Mark

Frank this is what I believe about the trinity,

“That we worship one God in trinity
and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.” (Athanasian Creed)

I firmly hold to this. Where do you NOT blend their persons?
Frank your research is no doubt extensive and you continue to pursue the idea that the early church denied distinction in roles somehow- I disagree. The whole battle the early theologians faced was a subordinationism of essence. I think you are wrong to read back into that debate a subordinationism of function. It simply was not an issue in their debates. Their focus was on the divinity of the son, not his role or function. You have constantly said that to say one is subordinate in function must mean subordinate in essence likewise. But you have not provided any evidence to prove such a claim. Any reference to early theologians MUST be understood in relation to their debates which dealt with- subordination of essence. I believe you are wrong to make the bridge that you do about roles.

If Jesus was raised as a physical human man, and is now seated at the right hand of the father, what now is his ‘role’ in your opinion? If Jesus still has his humanity now and according to egalitarians, that is the ONLY thing that makes him subordinate, how is he not then eternally in that position? Maybe you think his humanity is now insignificant?

There are obvious flaws in the argument. Perhaps someone can explain for me. My position however is firm. Jesus is God, is equal to the father in essence. His role however is to be subject to the Father demonstrated through his incarnation and resurrection.

pinklight,

often with Paul ‘God’ is refering to the father. Generally when Paul cites Jesus he refers to him as ‘Lord'(kurios). Hope that helps a little.

Lin,
can you explain what you mean by this statement

“It never ceases to amaze me what folks can get out of a passage on headcoverings. Even to the point of lessening Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts for eternity!”

Is this aimed at my view or Chrysostom’s? IF you think what i have said lessens Jesus, please show me where. I uphold Christ as sovereign Lord of my life.

Kay, TL, and Lin,

I agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is far beyond human understanding/ reasoning. All of the people cited above clearly say this, and discuss it with fear and trembling. Again my point was simple. Let’s see what history actually says on these issues. Frank gave his argument which is great. Cheryl thanked him for all his reaearch in supporting the egalitarian vew. But the thing is, it doesn’t support the view.
I have shown why i disagree with his view from history, and so i feel perplexed at your statements. One can’t use Chrysostom to support their view if the actual homily of Chrysostom doesn’t support it.
I have been continually asked to show evidence for my view. I have done this briefly through this historical sketch. Of course it is hardly a thourough Phd or such, but it clearly shows that th ESS doctrine is not a new form of Arianism. The evidence is there in history and so it is up to you all to accept it or not.

Frank,
First I want to thank you for giving the time to respond to me. It may well surprise you and others here on this blog that I too disagree with the terminology of the ESS doctrine. I have a big issue in using the term ‘subordination’ in relation to Jesus and the Father, as you are indeed correct in stating that it was condemned by many in the early church. However, as with most Trinitarian debates it is far more beneficial to look behind the terminology to the actual theology to establish ones position. I therefore have no doubt that some comps may have labelled you as a modalist or unitarian. I do disagree with the terminology of the ESS doctrine, but not the actual doctrine, and so now I will respond to you to show why I hold this, and show why I feel I need to respond to your claims that this is another ‘arianism’ or ‘subordinationism’. To do this I will sketch a quick historical overview. Before I do that I think it is vitally important when understanding history to look at it in its context i.e. the debates raging and again to look beyond terminology to the core doctrine.
1. Athanasius- was indeed one of the earliest most influential thinkers in the Trinitarian debate. To put him in context is to show how he was responding to Arian claims that Jesus was an intermediate being between the absolute God and mankind, thus he was less God and subordinate. Athanasius strongly rebuked this showing how Jesus was equally divine. Due to Athanasius’ opponents, when one reads him, he could easily mistake that Athanasius put too much importance on the unity of God and not enough on the distinction of person. Justo L Gonzalez puts it like this “The main weak point in Athanasius’ Trinitarian theology is his lack of a fixed terminology that could serve to express the multiplicity as well as the unity in the trinity.” (A History of Christian Thought p. 308). So when one uses Athanasius in the Trinitarian debate they must be careful to remember the context of his theology. None the less, he was monumental in creating orthodox teaching on this subject.
2. 3 Cappodocian fathers- Basil went beyond Athanasius in affirming and defending the orthodox teaching: one ousia and three hypostases (one essence, 3 pesons) to quote him “If we have no distinct perception of the separate characteristics, namely, fatherhood, sonship, and sanctification, but form our conception of God from the general idea of existence, we cannot possibly give a sound account of our faith.”( Ep 236.6), Gregory of Nazianzus went beyond Basil again showing further the relations between the three persons of the trinity “ For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one… Excesses and defects we will omit, neither making the unity confusion(sebellianism), nor the division a separation (arianism). His theology that the father is not begotten, the son is begotten and the spirit is the procession was accepted by both the east and west church. Gregory further enhanced, one ousia, three hypostases. Gregory of Nyssa was fundamental in establishing that the distinctions cannot be established on the basis of external relations. Thus he rejected subordination that posits a difference of power or glory (again arianism). Therefore the only grounds for distinction for him was to understood on inner relations. To summarise they were influential in fleshing out the ‘seperateness’ of each member mean while condemning subordination that lead to loss of power or glory( this is vital to understanding the ESS doctrine)
3. Augustine- was again influential in rounding orthodox theology in the west. He rightly believed in the distinctions of the members of the Godhead, although each is equally divine. Terminology was a big issue with Augustine as he found our words inadequate to show the trinity properly. The main point Augustine gave to Trinitarian theology was the real or ‘subsistent’ relations in the Godhead. He did this to combat the Arians who insisted that division was in the ‘subsistence’ or essence of being i.e. divinity.
4. John Calvin- was pretty much repetitious of Augustinian theology on this issue “By person I mean, subsistence… Now, I say that each of the three subsistence’s while related to the others is distinguished from it.” (Institutes 1:13:6) Also “On the other hand, the scriptures demonstrate that there is some distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the Spirit…” (Institutes 1:13:17) again “Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God…In each hypostases the whole nature is understood, the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence.” (Institutes 1:13:19) and finally “But if we hold, what has already been demonstrated from Scripture, that the essence of the one God, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and indivisible, and again, that the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut…” (Institutes 1:13:22)
What does all this show? True orthodox is one God in three persons. One God equal in essence although distinct in three persons. Now the question is this. Does the ESS doctrine make Jesus subordinate in essence, the answer no. Frank you seem to realise this, therefore I am perplexed at how you claim this is another form of Arianism- could you explain this for me? It is clearly not. Arius taught that Jesus was not equally God. ESS does not do this. They are rightly making the necessary distinction in roles between each member of the Trinity. Frank with your view, where does the distinction lie?
Frank you also make the bold claim “First, prior to the 1980’s no theologian had ever spoken of the Son’s subordination in “role” only. This use of the term, as well, as the idea of the permanent role subordination apart from personal subordination, came from the woman debate, where it appeared for the first time in the mid-1970’s.” I will show you one simple example to dismiss this ridiculous claim. It is from Louis Berkhof’s systematic theology written in 1939. “There is a certain order in the ontological Trinity. In personal subsistence the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation. The Father is neither begotten by, nor proceeds from any other person; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from all eternity. Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being, and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned.” So the claim you make is not only false, but what Berkhof’s is saying sounds remarkably like the ESS doctrine.
Conclusion- I believe that the doctrine of the ESS is true orthodox teaching regarding the Trinity. However I do disagree with using the term subordination as it has had many uses throughout this historical debate and should be avoided in my opinion. Frank, I pose this to you, that you look beyond the terminology and look at the doctrine. Then you will see who is the orthodox view.
Finally I want to address the sources you used in your argument. 3 of them were from ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ so it is hardly surprising that they dispute comp teaching. One was from Bishop Damasus which was condemning Arianism- that Jesus was less God. I have shown and infact I think you know that ESS does not teach this, so I don’t see how this supports your view. T.F.Torrance’s quote again had nothing to do with true orthodoxy nor the condemnation of ESS doctrine but rather that when discussing the trinity, our human analogies are always flawed. I totally agree with this. In fact I said above that this is precisely the problem Augustine had with human words. This reference again does not support your argument at all. Finally I want to discuss Chrysostom-
1 First it is important to note that what he is debating doesn’t seem to be Arianism. He saids that his opponents don’t dispute the equal essence of the son so this is again not what ESS is teaching.
2. Lets look what he further saids in this same homily: regarding 1 Cor 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.
This is again another cause. Not only, so he speaks, because he has Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman. For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that has the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of your rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest you insult both yourself and Him that has honored you.
And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. But the woman is the glory of the man. Therefore the rule of the man is natural.
Again 1 Cor 11:9 “For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.
Again 1 Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.
For this cause: what cause, tell me? For all these which have been mentioned, says he; or rather not for these only, but also because of the angels. For although thou despise your husband, says he, yet reverence the angels.
It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.
Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, you put yourself to shame, seizing the woman’s dress. And you do the same as if having received a diadem, you should cast the diadem from your head, and instead of it take a slave’s garment.
Again 1 Cor 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Thus, because he had given great superiority to the man, having said that the woman is of him and for him and under him; that he might neither lift up the men more than was due nor depress the women, see how he brings in the correction, saying, Howbeit neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. Examine not, I pray, says he, the first things only, and that creation. Since if you enquire into what comes after, each one of the two is the cause of the other; or rather not even thus each of the other, but God of all. Wherefore he says, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
So Frank I think it is clear, that Chrysostom actually supports my view of this passage not the egalitarian view. Also your references actually hinder your view rather than support it.
I apologise for the extreme length, but such issues need to be addressed.

Cheryl, thanks for the opportunity to be the first comp blogger on this sight. However, if i was happy to post it like that, i would have to do alot more work to make it more ‘academic’. I wrote it quickly and about 1 in the morning, so it is most definately not ‘scholarly’ in that sense. I will do some more work on it to tidy it up a bit and send it to you once ready. I should point out that its purpose was to show that ‘authority’ is a possible rendering for kephale in the NT period so as to respond to Dave, TL, gengwell. I didn’t do complete exegesis on texts but maybe i should if that helps. Obvously that will take longer though.

I’m sorry you might have been offended about my comment regarding Frank. I think you were right, and i apologise to Frank for that. However i think you need to be more consistent on this issue as i have read numerously and in several places on your blogs where people are clearly attacking Grudem and Piper, rather than their views per se. None the less i over-stepped the mark. I appreciate your rebuke 🙂

Dave,
sure pop in to PTC whenever you like, i’m there most days. However there is only a few weeks left and im abit unsure whether ill be there again next year, so perhaps it might not work out. I am amazed at the amount of time you have to respond to blogs while running a church, very impressive.

Dave,
I have written a small paper to show where i get my opinions from i.e evidence. Not sure though if it is too big to post simply as a comment. I’m not totally up on this blog stuff.

Kay,
You are obviously trying to use ridiculous senarious to disprove my point of view. Men and women are simply different. Why is it that men are generally more muscular? Why is it that physiology is different in the sexes. This is medical proof. We are not the same. Some things both physical and practical are more masculine, and vice versa for women. You can argue all you like about hermaphrodites but it doesn’t help your egalitarian view nor distort mine. I dont know how else to respond to you regarding this.

Dave, one more last point before signing off for the night. THis is more of a personal opinion of yours. Do you think this issue is likely to split the Pressie Church? I sure hope it doesn’t and that people can attempt to work out these issues while still loving each other within the denomination. What is your opinion? Also why is that we live about 60 km apart, yet we talk via a blog in Canada…seems strange?

Frank,
You make this claim:
2. The insistence that kephale in 1 Cor 11:3 must mean “authority over” and not “source” so as to weigh an argument in one’s favor against his opponent’s is not something new. For it was used by the Arians to argue that since the man was in “authority over” the woman, because he was superior in being and function; therefore, since the Father was in “authority over” the Son, he was superior and the Son was inferior. And of course, Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, Cyril , and others argued against this heretical understanding of the Father-Son and man-woman relationships. A destable heresy, I might add, that Wayne Grudem promotes in order to have a theological ground for the permanent subordination of women, while gutting the heart of the Gospel in the process. And so Dave, I have a far lower opinion of Prof. Grudem than you do for this very reason.

A few points need to be mentioned as I fell you are equally guilty of half truths.
1. I am not arguing that man is superior in being or function. I am saying we are equal in being (essence) and have different functions. I am not saying a mans role is more superior than the womens. Obviously you haven’t read me properly.
2. The Athanasian- Arian debates were indeed over the subordination of the son in both function AND essence. This is not what Grudem is saying as far as I have seen, so you are wrong in linking the two. Grudem and Piper do use the term subordination but only in relation to function NOT ESSENCE which was what the Arian heresy was. Therefore you are being misleading by claiming that Grudem is a heretic holding to a condemned heresy. This clearly shows me your poor understanding of either topic.
3. I would also like to dispute that the Arain heresy stemed primarily from the roles of men and women- where do you see the evidence for this claim? It was clearly over the issue of the divine essence in the son(or lack of in their opinion). You are misrepresenting history to further your view and thus leading others on this blog to false conclusions.
4. What the great theologians of the past showed us as true orthodoxy was one God, in three distinct persons, all equally divine, although all uniquely their own ‘homoousios’- person/function. I think I translated that into English properly, forgive me if I didn’t.

Dear Egalitarian friends,

i apologise for the slow respose to your questions/statemants/interpretations. Its been a bit busy atm, and looks like it will be this way for the next few weeks. I will try my hardest to find time to continue the discussion, but forgive me if i am unable to continue a day to day discussion at present.

Let me first comment back to Dave. I guess i will just response according to your dot points.
1. I am glad we agree
2. The creation order I am referring to is verses 7-10
3. 1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
I understand that the kephale that is being dishonoured is the head in authority above the person i.e Christ for the man, the man for the wife. How do you understand this Dave?
4. The context most definitely does support this view of ‘head’. In terms of evidence I will right up a small paper when I get a chance to wade through it all and post it soon, as I think TL and/or gengwell also asked the same thing.
5. We agree again! As far as Lin’s comments regarding this being ‘simple’ as relating to chapter 6, my only comment can be- it is most definitely not simple. Scholars on both sides recognise this, I suggest Lin for you to have a better look at the so called simplicity of this issue.
6. You seem to be agreeing that there is a creation order addressed before verse 10, therefore I am confused why you asked me to point you to where the creation order is in point 2? Dave I don’t dismiss what verse 11 and 12 bring. I didn’t think I did that, maybe I wasn’t clear. This is consistent with what we saw in Gen, namely its not good to be alone, we need each other, God created us for each other. But this doesn’t negate the creation order of 7-10, it supports it. How do you reconcile the creation order with your view?
7. I think I answered this above for you.

Finally Dave, I’m abit unsure of how you translate kephale. Do you understand it to be mouth, source, pre-eminate, origin…???? These meanings draw from different contexts in which the word is used. It seems like egalitarians are claiming almost any known meaning of the word which is not authority. How we translate it relates to its literary context of which im sure we agree. Therefore the context of mouth is different to the context of source, to the context of pre-eminence to the context of authority to the context of origin. However many people are using them interchangeably. Which do you hold to?

Also Lin you made this comment
“But it is not in order! Besides, created order means nothing. I could easily argue that Eve was more important because she was created last and called an Ezer like God is called. Created order means nothing because God many times did not use the FIRST born son. Created order means nothing because it implies that creation materials are important. From where do YOU, as a male get the IMage of God? From dirt?”

This is precisely the issue I have. Egalitarians argue that there is no creation order in Gen, then when we look at this passage in Corinthians the answer changes from’ no creation order’ to ‘so what’, it ‘means nothing’ using your own words. It is inconsistent, do you believe there is a creation order but it means nothing, or do you believe there is no creation order?

Ok, here are what i know in regards to facts about kephale.
1. IT has different meaning depending on contexts.
2. It was never used in relation between PEOPLE without the notion of authority. If Paul uses is to mean non-authority when talking between people, it is the first time in all of greek literature as far as i know. So this might be true, but seems highly unlikely from what we know about the use of the word.
3. Paul caould have used a stronger auhtority word-true, but he didn’t. He did use this word, that when used in the context of people DOES denote authority. The argument trying to say ‘why didnt he use a different word’ has no merit at all. Kephale is used in certain contexts to denote authority.

Now about Corinthins because we are skirting abit. I wanted to simply be on the same page, thats all.
1. 1 Cor 11, doesn’t infact use the head/body metaphor as in other passages like Eph 4:15 which is unusual. So the argument for the head/body metaphor cannot apply to this passage. Gordon Fee, an egalitarian rightly recognises this.
2. Paul draws back to the created order in his argument.
3. Paul uses interchangebly the literal ‘head’ with the ‘head’ of auhtority in verses 4-7
4. The use of kephale in verse 3 is in the context of people, which according to how we know the word was used in this context, must denote authority.
5. Paul concluded from the creation order that a women ought to have a sign of auhtority on her head. The reference to angels here is unusal and also heavily debated.
6. Some egalitarians think verse 11 somehow cancels out the proceeding verses. This is not true. Although the man is in authority over the women, niether should be independent of the other. This is precisely what we saw in Gen 1-3 and which Paul confirms with the creation order. Hypothetically even if it did cancel out the proceeding verses, it must be recognised by egalitarians that you are admitting that there is a creation order with authority.Paul is listing a creation order of authority which you are so against. So there is a contradiction in your view.
7. Do i think the head covering is a mandate for all time, no. It is cultural, but the use of kephale to denote authority to the husband is. Paul draws right back to Gen to support his argument for mans authority, which he applies the the cultural context of head coverings.

Here head connot mean ‘source’, because source is the translated word for heads(plural). The singular is translated ‘mouth’. So should we say the man is the mouth of the wife? The context of how kephale is used clearly indicates a husbands authority. This passage is about propriety in worship- especially realting to head coverings. This is cultural, the headship of the husband is not. So to dismis this passage as purely cultural is wrong.

I look forward to all your interpretations. It will better help me understand your views.

I would like to be pointed to an actual egalitarian paper which is not about debating anothers paper, and which shows there evidence for why they understand ‘kephale’ to mean source always in the New Testament. I would like to see evidence which actually shows that when a person is called the ‘head’ it means non authoratative source.
Thanks for any following links

Tl, thanks for the links again. But im abit unsure what you are trying to say by directing me to this.
1. In the first link it actually supports the notion that kephale was understood as authority by Plato if you read the whole article and the commetss below. Suzanne actually say this “I personally believe that kephale may mean one of many things” and again “I see absolutely no reason to say that kephale must mean “authority,” or that it must mean “source.”. So this is evidence to show that it was understood as authority at least by Plato in this particular work. And this actually supports my own opinion which shows it had many meanings.
2. The other 4, like i said are just re-buttles of different grudem articles. In several of them Suzanne even fails to faithfully represent what Grudem is saying if you follow the links to Grudem’s actual articles. But again there is very little of Suzannes own research in any of these articles.

Dave,
Thanks for yout imput on kephale. I deliberately didn’t mention NT in either of my descriptions as this is what we are about to discuss.

Kay, maybe my aussie slang is confusing you. When i refer to ‘manhood’ i literally mean his reproductive organ. This is part of the male anatomy but is not the determining factor in making someone masculine. Does this help or am i confusing you more!

Do people want to dispute that kephale as translated in the LXX does not denote some sort of authority? This might be helpful as it is a significant primary document in understanding this word.

It seems like people are skirting around the issue that kephale is understood to mean authority both in biblical and other ancient greek literature. Is this a fair presumption?

I have no drama in recognising that it has also been understood as ‘source’, ‘origin’ in ancient lit aswell. If we are going to be honest we need to recognise that kephale was used in various ways and seems to have several meanings. Once we can all agree on that, then we can see which meaning best fits each passage of scripture.

Wow, we are up to comment 55 and still haven’t begun looking at the text!
You are correct in assuming that i haven’t read or know alot of what Wayne Grudem has written. In fact i have a book on the way which will help me understand his position. Piper on the other hand i have read much of, heard much of, and find an extroardinary man who seems humble and who’s first priority is glorifying God. You can criticise someones exegesis but i dont think it appropriate to criticise the man, or suggest his motives are bad.

That said i respect Suzanne for her work. I dont see her as a radical feminist but as an evangelical sister in Christ. The link i was given did in fact have very little research of hers. Im not disputing her research, just the link that i was given.

Chuch history is indeed full of ‘bad’ or mislead truth. BUt my point is simple, it is equally misleading to quote Cyril as ‘proof’ of the early church holding to kephale as source. It is simply not true, and history should be reflected accurately. If anyone knows of another church father who understood kephale this way, i would be more than happy to look into that.

I am still hesitant to read into the passage Kay quoted-‘authority’- it is simply poor exegesis to do this in my opinion. The passage has nothing to do with the sadducees wanting authority, they are simply trying to trick Jesus to refute the idea of a resurrection.

Kay, your summary of me made me laugh, but again has pulled me out of context. I dont have a right to demand my authority from my wife, that was point one. I’m not arguing for comp view to keep my authority point 2. Male authority is not linked to his manhood point 3.

Dave, i do think that their is a connection witht the misuse of biblical authority and abuse. I was simply trying to steer the conversation from such accusations as it is not reflective of true comp teaching. IF we are going to be far to both positions is should be based around their understanding of the scriptures. As far as im aware, i have never heard a comp encourage his congregation to beat up his wife. Thus why i am not interested in taking the slippery slope arguments any further.

Finally again i wil assert my three uses of kephale. Lin has said that i am claiming it means authority. This i haven’t said yet nor it is what i beleve it is always implying. These 3 meanings of the word are as far as i know, the accepted use of it.
1. That it does denote auhtority- partly seen in the LXX and other greek literature
2. That it is used as source in other greek literature
3. That it literally means the head on our shouders.
I have not stated which of these i think it means in 1 Cor 11 yet! I was just posting the known uses so we can all be on the same page before we begin.

Sorry one last point for Kay,

I in no way am intereseted in keeping my authority and i find it hard to see this in anything Piper has said. We hold to this view because we believe in the authority of the bible, and believe this is what the bible teaches. It has nothing to do with wanting authority.

Kay,

refering to your link #13, where you claimed that the sadducees seemed very interested in authority, and im assuming you are applying that to complementarians. Just a few points.

1. The text you sighted actually has nothing to do with authority and thus your conclusion of authority is a bad one.
2. The sadducees did not believe in resurrection, which funny enough is what the text is about.
3. The sadducee’s asked this of Jesus to use as proof of the ridiculous notion of the resurrection. After all who’s wife will she be if she had 7 earthly husbands. Jesus answer is simple, there is no marriage in the resurrection, therefore the sadduccee’s argument fails.
4. This text has nothing to do with authority and everything to do with the resurrection. It is a bad ‘proof’ text to support your view.

Kay,

Im still abit unsure of what your trying to say.

Let me try to be clear in what i mean. I DO NOT link maleness with the need for the male reproductive organ, whether born that way or otherwise.

TL,

Thanks for the link. Just a few thoughts…
1. Im not Wayne Grudem, nor can i speak on his behalf.
2. The links were not well researched at all, it was just a rebuttle about a very small thing Grudem has said. It was all about dis-proving Grudem, and had very little ‘research’ to show any other use of the word.
3. I’m more intereseted in discussions these issues with each other, rather than just giving links to other people’s opinions.
4. I’m very concerned how egalitarians use Cyril of Alexandria to prove ‘source’, ‘beginning’ as the meaning of Kephale by his exegesis of these passages- Gordon Fee does the same. Admittedly Cyril was one of the ‘good’ guys in the early church in terms of doctrine. However he is mid 5th century, which is quite a ditance away from when Paul wrote the text, so it is hardly a concrete use of linking the greek literature. Secondly, as far as i know, that means for 450years the church understood kephale to not mean ‘source’-this is significant. Thirdly, Alexandria was well known for it’s metaphorical/allegorical interpretation of scripture. Augustine is a prime example in his interpretation of the good samaritan- far from what is considered orthodox. All in all, Cyril is far from concrete proof to show this to be true, as Suzanne may have been implying.

Im unsure whether you are disputing the 3 uses of kephale in greek literature that i listed or agreeing? The three i listed were as far as i know, the excepted known uses by well known scholars on both sides of the debate. I was trying to represent the overall use of the word. The context of how it is used in the NT is another question. If you wish to dispute or add im more than happy to discuss that.

Now concerning Corinthians…
I think it would be helpful to state first before looking deeply at the passage what we all understand head ‘kephale’ to mean. As such i have come across 3 options.
1. It has an authority linked with it as understood by the Hebrews and the use of it in the LXX- the greek translation of the OT.
2. It is used as ‘source’ as understood in the greek context/culture.
3. It is literally referring to the head on top of our shoulders.

Do people disagree or would like to add anything?

Cheryl,
Thanks for the special treatment :), i agree the other blog was beginning to get a bit hard to follow.

Kay i apologise for not directly answering your question. I hope you can see from my position that it is difficult to answer every question when i am so outnumbered. I would like to point out that i do see differences in males and females besides just their sexual organs. As such your comments about eunuchs really does nothing to distort my view. If a man looses his manhood, it doesn’t make him any less a man, or unable to fulfill his roles.

I’m glad that you are disagreeing between yourselves as to whether there are physiological differences. It is helpful to see where everyone is coming from. It is hard in my opinion to deny that there are such differences. Women and men most definately are not the same.

Dave, i’m from Narellan out south-west sydney. I saw your blog on the PTC website and thus found the link here to Cheryl’s Blog. I am currently a student at PTC and so am aware that you are a dear Presbyterian brother although i am a congregationalist. Hence why i seem to have alot of time to write- students don’t really do much else :). I saw your church was looking for a FES student. If i was required to do FES, which im not since im not a candidate, i would have loved to come visit you, as im sure we would have many great discussions :). Again i say… AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE, OI OI OI !!!!!!! What is clear i think is that Australians are by far the greater of God’s creations- in fact i think it has been re-named the ‘Land of Canaan’. Sorry for the bad joke. One last point Dave, i agree with what you said in your blog conference, that Mark Driscoll would find PTC the least blokey place- you made me laugh.

Cheryl,

You ask good questions and very similar to what i have seen you ask in previous dialogues with people. You again slipped in the idea of ‘gifting’ which i think is a good topic that we should discuss at some point aswell. For example you asked who’s function is it to use their gift to teach? This is very broad and needs to be narrowed. After all there are many non christians who can stand up in front of a crowd and teach- should we assume the are using their spiritual gift. We need to be able to distinguish what is truly something given by the Spirit of God before claiming someone is just using their gift.

But again like i said to Kay, before we get to hypothetical on how these functions play out, let’s investigate if this is what the bible teaches first. If it is, then we can begin to see how to practically apply all these varius senario’s that you suggest.

Also before we begin trying to catalogue what constitutes a ‘function’ i think it is important to primarily focus on issues such as teaching, preaching, eldership… rather than trying to throw learning and things like this into the category to distort what i am saying.

I look forward to our discusions. Can i suggest we begin by looking at 1 Corinthians 11

I would also like to back up gengwell in his definition of ‘ezer’ in Gen 2. I agree that it is wrong to understand this to show Adam’s authority as some comps might do. I equally see it as wrong to see it as an explanation of total equality, because as we understand it in relation to God being our ‘help’ He is most definately not ‘equal’ with us.

So i do not think that ‘ezer’ can convincly be used to support either sides argument. What it does show is that Eve had a different role/function to Adam which is what i have maintained all along. Adam is not the ‘ezer’ in this situation, Eve is.

I do not attempt to use it to support my view and i think it is equally wrong to attempt to use it to show total equality.

I would just like to import some important terminology so you can all understand my position, because from your comments i fear i haven’t been very clear- for this i apologise.
1. I will now try to use ‘Total Equality’ to mean that male and female are equal in essence and function.
2. I will also use ‘Equal in essence’ in relation to understanding how i think male and female are equal in essence only, not function.

What i think is clear with Gen 1:26-27 is that male and female are equal in essence. I believe this to be so because i understand our image to be in relation to our souls not physical differences. However i do not see anything in this explicit text or how it is understood throughout the rest of scripture to come to the conclusion that we are equal in function. Likewise i do not see anything in this explicit text to show hierarchy or authority.

Gen 2:23 likewise is evidence in my mind that we are equal in essence, but again there is no indication to show equality in function.

Gen 2:24 i don’t think has anything to do with equality in essence or function, because it is never understood this way by other authors in the bible. It is a picture of marriage, sexual relations and Christ’s coevenant with the church.

Therefore i come to the conclusion that we are indeed equal in essence but there is nothing in Gen 1-3 to show or explain total equality. But there is evidence to show that Adam and Eve do indeed have different functions which i have shown already. Whether the significance of these roles indicates any type of authority is another question.

I would also like to re-state that i do not see any text explicitly in Gen 1-3 to state hierarchy or authority. I understand from other texts which we will further discuss as to why i can ‘read into’ Gen 1-3 that Adam was indeed the leader.

So to conclude
1. We are equal in essence in my opinion.
2. Nothing explicitly in Gen 1-3 shows equality in function
3. Nothing explicitly in Gen 1-3 shows authority between genders
4. There is most definately different roles for Adam and Eve.

So i ask this question to egalitarians. Do you agree that there are different roles/functions for Adam and Eve? Can we agree that your view of total equality and my view of authority are both read into this text from our greater understanding of the bible.

TL,

Thankyou for clearing up this mis-communication. I thought that i made it clear that my understanding of Adam’s leadership stems from what i understand that to be as expressed throughout all of scripture. Likewise i pose the question, where in the text does it talk about total equality?

Just another thought about understanding how we understand what is meant when Paul talks about ‘sin came into the world through one man’-Rom 5:12- it came to me while cooking dinner 🙂

If we talk this literary it must be false. Because we know in Genesis that Eve was indeed the first to sin, so sin actually entered the world first through Eve. So what does it mean. Perhaps some may say it is ‘intentional sin’. So maybe it should be translated- ‘intentional sin came into the world through one man’ since you are all claiming Eve’s wasn’t intentional, and indeed she isnt a man. Should we then seperate what sin Paul is describing here?
How would Cheryl or others understand this? See i think it makes perfect sense if we understand Adam is recongnised as the one resposible for sin entering the world, although Eve indeed did sin first. Adam is responsible for the act of sin entering the world, not Eve’s specific sin. I’m interested how an egalitarian would reconcile this?

TL- i am glad that we are agree that spiritual equality in Christ doesn’t allude to sin. The point i was making was that historically when a church has accepted or ordained women pastors and the like, homosexuality acceptance has followed. And that is precisely why it is not good to argue down these lines. IF i did that i am diverting from what egalitarianism actually teaches. And so i say the same for comp teaching. It doesn’t support abuse, even though some have abused under its title. But again it is not representative of the true view.
So you might say it is a reality that abuse has occurred and i have no doubt. It is equally a realtiy that acceptance of homosexuality has followed supposed egalitarian teaching. Thats why it is important to steer clear of these type of arguments

sorry one more last point.

TL, im sorry you even said this

“And pointless of eternal holy values as well. Such a proposal only supports and promotes negatives in life: pride, arrogance, controlling attitudes, demeaning the value of woman’s input, silencing women, giving women personal devalue problems, and great opportunity for abuse from those so inclined.”

Again i will say it. Perhaps you need to better look at what comp teaching is. Frankly to introduce the idea of fostering abuse is offensive to the position- it does no such thing if actually understood. I could equally bring in the arguments for egalitarianism= homosexuality acceptance which has historical accuracy. But i think these arguments are actually damaging to us understanding what the other believes. I dont think you promote homosexuality(well i hope not) nor do i think what i say promotes abuse. Both extremes of each others so called positions are hardly an accurate analysis of the views.

One last point

” Frankly, if I look at this from a dramatic point of view, I imagine Eve being still a little shell shocked by the whole thing, while Adam knew what he had done all along. It is only fitting that God would deal with the intentional perpetrator before the deceived one.”

Nothing in the text makes us think it unfolded this way. Both their eyes were opened. They both made clothes to cover BOTH their shame. They both hid in the garden. Nothing in this makes poor little Eve sound ‘shell shocked’. SO therefore it is most dinately NOT fitting to come to this conclusion why God spoke to Adam first. This comes dangerously close to saying that Eve didn’t infact sin. There is nothing innocent about sin. It is a rejection of God. I hope we can all agree on that. Being ‘decieved’ doesn’t make her innocent.

gengwell,

i appreciate you attempt to resolve the issues above. It was very well written and easy to read. Obviously i disagree with your conclusion. Let me first start by critiqing and then giving my opinion.
1. Where in Gen 3 does it say Adam ‘intentionally’ sinned. He is charged for ‘listening’ to his wife. This is ‘read into’.
2. Cheryl’s literal approach has failed to recognise the great implications of sin, since she insists that Eve was not a ‘threat’ to the tree of life. I totally disagree with her doctrine of sin, and as such her analysis of the banishment is suspect in my opinion.
3 ALL the key passages for ‘equality’ have not been proven to show this. The’image of God’ has failed to be shown as equal. Adam’s exclamation of Eve really does nothing to promote total equality without distinctions of roles. The ‘one flesh’ verse is never used in scripture to promote the egalitarian view of equality.
4. I am hesitant to understand if Cheryl believes that the ‘death’ that was promised from God was only physical or spiritual aswell.

Now my view
1. Adam is made first, spoken to first, the primary recipient of God’s banishment. This creation ‘order’ is significant once we begin a looking at other passages. Paul most definately sees a creation order in 1 Cor 11
2 God give’s Adam the primary role of the ‘caretaker’ of the garden, and Eve is made as his helper. This does not contradict the mandate to subdue the earth, but fits with it. This is significant if we are going to see that God does actually designate ‘roles’, although we are equal in essence.
3. Adam is the only one who ‘names’ the animals. Likewise Adam ‘names’ his wife. That is a role Eve doesn’t have
4. Both are equally sinful by rejecting what God has said (there eyes were opened), and in Eve’s case listening to the serpent, and Adam listening to his wife.
5. The ‘one flesh’ verse is used by Paul to demonstrate the covenant with Christ and the Church. This is most definately not ‘equal’ as im sure we will discuss further on.
6. I think an obvious one we didn’t discuss is the physical differences. God coud have made babies any way he wanted, but he chose to make male and female different. Why can you accept that there are obvious physical differences, but God wouldn’t give other differences. This is contradictory to what we know about the different natures, emotions etc that men and women have.

What i am certain of is this. Both sides ‘read’ into the text to prove there points. I hope that you can all see this. This has been one of my main issues when egalitarians only claim that it is comps who read into texts. Ultimately we can never be 100% certain that our view is right- but what is more consistent with scripture is the key. I hope our furhter discussions reveal this.

Kay,

I think the pattern of leadership which emerges throughout the rest of scripture teaches us something about Eden.

I believe that yes Adam was the leader before the fall. I believe the fall corrupted this leadership- i’m not sure whether i would use the word ‘curse’ in my description though.

Cheryl, thaankyou for your questions and answers,

I see the garden as the place where God dwells with man- i think we would agree with this. I also agree that it was Adam and Eves home not God’s, for God is not physical, nor is he bound physically. But what i do see is the resemblance of this situation in the tabernacle, the temple, in Christ. The garden was where God dwelled unhindered by sin with mankind. Except God was bound in the temple etc because of hi holiness and our sinfulness.

I don’t dispute you in regards to the tree of life needing to be protected, but in the bigger scheme, as with most scholars, what i am suggesting is consistent. As such Eve, as a sinner, was most definately a threat to the tree. If i understand sin to be a total corruption of our original nature, and complete seperateness from God, then i can’t agree to your interpretation. Regardless of whether her sin was intentional or not, she was still a sinner. Sin corrupts us, so she was most definately a threat.

“Now that Eve knew the truth of her deception, there would be no problem of her obedience in obeying God’s command to not eat from the tree of life should she have stayed in the garden”

Cheryl do you think that as sinners we can be obedient to God? Just because Eve supposedly ‘knew’ her deception, does that negate what sin does to us? Sin makes us to everything contrary to what we should be doing. It is only by the grace of God, and HIs spirit that we are able to obey Him- it has absolutely nothing to do with us. I have emense trouble agreeing with your understanding of sin and its effects.

“There was no need to banish Eve unless she had a rebellious nature. The fact is that she did not. ”
Is sin not precisely a rebelilon against a Holy God. She 100% DID have a rebelious nature. If she didn’t then she wouldn’t have been a sinner. Even if you want to claim she didn’t rebel before the fall, it is very incosistent with the nature of sin to claim that as a sinner she was not rebellious.

“The rebellion did not come into the world through the man and the woman. Scripture is very specific that it came through the man alone.”
I agree with you on this, but not in the way you might think. I agree that scripture does say that sin came through ‘one man’. This is indeed supportive of the comp position also which holds the man as the leader. So guess you read it very literally, and i see it as metaphoric in relation to his role as the man.

“Where do you get this from? God has always showed Himself to sinful man since all men are now sinful since the fall. The Scriptures teach us about many humans who walked with God. God did not stay away from them just because they were sinful. That may be a tradition, but it isn’t the truth of Scripture.”
God has never walked with sinful man in ALL hs glory as with Eden. What is Ezekiel adn Isaiah’s response to seeing the ‘likeness’ of God in their visions. If God as a holy God, and man as sinful can walk hand in hand in the way you seem to be suggesting, then God is indeed not Holy and man not sinful.

“God says not one word about Adam being the leader. If this was true, then please tell me why Adam was not called to account to speak for Eve? Surely if we can add to the Scriptures that Adam was the “leader” then why did Adam not act as a leader and why did God not hold him accountable for anything other than his own sin? This is a very important point and needs to be addressed.”

Cheryl this does indeed need to be addressed. It needs to be addressed because you don’t seem to understand the comp position. Please show me where any true comp claims that the man is resposible for the woman’s sin. We don’t hold to that. Eve is accountable for her sin like Adam. Adam is also held accountable for his lack of leadership in this situation. That is why he is the primary person dealt with in the Genesis account.

” He gives a prophesy to the serpent but related to the woman that her seed he will be destroyed. ”
So your happy Cheryl to throw what is said to the serpent to relate to Eve, but not happy to understand what is said to Eve in relation to the serpent? Seems like you are picking and choosing.

“If Adam and Eve’s sin was the same, then there cannot be any reasonable explanation for God treating them differently. ”
Of course there can be- they are different people with different roles. Take the Kings as an example. They were equally guilty of sin as the Jews, however their ‘role’ as leader made them particular responsible for God’s judgement upon the nation. Your argument does not hold up.

I think we need to keep in mind, why this was written, who it was written for, the historical context it was written in, before taking a direct literal rendering of the passage. None the less Cheryl, you continue to be challenging and i hope your trip goes well.

I am also more interested in the idea the Eve wasn’t a part of a curse and therefore what God said to her was a prophecy not a curse.

With the flow of the passage i struggle to see this. Eve’s ‘talking to’ falls directly under the curses of the serpent. However before God issues the curses in relation to Adam there is disruption in the flow where God address’ Adam for listening to Eve. So it is sensible to see why God has to re-address the use of the word ‘curse’ It seems hard to me to seperate the flow of the chapter between the serpent and Eve. What is discussed with her fits snuggly into the flow of the chapter and the curse of the serpent. Perhaps someone can show me in the text why we should make this seperation. Is there any indication in the Hebrew that what is addressed to Eve doesn’t fall under the banner of ‘curse’ with the flow of the text.

I know the argument of it doesn’t say ‘curse’ with eve, but what i am asking is, is there any indication in the Hebrew to seperate the 2