In other words (pun intended) he could have said that men rule over and/or have authority over women, *but* he did not.
I wonder why?
The rest of God’s commands are clear. Why is this one so fuzzy?
Kay – “gengwall, Bonding, schmonding…”
hahahahaha touche’
(that is if, as I suspect, at least secondarily, your comment is a retort to my “apple, schmapple” of comments gone by)
gengwall, your suspicion is founded…as usual 😉
I’m just waiting for Cheryl to get done having morning coffee so she can post a nice graphic for ‘male bonding’………..
Don’t get me wrong, gengwall. I have nothing against males or bonding. In fact, I’m happily married to one, the proud mother of one, the daughter of one, and the friend of some.
Very cute Kay!
I am just taking a break and checking the blog before I get nose deep into our business taxes. Not my favorite thing to do. So here goes…bonding true male style…
.
My anti-spam word is “male”.
Seems appropriate.
Male bonding…potatoe sack racing…not what first came to mind…Canadians… 😉
Suzanna, the spiders are not so bad…most of them get eaten by the snakes…
Dave,
Remember the cowardly lion from a few posts ago….
Cheryl – you could have reposted the Brave Heart picture and come out just fine.
“Suzanna, the spiders are not so bad…most of them get eaten by the snakes…”
It wasn’t the snakes or spiders for me, it was the sharks at the beach by Seaspray and Geelong…
Ah yes, the sharks…they ate all the snakes…so if we stay on land we are safe.
No lions, cowardly or not in Australia.
AAAHHHH!!! I get so frustrated sometimes!! I posted the whole list of quotes which shows how the early church used kephale on another message board, and the response was, ” that was nice but it does not show that the meaning of the word kephale is source.” How thick can one be! Of course it doesn’t; that was never the purpose! Debating with some people is like squeezing water out of a rock.
It is pretty funny to find that Bruce Ware is so mixed up he doesn’t know which way is up on kephale. And imagine him, the revered leader of the ETS, which is meeting this week.
Ware writes in his new book Big Truth for Young Hearts,
(page 97)
Adam was the first human at the head, or start, of the human race.
But on the CBMW site in his summaries of comp and egal, he has already said,
“And remember, although animals were created before Adam, Adam was told to name the animals and this clearly indicates his headship over them.”
This is patently ridiculous. Did the scriptures ever say that man was the head of animals? Where do women fit in then? And doesn’t Ware indicate that head can legitimately mean beginning? I think Ware has turned around evolution and is indicating that men are the ancestors of apes or something like that.
But Ware not only has completely deceived himself into thinking he has something worth saying, but he has written an entire book for children in which he writes,
“God created men and women in his image fully equal in their human nature, but different in certain roles in which they also have differences in authority and submission. This is part of the beauty of male-female relationships as God designed them.”
Imagine telling little boys things like that so that when they view porn in their teen years they can think of women all tied up in chains as in their rightful position because they were born to it.
I think Waneta Dawn has the right take on this in her most recent post on the Submission Tyranny blog.
“Note Mark that it was the guys who believed in you. Three cheers for male bonding! I must now go duck and cover from the inevitable grenades that will be launched my way.”
Are you saying I’m a guy? ;P
Anti-spam word = woman 🙂
“If we keep 1 Cor 14.34-5, we keep also the awkward repetition of “in the churches”
Hi Susanna!
But it is not awkward if Paul is refuting the quote!
I think Paul basicaly boxed it up and then spit it out.
“Dave, regarding “epitrepo,” you got it right. There is no commandment which states that a man must have authority over the woman, neither is there a commandment which forbids women from teaching men. The only place they can find it is – surprise! – in 1 Tim 2!”
Susanna, they can’t find a thing. 🙂
Cheryl has worked 1 Tim 2 so I refer you to her posts on it.
“It is pretty funny to find that Bruce Ware is so mixed up he doesn’t know which way is up on kephale. And imagine him, the revered leader of the ETS, which is meeting this week.”
Shameful I will add.
Pinklight: The question I asked myself when I considered the quote hypothesis was: how is Paul refuting the quote? What in the following can be constructed as a rebuttal?
Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
What does Paul refer to when he writes, “the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord?” If he is referring to women being allowed to speak, why is this rebuttal not found in 1 Cor 11 where he expounds on the question of women praying in the church, and why were these two verses found after v. 40 before they were transferred over to their current location? Not that I necessarily disagree with the quote hypothesis, but there are just too many loose ends that I personally cannot tie, which is why I favor the interpolation theory. Maybe it is my shortcoming, and maybe I should work a bit harder to find a solution to the question, but since it really does not change my overall view on 1 Cor 11 or 14, I am content with my conclusion for now.
Cheryl, I promise, I will comment on the prior creation of Adam tomorrow. I have a terrible headache and I think I should just go to bed.
“What does Paul refer to when he writes, ”the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord?” If he is referring to women being allowed to speak, why is this rebuttal not found in 1 Cor 11”
Paul is refering to the entire context of 1 Co 14 where he says that all may participate in all of the gifts, so there is no question of “what is he referign to “IF he is refering to women merely speaking”.
“If he is referring to women being allowed to speak, why is this rebuttal not found in 1 Cor 11 where he expounds on the question of women praying in the church,”
Paul, in 1 Co 11, is NOT expounding on the question of women praying in the church (period) but rather on HOW women pray (with or with not head coverings).
“…and why were these two verses found after v. 40 before they were transferred over to their current location?”
Please establish this as a fact.
Loose ends are tied with the facts.
Today has been extremely busy for me and has kept me away from this place. I still have to “pick up my socks” on Saturday so we’ll see how much time I have to comment here.
The Greek “n” is a disjunctive particle separating opposites which are mutually exclusive. It is used to both call attention to the answer and present a rhetorical set of questions that we are to answer “no!” to. It functions as a “what?!”
So with the quote from the Corinthian’s letter, Paul provides the astonished rhetorical questions that negate the claim that women are to be silent in the assembly. “What! did the word of God come only from you (men)?” Remember the first “gospel” was preached from the women so the word of God could not only come from men. Then..”What! did the word of God come to only you (men)?” Remember Mary sat at the feet of Jesus having the word of God brought to her as well (Jesus said that she picked the necessary and better part).
Why would Paul have had to respond concerning the word of God both coming to and from women as well as men? Because verses 34 & 35 claimed that women were not to learn in the assembly but were to learn at home and women could not give out the gospel as they were to be silent in the assembly.
The things that Paul commanded are throughout chapter 14. Verse 1 commands us to “pursue love” and “desire earnestly spiritual gifts but especially that you may prophesy”. Verse 12 “seek to abound for the edification of the church” is also a command.
The commands from the Lord are to pursue the gifts especially that we may all prophesy. The commands from God in chapter 14 release women to use their gifts. The command from men in verse 34 & 35 silences women’s gifts. Paul also ends with a command not to forbid speaking in tongues and once again the command to desire earnestly to prophesy. These are all godly commands and all from the Lord. They are set apart by verse 36 as being in direct opposition to verse 34 & 35 that commands silence.
Now as far as the thought of interpolation, the problem with that is that there is no manuscript without these verses. Some manuscripts have them at the end of the passage and some in its present form. But none are missing the two verses so they are in the original and we need to deal with them. If they are left in their place at 34 & 35, (which I believe is the original location) then verse 36 makes sense because Paul is rhetorically questioning whether only they (men) have given out God’s word and only they (men) have been given the privilege of receiving the word. The answer has to be “no” since we have examples in the Scripture of women both as faithful students of the word and faithful givers of the word. What else would Paul be contradicting since he is questioning whether the word came to them alone and from them alone? Without verses 34 & 35 to contradict, verse 36 stands out like a sore thumb.
I believe that the discrepancy of the positioning of the two verses is because the early church didn’t quite know what to do with the two verses. They couldn’t just remove them since it is a great sin to add or remove from God’s word. Yet the two verses posed a great problem since the verses are within a segment that begins and ends with commands to desire to prophesy and also ends with a command not to silence speaking (in tongues). It appeared to them that the verses were contradicting everything else that Paul said, and indeed they to contradict. But the contradiction is solved if Paul is merely quoting from the Pharisaical demands for the oral law and then refuting and contradicting those demands.
Since there is no manuscript that is without the two problematic verses, we cannot ignore them. There is not one piece of evidence that shows that the original manuscript was without the verses. It is not their inclusion that was the main consideration but where they were to be included. If they are removed from their place and put at the end of verse 40 then they are removed from the strong rebuttal that Paul has in verse 36.
As far as the question why this was not included in chapter 11, that chapter has a command for men not to wear the head covering yet permission for women to cover or not to cover depending on shame. There is no command for women in chapter 11 but commands galore throughout chapter 14 all designed to “edify the church”. Speaking forth with our gifts, Paul says, edifies the church, and it is only tradition of men that silences women.
So once again, the issue of interpolation cannot be solved by removing the verses and ignoring them. There is no evidence at all from the manuscripts that these verses were not there in the original. Like them or not, we have to deal with them. The quotation solution deals with the issue of man’s tradition regarding women with the two freedoms for women given by Paul as answers to his rhetorical questions. In my DVD set I bring this out within a verse by verse presentation of the passage and I have been told by pastors that the presentation is logical, understandable and powerful. If there are holes in the argument, I haven’t seen the holes yet and even CBMW wasn’t able to refute my argument when they received a copy of the DVDs.
Sue,
Thanks for picking up on that one! Excellent observation and looks like Ware is more than aware that “head” can mean beginning for humans. This quote is quite revealing.
Mark,
Shucks, I thought you were like the rest of them. We couldn’t keep a comp here for love or money. You are truly a gem amongst us thorns 😉
I know it will take you a bit to catch up too. I too have been busy and haven’t been able to catch up yet myself.
Well, we don’t have any money to bribe you to keep you here, but how about some love?
I am off to bed now. It is been a long day and I am exhausted.
Night all.
Wow i am so far behind. I will attempt to respond to Suzanne over the next few days once i get more of a chance, as i feel i owe it to her to answer some of her comments.
““…and why were these two verses found after v. 40 before they were transferred over to their current location?”
This is a reasonable question. They were also found in the margin of some manuscripts. Kevin Giles deals with this in one of his last two books…. I think its in Trinity and Subordinationism.
I suspect that because it was in two different places in the text , one being after verse 40 and another one elsewhere (I don’t recall), that it seems more likely that it was originally in the margin, and likely also beside where it is now inserted. This would be for clarification that Paul is referring to something the Corinthians wrote in their letter to him, that Paul was referring to.
The thing is that we don’t have to reject these verses as verse 36 contradicts the man-made command to restrict women. It is certainly reasonable that some Jewish tradition followers would restrict women’s voices. The woman’s voice was considered provocative (or filthy) and by tradition wasn’t allowed for men to hear lest they end up lusting. However Paul’s attitude was completely different. His words that women’s gifts edified the assembly were to be the norm of the Christian view of women in contrast to the worldly way that denigrated women and made them of lesser value. It was an amazing thing that women’s prophesy was considered of equal value in the assembly as men’s prophesy.
I can certainly see how many would consider that verses 34 & 35 had to be an interpolation because of the way these verses contradicted everything that Paul had just said. However if we pay close attention to verse 36 we will see that Paul only quoted the view to contradict it and removing the verses leaves verse 36 hanging without any reference to what Paul was contradicting. Verse 36 by itself must be answered by those who wish to remove verses 34 & 35.
In the end we all agree that verses 34 & 35 could not be Paul’s “commands from the Lord” since they are in direct contradiction to the commands both before and after these verses.
I agree Cheryl, that at the end we all agree about the meaning of 1 Cor 14.34-5 as not restricting women from participating in worship. But I have one more qualm… if verse 36 indicates verses 34-5 are a quote, why did the Greek Patristic writers not recognize it? Chrysostom argued that women ought to be silent in church based on 1 Cor 14.34-5. He was trained in rhetoric, as was Augustine, and since the what! particle was a common form in rhetoric, why did he not recognize it? Did he just ignore it? Augustine read the Bible in Latin. Did the translation not convey the meaning correctly? In 1 Cor 6:18-20 the same particle is found in verse 19.
“Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or (What!) do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”
Verse 18 is not a quote, neither is Paul refuting a false argument made by the Corinthians. Instead he is anticipating an argument from them, i.e. he acts as if they had argued against his words (a common technique in rhetoric) and continues to affirm what he had just stated to be true. If the same is true of 1 Cor 14, Paul would be affirming his words that women ought to be silent and this is exactly how all the Patristic writers read the text.
Let’s look at 1 Cor 14 again
“And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. 36 Or (What!) did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”
If we remove 34-5 we have Paul anticipating an argument from the Corinthians that they should not wait for their turn, that it is ok for all of them to speak at the same time, and he asks them if the word of God came originally from them, and if anyone of them thinks he or she is prophet, he/she ought to recognize that he is writing the commandments of the Lord.
Here’s what I wrote in my book:
Carson is aware that the Western tradition knew of a variant position, but he is mistaken of the variant itself.
“The relevant textual evidence is quickly stated. Verses 34-35 appear in all known manuscripts, either in their present position, or in the case of all Western witnesses, after verse 40 (D F G 88* a b d f g Ambrosiaster Sedulius-Scotus). In addition, Codex Fuldensis (a Latin manuscript written between A.D. 541, and A.D. 546 by order of Bishop Victor of Capua) places the verses after verse 40, but also inserts them in the margin after verse 33. It appears that, despite the uniformity of the Western tradition, Victor, or those who worked at his bidding, became aware of the placement of the verses outside their own tradition and signaled their hesitation in this way.”
Carson believes the variant concerns the location of the two verses, but B.M. Metzger, whose error Carson perpetuates, admitted to Philip B. Payne that he had never seen the actual text. After viewing a photocopy of the manuscript, which shows that Bishop Victor ordered a rewriting of verses 36-40 in the bottom margin and not next to verse 33 and after verse 40, he admitted that “his statement in the Textual Commentary on the NT is in error.” As Payne explains, the scribe placed a symbol next to verse 33 to signal where to begin to read the text found in the bottom margin,
“I conclude that Bishop Victor ordered the rewriting of 1 Cor 14:34-40 in the margin of Codex Fuldensis with vv. 34-[3]5 omitted and that there is a text-critical siglum that indicates the scribe’s awareness of a textual variant at the beginning of 1 Cor 14:34 in codex Vaticanus. This text-critical evidence, plus the evidence from the non-Western ms 88* and Vulgate ms Reginensis with vv. 34-[3]5 transposed after v. 40, makes an already strong case for interpolation even stronger.”
Professor Metzger agreed that “the most natural explanation is that Victor ordered the rewriting of the text of 1 Cor 14.36-40 to replace all of vv. 34-40 in the text above and that this implies that Victor believed that 34-[3]5 was an interpolation.”
The Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546) is the earliest dated manuscript of the New Testament and the only manuscript edited by “one of the eminent scholars of the early church,” Bishop Victor, who combined Tatia’s Diatessaron (the four Gospels) and Jerome’s Vulgate, which he substituted for the Old Latin. Payne concludes that “we must assume that Victor had sufficient evidence to convince him that the Vulgate text was wrong at 1 Cor 14:34-[3]5.” The Vulgate included also 1 John 5:7-8 with a preface claiming to be written by St. Jerome which “accuses the Latin translators of omitting this testimonium.” Bishop Victor omitted these verses, which supports the existence of interpolations in the Vulgate.
As noted before, Carson believes the second and third century textual traditions should have been affected by the first wherefore an early interpolation would have been impossible. But the incorrect rendering of Genesis 3:16 in the Vulgate was not challenged in the fifth century although Hebrew Bibles and the Septuagint were widely available. It is therefore not surprising that an interpolation of the same nature had been readily accepted and that the dissenting voices were few and far apart.
The existence of interpolation in the Bible is not disputed by scholars; what is disputed is what verses were interpolated into the Bible during the theological controversies. I heartily recommend “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman. He explains in detail how manuscript scholars work when they try to determine what the original text would have looked like. We have as many variants in the existing manuscripts as there are words in the entire NT. Although it is very tempting to believe that God has protected the Bible from corruption, this is not the case. Instead we must use vigilance and the highest level of scholarship to determine what the Bible actually says. My favorite example of this is the side note a scribe wrote on the margin on the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!” (Ehrman, 44). Origen complained bitterly about the state of the Gospels in the middle of the third century, as the manuscripts he had available disagreed widely.
That 1 Cor 14.34-5 is found in all manuscripts does not lessen the likelihood of an interpolation. The Johannine Comma and the Adulterous Woman is also found in all manuscripts, yet they are considered to be later additions. What is usually used as in indication of an interpolation is that the verse(s) is found in multiple locations. E.g. the Adulterous Woman is found in five different locations. If we had the original manuscripts and if there weren’t as many variants in the existing manuscripts, then yes, we could argue that the verse belongs in the Bible without a doubt. We must also remember that the fourth and fifth century church tightened its reign in an attempt to create uniformity in doctrine, which was especially the wish of Emperor Constantine. Any writings which were considered heretical were destroyed. The Gnostic writings, condemned to be destroyed, were hidden in this era in the desert of Upper Egypt by monks. Much of what Origen wrote was destroyed, since he was posthumously declared a heretic. Yet, in the sixth century scholars must have had manuscripts in their possession in which these verses did not exist which is evident from Bishop Victor’s margin. These manuscripts did not survive (as is also true of the writings of Marcella’s, Jerome’s sister) which is of course not a surprise since 1 Cor 14.34-35 was used as a counterpart for Gen 3.16 which by now said “under the man’s authority will you be, and he shall rule over you,” and imperative in the argument that women ought to be silent in the church and not allowed near the altar.
So sorry, I forgot to mark where the excerpt ends! It ends here:
It is therefore not surprising that an interpolation of the same nature had been readily accepted and that the dissenting voices were few and far apart. (Here ends the excerpt)
“The thing is that we don’t have to reject these verses as verse 36 contradicts the man-made command to restrict women. “
I agree, Cheryl. IMO the fact that they were in different places and in the margin only solidifies the fact that they were a quote from the Corinthians Judiaizers trying to continue their oral teachings silencing women. Whereas, Paul was seeking to free the women from false bondages and release them to be used of the HS as God saw fit.
I suppose it may be difficult for some to discern with absoluteness, whether they were an interpolation or a quote. And I’m willing to grace grace that choice to them.
Susanna,
You said:
To me, this is an easy one to answer. Paul is so often misunderstood because of one’s own prejudices. While Chrysostom said that Eve’s subordinate status was an effect of sin, he also said that Eve was inferior to Adam in the beginning. Chrysostom describes her innate weakness when she talks to the serpent. His own prejudices against women as complete equal with men from the beginning caused him not to look below the surface on Paul’s writing in 1 Cor. 14. Chrysostom sees the image of God as the ability to govern and he sees this as given to men alone. It is no wonder that he sees no need to research further why 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 are a direct contradiction to the words given to men and women throughout the rest of chapter 14. Pure and simple – it is prejudice.
Actually I do believe that this is a contradiction of a quote from the Corinthians. The quote is stated twice in verse 12 with two refutations of Paul’s immediately following each quote.
The Corinthian mindset was that once we are Christians we can do anything that we want to, thus “all things are lawful for me”.
Here are just a few commentaries who also see verse 12 as a slogan or quote of the Corinthians themselves:
So instead of anticipating an argument from the Corinthians, Paul is refuting their thinking that has already been communicated to him. I believe that the fact that it is repeated twice shows that it isn’t a theoretical argument, but an actual argument that they have used that Paul’s shows is in error.
You said:
This is not the view of the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament which states:
Here we see clearly that 1 Cor. 14:36 has introduced rehetorical questions to which a negative answer is expected. It also relates mutually exclusive statements. Either the Corinthians are correct (women must be silent in the assembly) or Paul is correct (women may freely use their gifts in the assembly). They are mutually exclusive. We cannot hold to both. Paul says that his commands are from the Lord which relegates the command of tradition to a place of complete ineffectiveness and thus a statement of error.
If Paul were merely anticipating an argument, I believe it would be the first of its kind. In other places Paul quotes the slogan or the saying of the Corinthians and then shows the error. It is far more powerful to include the quote and to see where the error is, rather then to say that Paul is anticipating something that the Corinthians have never actually said.
While it is to be conceded that interpolations have occurred, we also have manuscript evidence of the script without the interpolations so we can see what was actually added to the text. However with 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 there is not a single manuscript without this text. Not even one. Until the church finds older manuscripts without the disputed text, we must assume that they are in the original. This sets this passage completely at variance with other “interpolations” since it is always in the text without exception.
Like I said, we do agree that the verses do not belong to Paul or to his official Christian position. But my position that verse 36 aptly refutes verses 34 & 35 while dealing with an actual argument and not a guess by Paul will answer the challenges of those who also hold strongly to the position that the verses are in the original. If we only hold to the position that the verses are not in the original then we have no other answer. My answer works either way, yet having verse 36 as hanging on its own without something to contradict goes against the grammar as given by the EDNT. I believe that this is the safest way to handle this problem and since Paul has done this before and I know of no other situation where he didn’t quote the opposition, I think it is consistent with Paul and logic.
I believe very strongly that God has protect His Word from corruption. Not that there are not manuscripts that have no errors or interpolations, but that there is enough of the manuscripts available and very old manuscripts produced before the interpolation, that we can have complete confidence that none of God’s words has been completely removed or that there is no manuscript(s) that contains the correct words as God wrote them.
This was a crisis of faith for me in the mid 1980’s and I came through it by faith and God has blessed that faith so many times that I cannot accept that God’s word is with error. If I accepted that, then I would have throw up my hands and wonder what truth there really is? I come to the Bible assuming that in the originals God’s word is without error and that God has never allowed that truth to be completely distorted but has preserved His Word so that we can trust it and learn to trust Him too.
What this means then is that God is unable to preserve His word accurately in this area. I do not accept that. I believe that it is far better for us to reason through the text to find the truth with the verses intact rather than to doubt that God was able to preserve His Word in this one instance.
No, this passage is not found in all manuscripts. I will give two quotes to prove this matter.
So while we have the passage in John 8 missing from the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 is in those manuscripts so there is no correlation between the two.
So since I hold strictly to Bible inerrancy, I am not willing to remove 1 cor. 14:34, 35 without solid evidence. There is no such evidence at this time and without that evidence I am compelled to allow verse 36 to be a very strong argument of Paul’s against the two verses that were some of the Corinthian’s position based on tradition and prejudice.
Cheryl, I am very well aware what Chrysostom wrote about women and his arguments for the inferiority of women. But he adhered also to the historic-grammatical method of the Antiochian school and he was very careful in his exegesis of the Bible. Hence he argued that Junia was an apostle par excellence, Phoebe was a deacon, Priscilla a co-worker etc. He tried to assimilate the fourth century view of the inferior woman who was solely guilty at the fall, while adhering the historical understanding of the church, hence the contradictions in his theology.
You wrote:
“Actually I do believe that this is a contradiction of a quote from the Corinthians. The quote is stated twice in verse 12 with two refutations of Paul’s immediately following each quote.
1 Cor 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
The Corinthian mindset was that once we are Christians we can do anything that we want to, thus “all things are lawful for me”.
(Here ends the quote)
Let me see if understood you correctly. Are you saying that the Paul is refuting several quotes in 1 Cor 6.12-20? In this case, why is the particle found only in verse 19?
Susanna,
I commend him on that! The stumbling block for many who have been accurate in other areas, is that Paul is a hard one to crack. Peter says it well in that Paul is hard to understand. This is why it is easy for some to fall on Paul (fall on Paul is that a rhyme??) when they have their own presuppositions. It is difficult to go back into the minds of these men and figure out why did they do that. Unless they tell us, we are stuck with guessing which isn’t always a good thing to do. But never-the-less, Chrysostom certainly was wrong in thinking that the verses in question were Paul’s own command.
Paul’s grammar is adversarial throughout. In verse 12, there is an adversative particle.
This particle indicates a teaching by Paul that is in direct opposition to what preceded his view. Paul used different methods to negate the Corinthians view. I have a quote in my DVD set on 1 Cor 14 that quotes a very old commentary that says whenever we come to a position that seems opposite to Paul’s stated view elsewhere, we can assume that it is a view that is quoted from the letter from the Corinthians to Paul and that Paul then refutes the view. Sorry I can’t remember the name of the fellow who said this. I have a brain bubble today and can’t recall the details and too busy to go research my own work.
So in answer to your question, yes I do believe that Paul is refuting false views throughout 1 Cor. and I list some of these places on my DVD and this view is very common with even some Bibles putting quote marks around what they consider to be the quote from the Corinthians.
Since 1 Cor 6.12-20 came up I was curios how Chrysostom treated the text, i.e. if he recognized the particles you mentioned. He didn’t. However, he did recognize it in 1 Cor 14.34-5.
But besides these things, he also shames them by consideration of what all agreed on, and what was every where prescribed; which topic also here he has set down, saying,
“What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone?”
Thus he brings in the other Churches also as holding this law, both abating the disturbance by consideration of the novelty of the thing, and by the general voice making his saying acceptable. Wherefore also elsewhere he said, “Who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in all the Churches.” And again, “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the Churches of the saints.” And here, “What? Was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone?” i.e., “neither first, nor alone are you believers, but the whole world. ” Which also writing to the Colossians he said, “even as it is bearing fruit and increasing in all the world,” Colossians 1:6 speaking of the Gospel.
I did not find/identify the particle you mentioned in verse 12 in my Greek NT. Which one am I looking for?
An additional problem with the view that Paul is refuting several quotes from their text is that the text continues immediately with, “Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
You see, I do not necessarily disagree with you but the method that I found the safest is to look at an argument from every possible angle to find a weak point, an inconsistency, an error. Comps can’t stand such discussion because they take everything so dreadfully personally. I am so very glad that you none of you do. It is delightful to be able to discuss thorny theological questions without the tantrums and insults. Imagine what would happen if everyone did so? We would have a better theology and less divisions. Oh, and thanks for the correction, you are right: the Adulterous Woman is not found in the older manuscripts, but I am fairly sure that the Johaninne Comma is. Either way, my theology is not dependent on an inerrant Bible. I can accept very easily that people have tampered with it and changed things around. What I cannot accept is dogmatism for more often than not the dogma is based on an error. I just read a fascinating book about Bible interpretation (I can’t remember the name just now) and how inerrancy became part of theology with Scholasticism and the concept that the Bible was a science book.
The problem I have with the concept that we must accept 1 Cor 14.34-5 because they exist in every manuscript is that comps reject female leadership because we do not find women deacons in the West until the fifth century. They do appear, with women elders (!) in the fifth, in the middle of the campaign to have them removed. History is just not that reliable. The argument that women deacons were an import from the East just doesn’t sit very well either since the bishop of Rome was incensed by the elevation of the See of Constantinople to the same level of importance with the See of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon. I just can’t see the Roman bishop adopting a custom from the East while he is trying to impose his own view on all the other Sees. Of course, stranger things has happened.
Hi Susanna,
I wish my blog could show the Greek. I haven’t figured out how to fix that part, but maybe some day. The Greek is alla – but.
You brought up this point:
Yes, that is how Paul brings up the letter in the first place, and minus the reference to what they wrote, Paul also uses “now concerning” in 1 Cor. 7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1. However there are other clues in the text that Paul is also speaking about a contradictory point from the Corinthians even when Paul doesn’t specifically say “now concerning”. The adversitive particle would also be a good clue that Paul is contradicting their view.
I totally agree with you here. This is also what I do because I understand that if there are holes in an argument then I either have misunderstood something, have a wrong argument, or that my correct view needs more work to remove the holes. This is why I was interested in the holes that CBMW would find. But that didn’t happen at all. They apparently weren’t interested in the work it would take to refute my exegesis and so after viewing the material they deposited them under the “g” file if you know what I mean.
I have found this as well, but I am not sure why they are so defensive. Most comps that have come here are male and it was always puzzling to me why they would be the ones who would take things personally and get offended by a strong defense for the free for women to minister in their gifts. After all we were not telling them that they couldn’t use their gifts. The only thing that I could attribute to their reaction is that they liked the special place that they occupied and if the barrier was torn down, they would lose their treasured position. I do honestly think that there are some who believe that the inerrancy of the Scriptures would result from giving women the freedom to minister, but that is not a correct fear.
That is why I really like this blog. The people who come here are genuinely interested in this subject and willing to dialog without tearing a strip off of the other person who disagrees with them. I think most will argue passionately, but without putting a knife in the other’s back. I think that is very commendable and Christ-like.
I appreciate your honesty. I just haven’t had any reason to give up my faith that God was able to preserve His Word. I have a Greek-geek friend, Dr. Dan Wallace, who believes more along your line and we can still be friends. He says that I ask really good questions and he is willing to “clean my clock” 😉 when I misunderstand some fine point of grammar. He persuaded me to buy his last book about a year ago called Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin. It was very expensive book and I am not sure why he thought that I was intelligent enough to understand it. I am not, but I really do try. But even though we disagree on a lot of things (Wallace is a comp and a 4 point Calvinist) we can still have some really good interaction without calling each other names or dig the knife into each other’s backs. He is actually willing to listen to me including watching stuff that I produced on the women’s issue and the Trinity so I do not take that for granted.
And so often those who become extreme dogmatic about their dogmatism 😉 do not appreciate someone challenging them. But I feel that truth is far more important than ego and since all of us are surely wrong on something (even if it is only a minor point) we should all be willing to listen, learn and improve.
Well, that is a history problem, not a Scripture problem and I think that blindness has set in when Phoebe is not considered to be a “real” Deacon. If she wasn’t the real-meal-deal and she was written up in the Scriptures, I don’t know how they could accept any evidence from history.
I think there have been a lot of cover-ups. The Bible talks about those who “suppress the truth”. I think that when the judgment comes we will have our eyes opened to all those in the church who have deliberately suppressed the truth. They will have to answer to God for what they have done.
I do want to say once again how welcome you are here on this blog. You bring a whole different thought to what we already have seen and it is refreshing!
“But I feel that truth is far more important than ego and since all of us are surely wrong on something (even if it is only a minor point) we should all be willing to listen, learn and improve.”
Cheryl,
I really appreciate this attitude that is the basis for your blog.
Cheryl – “The only thing that I could attribute to their (hierarchist males) reaction is that they liked the special place that they occupied and if the barrier was torn down, they would lose their treasured position.”
As a male, hierarchist or not, I would say you have us pegged pretty good.
To be honest, human nature is slightly wicked. It is not easy to let lose of special privileges and share them with others. It’s the sandbox syndrome. 🙂
The thing about the sandbox is that men in particular like it there – we are in our comfort zone within hierarchies. Just look how men interact with each other. I believe that is one of the reasons men feel threatened by an environment of equality. It makes us very uncomfortable. So I would agree that part of the resistence is that we don’t want to give up indivudal power. But another part is that we are very uneasy in a power vacuum. In essence, we don;t know what to do with ourselves and that is very unsettling.
Anyway, that’s a little off topic. Let me see if I can steer back onto the track. As that relates to kephale, I believe that is part of the misunderstanding of Paul’s metaphor’s. When I read Bauer, although I have said above that it almost sounds consipratorial, there is another part of me that thinks he doesn;t get it because the concept of a “head” in human relations that isn’t in charge, is just so foreign. In a sense, we can’t wrap our head around it (uggh!!)
“Well, that is a history problem, not a Scripture problem and I think that blindness has set in when Phoebe is not considered to be a “real” Deacon. If she wasn’t the real-meal-deal and she was written up in the Scriptures, I don’t know how they could accept any evidence from history.”
Quite true. 🙂
But then, I have another problem with the whole deacon and elder thing. First, ‘deacon’ is a transliterated word; it is not a translation. A translation would be ‘minister’ or ‘servant’. The word diakonos was used of all the fellow workers in the gospel. This is because they all served the brethren in the Lord. It was a description of their servant heart in ministering to the churches.
The concept of ordination is not in Scripture, thus to require someone to be ordained (whether elder, deacon, or? )before they can serve in the church is contrary to Scripture. It is an added concept. As well, to assign specifics of service to elders and deacons is also not in Scripture. The fact that there were certain men who were asked to serve tables does not define the service of all deacons, since all fellow workers were called ministers/servants. Elders were the elders/aged/older Christians who ministered to the believers in some specific ministry, especially teaching. How somone ministered must come from the context. Thus how Phoebe served/ministered must come from the fact that she served the church in general signifying leadership and that she was a proistatis of many, also signifying leadership.
“But another part is that we are very uneasy in a power vacuum. In essence, we don;t know what to do with ourselves and that is very unsettling.”
That’s really interesting, gengwall. Does that have anything to do with the fact that males are strength creatures. You are always using your strengths (power) to help others, especially women? And somehow that has morphed into control??
“That’s really interesting, gengwall. Does that have anything to do with the fact that males are strength creatures.”
A acute insight. In the “Genesis to Ephesians” marriage model I am working on I identify the defining contribution of males to the marriage as “strength”. I believe that male “strength” can be used for good or evil. I believe “he shall rule over you” is a reflection of the evil nature of male strength that will be exhibited in a fallen world when we bow to our flesh. I believe that the “love” Ephesians 5 talks to husbands about is a “strong” love; an exhibition of strength as God designed it – spirit led. In our lives, it always seems that our flesh has just a little bit of an upper hand. Or at least, that is the direction we incline toward. So, our fallen, fleshly bodies feel “comfortable” with “he will rule over you” strength. Our spirit led loving strength is in constant opposition, but being, in a sense, “unnatural” to us, it makes us squirm.
Think of Paul’s lament in Romans 8. All humans go through this struggle, of course. But fleshly “strength” and the inclination toward hierarchies it promotes are in stark view for many, if not all, males.
Sorry – Paul’s lament in Romans 7:14-24
“So I would agree that part of the resistence is that we don’t want to give up indivudal power. But another part is that we are very uneasy in a power vacuum. In essence, we don;t know what to do with ourselves and that is very unsettling.”
gengwall,
I was thinking along the lines of: something inside tells us that someone should be in power (be in charge) here and the problem is we think it is us, but it’s not, it is GOD.
How ridiculous of us humans to think we can handle His job perfectly and do it without sin or selfishness.
And I do think it goes with this discussion: I mean a man may not mind being God’s servant, so long as he is the #1 servant and not the #2 helper.
Hi guys, I have a thorny problem: I have been debating with a person who is a translator, so he knows (or should know) how languages work. He insists that kephale in 1 Cor 11.3 must mean a literal head, and that it creates a hierarchy. But he does not believe it means “headship,” just “head.” He uses a lot of Greek secular writers to prove his point, and I have tried to show him that the philosophers had an entirely different worldview wherefore we cannot just take their concept and superimpose it on the Bible. He refuses to consider how the church has used the word (isn’t that interesting!) and denies that the word can be used as a metaphor. So, what would your argument be against his concept?
“He insists that kephale in 1 Cor 11.3 must mean a literal head, and that it creates a hierarchy.”
By “literal” does he mean anatomical? He must not because he would then have to prove biologically how the anatomical head has “authority” over the anatomical body. Of course, the head/body metaphor is not imployed in 1 Cor 11.
He therefore must believe that there are 2 literal versions of kephale, one anatomical and the other human relational. After all, he can’t possibly be arguing that ALL uses in 1 Cor 11 are anatomical or the verse would mean that a woman should cover her husband with a veil when she is prophesying, etc. On the same note, he can’t be arguing that NONE of the uses are anatomical since it would, in essence, produce the same absurdity when interpreting the verse. So he must be saying there are two literal meanings. I don’t know that I disagree, even though Bauer calls the non-anatomical uses figurative. But that is neither here nor there.
So, what uses is he citing in secular writers that show a hierarchy in human relations identified with the use of kephale? It is surprising that Liddel-Scott finds no such uses since it is a comprehensive (not just biblical) lexicon..
And how is he explaining away the non-hierarchical uses in the LXX, and more importantly, the use of other Greek words for rosh when hierarchy is implied?
My general response to people who show no proof but simply spew out dogma is “your saying so doesn’t mean it’s so. Prove it.” If he insists on ignoring any argument that makes him rethink (or, horrors, doubt) his position, he is hardly worth talking to.
When I say “verse” above, I mean “passage”.
“He refuses to consider how the church has used the word (isn’t that interesting!) and denies that the word can be used as a metaphor.”
Ever? That would simply be absurd. Paul clearly is suing a metaphor in his head/body passages. I mean, a translator certainly knows what a metphor is, right? The metaphorical usage in certain passages is undeniable (although not unignorable, as Bauer proves). On the other hand, in 1 Cor 11, I would tend to agree. Again, the head/body metaphor doesn’t exist and I don’t see the other non-anatomical uses to be metaphorical. But that doesn;t mean they literally mean authority either. Such would have to proven by the context, expecially if the usage proposed is outside of the language mainstream.
Good Morning everyone!
TL, you said,
I fully agree with the main point you were making and this is a bit of an aside, but do you really think the concept of ordination is unbiblical, or is the concept of ordination that we find in the church unbiblical? I see Acts 6:6 as an example of ordination, but I do not want to make much more of it than the fact that they laid hands on and prayed for some guys who were given an opportunity to minister. I guess I think it served to encourage them in their task.
Another angle is that if one takes it as an hierarchy, it is out of order and full of holes.
A proper hierarchy amongst the patriarchalists is: God, Son, HS, then father/husband, mother/wife, children, and servants. It’s really impossible to make the 1 Cor. 11 order sensible if viewing it as an hierarchy of sorts, because of the order: Christ, man, God. What kind of order is that?
However, if one views it as a chronological listing of important events in the human-God relationship there is some sense to it: through Christ came all humanity, through the first man (from his side) the first woman came, through God’s miracle the God/Man Messiah was born of Mary.
Thus what we have are a series of examples of some types of honor. This follows through with the thought that the preaching/prophysying/praying women should honor their husbands according to the cultures just as they honor God in their speaking…. Or some such!
“I fully agree with the main point you were making and this is a bit of an aside, but do you really think the concept of ordination is unbiblical, or is the concept of ordination that we find in the church unbiblical? I see Acts 6:6 as an example of ordination, but I do not want to make much more of it than the fact that they laid hands on and prayed for some guys who were given an opportunity to minister. I guess I think it served to encourage them in their task.”
Well, I look at it sort of like this. We cannot IMO command or demand it as it is today because it isn’t in Scripture. Thus to deny someone the freedom to exercise their gifts unless they become degreed by suchandsuch university and go through ordination ceremonies is just too much. However, I do believe that the original intent was to recognize and honor brothers and sisters in the Lord who were gifted so that the community would pay attention. That is reasonable. The problem is that we have added so much through our traditions, to the Scriptures teachings on ministries that we have ended up using these means to deny Christians and discourage Christians from serving in the local communities. And frankly, I’d like to see churches laying hands and praying over those in whom they see giftings, in order to stir them up and release these people to serve.
This sounds like a difficult debate Suzanna! It reminds me a bit of Grudem and how he decides in his research what kephale means and then comes up with the results, such as kephale meaning source = 0%, but kephale meaning authority = 2.3% (not sure if the figure are exactly correct, I am going from memory). The thing is I am sure if I looked at some of his examples I would not agree that they were reference to authority. People like Grudem want to see authority everywhere. Of course his research had a whole lot of other meanings, which included origin that = 3%!
My point is, while this bloke wants to see authority, he will see it, especiallly if he sees it in a whole lot of other examples he is quoting. It would be very tedious to go through each of his examples and discuss whether or not they really are referring to authority. Perhaps ask him for his top three examples, and if you can show him how these do not mean authority he might start to listen?
If I could lay hands on you and pray for you I would! 🙂
Now TL – there you go being reasonable. We can’t have that!
TL, regarding #207 – I fully agree with you!
“Now TL – there you go being reasonable. We can’t have that!”
Can she be frank, gengwall?1
“Can she be frank, gengwall?”
Just as long as she isn’t logical too? I mean, I don’t know if my gender paradigm could take it! 😉
“After all, he can’t possibly be arguing that ALL uses in 1 Cor 11 are anatomical or the verse would mean that a woman should cover her husband with a veil when she is prophesying, etc.”
gengwall,
LOL – you nailed it. If he won’t even consider a head/body metaphor he is simply ignoring the rest of scripture – as you pointed out before, “Christ is the head of the body, which is His church” and so forth, when referring to the Christ/Church relationship, anatomical context is always there.
LOL 🙂
I am honored to have two men of strength, confer their appreciation upon me. 🙂 I can now attend to the drudgeries of my day with a smile, that I have been heard by someone. Reminds me of Hagar, the Egyptian servant of Sarai, who named God, “the God who hears”. Being heard is important to everyone.
“Just as long as she isn’t logical too? I mean, I don’t know if my gender paradigm could take it! “
Gengwall, frankly I think that women were logical way before men were. 🙂 I mean, what was logical about the man saying to God, “the woman YOU gave me, SHE made me do it!” hehe After all, Adam knew he knew better. And he had to know God well enough to know that God would see right through that one. Did he think he could fool Eve by that statement and make her feel guilty??
LOL TL. That brings me back to a few posts ago discussing males as creatures of strength. If the male was the brawn of the marriage, does that not make the female the brains? Frankly, that is what I see. Not that men are stupid per se (nor are women weak). But I believe men are not nearly as intuitive or as integrated of thinkers as women are, and therefore often don’t consider “the whole picture” in decision making. I can’t begin to recount the number of times my wife has subtly (and lovingly) questioned some scheme of mine. She has great insight and intuition even in matters where she doesn’t have great education. I have learned over the years to rely heavily on her counsel and her “gut”. (Losing over 30 grand of retirement money when I didn’t listen to her one time has greatly helped my perspective.)
Note how Eve employed reasoning (however flawed) in her decision to eat the apple. Adam, on the other hand, just “took and ate” – and did so knowing the truth! Hmmmm. Who was the greater thinker in that pair?
Gengwall, you wrote: “By “literal” does he mean anatomical? He must not because he would then have to prove biologically how the anatomical head has “authority” over the anatomical body. Of course, the head/body metaphor is not imployed in 1 Cor 11.
He therefore must believe that there are 2 literal versions of kephale, one anatomical and the other human relational. After all, he can’t possibly be arguing that ALL uses in 1 Cor 11 are anatomical or the verse would mean that a woman should cover her husband with a veil when she is prophesying, etc. On the same note, he can’t be arguing that NONE of the uses are anatomical since it would, in essence, produce the same absurdity when interpreting the verse. So he must be saying there are two literal meanings. I don’t know that I disagree, even though Bauer calls the non-anatomical uses figurative. But that is neither here nor there.
So, what uses is he citing in secular writers that show a hierarchy in human relations identified with the use of kephale? It is surprising that Liddel-Scott finds no such uses since it is a comprehensive (not just biblical) lexicon. (Here ends the quote)
His first argument is that a translation must be consistent, i.e. a word cannot mean different things in the same context (I already refuted this concept and he agreed. Well… kind of). Because of this concept, he believes the word kephale must refer to a literal head throughout the text for otherwise we should translate, “a man covers his source.” I pointed out that kephale can also refer to the whole person, which is true in 1 Cor 11.10, and he agreed with this. He thinks that kephale in 1 Cor 11.3 refers to a literal head because he finds his support for his argument from Greek pre-Christian literature. He quoted Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish scholar who wished to make Judaism respectable and hence found that Greek philosophy was compatible with Judaism:
“(125) But all these statements are uttered in a metaphorical form, and contain an allegorical meaning. For as in an animal the head is the first and best part, and the tail the last and worst part, or rather no part at all, inasmuch as it does not complete the number of the limbs, being only a broom to sweep away what flies against it; so in the same manner what is said here is that the virtuous man shall be the head (kephale) of the human race whether he be a single man or a whole people. And that all others, being as it were parts of the body, are only vivified by the powers existing in the head and superior portions of the body. (Philo, On Rewards and Punishments)”
I pointed out that Philo based his argument on Aristotle’s concept that the free-born male is virtuous, whereas the slave is not, and the woman can only be virtuous through obedience to the man, since her deliberative faculty is without authority. Since he uses Philo’s concept to interpret Paul, he makes the woman less virtuous than the man and sees the woman entirely dependent of the man, who is the most divine of the two (echoing the concept that the man is a “Christ-figure” to the woman). Unless he sees the error in this concept, he will never concede. Any thoughts how to make him “see the light”?
BTW, he argued also that “epitrepo” can be used as a synonym to “paraggello” (command) and he saw 1 Tim 2 as saying “I command that a woman should not teach a man.” Of course, he could not agree with the following, “Moses commanded you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts,” or with such a change in any of the other 16 examples in which “epitrepo” is used. Of course he tried to make it a commandment by saying that Paul was using his authority as an apostle, and that he did not feel that it was enough, hence he used the creation account to support his argument. This is of course a supremely weak argument and won’t hold up to a closer scrutiny, so it seems that “epitrepo” is a great argument against the text being a universal commandment. Couple it with the lack of evidence of a creation-based female subjection during the first 13 centuries, and I think we have an air-tight argument.
“Adam, on the other hand, just “took and ate” – and did so knowing the truth! Hmmmm. Who was the greater thinker in that pair?”
For some reason when I read that I had a mental image of a naked Homer Simpson eating the fruit of the doughnut tree…”Hmmmm fruit…”
I would like to get that image out of my mind now but can’t…so I thought I would plant it in your minds too…
“Any thoughts how to make him “see the light”?”
Yes, but they involve strength and a piece of 4×2…so I will refrain from mentioning it.
“And that all others, being as it were parts of the body, are only vivified by the powers existing in the head and superior portions of the body.”
Hmmm. What portions would be the “superior portions”? It seems even Philo wasn’t willing to claim unilateral superiority of the head.
I wonder how he meshes his concept that “the woman [is made] less virtuous than the man and…the woman [is] entirely dependent of the man, who is the most divine of the two” with Genesis 1 and the almost universal acceptance (or concession on the part of complimentarians) that man and woman are equal in essence and Godly image?
“For some reason when I read that I had a mental image of a naked Homer Simpson eating the fruit of the doughnut tree…’Hmmmm fruit…'”
ROTFLOL – And now appearing at your local community theater – “Eating the Fruit of the Doghnut Tree: a Garden of Eden Retelling” – starring Homer and Marge Simpson as Adam and Eve.
“ROTFLOL – And now appearing at your local community theater – “Eating the Fruit of the Doghnut Tree: a Garden of Eden Retelling” – starring Homer and Marge Simpson as Adam and Eve.”
LOL …. lot of laughing. That’s going to be a difficult mind picture to dismiss. 🙂
What an interesting discussion! A lot of the comments indicate very deep and studious thinkers. As I was reading, I was wondering if Paul understood that the brain is so closely involved with motor movements and even with breathing, and etc. I had heard years ago that in Bible times they thought the heart was where these things were regulated. I did a very quick concordance search and found that “mind” is referring to intellect, that “heart” has 3 different meanings: 1. thoughts and feelings, 2. spiritual perception, hardheartedness, 3. life, mind, soul. If I recall correctly head means “the part most easily siezed.”
I wonder why we don’t hear more about husbands being the most easily seized part of the wife? Adam was certainly easily “seized.” It took less to convince him to eat the forbidden fruit, than it did to convince Eve.
I do not have the dictionaries, etc to go deeper, and would like input from those who do. From what I see so far, there is no mention of the head having anything to do with controlling the body. However, scripture often says things about the heart that suggest it is the seat of controlling an individual. A hard heart, for example, caused unbelief.
If Paul meant a husband was to control his wife or have authority over her, wouldn’t it make more sense for him to have said “the husband is the heart of the wife?” Or the “husband is the mind of the wife?” Those two seem to have more suggestion of controlling the whole person–even to their attitudes–than the biblical rendition of “head” does.
Also, it seems to me that Paul makes it very clear in the context what he means by head. “As Christ is the head of the church and he is the savior of the body.”
I recently heard someone describe the sacrificial giving up of themselves for their wives that is required of husbands to be explained as “being prepared to sacrifice his life for his wife.” From that statement I realized what a large part of the problem is. Many men think the sacrifice that Ephesians 5 is requiring of husbands is only in those times when his wife is in danger of being attacked or when her life is in danger.
To me the passage is requiring husbands to be LIVING sacrifices for their wives. (Rom. 12:1-2) Jesus’s death would have been meaningless if he had lived a self-centered life. But he spent his life serving people–his bride. He didn’t just give himself up for his bride in death, He also spent long hours teaching and healing and loving. From that I gather that husbands are to sacrifice for their wives, to deny their own preferences daily for the benefit of their wives.
If people insist that “head” is referring to a leadership capacity, then “head” should also be viewed in its context, which is more likely to carry the meaning of being the leader in sacrificing his own desires and will. That is HARDLY what the husband authority proponants have in mind!
For “head” to have the meaning of “authority,” the context should read “for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, and he is the RULER of the body.”
Because “ruler” is not there, interpretting head to mean “source” and “leader in sacrifice” would fit perfectly with the rest of the passage, especially verse 29 “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.”
A man will make sacrifices for his body. He will stop working to eat and drink. He will stop eating and drinking to work in order to eat and drink, and etc to care for his welfare. He will lift weights and exercise to strengthen his body. And he certainly will NOT take anything harsh to his private areas! In fact, if I even mention an activity that may hurt his groin, (usually because he is behaving obnoxiously and would deserve it) most men will reflexively cover said groin protectively with their hands.
That nourishing and cherishing is the attitude husbands are commanded to have toward their wives. They don’t limit their own bodies by refusing to allow them what they need for development, nor behave harshly toward them. So why do they think this scripture is encouraging them to do such things to their wives?
Waneta Dawn,
Welcome to my blog! Excellent observations!
Very well thought-out comments. If only comps would pay close attention. This is exactly what Jesus means and makes the most sense of the imagery. None of the Biblical authors are telling men to act in a selfish way by demanding that their own will and way must be followed. There is no better way for a man to bond with and love his wife by sacrificing of his own best interests to benefit her. What woman would not want to respond to that kind of love and to give back respect as she does him good and no harm? It is a mutual love and benefit and starts with the husband’s sacrificial attitude. If more men actually got that, there would be a whole lot more healthy marriages in the church because men who love like this are so easy to love.
For my blog commenters,
I thank you all for your continued participation as we wait for Mark to respond to at least some of our comments and questions. I have not been able to respond to everything here myself as I am in the last days of year end accounting for the Canadian side of our ministry. It is first things first for me right now and I will be back to myself when this is finished.
Cheryl, Waneta D – I used to buy into the term “servant leader” hook line and sinker. One of my favorite speakers, who is no raving hierarchalist, uses it in his teaching. The term has two purposes. First, in relation to Ephesians 5 and Christ/Church relationship, it is an attempt to reconcile the “love” of Christ/Husband with the assumed authority they have over Church/Wife. The second purpose is a little more devious – it is an attempt to distract from the negative ideas about authority by using nice, soft, kind sounding terms.
I now have grown to almost hate the term. It is an oxymoron of the first degree. You can’t both lead from an authoritative posture and serve simultaneously. You have to do one or the other, and in the case of husbands (and church leaders) Jesus and Paul repeatedly insist on serving. The kind of “love” spoken of in Ephesians 5 simply can’t have any authoritative element to it. Authority is antithetical to agapeo love. And “lording it over someone” is the quintessential behavior of an unloving person.
Cheryl,
Hubby and I are about to take a Thanksgiving holiday. I hope everyone types veeeeerrrry sloooowwwly while I’m busy… 😉
I was also wondering about the head/heart subject and when I studied the human body I found that the head directs the nervous system, but the heart directs the circulatory system. I.e. the brain can stop the lungs for a few moment (which makes diving possible), but it cannot stop the heart from beating and dispersing oxygen into the bloodstream. If the brain had the ability, it could easily kill the body for it takes only about 10 minutes for the brain to die due to lack of oxygen. (Just think of those cases in which people stop breathing when in deep sleep.) Thus God created our bodies with two independent systems which work harmoniously together to keep the body alive, and as a metaphor, a husband and wife, as a head and body, work harmoniously together to keep their marriage alive.
Looks like we are going into a thanksgiving lull. Probably won’t check back in until next week. For you Americans – happy turkey day. For the rest of you…I guess…have a normal next 5 days.
Susanna,
That is a beautiful picture of two independent (yet dependent) body systems. Thanks!
To all my American friends,
I wish you a peaceful and joyful Thanksgiving celebration.
.
.
We can catch up again after the 5 day holiday weekend.
“Thus God created our bodies with two independent systems which work harmoniously together to keep the body alive, and as a metaphor, a husband and wife, as a head and body, work harmoniously together to keep their marriage alive.”
Excellent observation, Susanna.
I always teach that the mutuality is about keeping the new life of the marriage alive. 🙂
The troubling part of Paul’s relationship to women is not 1 Cor. 11. If God and Christ are related as men and women are, that is actually liberating for women, because God and Christ are equal. (Phillipians 2:6 says that Jesus “though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited.” Therefore Father and Son are equal.)
“The women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Cor. 14:34-36
Why are we arguing about “head” and ignoring this passage? Now, I agree with many scholars that this is a non-Pauline interpolation, since chapter 11 dealt with head coverings for women who are prophesying and praying. But it doesn’t matter, because the Bible is still the inspired word of God, whether Paul or one of his disciples physicially wrote the letter. Can anyone solve the contradiction between chapters 11 and 14?
Nor should we ignore the equally troubling 1 Timothy 2, which is also probably not written by Paul but again, is also the inspired word of God:
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man. She must remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not decieved, but the woman, because she was fully decieved, fell into transgression.”
As someone remarked earlier, how is Adam’s sin any lesser? But I digress.
By referencing Adam and Eve here, and “the law” in the passage above, it would seem to me that Paul or deutero-Paul is making what he considers universally applicable arguments.
I am a 17 year old girl whose passion has been Bible study for years now, and my dream is to study and teach theology professionally. In the classroom I will obviously have authority over men. Is that a sin, just because I have two X chromosomes?
Hi Jessica and welcome to my blog!
I believe that the “hard” passages on women can be resolved without contradiction and with full freedom for women to minister in their gifts and calling. My DVD set does just that and many women have written me to tell me that the information has set them free. Information on how to order the set is at the very top of the page under the tab called DVD. I think that it is good to see how it Paul uses the worldly argument against women to show that God’s commands are opposite from the tradition of men.
Hey Jessica. I’m sure Cheryl will respond with a welcome and more detail but since I’m on briefly right now….
First, I suggest you read through some of Cheryl’s other posts on the specific passages you have questions about. There is a wealth of information throughout this blog on just about every passage which touches on gender dynamics. You may find especially interesting Cheryl’s mock dialog between a complimentarian and Paul. It discusses in detail 1 Timothy 2.
What you will find is that Cheryl and those of like mind here do not find the traditional interpretations and even the translations of these passages to be convincing or trustworthy. Specifically, most here believe that the passage in 1 Cor 14 regarding silence is not an interpolation but a quote from the Corinthians letter to Paul which Paul subsequently rebuts at the end of the passage. Cheryl and Sussana debate that a little in the companion post to this one regarding 1 Cor 11.
As far as 1 Timothy 2 goes, English translations of the Greek of that passage range from poor to horrible. A closer study will reveal that the passage is not at all about what you have probably been told it is about your whole life.
As far as the discussion of head in these posts…well…that is what we are discussing in these posts. It is only one of many topics discussed on this blog including the ones you have your concerns about. So read on and I think you will get some satisfactory answers to your questions.
Hi Jessica!
It would be wonderful if it was equally clear for everyone that 1 Cor 11 teaches equality! About Phil 2, this is how the comps do it: Yes, the Son is equal to the Father, but he chose to became subject and hence, women should choose to become subjects to men since the “man is the head of the woman.” Of course they never seem to realize that they are creating a triple-subjection of the Son: He is subject from eternity (has to be, since the woman is subject from creation), He becomes subject in His incarnation (Phil 2) and will become subject after the completion of His work (1 Cor 15.28). A person can become a subject only once, unless of course, the Son became greater than the Father in His incarnation (since all authority was given to Him by the Father) and will become subject again after He returns the Kingdom (1 Cor 15.28). But then again, didn’t Jesus say that the Father was greater than He was? So you see, it is all a hopeless jumble unless we recognize that the Son was equal with the Father from the beginning, became subject to God in His humanity and will give us His manhood when He completes his work as a mediator and His resurrected incarnation is no longer needed, and God – in all three persons – will be all in all once more.
And about how sinful it would be for you to teach a man in seminary: it would be just about as sinful as for a mother to teach her son. You see, the comps argue that it’s ok for women to teach children, but not grown men. Yet, they argue also that the innate characteristics are present already in small children and not learned from society, which brings us to the conclusion that a boy is really a man, and his mother should not be teaching him or punish him when he is disobedient. They cannot have it both ways, although they ardently wish to do so.
And how wonderful that you want to become a theologian! It has been my wish too since I was 17. But alas! every time I make an attempt to begin my formal studies, something else comes up, such as a new baby, and I must post-pone my studies. It does not mean, however, that I do not study on my own. I have found that it is easier for me to study on my own without the pressure of time lines and exams. Of course, it takes a lot of discipline and money to do so, but it seems to be the way God wants me to do it, at least for now. Don’t let anyone convince you that you cannot do everything God wants you to do just because you are a woman! You will find that for a female theologian the road is going to be rocky, but it will only make you stronger, more patient and a rare jewel among the multitude of mediocre preachers who never had to fight to get were they are and hence never developed a character beyond that which was expected of them. Paul is a great example of a theologian who became great through adversity. Compare his heart to that of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who received all the praise, yet were whitewashed tombs – dead inside.
Sorry, it should say, “gives UP his manhood” not “gives us his manhood.”
I know you are all busy, but I have more time on my hands than usually since my family is away and I am (thankfully!) alone.
Anyways, another observation from biology touches upon the subject of the woman’s creation from the man (i.e. Adam’s prior creation). The man has the sex hormones YX and a woman XX, hence it is the man who decides the gender of the child, for the woman can only give the chromosome X to the child, whereas the man gives either X or Y. From this truth we can observe that it is possible to make a woman out of man, but it is not possible to make a man out of a woman. In other words, had Eve been created first God would have had to supernaturally create chromosome Y to make Adam, whereas when creating Eve from Adam’s DNA, he had to only drop Y to make a woman (and by adding an extra X). Men and woman are the same in all other aspects and although the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen make us either men or women, the balance between the two (men and women have both hormones, men just have 10 times more testosterone) decides largely what kind of persons we end up being and there really isn’t such a thing as a stereotypical male and female which could be used as a measuring stick in determining what roles men and women ought to have. Some men are closer to women in their biological make-up (how their brain works), some women are closer to men in their biological make-up; others are found at the end of the spectrum: the super-feminine women and super-masculine men. The error of complementarism is to use the polars as the only model available which causes them to force most of humanity to live a lie.
Hi Sussana,
This is the first time i have had a chance to be back on the blog and i haven’t read through all of your comments thus far. What i have noticed though is that you have obviously done extensive research on the early and patristic Fathers. Now i have a few questions regarding your comments on the Trinity above…
1. Do you recognise the difference between the essential and economic Trinity? IF so, do you follow the attempts by some to say that subordination in the economic trinity must equal- less God i.e a division of the essential trinity? What is your impression of the early fathers on this topic?
2. Was Jesus in this position before His incarnation? John 1:18?
3. If Jesus ‘humanity’ is what made him subjected, what are we to make of the risen ‘human’ Jesus? Is he still subject or not?
If we get the Trinity wrong we get into big trouble. It opens the gate to all sorts of wrong theology.
Thanks for answering if you get the chance.
Jessica,
please don’t think that comps would make woman not ‘equal’ although some egals might tell you this. Before the throne of grace we are all equal, equal in salvation Gal 3:28, yet distinct (very similar to the Trinity of 1 Cor 11). We can be equal yet have different roles or functions. The problem with our society is that they think being up the front of a church makes you more important and hence the egal push to have women up there because otherwise we are not equal. However this is not the case. A women is just as equal without being the leader of a church. Dont let biblical roles be clouded by societal pressures and misconceptions.
Cheryl,
Just a quick question for you. Do you believe in the reformed doctrine of original sin? If yes, how then do you allow Eve to stay in the garden as a sinner. Also if Eve did not add to God’s instructions why did she not die when she TOUCHED the fruit?
Mark,
Nice to see you back!
As far as the doctrine of original sin I am not aware that there is a different doctrine between those who are “reformed” and just plain old Christians. I do believe what the Bible says – that sin came through the man alone.
Why was Eve allowed to stay in the garden? I think it is quite simple. She was deceived into eating the fruit. She did not sin as a willful act of disobedience against God. With her eyes wide open now to the truth, it appears that God did not see her as a threat to eating from the tree of life if it was now disallowed to her.
Lastly why didn’t she die when she touched the fruit? Well she didn’t die when she ate the fruit either – not right away. The fruit was like a poison and so it wasn’t until the fruit was being digested that both Adam’s and Eve’s eyes were opened.
Okay, one question for you, Mark, which you still have not answered. Do you believe that it is a sin for a woman to teach the Bible to men in a church building? Also if a godly woman teaches correct biblical doctrine is there anytime or place that God sees this as a serious sin against Him? If so, can you show me from the Bible where this “sin” is stated as a sin?
I hope that you exams went well. It is always good to have a lively conversation with an opposer who is respectful.
Cheryl,
I think there is a big difference betwenn the reformed doctrine of sin and others. For example are we dead to sin or just sick? The bible tells us that we are dead (Eph 2:1) and that sin is rebellion and no one can seek God as a sinner (Rom 3:11). Therefore i strongly disagree that Eve was not a threat as a sinner. Her eyes were opened, she rejected God, became a sinner and thus was not entitled to the presence of Yahweh. I believe she was banished, otherwise the effects of sin are not really that serious. Sin came through ‘one man’ because Adam was resposible for the fall as the leader. No where in Gen do we see a seperation of Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin so that only Adam was banished. He is addressed because of his responsibility as the leader.
Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as ?sin came into the world through one man, and ?death through sin, and ?so death spread to all men because ?all sinned”
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (electronic ed.) . Good News Publishers: Wheaton
Adam is held as the resposible party. Are women included in the ‘all men’? Sin actually came through the woman first so why does Paul so it came through the man?
In relation to whether i think it is a sin for a woman to preach… obviously there is not a verse which saids “it is a sin for a woman to preach” but there is so much in the bible to teach us that a woman should not be in that position. But that said we are all sinful yet God uses us somehow to glorify his name. So therefore i do not doubt that God uses women to glorify Himself even if they shouldn’t be in a pastoral position. So i do think a woman is being disobedient to the word of God by taking that role.
Mark,
We are supposed to be talking about original sin not the doctrine about being “dead” to sin. For what it is worth, I believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that we are to consider ourselves as dead to sin (Romans 6:11). While we were “in” Adam when he sinned, those of us who are “in” Christ by faith have joined ourselves into his death, burial and resurrection and so are removed from the kingdom of darkness.
As far as original sin, I think that we can all agree that sin came through Adam and not Eve. Eve did not inherit sin through Adam. Her actions were considered a fall into sin through deception but they were not the sin of rebellion. Nowhere does it state that sin comes through Eve or that she had the sin of rebellion inherited from Adam. Instead we can clearly see that after she fell through deception, the promise of the Messiah was given as coming from her seed.
The Bible never says that Eve rejected God. On the contrary the connection with Eve is stated as a deception that could similiarly lead us astray.
Paul states that the one who sins through ignorance can receive mercy.
You can look high and low but you will not find any scripture that states that Eve rejected God or sinned willfully. The fact that God kicked the man out but He did not kick out the woman shows that God knows her heart and it was not in open rebellion as was the man’s heart.
Please prove your point from the Scripture. Give me a verse that says she was banished from the garden.
The Bible does not say that Adam was the “leader” or that sin came through him as the “leader”. Instead the Bible speaks very clearly about the treacherous actions of Adam. (Hosea 6:7)
Why can’t you see it? Can you not see that the earth and the animals were cursed because of Adam’s and the serpent’s sin? Can you see that nothing was cursed because of the woman’s sin? Can you also see that only “the man” is said to be kicked out of the garden? What proof do you show that these inspired words are meaningless and that God meant no division between the sin of the woman and the sin of the man? I would be very interested to hear your Biblical proof.
Not only does the bible never call Adam as “the leader” but Adam is never called to account for Eve. What proof do you have that Adam was a designated “leader”? This is a tradition of men that has no basis in the Bible.
Adam is held as the responsible one for bringing sin into the world and because we were “in” Adam we all fell when he did, but Adam did not bring Eve into sin so he cannot be the “responsible party” for her sin. The fact is that only Adam’s sin is called treacherous. God is a just God who judges the intents and motives of the heart.
Adam sinned willfully and we inherited the sin nature that Adam exhibited. Eve did not inherit that sin nature of rebellion and the Holy One came through her seed alone.
The problem with this is that disobedience to the Word of God is a sin. You cannot say on one hand that a woman who teaches the Bible to men in a church is being disobedient to God yet she is not in sin. How do you reconcile that? And why do you think that the Scripture never lists the godly work of a woman in the church as a sin? Can you explain how every single sin is clearly identified as sin and every sin is repeated in the Scripture, yet this one “disobedience” is never identified as a sin and is never repeated? Can you explain how a disobedience is not a sin and why we should disallow a woman from teaching God’s word to men in the church? Does the Bible ever tell all men to stop all godly women from using their gifts in this way? Does the Bible tell you to stand up and physically stop a woman from teaching the truth of God’s word to men in the church? Why or why not?
I still don’t believe that you have clearly answered my question about sin. Can this question be answered as a yes or a no? Is it a “sin” for a godly Christian woman to teach correct Biblical doctrine to men in the church? Yes or no? If you would answer my question in a clear manner, then we can understand your stand.
Hi Mark,
The problem is that the grammar is in the singluar when “the man” is banished, just like it is when “the man” is created from the dust of the ground:
,blockquote>
2:7And Jehovah God formeth the man — dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.
3:22And Jehovah God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,’ —
And Romans doesn’t say anything about the “one man” through who sin came, being the leader.
To say that the man is addressed because of his responsibility is a blatant addition to the written text itself. You wouldn’t say that God formed both or a plural from the dust of the ground would you, turning the singular “the man” into plural (what a mystery) as you attempt to do with Gen 3:22? And if not then how do you contextualy account for your interpretive inconsistencies (not asking for reasons/beliefs that are additions to the text)? The woman was not banished, the text reads “the man” not “them”.
“The man”
Even compare Gen 2:15 with Gen 3:23. The man was “to serve” (and keep) the garden of Eden but in 3:23 he is “to serve” the ground from which he alone (!) was taken.
The man was made from the ground Outside Of the garden of Eden and now he being banished was going to work that ground from which he was made!
When God made the woman, I wonder if he made the bone/flesh into woman while in the garden of Eden or Heaven ;P
The man was made outside the garden of Eden and then being banished from the garden was now going to work the ground from which he was made.
This is simple. The concepts of “sinning first” and “sin coming into the world through” one who sinned are not the same.
Mark, it can’t be that bad of a thing that the man alone was banished from the garden of Eden, can it, when he wasn’t even created within it?
er…can it, when he wasn’t even created from the ground within it?
Mark,
The one who sinned first is not the one who brought sin into the world. We have to see why that is from the Scriptures not from our tradition. What does the Scripture say?
The man was made from the dust of the ground of which the serpent shall eat all the days of his life (always thought that was odd…). The woman was made from a living being (life). Woman’s creation also forshadowed the church coming out of Christ (Eph 5). Once man had life in him (God blew life into his nostrils) then woman was created. The woman was made out of life but the man, dust from the ground outside of Eden. Hum.
Processing… ;P
life is in the blood (scientific fact and that scripture is in Genesis too somewhere…)
Pinklight: the verse you are looking for is
Lev 17:13-14
“‘Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off.” NIV
Anyways, welcome back Mark! I was beginning to wonder whether the beach had claimed you permanently…
I am doing some remodeling while my family is gone, but I will answer your very good questions in a day or two.
I do want to comment on the following: if we argue that ha’adam refers only to the first man (which is Grudem’s error), we must remain consistent throughout the Genesis account. Hence in Gen 1.26-27, God calls the humans he has created (a male) man.
“Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Ortlund argues that this proves that God gave man authority over the woman since he called us collectively (a male) man. In English translations of the Hebrew Bible we find that the word ‘adam is translated “human” since the word is a collective noun for all humans, signifying our origin from dust.
In the following, the intent of the creation of the first human is described.
Gen 2:5
before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;
The point is not that the first human is a man. He is simply a human contrasted to the animals. When the first woman is created, Hebrew uses a play on words:
Gen 2:22-23
Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman (‘ishshah),
Because she was taken out of Man (‘yish).”
In other words, the woman is a female human, compared to the male human.
In Gen 3:8-9, does God only call the man, or does he also call the woman?
“And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the human and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.” Then the LORD God called to the human and said to him, “Where are you?”
When ha’adam and ‘ishshah are found together, ha’adam refers to the man only. But when only the word ha’adam is found, it refers to the man and woman collectively, as seen in Gen 1.26-27. Hence in Gen 3:22-24 God expels both the man and the woman from the Garden, for although the woman had been deceived to sin, under the Law even unintentional sin demanded a restitution.
“Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the human has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”– 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the human; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”
To limit the above to only Adam makes a good case again for the comps since they argue that the woman was not created to till the ground as the man’s co-worker. Instead she was created to be a “homemaker” although there was no home, no dishes, no kids, no laundry etc.
The first man is referred to as Adam for the first time in Gen 3:17:
“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
And again in Gen 4:25:
“And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”
The difference is the lack of haa’ in the beginning and hence Strong’s has assigned 120 to haa’adam and 121 to Adam. (Yes, I dislike Strong’s as much as you, but that was the one I had handy)
Thanks Susanna. I think there might be two more that mention life being in the blood.
ha’adam with the definate article means “the human” to be more precise as in Gen 1 & 2 & 3 but in Gen 5 ha’adam without the definate article “the” refers to the race “human” as their name showing that ha’adam does not denote gender. In Gen 2 then, it says that God made “the human” (the man of Gen 2) in his image and that he made “them” male and female (woman “cloned” from man). Their name is “human” or humanity.
Strange argument indeed! God called us “human”, not “male”. He’s arguing from an English standpoint since we have “mankind” as a name of the race but it is interchangable with “humankind”. Neither in the English or Hebrew do the words denote gender. That’s laughable.
Exactly! Animals are male too – GEN 1 “and he created them male and female”. These Hebrew terms for “male” and “female” are used of animals that boarded Noah’s Ark. Point is that these inspired terms are contrasted to ha’adam (“the human) in Gen 1 showing that ha’adam doesn’t denot sex, which shoudl be obvious outside of certain mind sets.
Exactly! Gen 1 all over again. “He made them male and female”.
Besides not only was the man banished but he alone became unlike God whereas through the woman’s seed the savior was prophesied to come. They sinned differently. One was deceived and the other was not.
One man brought sin into the world – the one who became unlike God – it makes perfect sense.
Sin’s entry was through that which was unlike God.
Not with the definate article though which is used in Gen 1. Compare Gen 5:
There’s no definate article here making a singular like there is in Gen 1 and Gen 3 (where the man alone is banished).
I don’t think it can make a good case at all for the comps. What case anyway? I’ve not seen a scripturaly established comp case built yet, ever.
anti-spam word = adam ;P
Who’s ha’adam in 3:22? Context (v23) says it’s “the man” singularily since it absolutely cannot be argued that woman was taken from the ground.
So if one is going to say that in v23 both were banished then one must also say that woman was banished also and to serve the ground (outside of Eden) from which she had been taken! And that is impossible since we know that only the man was taken from the ground. Case closed 🙂
Pinklight: Although the woman was made of the man’s side her origin is of the dust of the earth, just as a child who is born of a mother, for both men and women become dust after dying; Eve did not become a rib (or whatever Eve was made of), neither do we go back to our mother’s womb and become embryos. All humans find their origin in the first man: what he was, we all are. Hence to argue that only to man is referred to in Gen 3 is to say that only he would return to dust whence he was taken from.
Ha’adam refers to a human, whether male or female, in all instances where it is found in the Bible.
Gen 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man’s (ha’adam) blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God made he man. (ASV)
Ex 9:19
Now therefore send, hasten in thy cattle and all that thou hast in the field; (for) every man (ha’adam) and beast that shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die. (ASV)
Ex 33:20
But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man (ha’adam) can see Me and live!” (NAS)
Etc, etc.
There are 522 instances in which ha’adam is used, and only 10 in which ‘Adam is used as a name for the first man without the definite article. A Jewish commentator, when asked why Eve was not given a name until after the fall, answered: because her name was ‘adam, i.e. human, the same as the man’s, for they were both human. The writer, when wishing to emphasize that there were two humans, writes ha’adam and ishshah; when emphasis is not needed, he uses ha’adam of both. Of course ha’adam referred only to the man when the woman was not present for he was the only human alive. In Gen 1 and 5 it is clear that ha’adam includes both the male and the female. In the creation story found in Gen 2 the emphasis is in the fact that the one created human becomes two distinct persons; both equally human, yet different because one was a male and the other a female.
“Gem” wrote a comment on my blog (http://submissiontyranny.blogspot.com/2009/06/prepare-to-be-surprised.html#comments) that a woman being a keeper at home actually means she is to be a guardian, a security guard. That led me to see what it meant for Adam to “keep” the garden. Indeed, it too means he is to guard the garden.
In other words, Adam was the security guard and also was to serve and till the garden before Eve came on the scene.
If the security guard at the jewelry store took the diamonds himself, he would be fired promptly and banished from the store. It wouldn’t matter if his wife came in and tried on jewelry and took it, the owner would still hold the security guard responsible–and doubly so if the guard himself not only didn’t stop his wife, but took some himself. Notice that he put Cherubims and a flaming sword at the east of the garden to do the security guard job Adam was supposed to do. Adam not only sinned through disobedience, he also sinned through stealing from and betraying his boss. The male, Adam, could not be trusted with God’s precious possessions, did not respect his employer’s rules, and thus was banished from the “store.”
There is no indication that Eve was told to not eat of the fruit of the tree, because Adam was told before she even came into being. To me, this is not about Adam being the leader, with the exception that he “leads” by being created first. Instead it is about God having spoken directly to Adam, not to Eve concerning the tree, because she had not yet been formed.
Now, a person can read the word of God and gain insight. But there are times where God quickens the word to our hearts because the Spirit is speaking directly to us. Those encounters are much more meaningful than simple reading of the word. In the same way, the word Adam got was directly from God and hit him hard. Eve, however, in presumably getting it second hand from Adam, who was catching her up on what she had missed, heard it like a simple reading of the word. There was no “rhema” as there had been for Adam.
The words Eve said, that she was not even to touch the fruit, words God did not say, suggests that Adam tried very hard to impress upon her the depth and seriousness of what God had told him, by adding to God’s command. It also suggests she was to help him be security guard, but that she was more like a “subcontractor.” The contractor is still the responsible party, and the contractor must pass all info to the subcontractor, who has a separate accounting system, is responsible for the job, yet is likely to get most directions from the contractor, because the one hiring them doesn’t want to say it twice, and the two are seldom in the same place at the same time..
However, the woman apparently also had a place of authority that is higher than a subcontractor. If she was Adam’s assistant, as some suggest, or even a subcontractor, God would not have called her to account. Calling Adam to account would have been enough, and Adam would have been responsible for calling his wife to account. But that is not how God did it. He called each of them to account, which suggests Eve had security guard authority equal to Adam’s, even though she got the information second hand.
The real differentiation is that Eve was deceived, but Adam did it on purpose. To Eve, the serpent’s words were just as authorative as Adam’s had been. The serpent was merely giving Eve “updated” information–Eve thought. She had no reason to believe anyone would tell her a lie or deceive her. She had never heard of or experienced deception before, so she had no idea what to guard against. It is unknown whether Adam heard the serpent. But even if he did, he would still have God’s own words ringing in his ears. His act of eating the fruit was a deliberate and possibly premeditated act of disobedience.
Concerning whether God banished Eve from the garden, I notice the singular “the” is used in referring to “the man,” meaning the male, but only uses “man” when referring to both male and female. Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” The writer goes out of his way to clarify that he means both male and female in this instance, where “man” is used without “the.” In verse 28, says And God blessed THEM and said unto THEM. When “the man” is bannished from the garden, the singular suggests Adam was the one driven out. However, I would expect Eve went with him, since her desire was now for her husband’s affection.
Sue,
“I think Waneta Dawn has the right take on this in her most recent post on the Submission Tyranny blog.”
Thanks for your comment! Hannah was over here, and alerted me that my name was being used, so I came over to check it out. You folks are doing real well without my input, yet I can’t resist a good discussion. 🙂
Susanna,
A must read for the topic at hand!
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/28/the-sin-of-the-man/
That logic does not follow. It does not follow that only the man would return to dust if God forced only him out of the garden, just as it does not follow that only the man would return to dust if God cursed the ground only on his account.
Gen 2 is how it all went down regarding the creation of the man and woman therefore Gen 1 is a view from further away. God creates the human (Gen 1:26 AND 2:7) in his image, then God works somekind of cloning process and the woman comes from the man (Gen 1:27 “he made them male and female” & Gen 2:22 & 23). And since the grammar is singular in Gen 1:26, “the human” then refers to Adam, the first human being just as the singular in Gen 3 does. But in Gen 5 “adam” is singular collective for the name of the race as it is used without the definate article unlike Gen 1, 2 and 3.
That’s the scooby and my final thoughts for the night ;P
”that a woman being a keeper at home actually means she is to be a guardian, a security guard.”
I’ve read Gem’s ideas on that and appreciate them. The word is oikourus. It is literally ‘home-see-ers’. And that does come out to be a guardian. This actually ties in with the fact that ezer in Hebrew is a strong word meaning defend and protect rather than the diminuitive ‘assistance’ that some assume. She was the help that allayed his aloneness, and in the helping would become his personal defender and protecter.
”Eve, however, in presumably getting it second hand from Adam, who was catching her up on what she had missed, heard it like a simple reading of the word. There was no “rhema” as there had been for Adam.
The words Eve said, that she was not even to touch the fruit, words God did not say, suggests that Adam tried very hard to impress upon her the depth and seriousness of what God had told him, by adding to God’s command.”
It has long been presumed that Eve was treated with less respect than Adam by having to get everything secondhand, but it is a presumption that is not upheld in Scripture. Eve herself said that ‘God said’. She did not say that ‘Adam said we are not to eat’ or that ‘Adam said that God said’ or that ‘Adam said he was not to eat’. Eve said that God said ‘we, she and Adam, were not to eat’. At that point in time, they had not sinned. One way we know this is that their nakedness was still not known. Their nakedness was not discovered until after they had sinned. Eve being pure and naïve’ was not familiar with lying. Eve did not lie when she said that God said they were not to eat. This suggests that she got it directly from God. Scripture does not have all of the conversations between God and the first humans recorded. We have only the briefest of accounts. I am certain that many more conversations happened between the first two humans and God than we are privy to.
As well, there is the fact that every time ‘not eating’ is mentioned by God He said it differently. Cheryl has some good research on that. Thus, there is still no reason to not believe that God said she was not to even touch the fruit of the tree. We don’t know the reason, but we can justly assume that there was one. Perhaps, the woman was more tactile oriented and liked to touch and feel everything. And perhaps, God knew that could cause her to be enticed by it. We just don’t know.
It is not because Eve didn’t have enough information about the prohibition of the tree that she was deceived. It was because the serpent that beguiled her was the cleverest of all creatures and he pulled out his most deceptive tactics in order to fool her.
“Hence to argue that only to man is referred to in Gen 3 is to say that only he would return to dust whence he was taken from.”
I look at it differently. To say that the man is to be ejected from the garden to till the ground from which he was taken is an identifier. Only the man was created directly from the ground and it was the ground outside of the garden. Thus it also identified that he was created outside of the garden. None of those identifiers applies to the woman.
Yet, of course she will also return to dust because being recreated from the man, her physical essence also contained the elements of the dirt. But she was not created from the dirt as the man was. She was recreated, reformed from the side of the man, taking the elements from his flesh and bones.
“Gen 2 is how it all went down regarding the creation of the man and woman therefore Gen 1 is a view from further away.”
Astutely stated!
Pinklight, my women’s Bible Study is going through the book of Genesis. So far, there have been at least two other instances where Moses wrote in that style: stating it briefly first and then detailing the events. One I think was the Babylon incident.
Hmmm? – Humans?
Came from the dust of the earth?
Going back to the dust of the earth?
Looked under my bed this morning…
Someone’s either coming or going…
Yes, Gen 2:7 tells us that he was taken from the ground outside of the garden because after God takes him from the ground then God plants a garden in Eden and Gen 2:8 tells us that God then puts the man inside the garden, and so Gen 3:23 tells us that the man is going to serve the ground outside the garden from which he was taken which could only have been the man.
And what I find very interesting is that after God made him from outside the garden, he placed him inside the garden to serve it, Gen 2:15, but when he is being forced outside the garden he is to serve the ground outside the garden from which he was taken. So he was originaly to serve the garden but now after he sins he is to serve the ground outside the garden from which he was taken.
Cool! And I wouldn’t be surprised… ;P
Let me fine tune my last statement of the paragraph above:
But in Gen 5 AND Gen 1:26 (God’s intention to create the race) “adam” is singular collective for the name of the race as it is used without the definate article unlike Gen 1:27, 2 and 3.
http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-is-another-in-series-of-entries-i.html
gengwall’s ontop of it! You go gengwall! 🙂
Since TL already answered the points I was going to, I will leave the discussion with a note from Robert Alter, a professor in Hebrew and Comparative literature:
“The term ‘adam, afterward consistently with a definite article, which is used both here [Genesis 1:27] and in the second account of the origins of humankind, is a generic term for human beings, not a proper noun. It also does not automatically suggest maleness, especially not without the prefix ben, “son of,” and so the traditional rendering “man” is misleading, an exclusively male ‘adam would make nonsense of the last clause of verse 27.”
Mark, I am going to post a response to you later tonight.
The Subjection of the Son
The era of 330-700 CE in Church history can be divided into three sections: 1. The discussion about the relationship between the Son and the Father; 2. The discussion about relationship between the God and Man in Christ; 3. Iconoclasm.
The Christological discussions were prompted by the spreading of two distinct teachings:
1. Arianism by Arius, who taught that the Son was a created being, for if the Godhead is one ultimate and self-sufficient principle, it cannot contain more than a single unity. If the Son and the Father are distinct persons, both cannot be part of the single self-sufficient first principle and hence the Son must be subordinated to the Father.
2. Sabellianism by Sabellius, who taught that the Father and Son were identical in being, and only different modes, or expressions, of the one God.
These two suggestions both attempted to explain the problem of the Trinity: how can one single entity contain more than one person? The theologians of the fourth century responded by rejecting both Arianism and Sabellianism in favor of a Christology which recognized one first principle, the Father, who is unbegotten, and His Son, who is begotten by the Father, hence creating two separate entities, without jeopardizing the unity of the Godhead and creating two Gods without a beginning.
Gregory of Nazianzen, called “The Theologian” wrote in response to Arianism:
“For as these low earthly minds make the Son subject to the Father, so again is the rank of the Spirit made inferior to that of the Son, until both God and created life are insulted by the new Theology. No, my friends, there is nothing servile in the Trinity, nothing created, nothing accidental, as I have heard one of the wise say.”
Contrary to Arianism, in modern theology the subjection of the Son is found in the sending of the Son: the Father sends and the Son obeys by coming to the world. However, this would make the Son subject to the Spirit, since also the Spirit sent the Son. Yet, also the Son sent the Spirit, hence Ambrose, bishop of Milan wrote:
“Who is it Who says: The Lord God hath sent Me and His Spirit, except He Who came from the Father that He might save sinners? And, as you hear, the Spirit sent Him, lest when you hear that the Son sends the Spirit, you should believe the Spirit to be of inferior power. So both the Father and the Spirit sent the Son; the Father sent Him, for it is written: “But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My Name.” The Son sent Him, for He said: “But when the Paraclete is come, Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth.” If, then, the Son and the Spirit send each other, as the Father sends, there is no inferiority of subjection, but a community of power.”
Although modern theologians refuse to admit it, in the fourth century subjection was synonymous with inferiority, hence the subjection of women did not become part of theology until their inferiority to the man was well established at the end of the second century. If the Son is subject to the Father, he must also be inferior, the conclusion Arius came to.
Subjection entails not only inferiority but being under the power of another’s will, for obedience removes one’s free will. Basil argued in his comment on John 5:19 that the Son would be lower than the humans He created if He is subject to the Father’s authority:
“If freedom of action is better than subjection to control, and a man is free, while the Son of God is subject to control, then the man is better than the Son. This is absurd. And if he who is subject to control cannot create free beings (for he cannot of his own will confer on others what he does not possess himself), then the Saviour, since He made us free, cannot Himself be under the control of any. If the Son could do nothing of Himself, and could only act at the bidding of the Father, He is neither good nor bad. He was not responsible for anything that was done. Consider the absurdity of the position that men should be free agents both of good and evil, while the Son, who is God, should be able to do nothing of His own authority!”
Already before the Arian controversy, Tertullian had answered Marcion, whose dualism made the God of the Old Testament an inferior god.
“Since therefore he [Marcion] is obliged to acknowledge that the God whom he does not deny is the great Supreme, it is inadmissible that he should predicate of the Supreme Being such a diminution as should subject Him to another Supreme Being, for He ceases (to be Supreme), if He becomes subject to any. Besides, it is not the characteristic of God to cease from any attribute of His divinity – say, from His supremacy.”
If the Son is subject to the Father’s will and His authority, He cannot be omnipotent and supreme, i.e. God, at the same time, wherefore Ambrose stated in his work Exposition of the Christian Faith, “If the one name and right of God belong to both the Father and the Son, since the Son of God is also true God, and a King eternal, the Son of God is not made subject in His Godhead.”
Ambrose continued:
“For if He were made subject through His nature, He would always remain in subjection; but since He is said to be made subject in time, that subjection must be part of an assumed office and not of an everlasting weakness: especially as the eternal Power of God cannot change His state for a time, neither can the right of ruling Fall to the Father in time. For if the Son ever will be changed in such wise as to be made subject in His Godhead, then also must God the Father, if ever He shall gain more power, and have the Son in subjection to Himself in His Godhead, be considered now in the meantime inferior according to your explanation.”
Basil agreed with Ambrose, for he wrote, “If the Son is subjected to the Father in the Godhead, then He must have been subjected from the beginning, from whence He was God. But if He was not subjected, but shall be subjected, it is in the manhood, as for us, not in the Godhead, as for Himself.”
The Son is said to become subject to the Father after He delivers the Kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). Hilary of Poiters wrote that the Son cannot cease to possess the Kingdom after delivering it to the Father, for it would mean that the Father “lost all, when He delivered all to Son” (Luke 10:22), and it would also have included all authority (Matt. 28:18). Since “the Father did not cease to possess that which he delivered, neither does the Son surrender that which He delivers.” The delivering is therefore about the dispensation, not the Kingdom itself.
“When all things are subjected to Him, says He, then must He be subjected to Him, Who subjects all things to Himself; and by this ‘then’ he means to denote the temporal Dispensation. For if we put any other construction on the subjection, Christ, though then to be subjected, is not subjected now, and thus we make Him an insolent and impious rebel, whom the necessity of time, breaking as it were and subduing His profane and overweening pride, will reduce to a tardy obedience.”
Hilary recognized that the Son could not be subject in His incarnation and become subject at the end of His work as the Mediator for a person cannot be subjected more than once.
Hilary pointed also out that throughout the New Testament, when one person of the Trinity is spoken of the same is also true of the others. Thus we find that although the Father places all things under the feet of the Son, also the Son subjects all things under His own feet (Phil. 3:21) for, “through the birth the nature of God is abiding in the Son, and does that which He Himself [God] does.”
Because the context of the subjecting of all things to the Son in Philippians 3:21 is resurrection, Hilary made the following observation.
“The Apostle tells us also of the special reward attained by this subjection which is made perfect by the subjection of belief: Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the works of His power, whereby He is able to subject all things to Himself. There is then another subjection, which consists in a transition from one nature to another, for our nature ceases, so far as its present character is concerned, and is subjected to Him, into Whose form it passes. But by ‘ceasing’ is implied not an end of being, but a promotion into something higher. Thus our nature by being merged into the image of the other nature which it receives, becomes subjected through the imposition of a new form.”
Also the second century Bishop Irenaeus wrote that, “being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One.” Hence the subjection of the Son signifies the translation of the body of the Son to become once more God only as He relinquishes His resurrected human form.
Augustine emphasized further that a clear distinction exists between the humanity and divinity of Christ.
“For, because He Himself, being the first-begotten of the dead, made a passage to the kingdom of God to life eternal for His Church, to which He is so the Head as to make the body also immortal, therefore He was “created in the beginning of the ways” of God in His work. For, according to the form of God, He is the beginning, that also speaketh unto us, in which “beginning” God created the heaven and the earth; but according to the form of a servant, “He is a bridegroom coming out of His chamber.” According to the form of God, “He is the first-born of every creature, and He is before all things and by him all things consist;” according to the form of a servant, “He is the head of the body, the Church.” According to the form of God, “He is the Lord of glory.” From which it is evident that He Himself glorifies His saints: for, “Whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Of Him accordingly it is said, that He justifieth the ungodly; of Him it is said, that He is just and a justifier. I
f, therefore, He has also glorified those whom He has justified, He who justifies, Himself also glorifies; who is, as I have said, the Lord of glory. Yet, according to the form of a servant, He replied to His disciples, when inquiring about their own glorification: “To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared by my Father.”
Augustine agreed with Hilary in that “what is said of each [of the persons in the Trinity] is also said of all, on account of the indivisible working of the one and same substance.” Therefore, in His humanity the Son affirmed that it is impossible for a human to perform the works He did on his on, wherefore the works were the Father’s. Yet, “take care you understand also, that if ‘all things which the Father hath are mine,’ then this certainly is mine also, and I with the Father have prepared these things.”
In His humanity the Son learned obedience by the things he suffered (Heb. 5:7-9). Not that he had to learn it for Himself, for He always did what was pleasing to the Father. Instead, as Gregory of Nazianzen explained:
“For in His character of the Word He was neither obedient nor disobedient. For such expressions belong to servants, and inferiors, and the one applies to the better sort of them, while the other belongs to those who deserve punishment. But, in the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending. Thus He honours obedience by His action, and proves it experimentally by His Passion. For to possess the disposition is not enough, just as it would not be enough for us, unless we also proved it by our acts; for action is the proof of disposition.”
Thus the obedience of the Son was for our benefit, exercised only during His Incarnation, leading to His death for the sake of our sins.
Phil 2:5-8
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death-
even death on a cross!
The Son was equal to the Father before becoming a human. Subjection cannot co-exist with equality regardless of the great effort of complementarists to convince us otherwise, for what is equality if not the absence of subjection? One is not equal if one does not have equal say; a lesson learned from friendship. In His resurrected Incarnation the Son is subject to the Godhead in His humanity and in His role as the High Priest, but He is also exalted above all as the Lord and Savior and the Father has given Him all authority. As a human He shared in all aspects of our lives, but as God, He shares all aspects of the Godhead. Hence the Son has never been in complete subjection to the Father, for in His divinity He raised Himself, just as the Spirit and the Father are said to have raised Him. He healed the sick, forgave sins, raised the dead and judged those who did not heed His words. Only God can do these. Yet, in His humanity He was dependent of the Father, said the Father was greater than He, and asked for the will of the Father to be done. Because the subjection of the Son is needed in order to enforce the subjection of the woman to the man, the comparison is attempted, but it is not possible, for the Son, even in His incarnated form, possessed greater power and authority than a human ever will.
The beginning of the “economy” of subjection within the Trinity seems to have begun with Calvin, who rejected the belief that the Son was begotten by the Father. I am still in the middle of reading his Institutes so I cannot really tell you why he came to the conclusion quite yet. I do know that he did not receive it from the Scholastics. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in rejecting the subjection of the Son in the thirteenth century. Calvin wrote in the sixteenth, so something happened along the way. I am trying to find out what that something was.
I disagree with the professor and methinks that he has left out some details in the equation. Once ALL details are considered, I don’t think there is a question as to what “ha’adam” in 1:27a means.
Only one human being of the two in chp 2 is referred to as “the human” and also “man” (male) while the second human being is only refered to as “woman” (female). Therefore Gen 1:27a does not refer to both collectively if it is to Completely, Completely coincide with what is written in chp 2 since the woman in chp 2 is never refered to as “the human”. Then, 1:27b also completely coincides with chp 2 because only at the point where the second human being is designated to be female, “woman” is at the same point in Gen 2 where the first human being is designated to be male, “man”. Ofcourse none of this can bring into question the human nature of Eve. Now if the ish (man) and ishshah (woman)were created at the same time in Gen 2, then I could see ha’adam to mean “humankind”. So 1:27a is a view on Adam’s creation and 1:27b is a view on when woman was taken from man.
Pinklight’s Literal Version:
And what I’m arguing for may seem like it would support the comp position that only “man” was made in the direct image of God – Bruce Ware, except that the text 1:27a literaly reads “THE HUMAN” was made in the image of God, not “THE MAN” or “THE MALE” (Caps for emphasis) and 1:27b “male” and “female” are words chosen by inspiration that are contrasted with ha’adam because they are Hebrew words that denote sex for either human beings or animals (see Noah’s Ark) showing that sex wasn’t made in God’s image. The written word is Precise indeed! If 1:27a had said “the man” was made in God’s image then Bruce ware would of had a case to begin with. So I don’t believe in exchanging biblical words with our own when on the topic of doctrine cause that is what will get us in a mess, like the one Ware is in.
If woman’s equality of humanity being made in God’s image can be questioned based on 1:27a then it could be questioned as to whether or not when God made the human from the dust of the ground, if he had made him male at that time or if he made the human, male when he made woman since the first time his gender is mentioned is only at woman’s creation. I think it’s ridiculous to question either. It doesn’t directly say when God made the human, male. It doesn’t directly say that woman is equally human either. I bet the first human was made male at the time his body was formed from the dirt, (because he next had to identify female from male animals at the least when he named the animals…) and that woman is equally human, (Gen 1:26, God intended to make “humankind” – “them” in his image) therefore the direct image of God.
Okay, I’m done speaking my mind for now 🙂 thanks!
Though it’s been a few days since I last commented on Mark’s postings regarding 1 Cor. 11:3, this inactivity has not been due to a lack of interest in the key issues being debated in connection with this text, I asure you. Rather, it’s been due to the necessary and unavoidable demands and challenges of daily life. Moreover, I have been carefully reviewing Mark’s material and the critiques given it by the various responders. The last thing I have desired to do was “wade into the pond” and further stir-up and muddy the waters, as it were, by offering unhelpful and irrelevant comments. Nevertheless, like Cheryl and several other visitors to this website, I have been gifted, called and trained to be both a minister of Christ and a guardian of the Gospel Faith. And to have such a gifting and calling from the Spirit not only involves the prayerful, careful study and exposition of Scripture, but also the faithful guarding and passing on of the Apostolic “deposit of truth” to other gifted and “trustworthy people who will be able to pass it on” as well (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14 and 2:1-2, 15, NLT).
At first, I was going to place this commentary at Mark’s previous posting. But on the basis of the on-going criticism regarding the Trinity and the Subordinationist use of 1 Cor. 11:3 found here, I have chosen to place it on this posting. So I will begin by revisiting some key issues connected with the Trinity and what I regard as Subordinationists’ misuse of 1 Cor. 11:3. Then, afterwards, I intend to make some comments regarding both the NT’s expectation and approval of men and women praying and prophesying together during congregational worship, for the purpose of mutual instruction and encouragement, as enabled and led by the Spirit–which, contra complementarians, is the teaching not only of 1 Cor. 11:2-14:40, but also of Rom. 12:3-8; Col. 3:12-17; Eph. 5:10-20; and 1 Pet. 4:7-11. So let me begin with my comments regarding the Trinity and 1 Cor. 11:3.
I think it is safe to say that most of those who read Cheryl’s website are convinced that the true and faithful proclamation, defense and confirmation of the Christian Faith in our day of intellectual and moral relativism is a real life and death matter. How much more necessary, then, is the faithful and uncompromising proclamation, defense and confirmation of the Doctrine of the Trinity–which is the heart and center of all other Christian belief and practice? Julia Castle-Wright explains as follows:
Trinitarian formulations were carefully worded to express precisely what it was the Scriptures taught about God. The effect of each term or phrase on the whole doctrine was always considered. The writers were as much aware of what they were NOT saying as they were of the positive teaching. The Councils refuted false doctrine, and warned against saying too much or saying too little. We can be assured that the Church knew what it did NOT believe as well as it knew the recognized dogma all Christians were to believe. If we get this fundamental doctrine wrong, there is little hope of formulating a systematic expression of the common faith that has any relation to the God who is revealed in Scripture. Our knowledge and belief about also profoundly affects our worship of God. The Athanasian Creed boldly declares, “This is what the catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the Persons, but we do not divide the substance” (Schaff, 1972). We must know the One who saves us; we must know whom we worship. To be in error on the Doctrine of God is to be subject to error in every other area of the Faith…Our doctrine of God affects ecclesiology (the doctrine of the Church), hamartiology (the nature of sin), anthropology (the doctrine of humanity), the doctrine of marriage (and incidently, our practice of marriage), and the relationship of men and women. Because these doctrines are interrelated, a flawed understanding of the relationship of men and women in the Church and in marriage can lead to a false view of the Being and nature of God. We should not begin with men and women, but with the nature and Being of God as revealed in Scripture (cf. “Subordination in the Trinity?,” The Journal of Biblical Equality, Vol. 3, June 1991, pp. 32-33).
Furthermore, all orthodox theologians, from Athanasius until now, have contended that a wrong understanding of the Trinity also adversely affects the doctrines of salvation through Christ Jesus and of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. So it is not a light matter to trifle with the Doctrine of the Trinity, by anyone for any reason. And I think that, at least on this point, we would all agree. Now to those points where I and others strongly disagree with Mark on the hierarchical ranking of the Three Persons within the Triune God.
Mark, in your reply to Pinklight’s critique of your viewpoint (Comment #158) on the previous posting, you stated, “Yes, think Jesus is equally God, and equal in essence, power, authority, etc., to both the Father and the Holy Spirit. However, I do think that Jesus is ‘subordinate’ in relation to his subsistence. For example, Jesus is sent from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and the Son. The Son never sends the Father, and likewise with the Spirit. This is what the Bible teaches in regards to the ‘subsistence’ of the members of the Trinity, and the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers commented on a difference between the economic and essential Trinity. One in relation to ‘essence,’ one to ‘subsistence’. Any thorough research of the Bible and history will confirm what I am saying, but of course, an egalitarian cannot accept this because it means that man and woman can be equal yet different in terms of roles. Therefore they must reject the orthodox position of the Trinity.” Let us unpack and examine this statement, exposing several confusing, contradictory, and misleading elements for those who may have not followed this debate as fully as some others:
1. “Any thorough research of the Bible and history will confirm what I am saying, but of course, an egalitarian cannot accept this because it means that men and women can be equal but different in terms of roles. Therefore they must reject the orthodox position of the Trinity.” Well, Mark, many of us were orthodox Trinitarians long before we became egalitarians. In the Independent Baptist church I grew up in Michigan, we recited the Nicene Creed and were taught that only Jehovah’s Witnesses denied the coequality and coeternity of the Son and the Spirit with that of the Father. And it was they, not us, who used the “sending of the Son and Spirit” and “The Father is greater than I” arguments to prove that both Jesus and the Spirit were less divine that Jehovah himself. Therefore, this novel doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father was unheard of among Independent Baptists in the 1950’s and 1960’s when I was a lad. Furthermore, I think the treatment that Cheryl, myself and others have already given both of the pertinent Scriptures and of the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers shows that, contrary to what you say, thorough study of Scripture and of the historical, theological writings of the Church disprove that the eternal subordination of the Son and Spirit to the Father is the same as or even compatible with the orthodox teaching regarding the Trinity.
And in addition to this, I would also point out what I think is obvious to everyone: It is one thing to argue that the Three Persons are both equal in Being and distinct as Persons. But it is quite another to argue that They are truly equal in every way as Deity and yet, because they are distinguished as different Persons, therefore must of necessity and at the same time, exist in an eternal, hierarchically ranked order, recognized only by the rigid and unchanging division of labor among the Three Persons. Not only does such an argument violate what the Scriptures and the Creeds teach about the true Unity and Diversity of the Three Persons, but it also violates what they teach about the unity, harmony and inseparability of the Three Persons in the divine works of creation and redemption.
But if you really desire some additional evidence for my contention on this point, I will now utilize the “confirmation by two or three reliable witnesses rule” of Scripture that Cheryl has so well explained and encouraged us to follow. Here are my three witnesses, given in reversed, chronological order of importance:
a. John Owen, Puritan theologian and member of Parliment: “All external operations of the Trinity are indivisible. Every Person is the author of every work of God, because each Person is God, and the divine nature is the same undivided principle of all divine operations” (Cf.The Works of John Owen, Vol. 3, Banner of Truth Trust, 1968).
b. Augustine, African bishop, theologian and apologist: “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are of one and the same substance or essence…[and they] constitute a divine unity of one and the same indivisible equality. The three have the same eternity, immutability, majesty, power…the will of the Father and the Son is one and their operation inseparable…when one of the Three is mentioned as the author of any work, the whole Trinity is to be understood as working” (Cf. The Fathers of the Church: Saint Augustine, The Trinity, The Catholic University of America Press, 1963).
c. Paul, Apostle of Christ, theologian and apologist: “There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit is the source of them all. There are different kinds of service, but we serve the same Lord. God works in different ways, but it is the same God who does the work in all of us” (1 Cor. 12:4-6, NLT).
2. “Jesus is sent from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and the Son. The Son never sends the Father, and likewise with the Spirit. This is what the Bible teaches in regards to the subsistence of the members of the members of the Trinity, and the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers commented on a difference between the economic and essential Trinity. One in relation to ‘essence,’ one to subsistence.'” Let’s see, you are saying that the Early Church Fathers and the Reformers were agreed that there was a difference between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity, which you designate as the “essential Trinity” and the “economic Trinity.” Okay, I will agree that the two are to be distinguished: The Ontological Trinity has to do with the eternal, inward and personal interrelations of the Triune God, while the Economic Trinity has to do with the temporal and external relations and operations of the Triune God as regards creation and redemption.
But while I will agree that they are connected and that the Economic Trinity “flows out” of the Ontological Trinity, I do not agree that they are fully identical, in every way. For there is some very real important continuity and discontinuity between these two. Remember, I have already addressed this in one of my earlier comments on this difference:
[A]ll agreed with Athanasius and Basil that the Three Persons could not be understood as three different appearances or modes of action in creation and redemption by God. Since God is eternal, God’s Triunity must also be eternal. So the Three Persons, if truly divine, must have real being without and before God’s actions in creation and redemption, since both creation and redemption are not eternal, but temporal in nature. So the various distinguishable temporal actions, operations, or “roles” of God in creation and redemption cannot be essential to the true eternal distinctions or differences between the Persons. If “roles” in creation and redemption were necessary for marking the true distinctions between the Three Persons, then none of them could be said to be eternal, and so there would be a time when there was not a Father, not a Son, not a Spirit. Again, if “roles” or “functions” were necessary for distinguishing the Divine Persons, then there was a time when God was not triune or when the Persons, if they were at all, were not wholly God.
To clarify this issue, let me express it this way: Though the Father has always been the Father of the Son, there was a “time” when he was neither our Creator nor our Father; though the Son has always been the Son of the Father, there was a “time” when he was neither our Redeemer nor our Mediator with the Father; though the Spirit, as the Spirit of the Father and the Son eternally binds together and maintains the mutualy loving and interactive union and communion which is the reality of the eternal and internal life of the Triune God–there was a “time” when the Spirit was neither our Life-Giver nor our Sanctifier. For until the creation of the universe, the fall of humanity, and its consequent need of redemption and reconciliation became a reality outside of and separate from the Triune God, these external and temporal actions, operations, or “roles” were only a potentiality and not an actuality within the Triune God himself. To think otherwise is to violate what most Reformed theologians, such as Cornelius Van Til and Thomas F. Torrance, regard as the “Creator-creature distinction” made by the Scriptures themselves. This confusion of the temporal and the eternal, the Divine and the creaturely, has plagued Christian theology since the days of Origen, who gave birth to the subordinationsim of Arius and others. Torrance explains it this way:
“What Athanasius encountered in the teaching of Origen, in his failure to distinguish between the eternal generation of the Son and the creation of the world, between ontological and cosmological dimensions, is not unlike, it may be said, what is found today in process theology according to which the external relations of God are held in some measure to be consitutive of what he is as God. God is always Father, but he is not always Creator, for in his creative activity God has to do what is ‘external’ to his Being, freely giving existence to what did not exist before, and sustaining it by his will and grace in a creaturely coexitence with himself. Origen’s rather hellenistic failure to distinguish between the ontological and cosmological dimensions of his understanding of God as Father and Creator had the effect of ultimately resolving ‘the temporal Gospel’ into the ‘the everlasting Gospel,’ thus undermining the particularity and concrete reality of God’s revealing and saving acts in history…While God was always Father and was Father independently of what he created, as Creator he acted in a way that he had not done before, in bringing about absolutely new events–this means that the creation of the world out of nothing is something new even for God. God was always Father, but he became Creator. This is not to say, of course, that God did not always have the power to create, nor is it to say that creation was not in the Mind of God before he actually brought it into being, but that he brought it into being by a definite act of his gracious will. It is in a similar way we must think of the incarnation, for although God was always able to become incarnate, he chose to become incarnate in what the Bible calls ‘the fullness of time’; and [we] must likewise also think of Pentecost and the radical change in the nature and mode of his presence in the world which it intiated. Taken together these new decisive acts of God in creation, incarnation, and the coming of the Spirit, have breath-taking implications for our understanding of the unlimited freedom of God. They tell us that far from being a static or inertial Deity like some ‘unmoved mover,’ the mighty living God who reveals himself to us through his Son and in his Spirit is absolutely free to do what he had never done before, and free to be other than he was eternally: to be Almighty Creator, and even to become incarnate as a creature within his creation, while nevertheless remaining eternally the God that he always was” (Cf. “The Sovereign Creator,” The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons, p. 208)
There are some excellent comments here! Thanks Frank for the hard work. Thanks also to Susanna. Pinklight, what can I say? Your thoughts are profound and if I had read stuff before you did, I would have likely answered in the same vein as you did. Good work!
Now to this comment:
I do not believe at all that Genesis 1:27 means a generic human. I agree that it does not automatically suggest males, yes, that is right, but the definite article has a definite meaning. If God wanted to identify humanity, He can clearly do so by the use of “man” without the definite article. This He does in Genesis 1:26. (correction Genesis 1:26 uses “the human” however it also calls them “them” so this is one instance where humanity is referenced by the particular “them”) The use of the definite article in verse 27 aligns up to the definite article used for the definite particular human that God speaks to in chapter 3. That definite human is always the man the the woman is never called “the man”.
I like pinklight’s rendering of these verses and the inspired definite article could well have been an indefinite “man” had God wanted to refer to man in a generic way in verse 27. But since God differentiated between humankind and “the man” what would be the reason that we should see a generic meaning when the generic word is not in the original language?
Let’s take another look at verse 27:
If “the man” is not specific but generic then there is disconnect in this verse. Here is the disconnect:
This generic view makes the passage about all humans. But the passage is specific about singular and plural. I see no reason at all to force “the human” to be outside of consistent usage in Genesis to refer to one specific human.
I’m glad you covered this. I wanted to but somehow I couldn’t believe that such is what the professor had said because of how “far gone” it is. So I was tripped up *cross eyed* lol!
Thanks all, you guys write so much.
Frank,
I’m a bit perplexed at this statement. Can you expound what you mean for me because it sounds very much like Sebellianism.
“For until the creation of the universe, the fall of humanity, and its consequent need of redemption and reconciliation became a reality outside of and separate from the Triune God, these external and temporal actions, operations, or “roles” were only a potentiality and not an actuality within the Triune God himself.”
Susanna,
I’m not sure whether you think Calvin teaches something contrary to the early church Fathers in relation to the Trinity. If so i would disagree. Augustines ‘De Trinites’ is almost regurgitated by Calvin in his works.
I think what we can all gain here is that the Trinity is an amazingly complex doctrine which we will never totally understand. But i do agree with Frank that to get it wrong is disasterous.
In relation to Genesis i agree with Susanna. Gen 4 we know Eve is not in the garden. Cheryl, you might insist that it is reading into the text to say that Eve was banished, but no where do i see it said that she followed Adam out. Both sides are attempting to understand that which is not written. However, what i know about the doctrine of sin, makes it very difficult to think that Eve was not banished regardless of her deception. Post fall she is still a sinner, still rebellious and seperate to God, and still deserving to be removed from His Holy presence. To say she is not a ‘threat’ as a sinful person is contrary to the sinful nature exposed in the scriptures.
Also Cheryl,
“This is a tradition of men that has no basis in the Bible.”
Is this generic (human) or just ‘men’. You must keep in mind it is not just ‘men’ who hold to the orthodox conservative traditions?????
Mark,
It seems to me that you assume that ALL sin is done out of a rebellious heart. In other words when God’s law is broken or treaded over, it can only be done with a rebellious heart even though when God law is broken, that it is broken is what is the sin itself. If God’s law is broken then it is broken, no matter how God’s law is broken by a person. Sin is the breaking of God’s law, period. But matters of the heart are a different issue. So do you or not assume that ALL sin is a mater of rebellion against God’s law aside the heart of an individual? So the heart of an individual doesn’t matter, say if one sin’s out of ignorance? The heart doesn’t matter, only the breaking of the law does and therefore, all breaking of law = a rebellious heart. Is this what you believe? When someone’s mind is deceived and they break God’s law, do they break God’s law because their mind is deceived or because they have a rebellios heart, or is a deceived mind equal to a rebellious heart?
Now there’s no way to think that Adam’s sin which was done out of rebellion – clearly – was imputed to Eve since she is not his offspring, and so on that note, I’ve nothing to ask, unless ofcourse you want to go there too?
Is a deceived mind one and the same with a rebellious heart?
But what you’re are missing, Mark is that the sinful nature in scripture describes us all who are descendants of Adam, those who are his offspring, of which Eve is not. Woman was not made from the man after he sinned out of a rebellious heart, but rather before he sinned out of rebellion. If Eve was a threat then she HAD to of had a rebellious nature, but since she sinned out of being deceived, where is the proof of this rebellious nature? For all we can read she broke God’s law out of her mind being deceived which is not one and the same with a rebellious heart.
I can’t read Hebrew but the Hebrew is the SAME for the man as it is for woman. The man “he was taken” from the ground. Woman “she was taken” from ish. I’m just looking at scripture4all. I’ve no reference books anymore…So there is definate contrast between who was taken from what.
So the singular pronoun “him” in v23 must refer to “the man” in v22, therefore it must be Adam excluding Eve since “she was taken” from ish not the ground and so when the author uses “the man” again but in v24, there is no reason to think that he has now changed it to mean “humanknd” since that would be mere confusion. And what “the man” means in vv22-24 must be determined by the context which only supports the idea that the person being refered to here is Adam. There is nothing in the context to support otherwise, that’s a fact. Uh, I think at this time I’ve looked as closely as I can at those verses and gone over them enough, but if someone can draw out of those verses something otherwise, I’d be very interested 🙂
And if I find anything more in relation to those verses, I’ll post more then!
First it’s all about God giving the command to “the man” only, never mind woman’s testimony of God’s command given to the both of them, it’s false, but when God gives “the man” the boot, it’s not all about him anymore since Eve should be included. First let’s exclude her from having received God’s command directly from God himself, but then let’s include her with being forced out of the garden like “the man”. Seems like a pick and choose to me when both texts read the same thing, the singular, “the man”.
And where then can we read that “the man” has authority over woman anywhere, in Genesis?
It’s important that woman was made from man in 1 Co 11, but it’s not important that woman isn’t the one who was made from the ground spoken of, in Gen 3:22-24. From what she was taken matters when kephale in 1 Co 11 is claimed to mean “authority over” but it’s not important when the Gen text tells us that “the man” made from the ground was forced out of the garden?
I should have typed – “From what she was taken matters when kephale in 1 Co 11 is claimed to mean “authority over”, but it’s not important when the Gen text tells us that only “the man” made from the ground became unlike God and was forced out of the garden?”
Mark wrote:”In relation to whether i think it is a sin for a woman to preach… obviously there is not a verse which saids “it is a sin for a woman to preach” but there is so much in the bible to teach us that a woman should not be in that position.”
Mark,
Just ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – Is it a “sin” for a godly Christian woman to teach correct Biblical doctrine to men in the church?
I believe you cannot plainly say “Yes” or you would have done so.
Isn’t part of comp contextual argument of 1 Co 11 that kephale means “authority over” and therefore the man has authority over the woman because the text says that she was made from and for him?
Mark,
I believe you cannot because as you state, “obviously there is not a verse which saids “it is a sin for a woman to preach”
What in the bible “teaches” us that woman should not be in that position?
1) That Adam was created first?
2) That woman was made from man?
3) That the man is the kephale of the woman? (That kephale means “authority over” needs to be established from the context foremost).
4) That wives should submit to their husbands?
How do these things “teach” us that a woman should not be in that position?
5) That a specific deceived woman should not teach a specific man? (1 Tim 2)
6) Some unidentified (mystery) law “also” says that women are not allowed to speak in church? Which law? Was this law ever given to the man? ;P
Was the mystey law of 1 Co 14 given to Adam before or after he became unlike God?
Mark wrote: “So therefore i do not doubt that God uses women to glorify Himself even if they shouldn’t be in a pastoral position. So i do think a woman is being disobedient to the word of God by taking that role.”
Mark,
Disobedience to the Word of God is a sin.
The following comments from here on down are by Dave quoting one of the posters and Dave’s response. It appears that Dave is having a problem posting on his end and he asked me to put this up:
I could be yery, very wrong, but I was wondering…
We often consider Adam and Eve to have been simply Adam, up until the point a smallish bone was removed from him and God using this (more or less as a genetic blueprint!) to fashion Eve. I wonder if this should be challenged!
The word translated as ‘rib’ can also be translated as ‘side’, such as the ‘side’ of the tabernacle. I am of the opinion that this COULD(?!) mean anything just short of half the tabernacle. Do you see where I am headed? Not only this, but we know from the grammar that Eve was instructed about the fruit, and yet we have no record of her being instructed. But why do we assume that she needed to be instructed separately? How much of her memory and intellect was a part of Adam?
When I consider how Adam and Eve were “one flesh” before the fall as two individuals, both being naked but knowing no shame, I see a oneness that was lost at the fall. At the fall they hid their nakedness from each other and Adam goes from considering her to be bone of my bone etc to “this woman you put here”! To me this is where the complete twoness comes in. Gen 2:24 suggests that pre-fall there was oneness! It almost reminds me of the Trinity and how Jesus took on flesh and became a man, which meant that in some way he was different to before, and yet fundamentally the same. Could this have been true for Adam and Eve before Eve was separated out and took on flesh of her own? Fundamentally different yet fundamentally the same? But then the fall severed them completely?
I have not thought through the ramifications for this, and the Hebrew might prove me to be a dope, but I did not want pinklight to sit idly by without something to ponder!
By the way, when is the PLV due to be released? (PinkLight Version)
So, does “mankind”, even “the mankind” refer to Adam and Eve pre-fall, and Adam post-fall?”
Adam and Eve as individual people are not mentioned together untell after the fall. “Adam” isn’t even a proper name untell after woman is created so why are considerations as such backwards, meaning the order of thoughts is backwards? So I don’t exactly know what you are saying, so I’ll go from here…You mean like an androgynous Adam? The body of the human was formed from the ground and then the body was given life. Is there anything in Genesis telling us that God either re-formed his body as if it were puddy after he had given it life or that the human became less than what he was orignialy formed as from the dirt when God made woman from ish? Adam said that God made woman from ish, therefore he had to of been ish (male) and the woman was taken from that (male), so he was ish before woman was taken from him.
Why, have any considered Adam and Eve to have been simply Adam, when “the man” is singular and refered to as as “him” once he is formed? Genesis 1 says he made them male AND female and if male and female is plural then how could “the man” a him be a them? After God gave the man life he became a living being.
Maybe I don’t understand what you are asking?
I am not saying Eve sinned out of a rebellious heart. THe bible clearly teaches her deception. However as a sinner post fall her nature is corrupt as is Adams and the rest of mankind. Sin makes us dead, physically and spiritually. Sin is seperation from a Holy God. Therefore to label Eve as not a threat is not a possibility in my eyes as her nature which is now a sinful one is most definately corrupt and rebellious to God. So out of shear necessity could not be around a Holy God as a sinner, and thus she had to be banished along with her husband, also a sinner.
Pinklight i liked the way you mentioned Eve’s deception as differnet to ours. I agree totally. Eve was decieved as a sinless human, no other person has had that claim. Therefore it worries me with the exegesis of 1 Tim 2 of the ‘decieved false teacher’, above just the ‘false teacher’ which is constantly referred back to Eve. Both are sinful and corrupt by nature, unworthy to be in the presence of God. In my opinion you are pushing the exegetical boundaries with such an attempted interpretion, especially when we have no recorded person/s in the Ephesus church. There are alot of assumtions that need to be adopted for this exegesis to have ‘no holes’ in it.
Kay, i believe that women should not have the resposibilities as the elders of the church, and since the pastor is an elder who is responsible for the teaching, a woman should not be doing that, therefore i don’t have a problem seeing it as a sin. There are numerous passages which address the teaching/eldership issue which qualify and highlight these issues. The only thing is, exegtical hoops are formed to deny these passages, thus the denial continues that it is not a sin to be doing such things. For example, this has attempted to be done in numerous occasions with homosexuality to show how it is not a sin. If you remove the intended meaning of passages of course you can come to the conclusion that it is not a sin to be doing something.
I see what you are getting at kind of. Talk about philosophical!
What is given in the text itself (if it is our guide) that gives us any idea that her memory or intellect was a part of Adam? If we can use this idea then it has to have it’s source from the text itself – NOT outside the text. In other words we must be bound by the text in order to build sound doctrine. If we roam outside the text, anything is possible, but not anything is possible when we stick to the text ALONE and be bound by it. Is there anything in the text that gives us somekind of inkling that Eve was in Adam in the way you are presenting the idea?
“At the fall they hid their nakedness from each other and Adam goes from considering her to be bone of my bone etc to “this woman you put here”! To me this is where the complete twoness comes in.”
The twoness comes in right after the woman was created but in 2:25, not 2:24, according to the text. God creates woman, then the man breaks out in poem and then the author says that for that reason (her creation out of man – Adam’s words) they (plural) shall become one, and the two were naked, 2:25. (I checked scripture4all)
Jesus does quotes 2:24 (in I think Matthew for example) therefore the two can still become one. Obviously Adam was not loving his wife by blaming her – he was not being one with her.
Hahaha! Thanks!! I’m not finished either…be back. 🙂
I’m glad you got that! I didn’t quite verbalize that she is unique in that she was sinless and then deceived. BUT, in 1 Tim 2 v14 “the woman” is deceived, NOT “Eve”! Paul switched from speaking of “Eve” by using her proper name, to speaking of the woman from vv11 & 12.
This has brought to mind the end Eph 5, where Paul touches on the mystery of the church taken out of Christ. I’ll be back to respond to this one. Very interesting, Dave!
About the usage of the definite article or the lack of it with ‘adam, let’s go beyond Genesis 1-5 and see what we find:
Gen 6:1
And it came to pass, when men (ha’adam) began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:5
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man (ha’adam) was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man (ha’adam) whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Gen 7:21-22
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man (ha’adam): All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Gen 8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s (ha’adam) sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Gen 9:5-6
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man (ha’adam); at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man (ha’adam). Whoso sheddeth man’s (ha’adam) blood, by man (ha’adam) shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man (ha’adam).
Gen 11:5
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men (ha’adam) builded.
Surely these examples do not speak only of the first man?
Not also that in Gen 1-3 there are four ways of referring to the first two humans:
‘adam – male and female (Gen 1.26-27)
‘adam – man and woman (Gen 2.22-24)
‘adam and the woman (Gen 3.1-6)
‘adam (Gen 3.9, 22)
And what about these two examples:
Ps 116:10-12
I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted:
I said in my haste, All men (ha’adam) are liars.
What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?
Eccl 3:10-13
I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men (ha’adam) to be exercised in it. He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man (ha’adam) can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. I know that there is no good in them, but for a man (ha’adam) to rejoice, and to do good in his life. And also that every man (ha’adam) should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.
I must agree with Professor Alter that ‘adam is a collective noun and refers to humankind in general. Of course it referred to only Adam before the creation of Eve since he WAS the humankind, there were no other people around. After other people were born, all the humans were called ha’adam collectively.
Well, no, because those verses aren’t about creation and the fall. Context.
I’m running around trying to leave town…, (wil be on computer later) but am stopping in to peak!
Mark,
“9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” I Cor.6
These are straight forward verses stating that those who do such things listed will not inherit the kingdom of God.
There is no verse remotely similar condemning women teaching/preaching to men and stating that those who do will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Mark wrote: “i believe that women should not have the resposibilities as the elders of the church, and since the pastor is an elder who is responsible for the teaching, a woman should not be doing that, therefore i don’t have a problem seeing it as a sin. There are numerous passages which address the teaching/eldership issue which qualify and highlight these issues.”
Mark,
Please name one other sin in the Bible that is not directly identified and stated to be a sin besides your supposed “sin” of women teaching/eldership??
Susanna,
Yes, I think it is important to look at “the man” outside of the creation account.
While the definite noun is used here and the seed of the one man is spread throughout the earth, we can understand that this refers to mankind in general since they are referred to as “them”. Where is “the Adam” in the creation called “them”? God calls “the Adam” as only a singular human and does not use the term for “them”.
Again here we have the seed of “the man” spoken of as “them” so we can be sure that God is speaking about the human race as “them”, as the seed of that one rebellious man.
Here again the entire seed of Adam is spoken of and the context says “all” showing a complete collection. Where is the “all” or “every” or “them” in the Genesis 3 account? It is not there.
Here again is “the man” as the united rebellious offspring of the man spoken as a collective, yet we can be sure that God is talking about mankind because His promise is stated as relevant to “all flesh”.
Once again we have the context showing that God is speaking about “all” those who come from the seed of Adam. But where is the “all”, “every” or “them” in Genesis 3? The context in Genesis 3 is worded as one particular human just as all the other verses in the creation account show one particular human. These are very different from the “all” verses you have brought up. Let’s continue.
“Your” is plural and “every” shows that mankind is in view here. Every descendent of Adam is in the image of God and the context is without doubt the plural view of man as from the seed of the first man.
Here again the context shows “the man” as all the seed of the man by calling them “they”.
Now regarding the last two examples, we find the exact same pattern.
Again we find “all” referring to a collective seed of Adam.
Once again the pattern is set – “the man” is “them” and “every man”. The seed of Adam is referred to as a collective “them” and “their”.
So every single example that you have given of the collective “the man” is shown as having exact evidence of the plural form. Now I would like to see the evidence that “the man” from Genesis 3 is to be taken as a plural for “all men”. I would like to see where there are any words that refer to “them”, “they”, “all”, “every” or anything else that would show that God is referring to more than the one man Adam who sinned in rebellion. I haven’t seen it. If you can show it to me then I will gladly consider that Genesis 3 is referred to as “they” instead of one sinful man who was in danger of repeating his rebellious actions.
I strongly disagree. The one man Adam was called “the man” after Eve was created. She was never called “the man” and “the man” was never said to be “them”. If this is in error, then there has to be evidence from the passage to show that God really wasn’t speaking to just the man when he cursed the earth and He really wasn’t speaking to just the man when He kicked him out of the garden.
Mark wrote:”There are numerous passages which address the teaching/eldership issue which qualify and highlight these issues.”
Mark,
To which verses are you referring? Please show where they identify a sin?
Mark,
Thanks for asking some very good questions.
We do have evidence from the mouth of God concerning what Eve would do. In Genesis 3:16 God says that her longing with be for her husband. Since God said that she would long for him and her husband would make himself a ruler over her, we have ample evidence to understand why she left with him. We have zero evidence that Eve was banished from the garden. I believe that it is far wiser to go with what the text actual says rather then making up something that it doesn’t say.
I think you are greatly adding to the text. First of all Adam was not banished from “God’s presence”. God didn’t live in the garden. The text clearly says why Adam was banished and it had nothing to do with an extra punishment. It had to do with the safe keeping of the tree of life. Since God said that they would die if they ate from the forbidden tree, He must now keep the rebellious one away from the tree of life lest he repeat his rebellion. Since Eve did not sin in rebellion in the first place, she was not considered a threat.
Where are you getting the idea that “they” were removed from God’s presence? Why are you adding to the text a reason for the removal of the man from the garden?
I think that pinklight has touched on this one but it bears a repeat. The Bible clearly states that the old man nature of sin comes through the man and him alone. Where does the Scripture ever attribute a sin nature to Eve that would be passed on to her offspring?
The fact is that only one human sinned in rebellion. Only one human was in danger of repeating the rebellion. Only one human was expelled from the garden for the express purpose of keeping the rebellious one away from the tree of life.
I was quoting from these passages:
The “men” used here is a generic term. And this isn’t referring to “orthodox conservative traditions”. The traditions of men is deception and things that contradict the commandments of God.
Does this make sense?
Dave,
You bring up some interesting points. You said:
There are some problems with considering that Eve was a person within Adam. If there were two persons instead of just one, God would have called them “them” and not “him”. When God does call them as “them” He calls them “male” and “female”. God does not take the “female” out but a board or hard portion or rib or “flesh and bone” to make the next human. Certainly the part that became her was “in” Adam to begin with but it was “his” part not “hers”. Adam said flesh of “my” flesh and bone of “my” bone. His bone was just that – his bone. It didn’t become hers until she was fashioned into a woman.
We had a lively debate on this blog awhile back on whether there was a female part of Adam before the woman was created. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/02/02/adam-and-his-ms-organ/ There was only 62 comments on that post as compared to over 300 on this one, but a lively enough debate.
Excellent thoughts! There is definitely an antagonism shown in the blame game.
This is a thought that many have entertained, but then the “woman” would not have been created and fashioned but extended from the smaller form that she took inside Adam. I think it is a romantic idea but not one that can be supported by the text.
I think that her testimony is evidence enough that God instructed her. If we had a memory and intellect within Adam, then we would have a person within him and Adam could never be called “he” but “they”. It would also remove the woman’s evidence that she as a person separate from Adam was spoken to as “you” plural according to the woman’s testimony. This proves that the woman existed in a form separate from the man and able to hear, relate, understand and then later to defend God’s word to the serpent.
Nope you are no dope. But there are ramifications that remove this one from the possibility area. I could certainly be wrong, but I haven’t seen the evidence for a Ms. organ inside Adam and the textual evidence against it, I think, is overwhelming.
That is the $64,000 question that I have yet to see a clear defense regarding the creation/fall account. No plural reference is ever made to “the Adam” before or after the fall. Subsequent references to “the Adam” as mankind are always in some way plural in every single case. I think that the consistency is important to note. When Adam and Eve are in full view “the man” is always Adam alone. Again if I am wrong and there is a plural, I would like to see it.
What is also interesting is this verse:
God had made Adam as a “guard” of the garden yet Adam failed in that watchman on the wall (see http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/07/27/the-unfaithful-watchman/) and now instead of the unfaithful watchman, God sets up an angel to “guard” the tree of life. Adam’s failure as a “guard” necessitated another “guard”.
Cheryl,
Please show me where in Gen God doesn’t call Eve a threat?
Please show me where it saids that she followed her husband out of the garden?
Please show me where God calls Adam a ‘rebellious sinner’?
If you can show me then we might agree that i am the only one guilty of attempting to understand the text. Until then please realise that what you suggest is also ‘read into’ and not explicit in the text.
So Cheryl, you think Adam was only banished so he couldn’t take from the tree of life and it has nothing to do with seperation from a Holy God?
Are women therefore less sinful since sin is only attributed to men?
Mark,
You said:
The Bible never says that Eve’s nature is “corrupt” and since the sin nature only comes through the man, how could she get a sin nature from him?
If a sinner cannot be around a holy God, then how did Abraham or any of the other patriarchs who encountered the living God including Moses who spoken to him “face to face” as a friend, be around God?
It is not correct that a sinner cannot be in the presence of God. Remember the burning bush? God said to Moses to remove his shoes, not to leave His presence. The record of the woman in Ephesus is in the book of 1 Timothy. The record of any other woman or women being stopped from teaching men is in no other account. The questions that you have does not show that there are “holes” in the argument. A “hole” is something that shows a contradiction in the interpretation. Where is that contradiction?
I noticed that you say “I believe”. Yet the Bible never says that women are “forbidden” from having the gift of pastor. We can believe that only males have the right to teach in the church, but unless the Bible forbids women the wonderful privilege of teaching the body of Christ, then for us to assign a “sin” in the absence of a single passage that defines this sin, we are in danger of sinning against our precious sisters in Christ.
There is not even one passage that says that only “elders” may teach. There is also not one passage that says that women are forbidden to become elders just as there is no passage that says that single men are forbidden from becoming an elder. Surely we do not charge a single man without children who is an elder as being “in sin”. Or do you?
I say that no such “exegetical hoops” are needed to show that women are not in sin for handling God’s Word. However the very foundation for the establishment of a commandment against a sin is denied every time a complementarian says that a woman is in sin for teaching the Bible to men. No one yet has shown a single charge of sin that is not repeated, yet comps are free to illegally charge their sisters with sin.
Mark, I would like to ask you to pray about the issue of sin. Ask God to either show you the proof from the Scriptures that teaching men is a documented “sin” and if it is not would you please ask Him to show you the error of a charge of sin without God’s approval? Since turning anyone away from their “sin” is a commendable act, could you please point us to the documentation (Old Testament or New Testament) that would be used to prove such a law? Can you also please explain why God would never give the two or three witnesses to such a “law”? Does He really care about women sinning in this way or does He not care about His female sons?
Homosexuality is a “thou shalt not” command. Where does God ever say to women “thou shalt not” teach the truths of God’s word?
Hey Mark,
Nice to see you on line at the same time as me 🙂
You said:
Please tell me how one “proves” a non-existent thing? If you can do it, then please show me where in Genesis God doesn’t say that the roses are to be called dandelions? It just isn’t there. Yet I ask you to please document for me that God calls Eve a threat?
Eve left the garden and we both agree on that. I didn’t say that she “followed” her husband out but she did leave. Please show me the proof that God forced her out.
First proof, the sin of rebellion is part of our sin nature inherited from Adam. Secondly God calls the sin of Adam treacherous.
If you can show me then we might agree that i am the only one guilty of attempting to understand the text.
Huh? I don’t think it is a “guilt” for attempting to “understand” the text. The problem comes not with an honest attempt to understand what is being said and what is not being said. The problem comes when we add to or take away from the inspired account.
I don’t think that I am reading into the text to say that Eve left the garden. I am not not reading into the text by saying that Eve is not said to have been banished from the garden.
I sure wish you would answer the questions I gave you. When you don’t answer the questions are you conceding that you have no evidence and no answer? Or do you just not wish to talk about your claims?
The “separation” was spiritual. Adam hid himself from God, God did not hide Himself from Adam. It was the shame of sin that caused the separation. But tell me, if Adam had to be kicked out of the garden because he could not come into contact with a Holy God, then please explain to me how Adam could be in the presence of God when God challenged Adam about his sin??
No. We are all children of Adam and sin came through him. This post gives it as clear as I know how to give it http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/ The drawings should help.
Hi Cheryl/Pinklight, I am trying to post a comment again…
Yeah, I am a dope! I should not try and do these things on a MOnday morn! I might add that I was not trying to have Eve as a person within Adam…though don’t ask me how I was going to work that out! I should shut up before they take my church away from me!
Good to have you back Mark and Kay! 😎
Hey, I can make comments now! 🙂 :0 🙂 :0
Dave,
I don’t think that the issue of Eve in the body of Adam is a total bush oyster to think through. I had to think it through myself to consider the argument and I didn’t consider myself a dill. 8)
I just had more time to think why it wouldn’t work than you did! Like I said, I could be wrong, but I have not seen evidence for an Adam/Eve combo so until it is proven, I just file it in the miscellaneous but interesting file cabinet.
Dave, I love your humor and your humility. You are a very good example to all of us here!
Cheryl, you wrote: “Where is “the Adam” in the creation called “them”? God calls “the Adam” as only a singular human and does not use the term for “them”.”
We find it in Gen 1:27
So God created man (ha’adam) in his own image,
in the image of God he created him (‘otow);
male and female he created them (‘otaam).
If you wish to argue that ha’adam refers only to the male human, you must also argue that the woman is excluded in the above verse from being in the image of God and as Professor Alter put it, the last clause of the verse becomes nonsensical. Either ha’adam in the singular refers to only the first man, or it refers to both the man and the woman. You cannot have it both ways.
Cheryl, thanks for your encouragement!
Can I ask you, what is a ‘bush oyster’ in Canada? After you have told me I will tell you what it is in Australia…it is not something I want to think through!
Mark, “I’m not sure whether you think Calvin teaches something contrary to the early church Fathers in relation to the Trinity. If so i would disagree. Augustines ‘De Trinites’ is almost regurgitated by Calvin in his works.”
Yes, Calvin followed Augustine, but he diverged from his teachings occasionally. He rejected, for instance, the conclusion of the Council of Nicaea that the Son was begotten by the Father. According to Calvin the Son could not have been born of the Father, instead he thought there was an “economy” of a hierarchy of subjection. One of the arguments between the Sees of the ancient church in the fourth century was over the Council of Nicaea’s usage of the term “homoousion.” Some accepted it, others rejected it entirely. Augustine was closer to the Monarchial Modalists, yet he did not go as far as saying the Son was identical with the Father. Instead he affirmed that the Son was begotten by the Father and therefore equal in power, ability and authority. In this crucial belief Calvin departed from Augustine’s legacy.
Susanna,
You said:
It is not true that the woman is excluded. Let’s walk through this one. God created “the man” in his image. Then God says “in the image of God” He created the male and the female. Where is the woman excluded from being in the image of God? There is a “him” (singular) and there is a “them” (plural). Are you arguing that the singular “him” is the exact thing as the plural “them”? This is nonsensical. Also if we say that God only created the “man” in his image but not the male and female in his image, then somehow we would have to accept that a unisex being was created and only this multisex being was in God’s image.
There is no contradiction in the verse. God created the first man in His image. He created both male and female in His image. The female was produced from the body of the man so she was in the image of God and the image of man. There is nothing in the verse that would exclude the woman from being in the image of God. What are you seeing that I am not?
Dave,
We don’t have any bush oysters in Canada. Sorry for making you picture that one in your head! Just me being silly and going wild with an Aussie dictionary of slang. 8)
Susanna,
I sure wish every passionate disagreement could be as irenic as the way you posed your questions and your research. These kinds of things stretch us and push us to reason through what we believe and why we believe it.
While you and I disagree on the issue of when “the man” refers to Adam alone (he) or Adam and Eve (them) and whether he = them is a matter of in-house debate, it is so good that we can agree that God has created all of us in His image and He has given His Holy Spirit to His female sons too! It is also so freeing to know that God has not left us without a clear picture of what sin is so that we may avoid it. Since God has gifted you and I (and the rest of the special people here on my blog), we can be assured that we are not sinning against God by teaching the men here, or in our homes, or in the church. This is the message that we can completely agree on. I also SO appreciate your help in the areas that I have not had time to research. There is certainly an “iron sharpens iron” going on here and I LOVE it! It is refreshing to me and I hope to you too 😉
Cheryl,
I am unware of what questions i am ignoring…please tell me. It is hard to keep up and answer everyone.
But since you could not show me in Gen where the answer to my questions lie, and you attempted to throw it back on me, it clearly shows how you are reading into the text but are unwilling to admit it. The verse from Hosea does nothing to show why and if God distinguished between the sins of Adam and Eve in Genesis.. It simply isn’t there
I’d be intereseted to know your take on Psalm 51:5
“5 Behold, ?I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Mark,
I am perplexed that you find this statement of mine perplexing: “For until the creation of the universe, the fall of humanity, and its consequent need of redemption and reconciliation became a reality outside of and separate from the Triune God, these external and temporal actions, operations, or “roles” were only a potentiality and not an actuality within the Triune God himself.” I thought that as a seminary student or Bible college student (forgive me, I forgot which one you said you were), studying methods of Biblical interpretation and exegsis would have taught you that: a) a text is only correctly understood when it is understood within its proper context, and b) when you see a connective “For” or “Therefore,” you should be asking yourself what it is there for. So, once again, let me quote this sentence in its full context, and see if it isn’t clearer, eh? The full text reads:
“To clarify this issue, let me express it this way: Though the Father has always been the Father of the Son, there was a “time” when he was neither our Creator nor our Father; though the Son has always been the Son of the Father, there was a “time” when he was neither our Redeemer nor our Mediator with the Father; though the Spirit, as the Spirit of the Father and the Son eternally binds together and maintains the mutualy loving and interactive union and communion which is the reality of the eternal and internal life of the Triune God–there was a “time” when the Spirit was neither our Life-Giver nor our Sanctifier. For until the creation of the universe, the fall of humanity, and its consequent need of redemption and reconciliation became a reality outside of and separate from the Triune God, these external and temporal actions, operations, or “roles” were only a potentiality and not an actuality within the Triune God himself. To think otherwise is to violate what most Reformed theologians, such as Cornelius Van Til and Thomas F. Torrance, regard as the “Creator-creature distinction” made by the Scriptures themselves. This confusion of the temporal and the eternal, the Divine and the creaturely, has plagued Christian theology since the days of Origen, who gave birth to the subordinationsim of Arius and others.”
Still not clear? Well, Mark, let me begin by pointing out by what I certainly did NOT say: That God was a Monad (i.e., a Solitary and Unitary Being) that, by a necessary process of expansion, projected itself successively in revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As Father, the Monad revealed itself as Creator and Lawgiver. As Son, the Monad revealed itself as Redeemer. And as the Holy Spirit, the Monad revealed itself as the Giver of grace. This is the form of modalism taught by Sabellius, and is also known as Dynamic Modalism (Cf. “Monarchianism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, 1984, p. 727). I do not hold, nor ever have held, nor have ever taught this heretical view of the Trinity in any shape or form, contra your innuendo that I do. However, I do affirm with both Scripture and the Ecumenical Creeds: “The Son is everything the Father is as God, except he is not the Father; the Father is everything the Son is as God, except he is not the Son; the Holy Spirit is everything the Father and Son are as God, except he is neither the Father nor the Son.”
Or let me state it this way, so that neither you nor anyone else misunderstands my view of the Trinity. Like all orthodox Trinitarians, I believe a) there is only One True God; b) that this One True God is of one being or substance, subsisting eternally in the Three Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and c) the Three Persons are coequal and coeternal, each Person fully possessing every divine attribute. But these two ancient and recurring heresies I do fully and categorically repudiate: Modalism, which denies the three distinct persons, asserting that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but successive manifestations of the same Divine Being, as if God were acting out as a different character at different stages in a three part play. And Subordinationism, which teaches there is a hierarchical order of origin, authority and obedience in the eternal Ontological Trinity, wherein the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both, prior to creation.
Mark, how you can equate the orthodox view of the Trinity with that of Sabellius beats me. Sounds more like a common false charge, as is that of tritheism, that heretical anti-Trinitarians in the past have utilized as a diversionary tactic when the orthodox Trinitarians have exposed and challenged their own false unitarian and subordianationist teaching. And that is one of the things that has angered me so much about Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware and other complementarians who use the same texts and arguments against us and our view of the Trinity. They loudly crow about their Reformed roots and their skills as biblical exegetes. Yet what texts do they use to defend and expound ESS? The very ones that Arians, Macedonians, Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses have used and continue to use against orthodox Christianity’s view of the Trinity: John 14:28; 17:3; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28; Heb. 3:2 and 5:8. And the arguments that proponents of ESS use, such as “because the Father sent the Son, and not the Son the Father,” or “since the Father sends both the Son and the Spirit, he is their Superior,” or “Because Jesus said, ‘The Father is greater than I,’ therefore the Father is superior in power and authority,” etc–these arguments are so disturbingly parallel to those used by these various anti-Trinitarian groups that when I or others hear them, alarm bells and red lights go off in our heads.
And considering how, at least in America, where there is a strong strain of anti-intellectualism, as well as much biblical and theological illiteracy among our churches, I am concerned that ESS, which so many are accepting without any critical examination, will result in their being more vulnerable to and being taken captive by various anti-Trinitarian movements, like the JW’s and the Mormons. Let me quote for you an excerpt from the “College Ordination Sermon” by William E. Channing, President of the American Unitarian Association, given circa 1840, to illustrate what I am talking about:
We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the unity of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons as described by theologians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each other, convene with each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other’s society. They perform different parts in man’s redemption, each having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other. The Son is Mediator and not the Father. The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of different consciousness, different wills, and different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed….We do then, with all earnestness, though without reproaching our brethren, protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity. “To us,” as to the Apostle and the primitive christians, “there is one God, even the Father.” With Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and true God. We are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid the convinction, that the Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour continually appropriating this character to the Father. We find the Father continually distinguished from Jesus by this title. “God sent his Son.” “God annointed Jesus.” Now, how singular and inexplicable is this phraseology, which fills the New Testament, if this title belong equally to Jesus, and if a principal object of this book is to reveal him as God, as partaking equally with the Father in supreme divinity! We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the word “God” means three persons, where it is not limited to one person, and where, unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it does not mean the Father. Can stronger proof be given, that the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity? (Cf. “The Boston Sermon,” Classics of Protestantism, ed. Vergilius Ferm, Philosophical Library, 1959, pp. 252-253)
Well, I have digressed from what I originally intended to expound on. So I apologize for that, Cheryl. But these disturbing parallels between what the proponents of ESS are teaching and that of these other anti-Trinitarian groups had to be pointed out. And since it’s very late now, I’m going to sign off for now. In my next comment, I will go back to my original track of reasoning and commenting. Good night all and God bless you. Amen!
I’ve not finished re-reading “Adam and his Ms. organ” but I want to respond here quickly to this comment.
Susanna,
In the first clause, if “the adam” means “the human” not denoting gender but just humanity and is used in contrast to “male” in the second clause then it does not become nonsensical. But if this is accurate, then yes, the woman is excluded in the first clause from being said to have been made in God’s image. But in the previous v26 God already determined to make “adam”, a plural “them” in his image. So considering all of that, unless one claims that God changed his mind, then he did in fact make “them” in his image as he said he was going to do. Therefore if God did do what he intended in v26 then it is not necessary for “the adam” in v27 to include the woman – and especialy if it is only the first account of the creation of the first human being made from the ground in chp 2 while “and he made them male and female” is the first account of the time when God takes the woman from the man. So ha’adam though it refers to the first man since v27a is the first account of the first man, it is just not speaking of his gender since v27 covers that anyway. So I can’t see any problems that cannot be resolved.
…it is just not speaking of his gender since v27b covers that anyway. So I can’t see any problems that cannot be resolved.
Cheryl, when I lived in the bush we would ‘mark cattle’ which involved taking from the calf the two little things that make a calf a bullock. Sometimes we would cook these on the bbq to eat. These were called ‘bush oysters’.
No illustrations required for this one Cheryl!
Is this off topic? I hope so…
I don’t read that in v27. What am I missing? About the male and the female, all it says is that God made them. It also says God made “him” in the image of God, a repeat of what was just said being “God made ha’adam in his own image”. “Him” refers back to “ha’adam” and so in so many words, twice ha’adam is said to have been made in God’s image.
And can someone please tell me what it is about “for she was taken from man (ish)” does not mean that the human was a male human before woman was created?? From that I see that it is plainly saying that Adam was a male human before woman was created. How can woman have been taken from ish (male human) if he weren’t ish (male human) already??
There is evidence in the NT that shows that v27b is a view of the man and woman in chp 2 when the woman is created:
Jesus here in Mark 10 is quoting Gen 1:27B and Gen 2:24 and he is following 1:27B with Gen 2:24 showing that 1:27B is just account one of the part in Gen chp 2 where woman is created. In other words, the same thing that is presented in Gen 1:27B is also presented in Gen 2:22-24 but with less information is all. And we know that in account two there is a time when one human was around (Gen 1:27a) and a time when two humans were hanging out (Gen 1:27b).
Mark, not so fast buddy, bro 🙂
I’ve been wanting to get to that post of yours with questions for Cheryl, that you are refering to above, and I will. And I still want to finish responding to Dave’s comment and re-reading “Adam and his Ms. organ”. But it’s break time! Plus I gotta check out Dave’s place again too!! I’m checking off my list… ;P
From Gen 3:22-24 we can only get the first human being out of the context. There is no way contextualy to get “woman” out of “the human” as a collective. So we have a fact (even if Eve was included here) that Adam for one was a threat. This fact is a positive, (evidence, proof provided) not a negative (0).
Now you are claiming that Eve WAS a threat (a positive). You therefore are claiming that there is evidence or proof that she was a threat. In other words if you’re are going to claim she was a threat then it is because you have evidence or proof for the claim. But you’ve not provided any evidence or proof from 3:22-24 or any other scripture outside of Genesis. Therefore, you cannot claim a positive (evidence, proof) and then support it with the reasoning of a negative (0 evidence, proof). Does that make sense? You cannot make a positive claim (Eve is a threat) when the facts are negative (they don’t exist). You can’t say “Eve is a threat” because “God doesn’t say that she isn’t a threat” without crossing scriptural boundaries making anything conceptualy possible therefore not even necessarily scripturaly true.
I do not claim a scriptural positive (that God says Eve’s not a threat). I claim a negative (that Eve is a threat, scripturaly does not exist). I don’t have to back up my claim then. I also claim another scriptural positive, that Adam is a threat, which I can support. But since you claim a positive you have to provide the evidence for your positive claim. If we are not bound by the text itself, in all seriousness, it does not matter what we claim cause at that point anything is possible conceptualy speaking.
I claim she left the garden, didn’t stay in the garden, stopped living in the garden – Adam was forced out 3:22-24 and in Gen 4:1, Eve has Cain – therefore she must have not been in the garden once Adam was forced out. “Why” she left is a different matter, but the reason giving as to why she left is NOT that she was forced out of the garden, and that is the point. The only evidence we have for “why” she left is given in Gen 3 where God speaks to her about what life will now be like.
Is treachery an act of rebellion or not? If it is then Adam can be a rebel without God have directly said so, since he is directly said to have dealt treacherously with God.
That Adam sinned knowing what he was doing because he was not deceived (fact), did he not then understand what he was doing and therefore in the open or with eyes wide open rejected, rebelled against, God’s command?
1) That Adam was a threat, 2) that we CANNOT say Eve WAS a threat, and 3) that Adam was treacherous therefore a rebel is not reading into the text.
Now you’re claiming that Eve WAS a threat based on other scripture outside of 3:22-24 which is fine) but you have to show then that those scriptures include Eve. (She inherets the sin nature like all those born of Adam).
Sin is not only attributed to men. Eve sinned.
Susanna – I emailed you. did you receive it. give me a jingle when you get a chance. 🙂
pinklight,
This is correct. Genesis 1:26 follows every other single reference to “the man” that is actually an issue of the collective mankind people He calls them “them”. In verse 27 he differentiates between the singular and the plural “he” vs “male and female”. This is completely different than chapter 3 where only “the man” without any reference to “them” is spoken of. We know that this can only be Adam because God calls him “the man” without any reference to the plural and only the man is created from the dirt. While both will be turned back into dust, only one was created from the dirt. And only one was in rebellion through acting in a treacherous way towards God.
pinklight,
Verse 26 shows that it is “them” that were created in God’s image and verse 27 shows that the creation is in the image of God is for both male and female.
Dave,
Oh, my! That wasn’t the slang that I thought it was!! (blush)
Mark,
You said:
I am copying some of the questions asked of you that you have not answered:
1. Is it a “sin” for a godly Christian woman to teach correct Biblical doctrine to men in the church? Yes or no? If you would answer my question in a clear manner, then we can understand your stand.
2. Please tell me how one “proves” a non-existent thing?
3. There is not even one passage that says that only “elders” may teach. There is also not one passage that says that women are forbidden to become elders just as there is no passage that says that single men are forbidden from becoming an elder. Surely we do not charge a single man without children who is an elder as being “in sin”. Or do you?
4. Can you also please explain why God would never give the two or three witnesses to such a “law”? Does He really care about women sinning in this way or does He not care about His female sons?
5. Homosexuality is a “thou shalt not” command. Where does God ever say to women “thou shalt not” teach the truths of God’s word?
6. The Bible clearly states that the old man nature of sin comes through the man and him alone. The Bible never says that Eve’s nature is “corrupt” and since the sin nature only comes through the man, how could she get a sin nature from him?
7. I ask you to please document for me that God calls Eve a threat?
8. Where are you getting the idea that “they” were removed from God’s presence? Why are you adding to the text a reason for the removal of the man from the garden (removal from God’s presence)?
9. Why can’t you see it? Can you not see that the earth and the animals were cursed because of Adam’s and the serpent’s sin? Can you see that nothing was cursed because of the woman’s sin? Can you also see that only “the man” is said to be kicked out of the garden? What proof do you show that these inspired words are meaningless and that God meant no division between the sin of the woman and the sin of the man? I would be very interested to hear your Biblical proof.
10. Not only does the bible never call Adam as “the leader” but Adam is never called to account for Eve. What proof do you have that Adam was a designated “leader”? This is a tradition of men that has no basis in the Bible.
I am sure there are more questions that weren’t answered, but these are the more recent ones that have been missed.
Mark,
You said:
You question was not asked in a way that I could respond. I can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. Now if you are asking why I believe that ONLY Adam was kicked out of the garden, that I can answer.
1. The only time that “the man” is referred to more than just Adam is when the plural is also there. So instead of just “he”, there would be “they” or “them”. In Genesis 3:22-24 we read:
All of the pronouns are singular and not a single one of them is plural.
2. There is further identification with only Adam since “the man” was driven out to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. Only the man was created from the ground. Only the man was told that he must cultivate the ground from which he was taken. There is nothing in this passage that shows that God has included the woman. There is nothing that says “male and female” or “them” to identify anything other than one person so the evidence alone is that Adam was kicked out and Eve left not by being kicked out but by her own choice. She chose to desire to be with the man.
You asked:
Every person conceived in a woman who is born from the seed of the man has a sin nature. The only person that was conceived through a woman alone was without a sin nature.
Now I ask you why it was absolutely necessary for Jesus not to have a human father?
I would also like you to explain Hosea 6:7. It appears to me that you want to dismiss any verse that I bring up without dealing with the verse. You cannot do that. Please explain what the treacherous act that Adam did and why Eve is never said to have committed a “treacherous” act?
And one of the most important questions you need to deal with is the issue of if a woman is in sin for teaching the bible to men. Can you explain why it is a sin for a woman to teach the Bible to men in the church building but if she is outside the church building or in her own home it no longer becomes a sin? If I am correct this is what you believe. What is it about a “place” that makes the exact same thing that was previously committed without sin to be a sin because of the location?
Can you also explain why it was never a “sin” in the Old Testament for a woman to teach the Bible to a man, but it is now a sin? What is the reason for freedom for women in the Old Testament when godly women today no longer have this freedom? And what else will be sin tomorrow for women that is not sin today for them?
When the man was taken from the ground was the ground not the ground untell after he was taken from it? Isn’t that not the same thing as saying that the man (ish – male human) was not a man untell after woman was taken from the man? So if the human was taken from the ground then “it” was ground before he was taken from it and same thing with the woman. In order for her to have been taken from the ish, “it” was an ish before she was taken from the ish.
I have to think about this… If what you are saying is true then in essence v27 is saying that “male and female” (words that denote sex without nature whether animal or human) were made in his image yet God is not gendered and therefore sex not made in his image. I will say that 1:27 IS different from 3:22-24 like you say because in 1:27 there is a plural whereas in Gen 3 there is no plural. For now on that, that’s all I got. Help me more to see what it is you do ;P
Yes the plural from verse 26 would be the same as the plural from verse 27 but verse 27 also has singular and plural – the man and the woman – the male and the female. The singular “he” is created and then the plural “they” are created after the woman is created.
The question at hand is whether “the man” can include the woman in Genesis 3 with the expulsion from the garden. There is not a hint of plural in the expulsion passage. Why is that? Why is it consistently plural when the woman is there or when more than one human is meant but never plural when only one person is meant? What reason would God have to fail to put a plural form into a passage that meant that the woman was also kicked out? He never mentioned her and the language is not plural. Why should we be forced to believe that the one who did not sin in rebellion was kicked out when the Bible doesn’t say this? Would it be because of our own prejudice?
Okay, if I seperate v26 from v27 then v27 does not read that the sex (male and female) were made in God’s image, but if I do not disconnect v26 from v27 there is no way to deny that the plural “them” were made in God’s image.
Yes, I cannot see any way in which 3:22-24 includes the woman since there is no plural. And there is no surrouding context that would change that fact because of the subject changes. Whereas in v27 the surrounding context make it where the plural in v27 is made in God’s image.
Well, the plural in verse 26 (and this verse comes first!) makes it perfectly clear that “them” are made in God’s image. Who then are the “them”? It cannot be anything other then the only “them” that God created “in the beginning”.
Is it a sin for women to use their gifts that God Himself gave to them? New post is up here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/11/30/does-god-torment-women/
“Why should we be forced to believe that the one who did not sin in rebellion was kicked out when the Bible doesn’t say this? Would it be because of our own prejudice?”
Cheryl,
The amount of assumption and presumption that has been put on Biblical texts is astounding isn’t it?
Tell me what kind of father would banish his child from his presence because she was hoodwinked (decieved) into doing a sinful act by someone “more crafty” (the serpent)??
The God I love is not that kind of parent. He is merciful, fair and just.
Yes, the plural in v26 where God determines or wills makes it perfectly clear that “them” are going to be made in God’s image which cannot be anything other than the “them” God created in the beginning.
Think I got it, now ;P Took awhile. *grin*
#352, Kay, excellent point!
Dave,
I’m not really back…just been having insomnia from the pumpkin pie and coffee after dinner every night. 😉
Cheryl, yes I love this debate as much as you do. I find it extremely useful to be able to bounce ideas back and forth without the dreadful egos getting in the way. I was having a great debate on another message board and just as the discussion was getting really great, they shut down the thread. It happens every time – except here.
I am not attempting to beat a dead dog, but I think the creation is the most important aspect of the Bible as far as our understanding of what being male and female means, so let’s look at it one more time.
First of all, it is impossible to force Hebrew to function the same way as English does. I grew up bilingual, I am presently trilingual and have studied four other languages. In addition, I have lived in four countries, two continents and traveled far and wide around the world. When it comes to languages, the first thing you learn is that you must learn “the culture” of the language. In Hebrew, for example, a number does not possess only a numerical value, it also means something tangible, such as seven signifies perfection etc. Hebrew uses collective nouns, a concept English speaking people are not quite as familiar with although we have them too. For example, “fish” is always in the singular. “The fish of the ocean” can refer to one fish or several fish, depending of the context. The Hebrew word “echad” is a collective noun. Although it means “one” it can include more than one entity. Hence when the law says “God is one” it does not exclude the “one” from having more than one entities within itself, hence it does not make the Trinity an impossibility. ‘Elohiym, for example, is plural, yet God is one (echad). ‘Adam is a collective noun. Hence the word appears in the singular even when more than one is spoken of, as was shown in the examples from Genesis.
Gen 1:26-28
Then God said, “Let us make man (‘adam) in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created man (ha’adam) in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
In v 26 the ‘adam (human) which God is planning to create in His own image is created in v. 27 and called ha’adam (the human). This human is both male and female. Note that the language from v. 26 is copied in v. 28 making it clear that the ‘adam from v.26, which is created to rule the earth and called ha’adam in v.27 is the male and female which will multiply and rule the earth.
In Gen 3:22 “the human” is said to have become echad (one) with God, knowing good and evil, wherefore the human is banished from the Garden before he/she is able to eat from the Tree of Life. If only the man is referred to, only the man became Godlike, whereas the woman did not. But what was the deception? Not that they were going to become Godlike, which was seen in that their eyes were opened and they recognized the evil of their deed, but that they would not die. Did Eve die? Yes, she did, hence also she experienced the consequence of sin. Being deceived does not preclude that there will be a consequence of one’s sin. The punishment is according to one’s intent, but that there is a punishment is clearly taught throughout the law. Willful sinning merits a greater punishment, but deception merits also a punishment, albeit a lesser one. If Eve did not become Godlike she could have well have stayed in the Garden. But the fact that she hid from God clearly shows that she was aware of good and evil, i.e. she was Godlike, wherefore also she was banished with Adam.
I do not quite agree with those who say that teshuwqah should be understood as the woman pleasing the man. Both husbands and wives are said to attempt to please each other ( 1 Cor 7) and in most marriages this is true. What I believe the verse speaks of is the woman’s need to be provided for when caring for children and her turning to the man to provide her with the necessities of life in the world of sin. This gives the man the opportunity to rule over her due to his greater physical strength, as has been seen from the beginning. Women seek by far the greatest portion of divorces in the modern world and the reason for it is their ability to provide for themselves, even when they have children. Only a hundred years ago women could not pursue a divorce due to their inability to support themselves and women married and stayed married for financial considerations more than for a need to please men. Certainly women tend to have a need to please men, but they tend to also use their tongues to show their displeasure as well. Men may use their physical strength when unhappy, but women use the smallest muscle in the body: the tongue with often lethal results. Hence I doubt that Eve would have followed Adam who had just blamed her for the whole mess.
Thanks pinklight!
“He does not treat us as our sins deserve
or repay us according to our iniquities.”
Ps. 103:10
one of my favorite verses.
I always think of the father of the prodigal son who ran out to meet his erring and deceived son who came to his senses and returned to his father’s house.
Kay, the greatest problem I have with the concept that God did not punish Eve due to the deception is that it is exactly the reversed position of the early church sole guilt of Eve; if only Adam was guilty and was punished, and Eve followed Adam out of love we make Eve as much a Christ figure as the comps try to make Adam in their claim that Adam took the fruit out of love for Eve, wanting to die with her. If Eve left the garden with Adam, she basically committed suicide for to live forever she would have had to eat of the Tree of Life.
Ps 103.10 is a great verse, but it would be more applicable to Adam since the argument espoused here is that Eve did not sin since she was deceived, while Adam did for he knew what he was doing. Hence God should have forgiven Adam’s sin since God does not repay us according to our sins adn allowed him to stay in the garden.
And the prodigal son was not deceived per se. He actually wished his father would be dead since he wanted his inheritance before it was due him, which showed his disregard for his father. He spent the money and returned when he was about to starve to death. By now he had quite another view of his father. His father welcomed him back, but consider: by now the son had suffered the consequences of his sin.
Susanna,
I have a couple of responses due to you. I will deal with the last comment first.
You said:
I am glad that you said this as it gives me the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding. It is not my position that God did not punish Eve as it is clear that God said that if they ate the fruit they would die. The punishment was death. The issue is not the original punishment that came from disobedience, (and there is no doubt that Eve was disobedient even if her disobedience came because she was deceived), but if there was an additional punishment due. Adam’s actions of treachery caused the earth to be cursed. There was no curse brought out because of Eve’s sin as her sin was not deliberate as was Adam’s and the serpent’s sin.
Eve couldn’t be a Christ figure because she sinned. She too needed a Savior unlike the Lord Jesus who was sinless. The claim that I am making is that Eve’s sin was not a sin of rebellion and so the tree of life was not protected because of her. I have refuted the idea on this blog in the past regarding the claim that Adam ate the fruit because he loved Eve. That story has no foundation in the truth of God’s word.
Who made the claim that Eve didn’t sin? It sure wasn’t me.
Those who have been long time visitors are aware of my arguments, but perhaps I should just repeat this one more time for those who are new. Eve sinned. Just because she sinned by being deceived doesn’t mean that she wouldn’t die or that what she did wasn’t a sin. But the motive of her heart is judged by God and Paul said in 1 Timothy 2 that those who sin through ignorance and unbelief may receive mercy. Eve received a wonderful mercy by having the Messiah come through her. Adam on the other hand passed on his rebellion to his offspring and the whole line was tainted. This meant that the Messiah could not come through the line of Adam after sin. If you read my article on Adam as head it should become clear.
Well that is an interesting thought but whether Eve stayed in the garden or not she would have died. God said that she would die if she ate the fruit and because He said that she would die, she would not be able to eat from the Tree of life. Without a rebellious nature she could have stayed and obeyed God in the new command to not eat from the tree of life. Adam was the one who would have been tempted to deliberately disobey God the second time.
Psalm 103:10 is not talking about Adam but about those who choose to fear God. Notice verse thirteen:
The Bible doesn’t say that Adam chose to follow God in fearing Him. Instead the Bible says that Adam was guilty of treachery. The fact that Adam did not obey God through fearing Him was shown when he blames God and Eve for why he ate the fruit.
I won’t comment on the prodigal son as that would take us off topic.
Susanna, have I managed to clear up the misunderstanding that you have with my view? If you still are unsure, please do ask any questions you would like.
Okay now to answer your other comment.
Susanna,
I don’t understand why people feel like they have to stop the conversation. Healthy debate is good for everyone and if we have the truth we should be able to be pushed on that “truth”. If we are solid, we have nothing to fear. If we are off base then we have a wonderful opportunity to adjust our view. If we choose to agree to disagree, there is nothing wrong with that either. Sometimes views get adjusted in the future and sometimes not. Having different views should never stop Christians from loving on their brothers and sisters in Christ. Contrary to some people’s opinion, we are not the enemy. We have a common enemy that we can fight together. And our common enemy is not complementarianism. It is satan and the deception that he brings.
I fully agree with you. The creation account is key to our understanding the rest of the Bible. For those who see the account as merely a “story” they have no basis for the atonement or why death and sin is in the world, etc.
I agree to the first part. Just because the term “one” is used does not mean that it isn’t a composite one. However to say that “Adam is a collective noun” is not completely accurate. It can be a collective noun and it can be a single human being. The inspired grammar in the passage and the context will determine whether “Adam” is a collective noun or not. Can we agree on that?
“This human” is not a hermaphrodite. The first human is said to be male and the female is said to come from the male not from a hermaphrodite. I know that there are lots of people who say that the first “man” was a male/female hybrid but there are huge holes in that theory. My arguments are on the post I linked previously called Adam and his ms organ.
The verb is not sequential rather it is rendered in the original as “was”. The man “was” like one of us. The serpent told a lie and God did not agree with it. The serpent said that they would be “like” God but God did not say that they become “like” Him. He said that the man “was” like Him. His creation “was” in the very image of God as much like God as they would get in that original creation. When Adam ate the fruit he did not become “like” God but very much “unlike” God. He “was” like God and now he has experienced rebellion and evil “unlike” God who has no first hand experience with evil in His nature.
If Adam “was” like God in the original creation, certainly Eve also had been like God in her creation since she too was created in the image of God.
There was more than one deception which is quite like satan. He will deceive us from every angle that he can. The serpent said that they would not die, but he also said that they would be like God. Is this second part true? Jesus said that there is no truth in satan and that he is the father of lies. Did he now tell just one truth? He couldn’t tell the truth because Jesus said there is no truth in him.
Amen! We need to all be aware of that. Even though Paul said that he received mercy because he did his wicked deeds in ignorance and in unbelief, he still suffered for his misdeeds. All sin has consequences. The consequence for Eve’s sin was death.
Amen! I couldn’t agree with you more!! We are on the same page here.
Eve did not “become” Godlike when she ate the fruit. That was a lie. She hid from God because she felt shame for her sin. She knew that she had been deceived. The Bible does not say that she was banished from the garden. She would have no longer been allowed to eat from the tree of life, but she didn’t need to be banished from the garden for that. Adam was the rebellious one, not Eve.
I also do not believe that it means “pleasing” either. However I think it goes further than just a “turning to” for the necessities of life. I think she feels a need for him. This is shown in the instances of abuse where the girlfriend or wife is abused time and time again and she keeps coming back. She just believes that deep down he is going to love her and that his promises will be kept. Many women have been killed because of their refusal to leave the man when he has physically abused them. Their desire for the man is stronger than their logical sense that should keep them safe from harm.
But the need for a man keeps her coming back to another male whether she needs him for financial purposes or not.
The question in my mind is not that she desired him and left to be with him, but whether her desire was stronger than his domination over her forcing her to come with him. Perhaps it was a bit of both.
I hope that this helps to see where I am coming from.
“And the prodigal son was not deceived per se. He actually wished his father would be dead since he wanted his inheritance before it was due him, which showed his disregard for his father. He spent the money and returned”
Susanna,
I suppose my point wasn’t clear there – I wasn’t trying to make a direct comparison to Adam and Eve there, just some examples about God’s mercy and fair judgement.
Frank,
I think you misunderstood me for by no means was i trying to relate sabellianism to the orthodox position, nor was i implying YOU are a Paul of Samatosa. What i was querying was the fact that you agree that the Father, Son and Spirit are eternal yet it seemed like you were saying that there was a time when they were not Father , Son and Spirit.
“For until the creation of the universe, the fall of humanity, and its consequent need of redemption and reconciliation became a reality outside of and separate from the Triune God, these external and temporal actions, operations, or “roles” were only a potentiality and not an actuality within the Triune God himself.”
Do you see what i was asking of you? Maybe it is just a terminology issue, i dunno?
1 last question. Why do you constantly try to relate the ESS back to Arianism? In what shape or form are they similar. PLease explain to us all how ESS is Arianism?
Susanna,
You said to me
“He rejected, for instance, the conclusion of the Council of Nicaea that the Son was begotten by the Father.”
Where did you come to this conclusion. Can you point me to somewhere in Calvin where he saids this? IN the Institutes he saids this…
“But as Christ was not yet manifested, we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages. ”
Also you said
“According to Calvin the Son could not have been born of the Father, instead he thought there was an “economy” of a hierarchy of subjection.”
What do you mean by born? Are you saying the early fathers thought Jesus was created?
Also
“Augustine was closer to the Monarchial Modalists, yet he did not go as far as saying the Son was identical with the Father. Instead he affirmed that the Son was begotten by the Father and therefore equal in power, ability and authority. In this crucial belief Calvin departed from Augustine’s legacy.”
Im not so convinced of this. There was most definitely terminology issues as with any generation discussing the Trinity- is this what you are meaning…Calvin departed from a terminology issue or a theological one? If the latter can you point me to where you came to this conclusion.
Thanks
Ok missed questions
1. No according to your question. I think it is a sin for a woman to hold the office of elder and pastor / teacher which involves the regular spiritual leadership and preaching of the word.
2. I’m not sure what this one is about?
3. Elders = teachers/overseers – Acts 20:17 ff, 1 Tim 3:1-7, 1 Tim 5:7, Eph 4:11. In relation to part 2 of the question it is pretty clear that men are to only be the elders- 1 Tim 3. Although some think the universal language of verse 1 includes women we know that this is false since it is qualified straight after as to men “ If anybody desires to the office of overseer, HE desires a noble task…” and the male pronouns continue throughout the passage. We must be careful not to jump to quickly into supposed ‘universal language’ as if it disqualifies the flow and context of the passage.
4. We have at least 2 occasions where women are forbidding from teaching- 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34, plus the rest of what is expressed about male eldership. More than enough ‘witnesses’!
5. I never claimed that it was a ‘thou art’ command.
6. The bible tells us that ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God’ Rom 3:23 (Eve included), that no-one is righteous, no-one understands nor seeks God (Rom 3:10-11), that we are dead in sins (Eph 2:1)- spiritually and physically. Since sin brings death and since death was what was promised for eating the fruit- Eve was likewise promised death if she ate. Therefore she had to be banished so she couldn’t eat from the tree and live. Not only that, sin corrupts the whole nature- it brings rebellion to God. For God to be faithful to his promise of death if they disobeyed, it required that Eve be banished to stop her from eating from the tree of life.
7. I never said God calls her a threat. Her nature as a sinner by necessity makes her a threat, since sin is separation from God and his Holy commands.
8. They were removed for the reasons above. The text addresses ‘the man’ because of his leadership position. The garden is where God ‘dwelled’ with people. This is what we see in the tabernacle, temple and ultimately in Christ, although the former 2 were in a limited sense because of sin and the covenant dynamics
9. The curses show who is MORE responsible for the fall. Eve is responsible for her sin, yet the serpent and Adam are held more accountable for the entire account because of the roles or lack of roles each played. That is simply why the addresses are different. There is no mention of God distinguishing between a moderate sin (Eve) and a bad sin (Adam). It is equally reading into the text.
10. Adam is not called to account for Eve because we are accountable for our own sins. Surely Cheryl you don’t think a pastor who is a leader is accountable for the sins of his congregation do you? In terms of his leadership we see foremost his higher accountability. Eve is created for him ( 1 Cor 11) and from him. He names her like the other animals. The order God, man, woman, creature is reversed at the fall. Adam is addressed first and cursed last. Not to mention all the new testament references about husbands/wives and their leadership.
Cheryl,
In relation to Hosea 6 i will make a few comment. The first being the great importance of understanding the theme of the book. Hosea was an eighth century prophet who’s message dealt primarily with a unfaithfull Israel who had rejected the covenant with Yahweh.
Now in relation to 6:7 lets look at it closely.
“But like Adam they transgressed the covenant…”
So the ‘they’ here is unfaithful Israel who had sinned against the covenant of Moses, in the same way Adam sinned against the covenant with God in the Garden.
“…there they dealt faithlessly with me.”
again we see the pronoun ‘they’ refering to Israel. So the main emphasis of this verse is the covenantal unfaithfulness of Israel to the Mosaic covenant, not that Adam is identified as ‘treacherous’. It is Israel who is identified as ‘treacherous’ or faithless depending on the translation.
So lets try and keep to the context and see that the people labeled here as ‘faithless’ are Israel, and the comparison only is made to Adam, if one holds to this being reference to the original Adam, and not ‘men’ generic ‘Adam’. Therefore this is why i saw it as an extremely weak attempt to prove something in Genesis that is not there labelled. The comparison with Adam is that they transgressed the covenant like him, not that his sin was supremely worse than Eve’s requiring only him to be banished.
Kay,
“Tell me what kind of father would banish his child from his presence because she was hoodwinked (decieved) into doing a sinful act by someone “more crafty” (the serpent)??
The God I love is not that kind of parent. He is merciful, fair and just.”
Just a few questions. Is God Holy? Is he faithful to his word? He told them that they would die for eating the fruit. Now if Eve was alowd to stay in the garden and eat from the tree of life and live, the God you worship would be a liar. She was warned of death if she ate, so she had to be banished for her to die and for God to be faithful.
His word was that she would die, so why would he allow her to eat from the tree of life? His word was not that she was treacherous or that she sinned in rebellion as Adam had. Where does his word tell us that she sinned like Adam out of rebellion (and not deception)? Where does his word tell us that she was forced out of the garden? All I’ve been asking from you Mark when you make your claims, is to show me HIS WORD. What about your claims are His Word?
I cannot find any of these ideas in scripture.
Eve sinned in rebellion.
Eve had a sin nature of rebellion.
Eve was forced out of the garden.
Eve was taken from the ground outside the garden.
Eve was given the task to guard the garden.
Eve was to serve the cursed ground from which she was taken.
It is His Word that Adam was taken from the ground outside the garden. We cannot add to it or take away from it. Gen 3:23 We cannot add that Eve was taken from the ground outside the garden. We cannot deny that Adam was taken from the ground outside the garden.
anti-spam = micro
“Just a few questions. Is God Holy? Is he faithful to his word?”
Mark,
Yes, God is Holy. Yes, He is Faithful to His Word.
That is why He makes His commands and statements about what is a “thou shalt not” or “wickedness” or “an abomination” so clear using said terms. He leaves no room for wondering or fretting over what He deems ‘sin.’
Please name one other sin in the Bible that is not directly identified and stated to be a sin besides your supposed “sin” of women teaching/eldership?
Mark,
I have friends who are missionaries, who have had new believers that in their ignorance of “all things decently and in order,”(I Cor.14:40) walk into the middle of a “formal church” service and stand there loudly asking them questions during the sermon.
So, because they violated that statement of Paul’s, would you consider that man to have committed a sin? If not, why not?
Since you consider women teaching/preaching to men a sin, how is this different?
Dave “Cheryl, when I lived in the bush we would ‘mark cattle’ which involved taking from the calf the two little things that make a calf a bullock. Sometimes we would cook these on the bbq to eat. These were called ‘bush oysters’.”
“Rocky Mountain Oysters” here in the states 🙂
Regarding ‘adam in Gen 1 – here is what I wrote some time ago a post entitled “Equality in the Original Marriage Design” (Part I). There is no contradiction in Gen 1:27 regarding the presence, then absense, of the definate article.
***
To understand both the purpose and the relationship of marriage, we first must go back to Genesis 1 and the overview of creation. For clarity, I will take the NASB translation but de-genderize the Hebrew word ‘adam when it is referring to humans and humanity in general (indicated in “[]” brackets). Here is the overview of the creation of “man” (i.e. the human species).
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make [hu]man[kind] in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created [The hu]man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”… 31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
The Hebrew word ‘adam has no plural form. It can, however, refer to multiple humans as a group, just as the singular word “mankind” or the singular phrase “the human race” does in English. ‘adam can also be presented with or without the definite article (ancient Hebrew has no indefinite article). With these variations, it is sometimes difficult to tell if ‘adam is referring to a generic human, a specific human, some humans, all humans, or someone named Adam. This is certainly true for Genesis 1. Luckily, context often provides the proper clues.
The first mention of humans is in Genesis 1:26: “Let us make ‘adam in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over…” The existence of ‘adam without the definite article prefix means it could mean either “a human” or refer to the group “humankind” or “the human race”. The use of the third person plural pronoun immediately following in the verse – “and let them rule” – gives us the clue we need to know this refers to the group and not a generic individual. Therefore, Genesis 1:26 refers to the entire human race. All humans are endowed with the image of God, regardless of age, gender, race, or any other segregating characteristic.
But the creation narrative does not end with this general truth. In fact, the point is emphasized further in the subsequent verses. Starting with verse 27, we get a brief glimpse of the story which will be played out in full detail in Genesis 2. Here, the form of the word ‘adam is changed in that it is prefixed with the Hebrew definite article. Now, using the definite article in Hebrew, especially with this word, does not necessarily mean an individual is being spoken of. Many of the occurrences of “the ‘adam” in the Old Testament are still correctly translated as “the people”, or “man[kind]”, or some other reference to multiples. The difference between verse 26 and 27 could indeed be the difference between saying “humankind” (verse 26) and “the human race” or “each and every human” (verse 27). Thankfully, the text rescues us again. As opposed to verse 26, the third person masculine singular pronoun is now used – “in the image of God He created him”. That coupled with the striking parallel to the full human creation account in Genesis 2 confirms that verse 27a refers to a specific ‘adam, the first ‘adam, namely – Adam[1].
Genesis 1:27 doesn’t end with the creation of the first human. In a bold pronouncement it extends the image of God to both of the humans in the creation story, and, quite visibly, to both of the genders in the human race – “…male and female He created them”. Verse 28 continues with the blessing and commission of God being pronounced over BOTH the male and female of the species – “God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;'”. Not only is the image of God equally distributed to all humans, and especially, to each gender, but the entire assignment for the human race – filling the earth and subduing it – is equally delegated to both males and females. Men and women are to work together in God’s image, and have equal responsibility through God’s blessing, to carry out the task for which God created us and placed us here on earth.
Notes
1. There are some who argue that the interchange in number in the pronouns is a poetic device which is paralleled in the pronouns for God in the same verses. As such, they interpret Genesis 1:27 to also mean mankind or the human race. This could be true; I am no expert on ancient Hebrew poetic forms. But, considering how the human creation account in chapter 1 is identical to the pattern displayed in chapter 2, and considering the fact that Genesis 1:26 quotes God while verse 27 is a narrative of God’s actions (i.e. they are not parallel semantically), I am inclined to reject that argument. In the long run, it matters little to this discussion. The main point is that the image of God, and the blessing and charge from God, are given equally to “male and female”.
And from part II of the series, this on Eve’s creation.
***
Adam’s Rib
The third argument (for male hierarchy) is that the female is somewhat less of a human being because she was made from a part of the male rather than being constructed “from the ground up”, as it were, like the male. This is contradicted both in the description of the two human creation events and in Adam’s exclamation when presented with Eve.
Four different verbs are used in Genesis when discussing creation. Three of them (bara’ – to create, ‘asah – to make, yatsar – to form) are used somewhat interchangeably, applying to animals and humans (including male and female separately) and just about everything else in creation. The fourth word, banah, is only used once in the entire creation narrative and that is for the creation of Eve. banah means to construct, as in a house. In fact, it is the word that is used in the Hebrew idiom “to build a house”, meaning to have a family. Although it is certainly a common Hebrew word, it is only used this once in the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:22). Interestingly, in terms of what is being constructed, banah suggest the most detailed and complex kind of work amongst the 4 verbs. That isn’t to suggest that, say, the universe isn’t detailed and complex. But it seems to be no coincidence that the particular way Eve was brought into existence is unique.
Another aspect of the unique construction of Eve is that she was the only living creature that was not created from earthly elements. She alone is constructed out of material from another living thing. All other created creatures were formed by God from the ground or “spawned” by the sea (Genesis 1:20, 24; 2:7, 19).
The significance of this unique construction should not be over looked. Those who want to diminish the creation of Eve seem to take a “size matters” approach. To them, a “rib”, being a small part of the male, yields a less than human result. Maybe the focus should instead be that Adam became less complete in giving up his “rib”. (In reality, he was incomplete to begin with, hence the need for a partner). God took that portion and carefully constructed a new equally endowed “helper” who perfectly complimented him in every way (although she too is incomplete without him). There is nothing “less than” about Eve. Adam recognized this instantly, exclaiming “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). His statement is all encompassing. It recognizes the fully autonomous and equal human partner, not just some spare part which has been modified to help him out around the garden.
The picture of two complimentary equals who never-the-less need each other to become “whole” again is completed in Genesis 2:24.
And keeping with the theme, here is a little research I did in response to the claim that ro’sh (Hebrew – “head”) is used “hundreds of times” in the Old Testament to refer to heads of the household and it is always a male.
***
There are 598 verses where this word occurs. Of those, I found 158 which refer to some hierarchical arrangement in human relations. Hardly the “hundreds” that are claimed.
Within that subset, it gets very interesting. I found only 25 that refer directly to the family unit. All of them were recounting some kind of census or other listing of families. 8 of those times ro’sh occurs with nasa’ which, put together, means “take a head count” and has nothing to do with gender or family structure. The remaining 17 times I put them under the category of “Factual reality without practical application”. In other words, they simply state a cultural, historical fact without and indication of how that arrangement works (if at all) and without any incling of a Word by God on His view of that arrangement.
All of the remainder fall under categories relating to leaders of people, not heads of a “household”. Although that includes tribal and clan leaders, which complimentarians would like to include, I reject their inclusion in the “hundreds” as it relates to the family because in reality they were community leaders. The other references refer to kings, princes, military officers, or “chief”, i.e. prominent, community figures. None of these 133 references are applicable to the family.
So, in reality, there are only 17 references to the “head” of a family, and all of them are census or listing related, and they all occur in the pure historical books of Exodus, Numbers, and 1 Chronicles. It is true that all of those heads are male. But what is more important, and really the point, is that there is absolutely NO OT teaching (or even law) that says “the ‘head’ of a family unit is always and only the husband (or worse, any male), and he shall have unilateral and complete authority over all other members of the family. Of course, such an idea would be nonsense because it would not account for the countless widowed mothers that certainly existed, or even the wives, left at home, of the men who were constantly off to war. It also wouldn’t account for the Proverbs 31 woman’s marriage, which by all indications is about as close as it gets to God’s model.
***
Now, of course, we know from Susanna’s and other’s posts here that those few occurances of ro’sh that refer to the “household” are never translated in the LXX to kephale. So, the fact from scripture (and, frankly, the extant secular literature) is that the very concept of the “kephale of the household” is non-existent in Greek.
Gengwall, are you aware that the word bereishis is from the root word rosh. The Hebrew way of forming words is so complex, the person reading it as a secondary language often misses these things. So, we have a word meaning “in the beginning” formed from rosh, which we think only means head. So, it may well be that ‘head’ carries connotations to the Hebrews of beginnings. With that in mind, the idioms regarding ‘heads of households’ may be from something to do with the fact that males carry the seed from which a family is born. Possibly the thinking may be even more complex to include the one who stands in protection at the front of the family which he/she was responsible for creating/forming/birthing.
Just some random thoughts! 🙂
Great point TL
#366 Mark,
You said:
Who said that Eve would have been allowed to eat from the tree of life just because she was allowed to remain in the garden? One who only sinned because they had been deceived would obey God because her eyes had been opened. It was the rebellious one who was the threat to sin again with his eyes wide open just as he sinned the first time.
#365 Mark,
You said:
If God had not wanted to compare the treacherous and unfaithful Israel with the treacherous actions of Adam, he would have just said that Israel acted in unfaithfulness and treachery. But the fact is that God deliberately compared Israel to the one who was the very first treacherous sinner. Israel’s sin was so bad that they could be compared to the one who defiled the whole world by his treachery. To deny the link to Adam as inconsequential is a sign that you may be unwilling to consider the severity of Adam’s sin. That is especially odd to me since your belief in Calvinism should be allow a openness to the unique sinful state of Adam as that view highlights Adam’s sin. I find that very odd. Are you actually finding yourself defending Adam?
There is no one “act” of treachery of all men and if there was, then the faithlessness of Israel would be equal and no different than any other man. This passage is certainly comparing Israel with the one who failed as the watchman in the garden and allowed the deception of his dear wife.
This is not true. The watchman was held accountable for the blood of the innocents who would die because he failed to warn of the enemies approach. If you think that Adam as a watchman was not in a treacherous place as a silent watchman failing God and his wife, then please explain why Adam’s sin was not supremely worse than the sin of Eve’s? Remember that God cursed this earth on Adam’s behalf, not on Eve’s behalf. Adam’s failure brought one other judgement to the world and the world has been groaning since that time.
#364 Mark,
You said:
So you admit that it is not a sin for a woman to teach the Bible to men in the church? Okay, then. Let me take this a step further. How many times is a woman allowed to teach the Bible to men in a church before it might become a sin? May she teach every Sunday? If not, where is the Scriptural “law” that defines the number of times a woman may teach before she enters into sin.
You asked me to prove that Eve was not kicked out. How can I prove something that doesn’t exist? I showed you that there is no evidence to prove that she was kicked out of the garden and I asked you to prove that she was kicked out. I am still waiting for your answer.
Acts 20 does not say that only elders are allowed to teach. 1 Tim. 3:1-7 does not say that a teacher is automatically an elder or that someone who isn’t an elder cannot teach. 1 Tim. 5:7 says:
Why did you record this verse? What is in this verse that “proves” that only elders can teach?
Eph. 4:11 does not mention elders. An overseer is something that someone “strives” for. A “pastor” is a spiritual gift given to whomever the Lord wills.
Now I find you contradicting yourself. You are telling us that only elders may teach, but then you said that a woman is not in sin for teaching in the church so therefore a woman is allowed to teach. Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
I noticed that you completely ignored my question about disallowing single males to be elders. Do you consider single men as being in sin if they become pastors?
Also the “he” language in 1 Tim. 3 is exactly the same “he” language that is in all the salvation passages. Are you saying that only males may be saved since only “he” language is in the salvation passages?
This is incorrect! “Women” (plural) are not forbidden to teach in 1 Tim. 2:12. Paul only says that he (not God’s law for all women) is not allowing “a woman” from teaching “a man”. No universal law is every spoken in the words of a man’s authority instead of God’s and no universal law is written in a private letter instead of written in a format for all to know it is universal.
Secondly 1 Cor. 14:34 & 35 do not forbid teaching. The universal language forbids all forms of speech – singing, praying, prophesying. Do you forbid all women from singing, praying, and prophesying in the church? If not, why not?
These do not qualify as two or three witnesses. The first one is not universal as God did not give Paul a universal law and the second instance is a complete contradiction to what Paul had already said in the beginning of the chapter, a unclear witness at best and a false witness at worst. Please explain how 1 Tim. 2:12 qualifies as a universal witness and how 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 not even speaking about teaching but about commanding of complete silence can be God’s law? Where is the law that it references?
Huh? I asked:
If women are not allowed to teach the truth every Sunday and every Bible study in the church, then there must be a “thou shalt not” command. Where is it? Or are you now publicly claiming that godly Christian women may teach the Bible to men in every place, at any time and for any reason as long as they are merely teaching the Bible with the authority given them to speak out God’s word? (1 Peter 4:10, 11)
Okay, I will continue with my comments on your answers to the questions in my next comment.
Mark,
You said:
We have inherited the sin of rebellion through Adam, but there is no place in the bible that states that Eve’s sin was rebellion. She is only ever credited with sinning through deception. You are only giving your opinion that Eve had to be expelled to stop her from eating from the fruit. This is not biblical proof but only your opinion. Do you have any proof?
The Bible doesn’t say that sin corrupted Eve’s nature. If her nature was corrupted, then why did Jesus come through the woman and only the woman? Why was no man allowed to be the father of Jesus?
The Bible only talks about the nature of Adam’s offspring. The Bible never calls Eve as one with a sin nature of rebellion. Deliberate sin causes separation from God but Paul says that sin done in ignorance and in unbelief brought him mercy from God. Why do you see Eve as still separated from God when God gave a promise of blessing through her?
Please give the verse that says that “the man” had a “leadership position”. Please give the verse that says that God “dwelt” with Adam and Eve in the garden. Please do not ignore my questions. I would like Scriptural proof, not your opinion.
We are the temple of God, but the garden of Eden is never called a temple. Can you please give scriptural proof that the garden was the “temple” of God?
Honestly, Mark, I find your reasoning so far off the mark. You constantly give your opinion without a single verse to back you up. Why do you do this? Are you aware that your opinion has no Scriptural backing? Or are you unaware and it is a mistake that you answered without the Scriptural proof? I would really encourage you to be more diligent and to give the Scripture that supports your view. It is helpful for all of us to test your point of view by Scripture so that we can rightfully judge whether it is true or false.
Says who? Where does God say that the man is MORE responsible for the fall? Since sin comes through the man alone, and sin does not come through the woman, then the buck stops with him and she has no responsibility not less responsibility for bringing sin into the world. I know that you know the Scriptures well about that sin comes through 1 man, not one man and a little bit through the woman.
So the serpent had a higher role given by God that made him more responsible? What is Adam held more accountable for? His own sin? Is Adam more accountable for his own sin than Eve is for her own sin?
Really? Treachery is not a bad sin? Being deceived in ignorance is on the same level as Adam’s sin? Then why did Paul say that those who sinned in ignorance (himself) could receive mercy while those who sinned wilfully (the lying false teachers) were to be kicked out of the church? Does God really ignore the heart and judge all sin alike? Is this the message you want us all to know about God?
If Adam was a leader of his wife, then he would have to be called to account for his failed “role” as a leader. Eve also would have to be called to account for failing to follow her “leader”. Did Eve get chastised for failing to follow Adam?
Most comps teach that the husband is responsible for his wife and he will give an account of her to Christ. Do you believe this? Will Christ hold you responsible for what your wife does?
Just because Eve was created for Adam’s need doesn’t mean that Adam automatically had a higher accountability. Eve was not his child to look after. Eve was a mature woman who was given an equal responsibility to rule. Adam was not asked to rule over Eve.
He names her like the other animals?? Boy, I would be upset with you if I were your wife. You liken women to animals by using the word “other”. And no, Adam does not name her until sin enters the world. God names her “woman” first (Genesis 2:22) and Adam merely confirms that she is his uniquely own flesh and bone hence the God-term of “woman”. It isn’t until he sins and takes his sinful rule over her that he calls her Eve. What is also interesting about his naming her is that she is admitted to being the “mother of all living” while God identifies Adam as the father of all the dying as the sin nature comes through him alone.
This is extremely weak! The man is the leader because he was cursed last? I don’t think so. And anyways man wasn’t cursed. The earth was cursed on Adam’s behalf but man himself wasn’t cursed.
Give me just one verse that says that a husband has leadership over his wife. You can’t use the word “head” since that is what is in dispute and beside it is never “head over” but “head of”. Show me a clear leadership position of a husband over his wife.
Mark, I would like you to copy these two emails with all my questions and challenges and please take the time to answer them with the Scripture. I appreciate that you have stuck it through with us this far. I hope you don’t bail out now that the questions are getting harder and you are asked each time to present the Biblical argument with clear verses. Some of the verses that you did use had nothing at all to do with the point you were trying to prove. Please don’t pad your answers with irrelevant Scripture. Copy and paste the Scripture so that we can understand why you are quoting it and how it is evidence to prove your point. I think that is a fair thing to ask of you.
Thanks, Buddy, cobber!! I appreciate it at lot that you have hung in there. Most men would have hung up their socks to dry a long time ago. You are to be commended for sticking around! 😉
gengwall,
You said:
That is exactly how I take the account and I think it fits the grammar quite well while ignoring none of the pieces of grammar that make up this piece. I do think that without the individual “the human” of verse 27, the singular and then plural forms move from the source of humanity (the one man) to the end result – the male and female. Thanks for your very fine posts!
Mark wrote: “He names her like the other animals.”
”Although some think the universal language of verse 1 includes women we know that this is false since it is qualified straight after as to men “ If anybody desires to the office of overseer, HE desires a noble task…””
The rules of grammar in most languages are that if an unknown is being spoken of or to, than ‘he’ is used which is inclusive. IOW it refers to either men or women. Otherwise, you have the ridiculous problem that Cheryl referred to: the whole Bible would then be addressed to men only.
”4. We have at least 2 occasions where women are forbidding from teaching- 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34, plus the rest of what is expressed about male eldership. More than enough ‘witnesses’!”
As Cheryl said, Paul is not giving a new law in 1 Timothy, unheard of before. Besides which, that is really rather crazy thinking to imagine that because Timothy had a problem one or a few women teaching wrong doctrine, that Paul would therefore forbid all women forever from teaching. Yeeeeesh!
As for 1 Cor. 14, Paul just got finished saying that women should consider how they are dressed WHILE prophesying (in Hebrew thinking this included preaching and teaching) and praying publicly. And in another letter written before Corinthians,he praised several women who were leaders in the church. Your view has Paul either in alzheimers or confused about what he believes and wants.
In actuality, those verses are quotes likely from some of the Corinthians, who wanted to promote the Jewis oral law that had some rules about it being shameful for women to speak in the church. This is the thinking of men who consider themselves superior to women. Those were not God’s laws. You will not find one law in the whole of the OT (which BTW is where all the Law was) that says women could not speak in the assembly of the believers.
Mark,
Regarding Hosea 6:7:
”again we see the pronoun ‘they’ refering to Israel. So the main emphasis of this verse is the covenantal unfaithfulness of Israel to the Mosaic covenant, not that Adam is identified as ‘treacherous’. It is Israel who is identified as ‘treacherous’ or faithless depending on the translation.”
When we put two things/statements side by side and compare them, we either make them opposite or the same. That is the point of comparisons. Hosea was making them the same. Thus the point of treacherous by their unfaithfulness applied to both Adam and Israel. Adam was indeed treacherous because he knew what he was doing to God in transgressing the rules, as was Israel.
”I think it is a sin for a woman to hold the office of elder and pastor / teacher which involves the regular spiritual leadership and preaching of the word.”
Thus in your opinion women are spiritually unfit or unusable by the Holy Spirit in spiritual matters. This idea of course, makes men superior because the Holy Spirit has no problem in using men for anything He wishes. It also tells the Holy Spirit that He cannot use ‘whomesoever He wills”, but must use only men.
Also, when you say “regular spiritual leadership and preaching of the word”, do you suggest that irregular preaching and teaching is OK for the HS to use women? Do you have Scriptures to support these ideas? How many times of preaching and teaching is OK for the HS to use women and at what point do women become unusable for the HS. Is there a Scripture reference for this thinking?
Elders btw are not always teachers or overseers. The Scriptures you are using do not refer to elders, but are just a gathering of your opinion. IOW you are not using these Scriptures contextually accurately. Why do you do this?
1 Tim. 3 is not about elders, but about anyone who DESIRES the WORK of overseer. Your concept of the ‘he language’ has already been addressed. Overseers and elders are not automatically interchangeable. Some elders could be overseers. Not all overseers would be elders.
”The text addresses ‘the man’ because of his leadership position.”
You have not proved that the man had a leadership position over the woman. Please provide a Scripture in Genesis one or two, which established the man as a leader over the woman as a perpetual position.
”In terms of his leadership we see foremost his higher accountability. Eve is created for him ( 1 Cor 11) and from him. He names her like the other animals. The order God, man, woman, creature is reversed at the fall. Adam is addressed first and cursed last.”
Where do we see Adam’s higher accountability other than the fact that he dealt treacherously with God by knowingly eating without being deceived into it?
”he names her like the other animals”
Yeeeeesh Mark. Is that a Freudian slip or what?
Adam did not name Eve until after they left the garden. And it is my personal opinion that the tone in which Adam named Eve “mother of living”, was one of remorse. He brought death to the world, but she would be the one who would be the doorway for all the future living – the doorway for the future generations.
”Not to mention all the new testament references about husbands/wives and their leadership.”
And I suspect that your views will be established on the same shoddy exegesis that you have displayed here. Sorry to be so blunt, but Mark, you are really not handling Scripture with the carefulness and preciseness that God’s Word deserves. Many of your claims are opinions and interpretations that are not established from Scripture but are you inserting your thinking into Scripture.
For your hypothesis to be correct, ‘adam must be plural in Gen 1:26, but is it?
Gen 1:26-28
Then God said, “Let Us make mankind (singular) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created the humankind (singular) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
The above text could be written also:
Gen 1:26-28
Then God said, “Let Us make a car in Our image…” 27 So God created the car in His own image; in the image of God He created him; blue and red He created them.
If you want to create the distinction in which ‘adam speaks of mankind in general and ha’adam of the first man, ‘adam must be plural and ha’adam singular. This is however not the case. God sees humankind as a singular entity and hence the text says, “God created the humankind (since it is the specific humankind which is being created, not the undefined spoken of earlier) in his own image, in the image he created him (or it), male and female He created them (i.e. the two entities which form the singular humankind).
And for the concept that humans became un-Godlike after they took the fruit, it is correct in a way that they lost the ability to always be righteous, but it is incorrect when we consider that before the Fall the humans were in state of innocence and did not know evil. God knows both good and evil, although He never chooses the evil. The humans became God-like in their ability to know both good and evil, although in their original created state they were ignorant of evil. This is true of both men and women; both have an inclination to sin and thus it is impossible to exclude Eve from ha’adam in gen 3:22-4.1
‘adam is plural in vs. 26 (although ‘adam does not have a natural plural form). The pronouns and other comparison nouns must be used to determine singular or plural. In verse 26, the two choices are “humankind” or “a human”. Since the pronouns related to ‘adam are plural, it is clear that a group is in view. ‘adam in verse 26 is “humankind”.
In verse 27a, the definite article is used. The choices here are many. “The human”, “every human”, “humankind”, a person named Adam. The pronoun related to the word this time is singular. ha’adam in 27a is “the human”. 27b refers back to mankind referenced in vs 26.
Your car paraphrase doesn’t exactly work because “car” has a plural form. But if we use that, 26 and 27 would read (and should read):
Then God said, “Let Us make cars in our image…” 27 So God created the car in His own image; in the image of God He created it; blue and red He created them.
That reads perfectly fine in English. The only issue now is if “the car” refers to a specific car or is referencing a generic prototype, as in “God created the [type of object we identify as a] car in His own image”. Kind of like your “the humankind”, I guess (although that really doesn’t read well in English). Frankly, I don’t have a problem with either. I just find the parallel in vs 27 with the detailed creation of mankind in Genesis 2 too striking to ignore. Therefore, I’m incline to believe that “the human” is the literal first human just as the “they” in 27b is the first couple. But if it is simply a class reference, it is no big deal. What I know is that it isn’t is the group “humankind”. The surrounding text doesn’t support that at all.
We need to be carefull how we view these number variations in text. I believe you would support the idea that in 1 Tim 2:15, the transition from singular to plural is a real transition. In other words, I believe you would NOT agree with the complimentarian argument that “the woman” (vs. 14), and “she” and “they” (vs. 15) all are really the same thing, namely “women”. You do agree that “the woman” and “she” refer to a singular, specific individual and “they” refers to a group of people which includes that individual, don’t you? You may even support the idea that “they” is the specific woman and a specific man, maybe even a married couple. If so, then why can’t “the man” and “him” in Genesis 27a refer to a specific man and “they” in 27b refer to a group of people which include that specific man, or even more so, a specific married couple?
I’ve got it! “Deer” has no separate plural form in English so it is a good comparison.
Then God said, “Let Us make deer in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them…” God created the deer in His own image, in the image of God He created it; male and female He created them.
Now, “the deer”, again, may refer to a generic prototype. But if this passage was followed soon after by the excerpt from “Bambi” where Bambi and Faline first meet, wouldn’t you be inclined to think that the prior verse was about those two specific deer?
Yes, I do recognize the change in 1 Tim 2, but it is visible and clear because the word gynee has both a plural and a singular form in Greek. ‘Adam does not have a plural form and hence you cannot transfer the argument to Hebrew.
Isn’t it strange that those who speak and write Hebrew have not noticed such a nuance in the text for the past four thousand years? Isn’t it strange that all Hebrew Bibles and Commentaries all argue that ‘adam is always in singular but because it is a collective noun, it can be used with both singular and plural prounouns, for ha’adam (the human) is at the same time singular (one entity), yet it is also plural for it consists of many parts (many humans), one of these parts being male and female. The same is found with the word ‘echad (one). A grape cluster is ‘echad, but it has many grapes in it. The same with ‘adam. ‘Adam is used with a singular pronoun (him) when the humankind is spoken of as one entity, with a plural pronoun (them) when the entities of the humankind is spoken of. This is quite elementary in Hebrew.
The concept that ‘adam is plural and refers to humankind in general and ha’adam is singular and it refers only to the first man is not found outside this blog.
I think I have made it very clear that I understand ha’adam can be plural. Are you suggesting it can never be singular? I’m sure you are not.
What needs to be determined is which of the various options is actually meant when ha’adam is used. The uses outside of Genesis have been thoroughly discussed between you and Cheryl. As Cheryl has pointed out, in each instance where it is understood as plural there is amble support for that usage in the surrounding plural pronouns and comparative nouns.
How does “him” support a plural interpretation? Can you find anywhere else where singular supporting nouns and pronouns result in plural usage? I expect you exhausted your list of plurals in your other comments and such a scenario doesn’t occur there. So, that leaves Genesis 1:27 as some kind of phenomenal exception to Hebrew grammer rules when it comes to this noun. Hmmm.
Such an interpretation also continues to ignore the parallel with Genesis 2.
hahahaha – anti spam word “Adam”
Now, I really don;t think it is that big a deal. To-MA-toe, to-ma-toe if you ask me. The main point of Genesis 1:27 is that male and female are endowed equally in the image of God. Would you agree with that?
You argue like the comp who claimed that an Anglo-Saxon understands Greek better than the Greeks themselves! I never said that ‘adam is always plural; I said it is singular and that the personal pronoun shows whether we are talking about humanity as an entity or whether we are talking about its many parts.
Why don’t you go to the synagogue next door (there is bound to be one nearby) and ask the rabbi to explain to you the usage of ‘adam?
The point I am making is that when we find ha’adam in Gen 1-3 without the qualifying words “male and female,” (Gen 1) “man and woman” (Gen 2) “woman and the mortal (Gen 3), ha’adam refers to humankind in general, i.e. to both to the man and woman
In the following verse ‘adam is singular and yet refers to all humans:
Ps 144:3-4
LORD, what is man (‘adam), that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man (ben enowsh), that thou makest account of him!
Man (‘adam) is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away.
if Gen 3:22-4.1 refers only to the first man, what about this verse? Would God curse the earth for the first man’s sin twice?
Gen 8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s (ha’adam) sake; for the imagination of man’s (ha’adam) heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
If only Adam is referred to in Gen 3:22-4.1 we have a problem with this verse:
Job 34:10-13
“So listen to me, you men of understanding.
Far be it from God to do evil,
from the Almighty to do wrong.
11 He repays a man for what he has done;
he brings upon him what his conduct deserves.
12 It is unthinkable that God would do wrong,
that the Almighty would pervert justice.
13 Who appointed him over the earth?
Who put him in charge of the whole world?
If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
all mankind (basaar, flesh) would perish together
and man (wa’adam) would return to the dust.
Wow Susanna – do you have a straw man quota to fill?
I never said that you said ha’adam was always plural (never singular). I asked a rhetorical question about your belief because you did say I (we – Cheryl and I, those of like mind “on this blog”) said it was always singular.
Now – here is what I think we both agree on.
1. ha’adam can be either singular or plural (a collective singular, if you will).
2. “the personal pronoun shows whether we are talking about humanity as an entity or whether we are talking about its many parts.” or, I would add, whether we are talking about a specific human.
3. The pronoun associated with it in Genesis 1:27 is singular.
I think that means we have narrowed it down to ha’adam in Genesis 1:27 meaning either humanity as an entity (or in this case, the collective containing Adam and Eve) or a specific human. Those are our two choices, right? You do accept that a specific human is a possibility, do you not?
Also, am I to understand that you believe all the occurances of ha’adam in Gen 3:22-4:1 refer to humankind? I must be reading you wrong.
If Gen 1.27 signifies only the first man you have a problem with the context for the first man is then found to be both male and female.
Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
It is not possible to separate the verse into two categories and argue that the singular refers to the creation of the first man for the human which is created is both male and female. You must superimpose this view on the text itself, using Gen 2. Without Gen 2 you would never even think of creating such a distinction. This is exactly how comps do it: they start with 1 Tim 2 and then go back to Gen 1-3 and “find” what they read in 1 Tim 2 in the creation and fall account. This kind of reading does not allow the text to speak for itself. In the context Gen 1.26-28 speaks only of one thing: the creation of humankind which would rule (care for) the earth. It does not attempt to explain the creation of the woman from the man which is the subject in Gen 2. And because “the human” refers to humankind in general, “the human” when used without defining words such as “and the woman” in Gen 1-3 refers to all the humans in existence at the specific point of reference, hence both Adam and Eve are included in the term. The writer is very careful to point this out if you just look at the text. If “the human” always refers to the first man, the writer would never use the word ‘yish to describe the first man.
“It is not possible to separate the verse into two categories and argue that the singular refers to the creation of the first man for the human which is created is both male and female.”
Why is that not possible. There is no grammatical reason why “the human” can’t refer to the first man and then the next clause refer to both humans.
But I see where you are going now. You don’t see as tight a bond between Genesis 1 and 2 that I do. Conversely, you see a far more nuanced usage of ha’adam through the rest of the account than I feel is necessary. Those are reasonable arguments, although I don’t find them convincing nor do they change my reading of the text.
BTW – I am 3/4 of the way through the book. MAN you did a lot of research. I am very impressed. As you might suspect, I have some quibbles. But overall you present a stunning death blow to the dogma in my estimation.
OK – so how do you handle Genesis 2:7-8. Eve is nowhere in view yet.
7 And the Lord God formed ha’adm from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and ha’adam became a living soul. 8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put ha’adam whom He had formed.
Certainly this refers to the specific human Adam. I will venture a guess at your response. “ha’adam still refers to ‘all the humans in existence at the specific point of reference’, but since Adam is the only human in existence at the time, the collective is a group of one”. Did I get it right? I bet I did! Problem is, “humanity” still doesn’t make sense in those verses even if humanity is a group of one. So maybe you agree that ha’adam in 2:7-8 refers to a specific person. If so, can you help me identify the “defining words” that “the writer is very careful to point out” to me that would help me know this.
Why thank you! Yes, I spent years in research and at the end I still felt that I hadn’t done enough… And I am sure you have some stuff you would quibble about! Actually I quibbled about some stuff with myself, but at the end I had to make some choices and I wasn’t always happy about it. More than once I wanted to add: and it can also be understood as… but the book would have been a 1000 pages if I had.
While why are talking about books: what do you think of a book solely on Gen 3.16? Kind of a documentary history on how the verse has been translated and used for the past 2000 years. I thought it would be a great tool against comps argument that the woman desires to rule the man according to the verse, for the verse has been changed numerous times.
And BTW, I found an error in my book… I wrote in chapter 1 that Luther used Verlangen in his 1545 version of the Bible. Well, it appears that he followed the Vulgate and inserted the word “will” into the text (Your will shall be under the man’s). The German Bible Society came out with a warning this year that someone had created a private version of the Luther’s Bible and dispersed it to many otherwise reputable Bible websites. I did my research on the usage of Gen 3.16 in 2008 and therefore used one of these private versions thinking I was using an authentic version. The person had used the rendering of Gen 3.16 from the 1912 revision of Luther’s Bible and here we find Verlangen (desire). My conclusion that Luther rejected the Catholic concept of the woman’s sinful sexuality is found in his other writings, but it did cause him to change Gen 3.16 in the German Bible. Trust me that I kicked myself over this one, but then again, I never thought anyone was capable of such deceit. Perhaps I am too naive. Anyways, I think this is one of these happy mistakes which causes one to dig deeper, for now the questions remain: why did Luther not change Gen 3.16 if he went back to the original text? And why did Miles Coverdale use the word “lust” in the English Bible in 1534 since he used Luther’s Bible as a reference? These question caused me to consider a book solely on Gen 3.16.
I’ll chat more about ‘adam tomorrow. I have to go to work.
Incidentally, your exegesis of Genesis 8:21 is quite flawed.
1. The reading “curse the ground” gives the impression that this is the same curse of the ground that occurred in Genesis 3, but it is not. The Hebrew word translated “curse” in this verse is completely different than the one used in Genesis 3. The cursing of the ground in Genesis 8 refers to the effects of the flood. There is no connection in this verse to the fall – it relates to the flood.
2. ha’adam has plural “defining words” which indicate it refers to the collective. In the phrase “for the imagination of man’s (ha’adam) heart is evil from his youth”, youth is actually plural. A more literal translation is “man’s heart is evil from youths of him”. A human does not have multiple youths, therefore the youths must be of multiple humans.
And a book on Genesis 3:16 would be well worth it. But I must add, a deeper exploration of the “turning” of the woman should be included. Of course, that is a WHOLE ‘nother discussion. I say let’s not go there now.
Susanna,
You said:
The plural form “them” is listed. What do you make of the plural? I just accept that God is referring to more than one human.
Susanna,
You said:
I would not say that he lost the ability to “always be righteous” but that he added something to his original state and that was the experience of evil. I believe that it would also be incorrect to say that Adam didn’t know evil before. He had to know what is evil since he was not deceived. He knew that the serpent was not telling the truth but telling a lie. That is knowing evil. But what he didn’t have until sin entered the world was an “experience” of evil.
God knows evil too as knowing about it but God does not personally experience since God cannot sin. So when Adam sinned by his willful rebellion, is that he experienced evil that made his likeness to God as tainted.
Would you agree with this?
I would add that God cannot “choose” evil because God cannot experience evil.
No, this cannot be true, since Adam was not deceived. Eve did not know the evil because she was deceived, but Adam knew the lies and he did not speak up. It is impossible for Adam to be “ignorant” of the evil if he was not deceived.
I agree that all of the seed of Adam both men and women have an inclination to sin. However Eve was not a descendant of Adam after he sinned so she would not have inherited a sin nature from him as we did.
gengwall,
I completely agree with you. I have to go with the grammar that is stated in the passage and this is also the way it clearly reads to me.
“BTW – I am 3/4 of the way through the book. MAN you did a lot of research. I am very impressed. As you might suspect, I have some quibbles. But overall you present a stunning death blow to the dogma in my estimation.”
Yes, gengwall, Krizo has indeed done a stunning job and incredible research. 🙂
I totally look forward to a book on the historical problems of Gen. 3:16
Susanna,
You said:
You seem to be saying that ha’adam is always a collective noun. How can that be true? Are you saying that when ha’adam is used of Adam himself that it isn’t actually Adam that is referred to but Eve also? What are you actually disagreeing with us about?
I think we already went over this…that the singular form with the plural pronouns means more than one person. Are you misunderstanding what the argument is? It seems to me that you are.
gengwall,
You said this about Susanna:
I don’t really understand Susanna’s point. Maybe I just haven’t read through it all carefully because it seems that we are passing ships in the night with Susanna. From my reading it seems that Susanna means a composite single only so that Adam although one person actually still means humankind? I think that Susanna will have to redefine her view because it seems to me that she is saying that the singular can never mean just one human (Adam).
Susanna,
You said:
I understand what gengwall is saying and I think what you have said is unkind. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way.
“its many parts” is plural, “humanity as an entity” is plural. Where is the ability for “Adam” to mean one human being and only one human? Is there no provision for this in your exegesis? You don’t list it so it appears to me that it isn’t an option. Please correct my view if I misunderstood you.
You said to gengewall:
Are you saying that the rabbi will tell gengwall that “Adam” can never mean the first man alone? I think the lexicons show that this can be the meaning so your comment, although probably unintended, comes across as a little superior. I am sure that gengwall can get the meaning from the lexicons without having to ask a rabbi and if only a rabbi knows the truth and the lexicons don’t, then I wonder why lexicions have been such a help to all of us when perhaps we should just make friends with the rabbis? Likely you didn’t mean it this way, but unfortunately this is how it came across to me.
I have to go to Bible study tonight so I won’t be able to respond more until either later tonight or tomorrow.
Blessings!
Cheryl
Cheryl said – “I understand what gengwall is saying and I think what you have said is unkind. ”
LOL – Thanks Cheryl! I took it as a good natured jab. Then I thought about what it would be like to be a Saxon who knew Greek…which was kind of cool.
Still, your response is a good reminder that without the advantage of face to face contact, we need to all be careful how our comments come across.
gengwall,
I am far more apt to be a duckie and let everything slide off my own back, but when it might come across as a tad unkind to someone else and I don’t know how feelings might be pricked, I just want to remind us all that words on a page don’t always express our true heart. Sometimes we have to be extra kind because the words themselves can be extra harsh since there is no soft spoken word, no glint in the eye and a nod of approval, and no loving pat even though we disagree. There is only those stark words on a page and those words can take on a life of their own with an added spin. I wish that we just knew each other really well and there would not be any possibility of hard feelings.
A Saxon who knew Greek, eh?
Well, onward and upward!
Susanna,
You said:
But Susanna, we are talking about the definite noun with the singular pronoun. This quote is not a definite noun so it doesn’t qualify for our discussion.
In Genesis 8:21 “youth” is plural just as gengwall already said which gives the plural meaning and the Job passage that you quoted does not have the definite article once again.
Lastly regarding your claim that Adam is always a collective noun and not definite as one man, The Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (212) says:
This of course means that even “Adam” cannot be excluded as being definite.
That’s all I have time for tonight. By the way Susanna, a blank comment came through from you and ended up in my spam box. I don’t know what happened to the comment whether you accidentally sent it off with no commend or whether my spam box ate your comment. Hopefully not the latter. 🙂
Pending Susanna’s return, I will offer this take on her position. It isn;t that she feels that ‘adam with the definate article can’t mean a specific person. She simply feels this is not the “normal” usage. In her view, the primary usage of ha’adam is as the collective noun. In other words, we should assume this usage unless other “defining words” make it clear that a singular, specific human is in view. She does not consider the masculine personal pronoun to be such a defining word because that is the correct pronoun to use with a masculine singular noun which represents a collection. Therefore, in Genesis 1-3, she assumes the collective definition unless someone or something, like Eve, is also present to clearly indicate that ha’adam refers to a person and not persons.
Not surprisingly, I find that analysis unconvincing and unsupported linguistically. I think we have shown in verse after verse that the usage which requires defining words is the collective one, not the singular one.
That is why I am anxiously awaiting a response to may challenge in post 399 regarding Genesis 2:7-8 (is that right – post 399! Wow!). Here there are no defining words to indicate the singular usage as Susanna would require (at least I can find none), yet the singular usage is so clearly the correct one. Either Susanna has to claim that the collective usage can include a collection of one specific human, or she needs to show us the defining words in those verses which point to the singular use, words that she claims “the writer is very careful to point out”.
That brings me to another flaw, IMO, in her exegesis of ha’adam. She claims that:
The problem is that ha’adam when used in the collective sense does not at all refer to “all the humans in existence at the specific point of reference”. If it did, then another verse we are scrutinizing, Genesis 8:21, would be refering only to Noah’s family. But it is absolutely clear that that verse refers to all mankind, past, present, and future. Talk about a need for defining words! When ha’adam refers to a specific subset of humanity, that distincition needs to be supported in the surrounding text. I’m sure that Susanna sees such support. But such a reading of the text becomes very tortured, at least to my Saxon brain ;-).
All things considered, and input from the local Rabbi pending, I am confident that the “normal” usage of ha’adam is for as a specific human being. Any differing (i.e. collective) usage requires support in the text. We have seen that in every passage we have looked at outside of Genesis 1-3 and it (the default singular usage) leads to a much clearer and plainer reading of the passages within Genesis 1-3.
Thanks gengwall. This is beginning to make a little more sense. I’ve actually been going both ways at once.
In English we use the word ‘man’ in a similar fashion. But frankly I’d be hard pressed to agree that ‘man’ always referred to a single person, or always to mankind in general. At least we do know that it does not always refer to only males. In the case of this word, context is always the qualifier.
The problem we seem to be having the adam and ha-adam is that context is not always clear.
I agree TL, although in my challenge verses – Gen 2:7-8 – the context is crystal clear. That is why I am curious how Susanna interprets that, as a collective of 1 specific human or a singular specific human with clear defining words.
Now, as it relates to Genesi 1:27, again, I don’t think it is a big deal one way or the other. Certainly, “mankind” is how many very knowledgeable people (many egalitarian) see ha’adam in that verse. Either way, male and female are endowed equally with God’s image and co-rulers of the earth.
But, it has huge ramifications for Genesis 3:24, for the resolution of the usage of ha’adam there either confirms that both Adam and Eve (at least) were kicked out of the garden OR that only Adam was forceably removed. If the former, (and I don’t know if Susanna has considered the downstream risk here), it lends weight to the argument that Eve shares in the blame for sin; shares in being cursed; shares in the punishment of crime. If the latter (a possibility I was not even cognizant of before coming here), then all of Paul’s teaching against Adam becomes not just an apostalic opinion but an enlightened truth.
I also did not consider that it was only the man that was kicked out until Cheryl brought it up. And I’m still having a little problem settling that in.
If only the man were ejected, then
1. did God think that because she was tempted and deceived, thus not eating in deliberate sin she would not make that same mistake with the other tree even though she was now suffering the death effects of that mistake and prone even more to deception.
2. did God not worry about it because He knew that she would not wish to remain alone since God said that aloneness was not good.
I fully see the need for the man to leave because of his seemingly unrepentant disobedience. And I fully see that his knowing disobedience would be the cause of sin being carried to all humanity. Two humans suffering the consequences of death, would produce children from that position of death. Adam’s deliberate treachery would have consequences, which it did in Cain and in one of Cain’s sons or nephews (forget which without looking). Notice that is the males who follow the pattern….. at least at that point.
TL
1. I believe that is Cheryl’s take if Eve had remained behind. I am not sure she would be prone to more deception. The opposite may also have happened – that she became more attuned to deception and therefore more resistant. but….
2. Could be. As many here claim, that is exactly what “your desire will be for your husband” meant in Eve’s case – that the inevitable consequence of the fall for her would be the literal following of Adam. God didn’t make her go; but she was destined to go.
It was Lamech – a direct descendant of Cain (5th generation)
I can hardly wait to jump in here. This discussion is so interesting and so good for us to talk about! There are so many things that we can learn from this passage and things that we can bounce off each other. However I will be gone most of today but will jump back in when I am back. Go ahead and carry on without me.
“It was Lamech – a direct descendant of Cain (5th generation)”
Rather makes me wonder if Adam shared some angst and resentment when he told his children the story of how they came to be and came to live there. Lamech seemed twice the angry man that Cain was and Cain was incredibly unrepentant and resistant to God’s advice and direction.
Lamech is also the first polygamist (that we are aware of, at least). I don’t know that that is significant, but it is interesting. Lamech had issues.
Cheryl, I did not mean to be unkind. Call it a momentarily fit of insanity and impatience due to a too large of amount of estrogen in the brain. Three months to go to normalcy… I don’t know how you all felt when pregnant, but half of the time I just want to hug everyone and the other half, well, if I don’t feel like crying, I feel like letting the world know how terribly awful it is. Not perhaps the best time to debate, but it helps me to keep my sanity by engaging my left brain half.
Quite frankly I could care less whether ha’adam refers to the first man or humankind in general in Gen 1.27 if it wasn’t for Gen 3.9. You see, while you are arguing that only Adam was kicked out, the comps are arguing that only Adam was called by God. This is the central argument which supports the beliefs that
1. The man was created to lead the woman
2. The woman was never given the commandment by God
3. The man taught the commandment to the woman
4. Therefore the woman is not allowed to teach a man
The other reason why I feel I must reject the construction in which ha’adam refers only to the first man is found in Gen 5. Let’s compare Gen 1.26-27 with Gen 5.1-5
Gen 1:26-27
Then God said, “Let Us make man (‘adam) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man (ha’adam) in His own image; in the image of God He created him (‘otow); male and female He created them (‘otaam).
Gen 5:1-5
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam (‘Adam). In the day that God created man (‘adam), He made him (‘otow) in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind (‘adam) in the day they were created. 3 And Adam (‘Adam) lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam (‘Adam) were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam (‘Adam) lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
For your hypothesis to work, ‘adam should refer only to Adam in Gen 5.1 since it is singular and follows directly after the mentioning of Adam himself. But if ‘adam refers to humans in general in Gen 1.26, how can it refer to only Adam in Gen 5.1, especially when the same word (‘adam) is defined as being male and female in 5.2? Whereas Gen 1.27 uses the singular pronoun with the word “the human,” in Gen 5.1-5 ‘adam (human) is used with both singular and plural pronouns. This is found because all of humankind is created in the likeness of God (hence the singular) but this humankind is also male and female (hence the plural).
To clarify:
Then God said, “Let Us make a human (‘adam) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let THEM have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Gen 1.26)
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam (‘Adam). In the day that God created a human (‘adam), He made HIM (‘otow) in the likeness of God. (Gen 5.1)
The word ‘adam signifies always “human.” Hebrew uses other words when speaking of persons in general, such as nephesh (soul), ‘enowsh (mortal) etc.
My further argument is that the reading in which “a human” (‘adam) signifies humankind and “the human” (ha’adam) signifies the first man is an inference from chapter 2. An inference can certainly be valid, but it is nevertheless an inference and we must look at Gen 1 alone first to decide what the text actually says, before we begin to look around the Bible to see if our conclusion is supported. This is what all of us tell the comps about Gen 2, isn’t it? No fair to go to 1 Tim 2 and then back to Gen 2 to find what they need to.
Let’s look at Genesis 1-3 in its entire context.
Gen 1:26-28
Then God said, “Let Us make (a) human (‘adam) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created (the) human (ha’adam) in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male (zakaar) and female (neqebah) He created them.
In the context it is evident that God plans to create a human (v.26), which he does (v.27). This human is male and female.
When we go to Gen 2 we read:
Gen 2.4-3.1
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no human (wa’adam) to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground (ha’adamah). 7 And the LORD God formed the human (ha’adam) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human (ha’adam) became a living (nephesh) being.
…
18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that the human (ha’adam) should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the human (ha’adam) to see what he would call them. And whatever the human called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the human (ha’adam) gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for the human (ha’adam) there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on the human (ha’adam), and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from the human (ha’adam) He made into a woman (‘ishshah), and He brought her to the human (ha’adam). 23 And the human (ha’adam) said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman (‘ishshah),
Because she was taken out of Man (‘yish).”
24 Therefore a man (‘yish) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (‘ishshah), and they shall become one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the human (ha’adam) and his wife (‘ishshah), and were not ashamed.
Why is the first human called “the human”? Because he does not have another name; he is simply a human, contrasted to the animals (throughout the OT the word ‘adam and behemah (“animal”) are contrasted). He is not called Adam yet, neither is he called a man (‘yish) because before the woman was created, the word “man” would have been meaningless since it lacked its feminine counterpart. As soon as the woman is created, the human is called “a man” (‘yish) for now his masculinity becomes evident.
In Genesis 3, the writer uses another combination:
Gen 3:6-8
So when the woman (‘ishshah)saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband (‘enowsh) with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. 8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the human (ha’adam) and his wife (‘ishshah) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
Instead of using ‘yish and ‘ishshah, the writer uses ‘ishshah and ‘enowsh (translated mortal, husband, person, man etc.) in v. 6 and switches back to ha’adam and ‘ishshah in v. 8.
In 3.9 we find that God calls ha’adam (the human).
Gen 3:9-13
Then the LORD God called to the human (ha’adam) and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” 12 Then the man (ha’adam) said, “The woman (‘ishshah) whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” 13 And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
This passage is the reason comps argue that God called only the man and that he had given the commandment only to the man, whom he is holding responsible. The woman is said to have learned the commandment from the man, and was therefore responsible to the man for helping him keep it, an argument created and supported by giving ‘ezer the meaning “helper.” On the contrary we find that the woman says that “God had said” and God holds her equally responsible for the breaking of the commandment. That the man answered first does not signify that God had only called him, it is an inference based on the singular that we find after ha’adam. We have now two options:
1. If we affirm that ha’adam refers only to the man, then God calls only the man which would indicate that God spoke only the man at all times since the writer portrays a picture in which God is seemingly ignorant of the disobedience and seems to want to simply communicate with the human He had created.
2. If ha’adam refers to both the man and the woman, God calls both the man and the woman for He spoke both to the man and the woman at all times.
Both cannot be true. Since Eve says “God has said,” it is clear that God must have spoken to her at some point. It is only fair to assume that God did so at all times since God is found speaking to both men and women equally throughout the Bible.
Later in Genesis 3 we find that “the human” who has been nameless so far is now given the name Adam in v.17. But the writer returns once more to using ha’adam and ‘ishshah in v. 20.
Then to Adam (‘Adam) He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” 20 And the human (ha’adam) called his wife’s name Eve (Chawah), because she was the mother of all living. 21 Also for the human (ha’adam) and his wife (‘ishshah) the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. 22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man (ha’adam) has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”– 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man (ha’adam); and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
If we exclude Eve from the above text and from Gen 1.27, we must also exclude her from Gen 3.9 since the grammar and the persons spoken of are the same.
In Genesis 4.1 the writer uses another combination:
4:1 Now the human (ha’adam) knew Eve (Chawah) his wife (‘ishshah), and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man (‘yish) from the LORD.
Hence we find that the writer uses several combinations when speaking of the first human beings. The first man is called ha’adam, ‘yish, ‘enowsh and ‘Adam, depending on what the writer is trying to convey. He is called
1. ha’adam after his creation and when he is contrasted to the animals
2. ‘yish when he is contrasted to the woman (‘ishshah)
3. ‘enowsh when his closeness to the first woman is being emphasized (the text uses the word ‘imaah (“with her”) which is used also of sexual intimacy)
4. ‘Adam when his identity as a specific human being, and not just “a human” in general, becomes clear. He is given the name because he was made of ‘adamah (ground) just as Eve is named Chawah (from chay) because she was to become the mother of all living.
If ha’adam refers only to the man in Gen 3.22-4.1, then only the first man was created to till (‘abad) the land because he was taken from the ground (ha’adamah), and women are excluded from farming. According to Gen 2 it was humankind in itself that was created specifically to till or care for the land, not only the first man since the reason for the creation of the human was that there was not yet a human who would care for the land. In Gen 4:2 we find that Cain was a farmer.
Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller (‘abad) of the ground (ha’adamah).
We find that the work of humans in general includes the tilling (‘abad) of the land.
Jer 27:11
But the nations that bring their necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will let them remain in their own land,’ says the LORD, ‘and they shall till it and dwell in it.’ ”
Hence it was not a specific task for only the first human, but a general task for all humans. It was meant to be a leisurely task, but sin has made it a hard one.
To summarize: to create a distinction between Gen 1.26 and 1.27 one must begin with Gen 2, for the text itself does not create such a distinction since both ‘adam and ha’adam refer to the same humankind which is being created. This is confirmed by Gen 5, where ‘adam appears with both the singular and plural pronoun. Throughout the Old Testament both ‘adam and ha’adam are found with both plural and singular pronouns wherefore it is impossible to argue that ha’adam refers only to the first man in Genesis 1-3 while ‘adam refers to “humankind.” It is an inference, an ingenious one, but nevertheless an inference and not supported by the text itself.
If we nevertheless use the argument, we must also allow the comps to use the argument in which God calls humankind collectively a man in Gen 1.27, wherefore the man was called to lead; that God gave the commandment only to the man in Gen 2, wherefore a woman is not allowed to teach a man for it is the man’s job to teach the woman; that God called only the man to account in Gen 3 wherefore the woman is not allowed to lead since women are not held accountable, men are; and lastly, that women should follow men even when they are punished for their sin and the women themselves are innocent (since did not Eve set the example of wifely obedience by following Adam?) You may not affirm even one of these, but if you see ha’adam as referring only to the first man in order to expel only the man from the garden, you are left without a defense against complementarian theology. If you on the other hand affirm that ha’adam refers to both the man and the woman when the word is not qualified with words such as “male and female,” or “and his woman,” you leave the comps with nothing to support their theology since they must affirm that God called both the man and the woman “human”; God gave both the man and the woman the commandment (the woman was given the commandment as soon as she was created, just as the man had been given the commandment as soon as he was created) hence both men and women can teach according to ability and gifting; God called both the man and the woman and held them jointly responsible for breaking the commandment; the punishment differed according to intent; both the man and the woman were expelled from the Garden with the comforting words of a future Savior who would come and redeem the world from the consequence of their sin.
That is a long post and it will take some time to digest. At first blush, though, I simply disagree with your assessment of the consequences that would ensue if we consider ‘adam as a specific human in verses such as Gen 3:9. I also disagree with your conviction that singular and plural constructions can’t coexist with each other in verses such as Genesis 1:27 and 5:1-2. Now, having said that, I am uplifted by the fact that our ultimate goal remains the same – not to give any ground to complementarian arguments. I certainly see that your construction accomplishes that (but as I noted in a prior post, may have unintended consequences). I simply don’t see the flood gates of opposition opening under our construction like you seem to believe they will. I will have to digest your post slowly (and I’m sure Cheryl and others have much to say as well). *deep breath*……
OK – let’s take the first point.
First – the difference between G 1:26 and my interpretation of “mankind”, and G 5:1b and my view of a singular ‘adam is the difference in pronouns. In G 1:26, the pronoun is plural and in G 5:1b the pronoun is singular. I don’t think he=they in terms of gramatical number.
More specifically, you said “For your hypothesis to work, ‘adam should refer only to Adam in Gen 5.1 since it is singular and follows directly after the mentioning of Adam himself.” My response is, “yea, so what?” My interpretation of Genesis 1:27a defies convention it would only be consistent if my interpretation of G 5:1 also does. I read Genesis 5:1 as “This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the
day that God created ADAM, in the likeness of God made he him;” The reason I come to this conclusion is that God didn’t create the entire collection “mankind” in that “day”, he created only Adam, and then Eve. That is the same reason I connect Genesis 1 and 2 so closely and conclude ha’adam in G 1:27 refers specifically to Adam: because Genesis 1 and 2 and “in the day God created ‘adam” all refer to God’s specific actions in the creation week.
Maybe it would make more sense if we look at ‘adam in detail.
I believe that ‘adam without the direct article can mean one of three things:
“a person” (or some equivalent singular generic), “mankind”, and the proper name “Adam”. I believe with the definite article it means either “the human” or “mankind”. I think you would agree.
The difference is that I believe exclusively singular associated text with ‘adam means a singular human: “a human”, “the human”, or “Adam” depending on context and article. Conversely, I believe that some associated plural is necessary to indicate the collective “mankind” (or some subcollective within that group). My conclusions about G 1:26-27 and G 5:1-2 are consistent with that belief. Not only that, but those passages as well as literally every other passage we have discussed “read” just fine with that construction. I am not convinced they are so clear with your construction, with Genesis 2:7-8 remaining my test case for you.
Now, regarding your clarifying translations above, I am thoroughly confused. Are you contending that that is how I would translate those verse under my construction (it most certainly is not) or are you saying that is how you would translate them (that would seem to contradict everything else you’ve said). Please help me out there.
For clarity, I will clarify how I would translate them (repeating G 5:1 from above)
G 1:26 The God said Let Us make a mankind (‘adam) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let THEM (indicating ‘adam above is the collective) have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Gen 1.26)
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam (‘Adam). In the day that God created ADAM (‘Adam – there is no reason to believe something different is meant when the word is exactly the same and the two ‘adam’s are clearly synonymous), He made HIM (‘otow) in the likeness of God. (Gen 5.1)
And finally, in G 5:2, the ‘adam listed there is now not tied to the ‘adam in verse 1 but to the exclusively plural references in verse 2. Here, ‘adam is not synonymous with Adam but with “them”. Hence, the meaning in this verse is the collective (Adam and Eve, and by extension, mankind).
I know this will frustrate you but the above readings make perfect sense to me specifically because we are not talking about eternity, we are talking about creation day 6 and God’s actions on that day. Humanity is an extension of that work, but the only two people in primary view are first Adam, singley, and then Adam and Eve. It all is a wonderfully harmonious account from where I stand.
Ugghh. Cut and paste difficulties in my clarification of the clarification. G 1:26 above should read “Then God said Let Us make mankind (‘adam) in Our image” (not “a mankind”)
Gengwall, you wrote: “G 1:26 The God said Let Us make a mankind (‘adam) in Our image, according to Our likeness; let THEM (indicating ‘adam above is the collective) have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Gen 1.26)
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam (‘Adam). In the day that God created ADAM (‘Adam – there is no reason to believe something different is meant when the word is exactly the same and the two ‘adam’s are clearly synonymous), He made HIM (‘otow) in the likeness of God. (Gen 5.1)
And finally, in G 5:2, the ‘adam listed there is now not tied to the ‘adam in verse 1 but to the exclusively plural references in verse 2. Here, ‘adam is not synonymous with Adam but with “them”. Hence, the meaning in this verse is the collective (Adam and Eve, and by extension, mankind).” (here ends the quote)
Yes, you may read the text as you have done above, but to do you must stretch the grammar to the breaking point. I.e. you give the words ‘adam and ha’adam the meanings you need them to have instead of allowing the text speak for itself. Because you want to find the man’s creation in Gen 1.26-28 and Gen 5.1-2, you give ‘adam the meanings “Adam” and “humankind” depending on which one you think the word should refer to and ha’adam the meaning “the human” (as referred only to the first man).
This is of course what the comps do at all times and what egals are rebuking them for. I just cannot say to another “don’t” while I am doing it myself.
Let’s take a closer look at how you read these two texts:
In Gen 1.26 God plans to create a human (‘adam) in His image and likeness
in Gen 5.1 God creates a human (‘adam) in His own likeness.
You give ‘adam in Gen 1.26 the meaning “mankind” because of the plural “them” that follows
In Gen 5.1 you give ‘adam the meaning “Adam” because it is followed by “him.”
In Gen 1. 27 You give ha’adam the meaning “the first man” because it is followed by the singular
In Gen 5.2 you separate the verse from verse 1 and give ‘adam the meaning “humankind” because of the plural.
You have now a huge problem in Gen 5.2: since you see ‘adam as referring only to Adam, you do not have an explanation to the sudden mentioning of the male and female in verse 2 (which is also true of Gen 1.27). Eve was not an offspring of Adam, hence she does not belong to his genealogy; instead she was one of the creators of the genealogy. Also you make the text seem to say that only the man was created in the likeness of God, while the female appears as if just an afterthought (which is very much a comp thought).
Gen 5:1-3
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.
I am sure that you reject all the above, but remember that what is important is not only what you say, but you appear to say when others read your thoughts.
Your comment boils down to these objections, so I will focus my attention there (you “read” me right, so no sense rehashing what I think the passages say)
A. “Yes, you may read the text as you have done above, but to do you must stretch the grammar to the breaking point. I.e. you give the words ‘adam and ha’adam the meanings you need them to have instead of allowing the text speak for itself.”
I disagree completely. My construction is completely consistent with the grammar – singular means singular, plural means plural. There is no breaking the grammar at all. I give the words ‘adam and ha’adam the meanings the surrounding text and context support.
B. “You have now a huge problem in Gen 5.2: since you see ‘adam as referring only to Adam, you do not have an explanation to the sudden mentioning of the male and female in verse 2 (which is also true of Gen 1.27). Eve was not an offspring of Adam, hence she does not belong to his genealogy; instead she was one of the creators of the genealogy. Also you make the text seem to say that only the man was created in the likeness of God, while the female appears as if just an afterthought (which is very much a comp thought).”
I see ‘adam in vs. one referring to Adam in the earlier part of verse 1 and ‘adam in verse 2 referring to the couple in verse 2. The sudden mention is not sudden at all. Since I see both G 1:27 and G 5:1-2 as synopses of God’s creative work in day 6, both verses present the literal progression of that creative work. There is nothing sudden or surprising about the change from the singular Adam to the plrual couple. And you are correct, Eve was not an offsrping of Adam and not part of his geneology (well, not in the conventional sense at least). But the geneology doesn’t start until verse 5:3. Verses 5:1-2, and particularly 2 with Eve’s inclusion, are a prolugue to the genology recounting the creation of the first parents, not a part of Adam’s actual progenitry (is that a word?)
As far as the female appearing as an afterthought, well, if someone is going to see that they are going to see it even in your construction. Remember that most people read Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2 just as you do – even complementarians. Yet some still insist that Eve is an afterthought. Believe me, my construction does not win any new converts to the complementarian camp any more than yours keeps them away.
Uggh I posted on the wrong thread again. Well, this was intended for here – so sorry for the double post Cheryl.
Oh my. My brain is fried. Here is the post.
I’m taking off pretty soon. I am doing sound for another show and we have final dress tonight. Hopefully I won’t miss too much of the party.
I have put in my first entry in the “show stoppers” series of posts on my blog. It deals with Genesis 1 and 2 and hierarchy vs. equality. This line of debate, of course, runs perfectly parallel to that. This discussion only bolsters my confidence in the equal nature of God’s marriage design. Carry on.
gengwall: Actually, the comps use your kind of interpretation. They give ha’adam the meaning “man” in Gen 1.27 and continue to see ha’adam as referring only to the man throughout the text (especially in Gen 3.9), wherefore they argue that the man was created as the leader and the fall was a role reversal in which Eve usurped Adam’s role – the so called role-reversal theory. The only place they won’t do it is in Gen 3.22-4.1 for that would cause only the man to be kicked out, which they won’t concede to. But I don’t think they would object to it too strenuously when they figure out that it can be used to argue that Eve regretted her independence of Adam and meekly followed him as the leader. To counter this idea you must also refute Gen 3.16 and their interpretation that the woman desires to rule the man and that the man should not allow her to do so. To refute Gen 3.16 you must refute the false connection to Gen 4.7. Then you must explain 1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 11 and 1 Cor 14. But if the creation and fall accounts themselves seem to support the view that the man was the leader, you are going to have a tough time refuting the false interpretations since instead of going from the NT to the OT, the comps would be going from the OT to the NT.
Mark, could you show us how complementarian theology would be done if you used gengwall’s interpretation of Gen 1.26-28 and Gen 5.1-2?
And I am fully aware that ‘adam can either refer to the humans present, or to all the future and/or past humans. The context decides which is in view. In Gen 1 the creation of mankind is in view, the entire mankind, not just the first man and the woman from his side, since the human which was created, which was both male and female, was called to care for the earth and to multiply which is true of all humans. The actual creation of the human is enveloped in between the identical mandates to care for the earth, and it encompasses both male and female. Try to read the text without Gen 2 (as we always tell comps to read the rest of the Bible without 1 Tim 2) and see if you get the same out of it. I dare say you won’t.
Let’s we look at Gen 9:6-7 again:
“Whoever sheds man’s (ha’adam) blood,
By man (ha’adam) his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man (ha’adam).
7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Bring forth abundantly in the earth
And multiply in it.”
The words echo Gen 1.27 precisely. The same ha’adam which is said to have been created in the image of God is found here and all humans are in view, not only the first human being, for all humans are made in the image of God. Verse 7 admonishes Noah and his family to multiply in accordance with Gen 1.28. Hence God repeats His words from the creation account. Note that he does not mention male and female here, for by now it is clearly evident that the human created is both male and female. This would not have been clear before human beings were created, wherefore the creation account specifically mentions that the human created is both male and the female.
Susanna,
I have not even had time to read all that you have written yet and I don’t want to respond quickly without considering all of your questions. My ministry partner’s father passed away this week and this has given me some extra responsibilities beyond my normal work. I have run out of time for tonight so I will try to get through as much as I can tomorrow and hopefully finish off by the weekend. It has been a very good discussion and I think there are many fall-out issues that must be considered that make the issue of who is “the man” in Genesis 3:22-24 very thought-provoking. It should be extremely interesting as we continue this discussion hopefully we haven’t lost everyone as we go past 432 comments 8) Absolutely amazing at the amount of interest this has generated, eh?
Well said! 🙂
Hi Susanna. I understand your concern about the impact of Gen 1:27 when used in conjunction with Gen 3:9. Complementarians do indeed consider both the order of creation and the order of interrogation as proofs that males are in authority. But neither interpretation of Genesis 1:27 changes that because neither interpretation brings anything new to the debate. With that in mind, I offer two reasons why your concern is unfounded.
1. The two verses have nothing to do with each other from the standpoint of the debate. What I mean is that the two verses are two parallel arrows in the complementarian quiver. No complementarian argument I have ever heard has tried to join these two verses into some kind of super proof text. I’m not sure how any logical connection can be drawn that would bolster the argument that males are in authority. Now, you have read and heard a whole lot more arguments than I on the subject, so I can’t say there isn’t an argument at all. But I can’t envision what it might be. It may help if you shared more detail on how such a connection has been drawn and utilized by complementarians.
2. The two verses each contain a fact that complementarians turn into a proof through circular reasoning. Gen 1:27 (in my interpretation) contains the fact that Adam was created first. Of course, so do Genesis 2 and 1 Timothy 2. This fact is undisputed. Genesis 3:9 contains the fact that Adam was approached first. Maybe you dispute this fact, as I am not sure how you interpret ha’adam in Genesis 9. But I am confident that Adam’s act of responding and God’s subsequent turning to Eve to question her are defining words enough to demonstrate that God first sought out and interrogated Adam the indivudual and not Adam and Eve the collection.
The problem with the comp argument is that neither of those facts are proof of, or even remotely address, male authority. The argument begs the question and is therefore a logical fallacy. In particular, Gen 1:27 in my interpretation doesn’t tell us any more than what we already know (or soon find out). Nor does your interpretation of Gen 1:27 change what we already know. Adam was created first. Certainly you don’t contest that fact. Gen 1:27 (and G 5:1-2) either way says nothing more or less than that. My interpretation of Genesis 1:27 does not give any ammunition for fallacious complementarian arguments any more than your interpretation destroys them. They are, in fact, self destructive.
Above should read “Genesis 3:9”, not “Genesis 9” in point 2.
“Genesis 3:9 contains the fact that Adam was approached first. Maybe you dispute this fact, as I am not sure how you interpret ha’adam in Genesis 9. But I am confident that Adam’s act of responding and God’s subsequent turning to Eve to question her are defining words enough to demonstrate that God first sought out and interrogated Adam the indivudual and not Adam and Eve the collection. “
I’m not convinced that God called out to Adam first. Scripture says that God called to the human. How would that sound? “Human!” So, if two people have the same name, Human, and hear their name called, it’s a toss up as to which one is going to answer first. No emphasis should be given to whom answered first, other than he/she spoke faster or wanted to be heard first.
The text doesn’t say God called out a name. It simply says (literally) God called out to ha’adam – the human. The text does not reveal the phrase God used in His call.
Now, you may presume that Adam was simply presumptuous in responding first, rather than being the specific person God was addressing. I might counter that God was not calling out to “them” for that could potentially lead to a sitcom like cacophony of them both babbling at the same time. I am content that God called out to Adam alone and that that fact provides no proof that Adam was “in charge”. Nor does it at all prove the more specific claim that Adam was accountable for Eve, as the remaining text in Gen 3 demonstrates.
gengwall,
Do you think Mark is “reloading” again? I notice that he has answered no questions Cheryl or I have asked on any post.
Interesting discussion on ‘ha’adam’ – I’m still traveling and you all have posted so much info it’s driving me mad to keep up!
“1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.”
But that was their name…. Human! or Mankind!….. Adham!
sorry that was addressed to gengwall.
When God called out, “Human”, there were two whose name, who were called, Human! Both the man and the woman were called Human!
Kay – or this post has strayed so far from kephale that he has no comment and the other post has gone dry.
TL
If God called out to Adam and Eve as a couple, wouldn’t it have made more sense for the writer to use the typical construction he uses throughout Gen 1-4 to refer to them as a couple (including vs. 8):
“And the LORD God called unto the man (ha’adam) and his woman, and said unto them, Where [art] thou?”
Or use the word found in vs. 7 when the couple is in view
“And the LORD God called unto them both (shenayim), Where [art] thou?”
Verse 7 and 8 refer repeatedly to Adam and Eve together as a couple. “eyes of them both”, “they knew”, “they sewed”, “they heard”, “the man and his wife hid themselves”. If they still are in view in the next verse, if God is calling to “them both”, “Adam and his wife”, why would the author not put it that way? Why change the construction completely. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to continue the narrative with the same grammar?
“When God called out, “Human”, there were two whose name, who were called, Human! Both the man and the woman were called Human!”
As we have been discussing, the word ‘adam can have a number of different variations on the human theme. It can mean “the human” as in a singular specific human being. It can also mean “humanity” which is what God calls Adam and Eve in G 5:2b. Eve did not have a proper name “human”. She was part of the collection (species, if you will) named “human”.
Sorry – I hit [submit] too early.
Eve can also be referenced as a specific human being – ha’adam (the human).
Adam can be likewise referenced, either as a specific human – ha’adam (the human) or as part of the collection ‘adam – humanity (and often ha’adam – the humanity, which in English is probably better rendered as “the human race”). Adam has the addition useage of the proper name ‘adam.
ha’adam is not universally any of these usages. Context and associated text are needed to tell the whole picture.
I should say that ha’adam as the singular, while literally “the human”, is probably better rendered in English as “the person”.
“I should say that ha’adam as the singular, while literally “the human”, is probably better rendered in English as “the person”.”
Except that in this case, their NAME was Human! at that point in time. This was the beginning, remember. 🙂
Well, I have to run out the door, but I’ll be back.
Their proper name was not “Human”. Their categorical name was “human” just as the catagorical name of deer is “deer”. Now, you can give a specific deer the proper name “deer” just as ha’adam (the person) ‘adam (Adam) was given the proper name “‘adam”. But Eve was simply an instance of the class ‘adam, not a specific woman called “‘adam”.
Okay, since this very interesting topic is actually going a different direction than the original topic of “head”, I have created a new post where we can continue this discussion on Adam and Eve. Go to http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/04/only-adam/ to see the new post. For those who want to comment on Adam and Eve and who is “the man” and who got kicked out of the garden, etc, please go to the new post. Those who want to comment on what “head” means and its implications may continue to post comments on this original post. That should help to keep the two streams of thought separate!
Wow, Cheryl! The conversation has really moved on quite a bit since I last made a comment. And there are several items in the new, on-going discussion I hope I can catch up to by energizing my Warp drive! But I hope you and the others don’t mind me carrying on with my discourse on the Trinity and 1 Cor 11:3, because I hope to briefly discuss how the ontic and relational nature of humanity truly parallels that of the Trinity of itself. But now to answer Mark’s last question, if I can, because right now I’m on a tight schedule and only may get my response started today.
Mark, let me begin answering your question by repeating what I have already said, and try, again, to clarify it for you. Here’s what I wrote previously:
Since God is eternal, God’s Triunity must also be eternal. So the Three Persons, if truly divine, must have real being without and before God’s actions in creation and redemption, since both creation and redemption are not eternal, but temporal in nature. So the various distinguishable temporal actions, operations, or “roles” of God in creation and redemption cannot be essential to the true eternal distinctions or differences between the Persons. If “roles” in creation and redemption were necessary for marking the true distinctions between the Three Persons, then none of them could be said to be eternal, and so there would be a time when there was not a Father, not a Son, not a Spirit. Again, if “roles” or “functions” were necessary for distinguishing the Divine Persons, then there was a time when God was not triune or when the Persons, if they were at all, were not wholly God.
To clarify this issue, let me express it this way: Though the Father has always been the Father of the Son, there was a “time” when he was neither our Creator nor our Father; though the Son has always been the Son of the Father, there was a “time” when he was neither our Redeemer nor our Mediator with the Father; though the Spirit, as the Spirit of the Father and the Son eternally binds together and maintains the _ellenis loving and interactive union and communion which is the reality of the eternal and internal life of the Triune God—there was a “time” when the Spirit was neither our Life-Giver nor our Sanctifier. For until the creation of the universe, the fall of humanity, and its consequent need of redemption and reconciliation became a reality outside of and separate from the Triune God, these external and temporal actions, operations, or “roles” were only a potentiality and not an actuality within the Triune God himself. To think otherwise is to violate what most Reformed theologians, such as Cornelius Van Til and Thomas F. Torrance, regard as the “Creator-creature distinction” made by the Scriptures themselves. This confusion of the temporal and the eternal, the Divine and the creaturely, has plagued Christian theology since the days of Origen, who gave birth to the subordinationsim of Arius and others.
1. Obviously, I believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are real, eternal persons, existing in a communal relationship of mutual love, self-communicating, self-giving, etc., long before either the creation of the universe, the creation of humanity, or the need to redeem and reconcile lost humanity; that is why the Father is the Son’s Father, before he ever becomes our Father due to creation and redemption, which are temporal and external acts to the Triune God himself.
Well, my time at the library is running out, and I have errands to run, so I will complete this later.
Frank,
Thankyou for continuing to discuss with me. I agree that the ‘roles’ of creator, redeemer ect were not eternal roles, since their was a time when creation was not. However what we have revealed to us in the scriptures about the triune God are not just temporal functions. Like you said the son has always been the son and the father the father etc. So therefore the relationship between the son/father are eternal and not just functional. Jesus was eternally in the Father’s bosom or at his side (Jn 1:18) and at the final resurection hands all things back to his Father and retain his position at the Father’s right side. (1 Cor 14:24ff). The scriptures reveal to us more than just ‘temporal’ modes.
“Jesus was eternally in the Father’s bosom or at his side (Jn 1:18) and at the final resurection hands all things back to his Father and retain his position at the Father’s right side. (1 Cor 14:24ff). The scriptures reveal to us more than just ‘temporal’ modes.”
A note about John 1:18 –
‘kolpos’ translated as ‘bosom’ means:
the front of the body between the arms;
the bosom of a garment, i.e. the hollow formed by the upper forepart of a rather loose garment bound by a girdle or sash, used for keeping and carrying things (the fold or pocket); or
a bay of the sea
What does 1 Cor. 14:24 (“But if all prophesy; and unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all”) have to do with Jesus’ position of royal authority?
“I agree that the ‘roles’ of creator, redeemer ect were not eternal roles, since their was a time when creation was not.”
“Jesus was eternally in the Father’s bosom or at his side (Jn 1:18) and at the final resurection hands all things back to his Father and retain his position at the Father’s right side.”
Mark,
So, when Jesus “hands all things back to his Father” wouldn’t that temporal job/action/”role” be finished/ended – not eternally continuing?
Mark,
You said:
First of all in John 1:18 Jesus is talking as the begotten Son and He was talking about what is not as the eternal past. It really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in the eternity past just as being at the “right side” of the Father makes no sense with omnipresent Persons. How do you get a “right side” when all of them are omnipresent? Where would the “right side” be in that case?
I believe that God has given us a lot of word pictures so that we can understand Him and His relationship in the Trinity as three Persons. Nothing that we have on earth quite measures up. Although their relationship is eternal, how is a Son eternal without a beginning? Surely we can’t make the eternal Word to be a subordinate Son who never grows up to His own authority, can we?
By the way did you read my responses to your questions? Will you be answering them or have you closed off discussion on women’s teaching? You are free to do what you want as no one can make you participate, but it would be good to know if you are still “in” or if you are officially “out” of the discussion as I think we are all interested in your answers. Just so you know this blog has never before reached over 400 comments on one thread. And you, my friend, are the instigator of that. Will you be back to help us wrap up this topic? 8)
Kay,
I must admit that, like you, I was puzzled by Mark’s response in Comment 450. I get the distinct impression, don’t you, that not only does he not make a proper distinction between the Ontological Trinity, which has to do primarily with the eternal and internal relations of the Three Persons, and the Economical Trinity, which has to do with how the Three Persons cooperate and correlate in their temporal involment in creation and redemption; but also, it seems that, unless the Three Persons are defined in some hierarchical fashion, with the Father being superior to the Son and Spirit in either power, authority, or function, then the designations of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are empty of any real meaning and significance.
So, Mark is that what you are now trying to argue? Then let me ask you this, in what way was the Father superior to the Son and the Spirit, before they–in unity and harmony of mind, heart and will–took action to create the universe and then redeem lost humanity? Are you saying that like an earthly father with his, God the Father had to educate, discipline and train the Son before he sent him into the world as his representative? And if you argue that Father is the Ruler and Sender, while the Son and the Spirit are the Ruled and Sent, are you not again falling back into the unitarian subordinationism of Arius and others who insist that only God the Father is truly God in the fullest sense, and that Jesus is “Son of God,” at best, in some Adoptionist sense?
As for your treatment of John 1:18, in addition to what Kay said, I would add this from Merrill C. Tenney’s commentary on this text:
18…”At the Father’s side” is substantially the same expression as that used in John 13:23 concerning the “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who “was reclining next to him.” It shows intimate association, which presupposes close fellowship. As the confidant of the Father, Jesus is peculiarly qualified to act as the intermediary who can carry the knowledge of God to men. The word translated “is” is more accurately rendered “being,” since it is a present participle. This implies constant relationship and presupposes preincarnate existence (cf. “The Gospel of John 1:14-18,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, Zondervan, 1981, p. 34).
Here, again, is confirmation of what I taught in my little discourse on 1 John 4:9-16. That before the creation of the world, and before the Son willing clothed himself with human flesh to be our Redeemer (cf. Phil. 2:5-11), there existed between the Father and Son such a mutual love, delight in the Other, a comraderie with the Other and a willingness to please the Other, that to think of their relationship as a heirarchy in which the Son is subservient to the Father is, in my opinion, to greatly dishonor both Father and Son. And so on this and other points regarding the Trinity, I would say to complementarians what Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures [as well as you think you do] (Mark 12:24, my rendering).
“I get the distinct impression, don’t you, that not only does he not make a proper distinction between the Ontological Trinity…and the Economical Trinity”
Frank,
Yes, and I think that is *the* problem. Mark seems to have no place for concepts like “When you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father” or the fact that we have not been told by God and have no idea what the Trinity was doing in eternity past. He wants to make them *eternally stuck*, if you will, in time and space as we humans know it.
As Cheryl said, “I believe that God has given us a lot of word pictures so that we can understand Him and His relationship in the Trinity as three Persons. Nothing that we have on earth quite measures up.”
I don’t believe Mark has answers to our questions – or else he would have posted them already. But what I do hope and pray is that he is seriously considering everything we have discussed so far. What he has to realize by now is that there are significant flaws and questions in his stance. His is definately not the open and shut case he thought to prove at the onset of his posting here.
And Frank, I appreciate all the work you put into your very thorough posts. Susanna, as well 🙂
….and Cheryl – which somehow goes without saying! 😉
I have been off traveling the blogoshpere and just dropped by to see how you were all going with Mark. Seems nothing much has changed… 😉
I too hope that Mark is thinking through the issues…
Hey Dave,
…was wondering what happened to you…don’t get lost out there in blogosphere land and lose your way back 😉
Kay, thanks for the words of appreciation. As I see it, to wisely, accurately and effectively expound Christian truth, one must be as thorough and consistent in both research and writing, as well as in the actual teaching and preaching of the God’s Word. I look at it as a fulfilment to obey the command “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” But it certainly can be hard and exhausting work, as I am sure Cheryl and gengwall will agree.
Which brings me to the following point: Though I have enjoyed doing the study and sharing what I have learned regarding the Trinity, and though I think what I have written has been informative, insightful, and helpful, quite frankly, I’m a bit worn out and need to give my “little grey cells” a rest. And after all, Mark is a seminary student and needs to concentrate on his “required course” study materials. After all, we wouldn’t want him to get in trouble with his professors because he was neglecting his studie, would we?
Therefore, I will suggest to Mark, and anyone else who may wish to do so, that they read the following books–not only to better understand some of what I have been setting forth in my little “Discourses on the Trinity,” but also to expand their own understanding of this key and central Christian doctrine:
1. Thomas F. Torrance. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD: ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS, T & T Clark, 1996, 257 pages.
2. Millard J. Erickson. GOD IN THREE PERSONS: A CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF THE TRINITY, Baker, 1995, 356 pages.
3. Stanley J. Grenz. REDISCOVERING THE TRIUNE GOD: THE TRINITY IN CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY, Fortress Press, 2004, 290 pages.
4. James R. White. THE FORGOTTEN TRINITY: RECOVERING THE HEART OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF, Bethany House Publishers, 1998, 224 pages.
5. William J. Danaher, Jr. THE TRINITARIAN ETHICS OF JONATHAN EDWARDS, Westminster/John Knox Press, 2004, 324 pages.
And after I have recuperated, then maybe I can some scan some of the new postings and see how I may contribute to the discussions there. So good night all, and God bless you. Amen!
Thanks Frank, for your hard work! Yes it is hard work indeed to research and study and condense your study into understandable language. I have appreciated very much your help here. I think that Mark has met his match in several of the posters here and it will be a lot of work for Mark to put in as much effort as the egalitarians have on this subject.
Thanks again for a job well done!
“1. Thomas F. Torrance. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD: ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS, T & T Clark, 1996, 257 pages.
2. Millard J. Erickson. GOD IN THREE PERSONS: A CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF THE TRINITY, Baker, 1995, 356 pages.
3. Stanley J. Grenz. REDISCOVERING THE TRIUNE GOD: THE TRINITY IN CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY, Fortress Press, 2004, 290 pages.
4. James R. White. THE FORGOTTEN TRINITY: RECOVERING THE HEART OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF, Bethany House Publishers, 1998, 224 pages.
5. William J. Danaher, Jr. THE TRINITARIAN ETHICS OF JONATHAN EDWARDS, Westminster/John Knox Press, 2004, 324 pages.”
Which books do you consider the best and most thorough, Frank?
TL,
I am glad to answer your question: “Which books do I consider the best and most thorough?” Well, let me begin with those in order of importance and impact on my own understanding of the Trinity. First, that would be Thomas Torrance’s THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD: ONE BEING, THREE PERSONS. Torrance is an Evangelical, Scottish Presbyterian educator and theologian who not only understands the ancient formulation of the Trinity and some of the modern challenges, but does the best in explaining both the unity and diversity of the Three Persons who are the One God in a way that is biblical, rational and meaningful today. If you can afford only one book on the Trinity, then this is the one you should get. Second, would be Stanley Grenz’s REDISCOVERING THE TRIUNE GOD: THE TRINITY IN CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY. This is an excellent, critical survey and commentary on the major developments in Trinitarian theology, beginning with Karl Barth up to and including Thomas Torrance. In fact, it was Grenz’s book that alerted me to the importance of Torrance and his work on the Trinity. Furthermore, Stanley Grenz, himself a very capable Baptist theologian and committed Egalitarian, can always be counted on to give a full and fair assessment in any critical judgment he makes. Another good addition for your library. Thirdly, Millard J. Erickson’s GOD IN THREE PERSONS: A CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF THE TRINITY. He is a well known Baptist theologian and Egalitarian. What I like about his book is that he gives a full treatment of the logical, philosophical, and feminist objections to the traditional formulation of the Trinity, which he then addresses in his own reformulation and interpretation of the doctrine. And then there is William Danaher Jr.’s THE TRINITARIAN ETHICS OF JONATHAN EDWARDS. He shows how Edwards was Puritan theologian who, perceiving the Trinity as a “society” in which the Three Persons were in an eternal union and communion of mutual love and self-giving and self-enrichening, which love life the Holy Spirit reproduces in the people of God, both in the Church and in the Coming Kingdom. So these are the most important and useful, in my opinion.
Let’s clear up a few things. One thing i have begun to realise is how easy it is to misrepresent, misunderstand people’s comments on blogs like these. I think it is difficult for people to actually understand each other because of the barriers we put up in discussions. For example as a comp it may be easy for me to misunderstand my egal friends and vice versa, therefore i am trying my best to understand you all the best i can. I actually do believe that if Frank and I actually sat down we would actually agree on many issues regarding the Trinity. The main differences i see are this..
1. Frank is attempting to relate ESS to Arianism. However such a thing cannot be achieved because they are teaching very different things. Arianism believed Jesus was subordinated because he was a created being. ESS teaches if i understand it correctly that Jesus is subordinated in relation to the ‘economic’ trinity. He is fully divine and equal in essence, yet his very distinct persona of ‘Son’ is subject to the Father. These teachings vary enormously and i would encourage Frank to be a bit more careful in labelling the ESS as another form of Arianism. However the current trend of egalitarianism has persisted in claiming that ‘difference’ in roles must mean unequal in essence, and hence we come across disagreement. This constant push to show inequality because of role functions can only be attributed to the rise of feminism over the past few decades.
Now i have been extremely flat out so thats why i haven’t responded consistently. Unfortunately the next few months will be the same as we are moving to sunny Melbourne in Jan and are away over Christmas. I will try my best to keep up and so now i will respond quickly to a few things.
I want to just respond back to the 10 questions Cheryl asked me to answer.
1. I have said all along that men and women teach each other in various ways. So for example if a woman prays or prophecies (in the spiritual gift of the NT) sense then of course she will ‘teach’ a man something. However the office of elder should only be held by men. That was my point.
2. So as to not beat a dead horse about whether Eve was kicked out i will not comment extensively about it since the rest of you are engaging in that debate.
3. Acts 20 show the responsibility of Elders. They are overseers, they have to keep watch and gurad against false teachers by knowing proper doctrine. 1 Tim 3 is interesting because all the ‘qualifications’ for a elder except for one are personal characteristics. The one exception is that they be ‘able to teach’- a very important responsibility. Now someone said that the masculine pronouns mean nothing because the bible uses them to refer generically. I totally agree that the bible does such a thing. Interesting though, why isn’t femine pronouns used for generic humanity- is this a hint of the resposibilty of men. Now in relation to how this fits 1 Tim 3 lets look closer. We know it can’t mean generic me and women who can be elders because of the various qualifications. For example they are to have ‘one wife’. To add to this by verse 11 we are introduced the ‘the women likewise’ which is a clear indication that the verse above are to relate ONLY to men. It is most definitely not generic. Cheryl, i meant 1 Tim 5:17 not 5:7. I apologise for the error.
4. Cheryl, i would encourage you to look at the way that ‘presbyter’ and episcopos are used interchangeably in the NT because you said this
“Eph. 4:11 does not mention elders. An overseer is something that someone “strives” for. A “pastor” is a spiritual gift given to whomever the Lord wills.”
In Acts 20 Paul addresses elders (v. 17) and bishops (v.28) and they are obviously the same group of men. Peter writes to ‘presbyters’ urging them to ‘fulfill the office of bishops’ (1 Peter 5:1-2). Titus 1:5, 7 refers to elders and bishops interchangeably. Now since elders are to oversee (bishop) and shepherd the flock (pastor) it is easy to see that pastors are elders who’s primary responsibility is to teach. They are the same thing, only the Catholic church adopted a wrong interpretation to give rise to the papacy. Surely you don’t agree with them?
5. No i don’t think single men are excluded from the pastoral office. If this is your strongest argument to support women pastors it is weak. The majority of men were married in Paul’s day, so it isn’t a surprise to see him addressing the majority situation. We know it is not a sin more a single man, because we have the example of Paul himself.
6. It is no surprise that if one dismisses the passages restricting the roles of women in the church, then of course there is nothing to stop them. However i think the texts are pretty clear and do give ‘witness’ to women not teaching. (now i think my numbers are muddled up…hope you can follow)
7. Now Eve is a sinner. Paul explains that as a sinner we are dead(eph 2:1) spiritually and physically. Therefore we are in rebellion to God, because death is the punishment for sin. Paul also explains that none seek God, none can understand God and that all have turned away (Rom 3:10ff). Now Cheryl, is Eve included in this? If so how can you continually claim that Eve is not a threat as a sinner and is able to obey God as a sinner without the help of the Spirit. She couldn’t even obey him as sinless, yet you hold that she can as a sinner when we know that sin is complete rebellion to God. Do you hold to Pelagianism which taught that it was possible to obey God without the help of the Spirit?
8. You seem to be implying that sin done in ‘ignorance’ is not as bad as rebellious sin. And i know you use 1 Tim 1:13 as your proof text. However Paul identifies himself as the ‘worst’ of sinners in verse 15. Therefore according to your definition of sin, and if you are going to be consistent then since Paul is the ‘worst’ and he was deceived, wouldn’t that make Eve’s sin worse than Adam’s since her’s was deception. So is sin done in deception worse or not? Your argument falls to pieces here because Paul as a deceived sinner calls himself the worst. I think you have a wrong understanding of sin.
9. Gen 1-3 shows male headship in the following ways. Adam is made first. Eve is made from Adam and for Adam. Adam names his wife. Adam is addressed first. The curse because of Adam affects all of creation. Adam bears the primary resposibilty for the fall. Paul uses Gen to prove male headship in two of his argument (1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2).
Now you said “Does God really ignore the heart and judge all sin alike?”
My response is absolutely! “No one is righteous, not one”. “the wages of sin is death”. The human heart is utterly corrupt- how can you not see this in scripture. “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. None of us deserve anything from God except punishment- this is the gospel. But thanks be to God that he would sacrifice His Son to redeem his lost people. Are people essentially good or have a good heart in your view? The only reason we can do anything to give glory to God is because he enables us to do it through the Spirit.
10. I believe that i will be held accountable for my leadership or lack of as a husband and a father, in the same way that leaders of the church will be held accountable for the way they lead the church. Cheryl, do you think you will be held accountable for what you are teaching people about this issue?
a. Also you said “And no, Adam does not name her until sin enters the world. God names her “woman” first (Genesis 2:22) and Adam merely confirms that she is his uniquely own flesh and bone hence the God-term of “woman”.”
Really Cheryl? Where is it recorded that God call her ‘woman’ and not Adam. You say 2:22 but its not there. It says God made a woman not that God called her woman. When Adam speaks in verse 23 he names her ‘woman’ “she shall be called woman”. So Adam’s naming is pre-fall not as a result of his sinful nature to dominate her. In fact he gives her a glorious honouring name after the fall. There is no indication that her naming is due to sinful domination.
“Give me just one verse that says that a husband has leadership over his wife.”
Simply Eph 5:22-23. Again you dismiss these type of passages because of the debate on ‘head’ but honestly how is the husband the source of his wife. Why is headship and submission related back to Christ and the church if it is only about ‘sourceness”. Makes absolutely no sense
Finally regarding Hosea 6:7. You said that God calls Adam’s sin treacherous, but have failed to show 1 verse which explicitly has God saying ‘Adam’s sin was treacherous. The prophecy is targeted at Israel not Adam, so to emphasise Adam as the primary interest is wrong. A comparision is simply made to the covenant breaking of both Adam and Israel.
Mark,
I will answer your 10 responses on the extension of this post here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/04/only-adam This new post linked above is the extension of this post because there are already so many comments here. Amazing isn’t it the amount of feedback, comments and questions that have sparked from this post?
Oh and thanks Mark, for letting us know why you have been slow in answering. Without feedback from you, it just appeared like you were just like the others who left after the hard questions came out.
Mark, the thing that I cannot understand, and which consequently caused me to reject complementarism, is why the different roles include subordination. If you look at the Rome and Greece, and I know that you have, subordination to someone authority always entails something more than just a different role. For example slavery included servitude, marriage included obedience with the threat of loss of life in cause of rebellion etc. To avoid the implication that he was setting himself above the freeborn Roman males as a king, Augustus called himself “first among equals.” I.e. he was first in honor, but they were all equal and all dependent of each other; the emperor was an emperor only as long as he enjoyed the favor of the people. To enforce his own policies against the wishes of the Senate and the people cost the lives of more than a few of them, Caesar being on of the most famous one. So, the question is: if the man and the woman have different roles, why does the role of the woman include subordination? Why not say the man is called to work, the woman to care for the children as equals, sharing all in common, including decision making? What in the nature of the role of the woman causes her to be under the man’s authority considering the man is absent a large portion of the day? Why does the man possess authority, unless it is because of finances: the one who makes the money, makes the rules? And if this is the case, Prov. 31 woman defies this convention since she was equally a moneymaker in the family. And how did the Roman Domina fit the model, since she supervised the labor of the slaves while her husband was busy in the Senate (if high born)? And why say that Paul is writing about child care and domestic work in 1 Tim 5.14 and Titus 2 considering the Roman freeborn women for the most part entrusted their children in the care of slaves and were freed from domestic work by the same? The Greek women in the fourth century Athens were closer to the ideal of a modern home maker, isolated in Suburbia, but they were gone by the time Paul wrote his letters and the Israeli women of the era of Athens could not be compared them since they participated actively in the society. Neither could the Spartan women who were trained to be as fierce as were the man. So, the question is: where do we get the idea of different roles and the inherent subordination of the woman?
Excellent questions, Susanna!!
Thanks Cheryl!
And Mark, you confuse the issue with Arianism: Arius did not begin by making the Son a creature and therefore subordinated; he concluded that within the godhead there could not be two equally powerful beings wherefore the Son had to be subordinated which lead him to argue he was a creature since God cannot subordinate Himself to anyone and remain all powerful. This was also why Sabellius argued that the Son and the Father were identical. The church responded using 1 Cor 11.3: the Son is begotten by the Father, who is His beginning (kephale) and hence there are not two Gods, but one person without a beginning (the father) and one person with a beginning (the Son). Just as mother is not diminished and does not loose any of the attributes that make her who she is when she creates new life, neither did the Father loose any attribute of himself when begetting the Son.
First Cheryl,
I haven’t got alot of time right now to go back through the 10 questions, but i will again soon. You seemed to be very interested in question 1, so i would encourage you to go back over my responses. It seems you are understanding ‘teaching’ differently to me, thus the confusion on the question. If by ‘teach’ you mean being the pastor who preaches can you let me know, because i was distinguishing a difference between the two.
Susanna,
In all fairness i didn’t raise the issue of Arianism. This began a while back before you came to the discussion, when Frank made the bold statement that ESS was a new form of Arianism. I am simply trying to refute that claim by showing the 2 doctrines are in no way similar. I hope you can see it. Interestingly you seem to take 1 Cor 11:3 referencing the Father (God) and the Son (Christ) as do i. Cheryl and the others do not agree with us on this point.
I’m not sure whether you are a comp or an egal. You say you reject comp teaching because of ‘subordinationism’ yet you agree that men and women have different roles. I have expressed a while ago my dislike for the term ‘subordination’ because of the negetive baggage it holds but don’t really know what other word to use in these types of discussions. Now the way i see it, to say that only a man can be an elder is about roles not subordination, yet our culture tells us that to restrict anyone, male/female, from any position is discrimination and so the societal push has infiltrated the church, to the point where ‘roles’ are no longer defined. So i guess i’m curious to know whether i am understanding you correctly or not? Do you think men and women have different roles within the church or likewise husbands/wives within the marriage?
I understand the negative baggage part or why it isn’t appealing, but considering all things there is No better word. It comes down to authority/subordination in the husband/wife and Father/Son relationship and so what word other than “subordination” would fit better? After all, there is no choice in being subordinate or “under authority” for the Son and women, is there? The Son and women cannot just decide not to place themselves under their authorities without being in sin, correct?
“I have expressed a while ago my dislike for the term ’subordination’ because of the negetive baggage it holds but don’t really know what other word to use”
Pinklight,
I think there is good reason in that Mark is uncomfortable with the term ‘subordination.’
Mark wrote: “Now the way i see it, to say that only a man can be an elder is about roles not subordination”
But for some reason he cannot seem to see that he is not defining the role of ‘elder’ in a way that would enable these two things to be mutually exclusive.
Mark,
Thanks for trying to work through the questions and understand why we see you as not answering the questions.
Often people take words and redefine them in their minds. When I was working with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and there was always a frustration when talking about the Trinity, I would ask them “When I say that Jesus is God, are you interpreting that to mean that I believe that Jesus is the Father?” Without exception they would answer “Yes!” as if of course, that is what I meant. When I told them this is not what I meant, they were very surprised. You see people take words within their own paradigm and they can twist things in their own head to equate what the person has said to be something else.
When I say “teacher” I am not equating this with an “office” of ordained pastor although a teacher can be an ordained pastor. For the record I believe that a “pastor” is a gift that God gives so that anyone thus gifted may operate in their gift whether they have an ordination by men or not.
When I say “teacher” I am not assuming that the “teacher” has man-made “papers” but that the person has been gifted by God to teach the body.
Here is the scenario. If a woman is gifted as a teacher and she teaches the church through the book of Ephesians whether from the pulpit of from a music stand, is she allowed by God to teach the body of Christ on a Sunday morning in the “sanctuary” where the body of Christ as gathered if she teaches verse by verse Sunday by Sunday through the book of Ephesians?
If you set aside what she may or may not be called and just concentrate on the actions that she is doing, is she allowed to do this? Is she allowed by God to take the gifts that she has been given which are meant for the body of Christ and use them to benefit both men and women through teaching verse by verse through God’s word in the church?
It seems to me that you have a blockage. You can’t envision a woman using her gifts by teaching verse by verse through the Bible without being an elder. So let me see if I can help you step outside that blockage. If the male “pastor” of the church asks a gifted woman teacher to teach the church through one of the books of the Bible no matter how long it takes, is she allowed to answer the call to teach the Bible verse by verse to the body of Christ on Sunday in the church? Yes or no?
If your answer is going to be yes with conditions, I want to know what the conditions are. Is a woman allowed to teach verse by verse through the book of Ephesians as long as she isn’t teaching more than four weeks in a row? What is the Biblical “rules” that govern what she can and can’t do while teaching the Bible verse by verse through the book of Ephesians? This is what I am looking for? What do you say is the “clear” rules for the above situation?
I do think that it is very valuable for us to understand each other and thanks for taking the time to try to understand the questions that I have been asking so that you are now able to answer the questions with the “clear” Bible rules that allow a woman to teach the Bible with the gifts that she has been given by God. You did say that she could teach, and then you said that she couldn’t teach, so it will be very interesting to hear your explanation of what she can and cannot do and why she “can” teach yet “can’t” teach.
“And why say that Paul is writing about child care and domestic work in 1 Tim 5.14 and Titus 2 considering the Roman freeborn women for the most part entrusted their children in the care of slaves and were freed from domestic work by the same?”
Susanna,
I think Mark is busy and skim reads – it doesn’t appear to me that “got” your questions.
Sometimes it seems to me that comps believe that families have always lived in “white picket fenced neighborhoods” where wives and children stay home all day while the “breadwinner” husband goes to a 9 to 5 office job.
Little more than a hundred years ago the “butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker” and the tailor were men. Now days, here where I live, the butcher would be the only one of those careers considered ‘manly.’ A man doing any of the others just might have his masculinity called to question.
“When I say “teacher” I am not assuming that the “teacher” has man-made “papers” but that the person has been gifted by God to teach the body.”
Cheryl,
I think your point here about “man-made papers” is very important.
The institutionalizing of the Church has certainly taken the focus away from the Holy Spirit gifting the members of the Body. We know it wasn’t God who handed out that first diploma or certificate. 🙁
Kay
“We know it wasn’t God who handed out that first diploma or certificate. 🙁
Much agreement here.
The institutionalizing of the Church “is” the problem.
Like the Man of La Mancha you are battling a mythical Giant.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9y9t5_2003-tony-awards-impossible-dream_music
Outside, away from, of all the ism’s,
women learning from the Christ within
And sharing, teaching, others, men, is never a problem.
Only a problem with those protecting their idols….
Titles, power, profit, prestige, recognition, reputation….
Doesn’t the Bible warn us about, and exhort us to,
“hew down “the graven images” of their (our) gods.”
Don’t we make the “Title“ Pastor/teacher a “graven image?”
“Engraven” on dipomas, that are hung on office walls,
“Engraven”on business cards, that are handed out,
on the Sunday morning bulletin, on the street sign,
and anyone who reads them knows who “the Pastor/teacher” is. Yes?
Is that “self-honoring” and “seeking glory?”
Seems Jesus warned “His disciples” about those things.
Has the “Title Pastor/teacher” become a “graven image?”
Micah 1:7
And all the “graven images” shall be beaten to pieces…
Isa 42:8
I am the LORD: that is my name:
and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to “graven images.”
Jer 50:38
A drought is upon her waters;
and they shall be dried up:
for it is the land of “graven images,”
and they are mad upon their idols.
A land of “Titles and idols” in the heart. Ezek 14:3-7
Senior Pastors, Associate Pastors, Youth Pastors,
Single Pastors, Reverands, Right Reverends,
Most Right Reverands, Fathers, Priests, Clergy,
and the list goes on…
Are any of those Titles/idols in the Bible?
Didn’t Jesus make Himself of no reputation,
take on the form of a servant,
and humble Himself? Phl 2:7”
Peace…
“Increasing institutionalism is the clearest mark of early Catholicism – when church becomes increasingly identified with institution, when authority becomes increasingly coterminous with office, when a basic distinction between clergy and laity becomes increasingly self-evident, when grace becomes increasingly narrowed to well-defined ritual acts…such features were absent from first generation Christianity, though in the second generation the picture was beginning to change” (James D.G. Dunn, Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, Westminster Press, 1977, p.351).
The Reformation came about because the institutionalized church did not hold the Bible as the Christian authority; popes and not Christ as the head of the Church, and had established an institutionalized priesthood other than the Priesthood of All Believers.
Amen to Isa 42:8, A.Amos.
Kay
“the institutionalized church did not hold the Bible as the Christian authority”
Did the reformation change that? Look who’s becoming bishops today.
And a host of other strange behavior in the so called ” Reformed.”
I’ve been wondering about “The Reformation.”
Reformation.
Good, or, er,
just another religious alternative “form?”
Solved some problems but created a whole bunch more.
There are now thousands of denominations according to wikipedia.
Thousands – reformed, evangelical, main line, pentecostal, charismatic.
All started by “leaders” who had a better idea.
And the Bible verse to prove it.
My Brain Hurts…
Most, if not all, still look a lot like Rome.
You can change a few “Titles” Presidents instead of Popes.
Suits and ties instead of robes and hats.
But you still have the same hierarchy, power, profit, and prestige.
Pastors in pulpits preaching to people in pews.
Is that in the Bible?
Was “the Reformation” a dangerous detour, leading people away from;
“Jesus being the “head” of the body, the Church,”
and “those led by the Spirit, those are the sons of God?”
Is Religion the system, and NOT?the relationship?
Did Jesus reform “the Jewish Religious Sytem” He etablished?
Or did He leave it?
When Jesus left “The Religious System” of the day,
He called others out of ”The System” with Him. Didn’t He?
Jesus is the head of the body (the ekklesia, the called out), the church.
“Disciples of Christ” were “called out” of the religious system,
into a relationship with Jesus.
Today, Disciples of Christ are “called out” of the worlds system,
into the Kingdom of God.
Disciples of Christ are “called out” of self,
into the body of Christ.
They are “called out” of sin,
into righteousness.
They are “called out” of bondage,
into liberty.
They are “called out” of darkness,
into light.
They are “called out” of death
into life.
Doesn’t “Religious” reform mean to take one “religious” form
and change it, make it different?
Isn’t it still a form, still religion, NOT a relationship?
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness…
Peace…
Yours Truly.
His Holiness,
The Most Holy Reverend,
Father Amos.
Pastor, founder and
Chief Executive Apostle of
The First Church of
The Pleasant Parables of
The Presence of God
Presuming that
Proper
Preparation
Precedes
Powerful
Performance
Praying
Persistently
Prolonged
Positive
Prayers
Amen
A.Amos,
I think God is still in the reforming business – but the Holy Spirit doesn’t overtake believers by force. He works through hearts open to Him.
Mark, I am egalitarian and I do believe there are different roles which are distributed to humans according to gifting, but I do not believe in gender-based roles for they are arbitrary and based on the concept of the woman’s inferiority due to her assumed lack of the man’s reason. Of course modern comps deny this with vehemence since it is no longer culturally acceptable, and they are welcomed to do so, but in doing so, they are unable to provide another answer, hence they must resort to the divine command theory: the man has greater rights only because of God’s will. This of course creates a huge philosophical problem, for anything can be proven to be true if one does not need to provide proof or a reasonable explanation. I found that asking “why” solved a lot of apparent problems and contradictions, hence the epigraph to my book states
“Always ask why – not who, but why – for if you ask who gave the man authority, you may not find out why the man was given the authority, but if you ask why the man was given authority over the woman, you will find out that it was the man’s idea.”
It sounds incredibly pious to declare, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it,” until one realizes that perhaps God did not say it after all. When we try to figure out what God has said, it is equally important to ask why God said it. Just consider how many false dogmas have been created because of the unwillingness to question everything. In an era when the majority of people were illiterate, a system in which the priest told people what to believe worked well for the fear of popular opinion and superstitious beliefs filled the gaps. But in an era when the majority of people are literate and able to read the Bible for themselves, such system is doomed to fail, wherefore many churches advocate a heavy-handed shepherding system in which the leader’s authority cannot be questioned. This approach creates unity around certain beliefs, but it is always short-lived, for most people cannot keep on turning a blind eye to the impossibility to incorporate the beliefs into their own lives. Thus the lives of the people themselves become the criticism which cannot be dismissed. Complementarists are now dealing with the latter since it is becoming painfully clear that the man’s authority does not safeguard marriages, prevent domestic violence, child abuse and other social evils. Instead we are now finding that Christian families have the same problems in equal proportions to secular marriages. Something is causing it and it is not feminism, since feminism addresses the problems which were hidden behind closed doors for centuries and tries to find means to eliminate them. If the man’s authority does not cause these social evils, then what does?
Modern comps are not comfortable with many things from our theological past. The inferiority of the woman had to go when women began to vote and ceased from being legal minors. For the most part of the twentieth century, instead of speaking of inferior/superior as their predecessors had, comps referred to “authority and submission.” Now it appears that we should no longer talk about authority/subordination; instead we should talk about “responsibility” and “different roles.” By all means, let’s get rid of the concept of subordination and keep the concept of roles, for without subordination the roles are open to all (1 Cor 7, 12): a man is a husband and father as much a woman is a wife and mother (if married), and a woman is equally able to read, understand and expound on the truths found in the Bible. In fact, CBMW recognizes that without female subordination, the roles are open to all:
“For Hull, Bilezikian, and others, sex roles are essentially unimportant. They see no ‘subordination of women to men’ in home, church, or society, but rather a ‘mutual submission and therefore equal opportunity for men and women to serve in both church and society.’” (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 113)
In other words, you cannot advocate for a complementarian theology and not use the term “subordination,” for as Ortlund writes, “Subordination is entailed in the very nature of a helping role.” Of course Ortlund does not have a reason why the man was given this authority and he must therefore write, “As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. Under God, a wife may not compete for that primary responsibility. It is her husband’s just because he is the husband, by the wise decree of God.” (Recovering, 104-105) As already noted, the divine command theory is not a viable options for it does not provide an answer – it only avoids giving one, hoping that no one will notice.
Although it now appears that the word “subordination” is becoming tainted in the eyes of some, CBMW is adamant that the terms subordination and authority are not objectionable and should be used:
“Submission and authority, which to the feminists are the offensive elements in Biblical womanhood, are not terms that in themselves connote sinful or evil characteristics. Neither are the terms limited to describe role relationships between the sexes. Both terms are used to describe relationships within the family, including, but not exclusive to, the relationship between husband and wife.”
If we should not use the terms authority and subordination, what should we use to describe the relationship between men- women and Christ-God? How can the different roles be justified unless we see the woman as a “helper” to the man and the man as an authority over the “helper” who is subordinated to his authority? Being a mother can hardly restrict a woman from teaching considering mothers teach their sons throughout their early lives.
Where do comps get the roles? CBMW, for example, finds the roles by reversing Gen 3: because 3.16 speaks of childbearing and ruling, the comps conclude that the woman was created to be a wife and mother (since she must by necessity be married before she can become a mother) and the man was created to have authority over the woman and to be the main breadwinner. What they do not seem to notice is that they allow the world after sin define the world before sin. There was no home to clean in the garden, no laundry, no dishes, no cooking etc. There was no need for the man to go to the office in the morning leaving the family in Suburbia (or Gardenia in this case). The life in the garden was leisurely, without pain and anxiety. The trees provided the food, the climate was warm, the kids would have been perfect. No irreparable conflicts existed (the first argument occurred after the fall); no need for the man to assert his authority over the woman since they would always have been of one mind, just as the Father and the Son. Which leads us to Christology: why would the Father have authority over the Son since He doesn’t have a need to assert it over His perfect Son? The government is invested with authority to punish evildoers and to keep order in a world of sin. When has the Son ever done evil? When has He ever disagreed with the Father and the Spirit? The unity of the Trinity is such that they always agree, there is always a unity of will, always an agreement between the Three, which is why they are called “one.” This is the unity Paul wished all Christians would always exhibit – especially in marriage.
Mark, you are right, EES is not pure Arianism – it is a hybrid form of it for it attempts to retain the essential equality of the persons of the Trinity, while assigning the Son a position lower than the Father. But the sending of the Son by the Father and the Spirit was a sign of a community of power and will. After all, the Son said, “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive.” (John 5:43) Had the father not sent Him, the Son would have severed Himself from the unity of the Godhead: He would have come in His own name. It is precisely because the Son was sent by the Father, by common agreement within the Trinity, the unity is retained and the oneness of the Godhead is preserved. Subordination excludes a common agreement, since it is based on the acceptance by the one who subordinates with the decision made by the one in authority. If the Son is subordinated to the Father’s authority, He cannot be Supreme since He must obey the orders of someone greater then He is. Did the Son not willingly come to the world to save that which was lost? Obedience removes free will and where the will is not free, there is servitude. If the Son is in such a position, why did the Father give Him all authority? How can the Son subordinate Himself to the Father and have all authority at the same time? Or should we understand that the Son has authority over everything else but not over the Father? Even in this case, we must face the question, what kind of authority does the Father have over the Son? If the Father’s authority determines how the Son uses His authority over all creation, the Son is not Supreme and therefore not God. And this is where we end up every time regardless of how we look at the subject: either the Son is the Supreme God, equal in every aspect with the father, or He is a creature and Arius was right.
I just found this website and I thought that it is an excellent example how the concept of different roles are used to argue against the Trinity. “The Church of the Great God” has an unorthodox approach to the relationship between the Son and the Father: whereas they argue that Christ is a distinct God and worthy of the same honor as the Father, they argue also that he is also inferior to the Father and has a different role. Yet, they further claim that Christ is the God of the Old Testament. Makes no sense, but then again, that was why Arius concluded that the Son had to be a creature.
http://cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Audio.details/ID/1508/Father-Son-Relationship-Part-1.htm
Susanna,
You said:
This is exactly what my argument was in our DVD on the Trinity. Good points!
If you want to tackle another comp, NN is responding at my post here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/11/can-a-wifes-authority-be-overruled/ Should be a piece of cake for you.
Hey Mark, where are you?
Mark has responded to my question #1 but has posted the answer on this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/20/equal-in-value-and-worth-in-whose-eyes/ I am going to direct us to that post since this one has already almost 500 comments it would be good to dialog with Mark on a fresh post. See you there!