gengwall

Yea! New blog post. Can’t wait.

That’s a great comment Holly. I reminds me of another “wow” statement that is often made: “men are to be the spiritual leaders of the home”. Wow. I always thought the the Holy Spirit was supposed to be the spiritual leader of my home.

Hey Cheryl and crew. Wow. Long time.

We ran across a verse in our Torah study today which is greatly troubling me. I’m sorry for bringing it up on such an old post but this is the most appropriate place for the discussion. The verse is Psalm 45:11 (or 12 in the Hebrew bible)

Then the King will desire your beauty.
Because He is your Lord, bow down to Him. (NASB)

I presume this verse is Messianic and therefore talks about, or at least has relevance to, the marriage relationship between Christ and the church. Since Paul references the Christ/church marriage directly in the Ephesians 5 marriage section, it seems reasonable to link these two passages. Yet Psalm 45:11 seems to blatantly call for a hierarchy in marriage, not so much because of the reverence, which Paul also suggests in Ephesians 5, but because of the designation of the husband as lord. I don’t know how to reconcile this and hope that you or others here can help me.

I did search to see if you have written specifically about this Psalm 45 verse, so I feel this is the most appropriate place to open this discussion. If there is a better forum to discuss it, please let me know.

Henri Blocher, author of In the Beginning, an excellent commentary based in the framework theory on the first three chapters of Genesis, had a similar dilemma. He really, really, wants to be complementarian, but when his father passed away, his mother took over much of the leadership, including teaching, of their church in France. This greatly conflicted him and he writes about that conflict in his contribution to Women, Ministry, and the Gospel. He really does not resolve his inner debate.

LOL – I was asking this very question over and over again in a day dreamed argument with an unidentified comp. The answer kept coming back “well, there isn’t a list per se, it just depends”. “On what?” “The situation, the couple, the culture” etc. etc. blah blah blah. All the same arguments I hear over and over. So in my imagination I proposed this challenge: “ok, forget the list. Just name me one thing that the bible says the husband has universal and unilateral authority over. Oh, and make sure you point to the scripture that supports your answer.” I have never had that challenge successfully answered.

“Time-travel, it seems to me, is an anachronistic application of modern science-fiction ideas to an ancient text, the writers of which could not have intended that meaning.”

Only if you are thinking of it in human terms. Certainly God is not bound by our space/time, is He?

“But is it possible that after creation, the resurrected Jesus breathed life into Adam? He, the physical man, is said to have “become” a life-giving spirit. He gives life to the world. If He is the one who gave life to the very first man by breathing life into him, then He would be the origin of life in man.”

This is a very interesting thought. I can start to see through the fog. BTW – thanks for being gentle with my nagging questions.

I’ll add one more thought regarding Col 1. The Lexicon on blueletterbible.org lists two definitions for the word translated as created.

1) to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island
a) to found a city, colony, state
2) to create
a) of God creating the worlds
b) to form, shape, i.e. to completely change or transform

Considering the verse is talking about institutions, perhaps the context fits more accurately with the first definition and a better translation would be “all things were established through Him and for Him”.

Also, regarding Col 1:15-16, look at the list that comprises “all things”: “whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities”. A limited list that does not include anything from the 6 days of creation. It also states that the things being created were in heaven and on earth, meaning it is not speaking of the creation OF heaven and earth. So it is not necessarily clear that the creating being spoken of was the Genesis 1 creation.

Hi Kristen,

Here is my issue. I certainly recognize the Col 1 verses (incidentally, take a look at the NLT translation) but I don’t know how to take it. John 1 clearly says that the Word was the creator: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”

Cheryl went to great lengths in the “Repost – Authority vs submission – a biblical view of Ephesians 5:22” comments to establish to NN that The Word and the Christ are not synonymous; that “the Christ” “is a term for the humanity of Jesus” while “the Word” is a term of deity; that “his title as His identification as Christ is ONLY tied to His human nature”. A human can not create man, only God (a deity) can. (Cheryl made the opposite argument regarding Jesus’ death – a deity can’t die, only a human can. The Word did not die, only the Christ did.) If Christ is ONLY the human nature of God the son, and the Word is the deified nature of God the son that took on flesh to become the Christ, then I don’t see how we can use the term “Christ” for the creator of man. After the resurrection, when He was no longer bound by our space/time, Christ could have certainly been there at creation, but only as an observer.

“The Lamb “slain from the foundation of the world” is the one I was thinking of too. After all if Jesus the resurrected man can go back in time and walk with Adam, then He can go back before Adam was created and be there for the creation.”

I have no problem with Christ being there. But that does not make Him the creator. Doesn’t John make it clear that the Word is the creator? So how does simply being there make Christ the source or origin of man? That is where I can’t make the connection.

Well….it doesn’t help very much. I have no issues with the resurrected Christ interacting with people in the past, even Adam. But that is not the same as the resurrected Christ being the creator of those people.

I don’t want to distract from more current discussions, so I’ll drop it for now. But it remains a question for me.

Sorry to dredge up old posts but I’m having a wee struggle with one thing. (BTW – just re-read this series and it truly is wonderful and astounding. I sooooo “get” this passage now and feel very confident arguing against head=boss with friends and family)

Related is the more recent dialog you had with nn regarding Christ and the Word and whether or not the human Christ is the pre-incarnate Word (http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2011/06/14/repost-authority-vs-submission-a-biblical-view-of-ephesians-522/)

I get how the man is the origin of the woman – Adam’s rib and all that. And I get how God is the origin of Christ. But I’m not sure how to interpret “Christ is the origin of all men”. Is it your position that this is addressing creation? That doesn’t seem to follow the Christ-Word-God argument because, I think, the Word was what created, not the human Christ? So is this maybe instead talking about the creation of the Church? I don’t know. It is a little fuzzy for me. Any thoughts?

On point 2:

first-ology – sounds like an appropriately silly term for the first created crowd.

The idea that the first born (or created) has some higher position over those that follow is an entirely cultural creation. It is never taught as a biblical principal. God Himself defeats such a notion on a number of occasions in Scripture, with Joseph and David being the prime examples. And Jesus completely obliterates the idea in his teaching on first and last.

On point 1:

“The claim is that God is male and that only the male was made directly in God’s image.”

Do they really make such a blatantly erroneous claim? Certainly the people behind CBMW are smart men. They don’t really ascribe gender to God, do they? I have always thought that they relied solely on the design argument – men were better designed to lead and women better designed to help. If they really promote a “God is male” argument then they are dumber than I thought.

“Before the move the pastor’s wife insisted that the family should not move. She had several very good and valid reasons. However, the pastor informed his wife, that as the man in the home–”the one with authority”–he would make the decision to move and overrule any objections he heard.”

I did such a thing once. It cost me my whole retirement fund (35k at the time but I was still young with lots of compounding interest in the future). It was the last time I disregarded my wife when it comes to major decisions. We now have an agreement that either has an automatic veto if they don’t feel right about something that affects the family. Except, for some reason, when it comes to cats. *sigh*

Was just rereading much of the dialog with NN. It makes me think of another term for Jesus – the “light”. The “light” is not a term for the pre-incarnate Word and the “light” did not exist before the Word became flesh. The “light” is a term for the human Christ and only applies while that human roamed this earth. To say the “light” is God would be wrong.

Isn’t that sort of the same thing? I wonder what NN and others would say about the “light”. If it isn’t hard to understand that the “light” refers to the human Jesus while the “Word” refers to the LORD and that both the “light” and the “Word” refer to different natures of the same “person”, then why do they have such a problem with the “Christ”? Strange.

“I think it also helps us to understand His relationship with Abraham and Adam”

I agree, but that gets to my point. We understand best when thinking in terms of our own 4 dimensions but that isn’t “exactly correct”.

We tend to view God’s omnipresence from our limited space-time paradigm. Certainly, this would have been true of Jesus’ audience when he spoke of Abraham seeing him “in the flesh”. They might understand omnipresence as God being everywhere at a point in time. But they still limit those moments in our space-time. Jesus lost them when he referenced the past, which from their perspective, could not be “revisited”.

They do not understand that in godly terms, omnipresence means not only that God is everywhere, but that God is also every-when. At this moment in our time, God is present with us here. But he is also simultaneously “present” at every spacial place at every point along our time line: past, present, and future.

It isn’t even exactly correct to say Jesus went back in time. The resurrected Jesus currently exists simultaneously at every point in our time just as He exists simultaneously at every place in our space.

Hugh Ross discusses the extra-dimensional movements of God from a scientific perspective in his books “The Creator and the Cosmos” and “Beyond the Cosmos”.

If you’ve only seen the movies – Hello Dolly is with Streisand and Mame is with Lucille Ball

It’s in the first scene after the opening – in the Hay and Feed shop after Horace dismisses Ermengarde and tells the boys he’s going to go to NY to propose to Irene. Horace sings it as the reasoning for why “a man with such good sense would be thinking about getting married…again.”

You are absolutely right about “Why Can’t a Woman…” Because it is so over the top favorable toward men (and stereotypical of women) AND because Higgins is so NOT the type of man he describes, it is really a joke on the fantasy land that is the male ego.

Isn’t ironic (and cowardly, and tragic) that some men actually take Genesis and try to use it to turn the tables on women. They claim that Eve’s actions in the garden were an effort on her part to control and that her continuing “desire” was to control Adam and that male “rule” is the necessary, God ordained governor on the female’s sinful nature. “Men don’t want to be in control, but God has given us that role, so we reluctantly oblige.” I often wonder if these men actually believe this, or if they are so sinister as to perpetuate what they know is a lie to stay in power.

All right. Time for three palette cleansers. The first, an oldy but a goody here on WIM, from Bill Cosby.

“I’m not the boss in my family. I don’t know when I lost it. I don’t know how I lost it. But I’ve seen the bosses job…and I don’t want it.”

And on the flip side – from Hello Dolly – a show I was recently in – and played the part which sang these lines (somewhat parsed):

“It takes a woman, all powdered and pink
To joyessly clean out the drain and the sink…
And it takes a female for setting the table,
And weaning the Guernsey, and cleaning the stable…
And in the winter, she’ll shovel the ice,
And lovingly set out the traps for the mice,
She’s a joy and treasure for practically speaking,
To whom can you turn when the plumbing is leaking?
O yes it takes a woman
A dainty woman
A sweetheart, a mistress, a wife.
O yes it takes a woman,
A husky woman,
To bring you the sweet things in life!”

And finally, those immortal lines from My Fair Lady, so wrong in general and yet so right in a man’s world. “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?…” (also parsed)

“Why can’t a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can’t a woman be like that?
Why can’t a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you’re with them, you’re always at ease.
One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then, there’s one with slight defects.
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit,
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!
Why can’t a woman take after a man?
‘Cause men are so friendly, good-natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.
Ready to help you through any mishaps;
Ready to buck you up whenever you’re glum.
Why can’t a woman be a chum?”

LOL – My wife just volunteered me to lead our next couples small group bible study. Talk about controlling! Or does that put me in control? I’m so confused.

And one more thing.

“I know you are not one of those men …”

Oh believe me, I am…deep inside. It is one of those “every man’s battle” types of things. Don’t believe for a minute that there isn’t a closet misogynist trying desperately to break out and be king. Don’t think for a minute that we all wouldn’t love to be Solomon, or better yet, Xerxes.

Oh – but I do agree that this all stems from the fall. My take on Genesis 3:16, though, is that that verse pertains to marital relationships, not global gender relationships. So I don’t see that being very applicable to gifts and relationships in church (even though many men try to apply it in that context).

Ladies – I don’t disagree with you at all. I am just trying to explain why men do the things they do in certain circumstances. I can understand why men “like the patterns and structures they can piece together using certain verses from Paul” and why they “sweep…under the rug” other passages in order to make Scripture make sense. I’m not defending those actions, but I totally get them. Pinklight says it’s a “strange and crazy thing” and I’m sure it is…from a female perspective. What I’m trying to impress upon you is that in may respects it is a very normal thing from a male perspective. “Normal” doesn’t make it right. But it also doesn’t indicate an inherent flaw in the male gender.

“Yes, Mara, it’s crazy. I think it’s crazy that they are obsessed with control. Such a strange and crazy thing to be obsessed over – the control of another human being.”

Men submit to authority as easily as assume positions of authority. So I would say you are right on the first point, but not exactly right on the second. Men are obsessed with control? I think that is something I can agree to without much angst. I know I am. But, we are not necessarily obsessed with controlling every other human being. What we believe is that human beings, including ourselves, need controlling forces placed on them because of their sinful nature. I know what you are thinking already – “God is supposed to be the controlling influence. How can one sinner believe they are qualified to bring control in another sinners life?” Hey, I didn’t say we have thought this thing out all the way. I’m just relating what our gut instinct is.

So here is what often happens. A man perceives a lack of control in someone else or some situation (whether true or not). Being a typical man, he is more than willing to step into the role of the controlling force. It is one of the most natural things for a man to do. It isn’t that he is obsessed with controlling people (or a particular person) per se, but that he is obsessed with things being under control.

Frankly, men do this with each other all the time and they don’t think twice about it. John Mellencamp has a great line from “Cherry Bomb” which illustrates this. “One night, me with my big mouth
A couple guys had to put me in my place…” And does this result in hurt feelings and resentment? Not at all: “When I see those guys these days, We just laugh and say do you remember when”

What I’m trying to point out is that this “obsession” as it seems to be viewed by females is the most natural thing to a man. It is almost autonomic. The challenge for us is to know when it is appropriate and when it is not. If you want to know how that feels, next time your doctor hits your knee with that little mallet, try telling your knee not to jerk.

I have a more personal illustration to help. My wife and I took a personality inventory a couple years back. It was quite enlightening. Before I share the results, let me say that I consider myself a very male man and my wife is a very female woman. We are quite stereotypical. Anyway, the results of our test were illustrated this way by our testers (who are good friends and therefore did not need to pull any punches.)

If we were in a lifeboat that was sinking, my wife would go around trying to calm everyone and relieve their stress and make them all feel good. We would all drown, but we would all love her and have happy feelings about our short relationship and experience together. I, on the other hand, would wait only briefly to see if someone was in charge before I, seeing nobody else “obsessed with control”, would unilaterally take charge. I would assign tasks and give orders and discipline anyone who didn’t “jump when I said jump”. Everyone in the boat would hate me. But we would all live to tell about it.

You might think I was insulted to hear my personality described in such a cold way. Far from it! I recognize that a part of me wants to control things. It is not “wrong”. I am not some alien from the intergalactic man cave. It is a very good thing when applied at the right place and time. My goal is to seek God’s help in determining those right places and times. That is the best I can do. Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I fail. Ah, to be a man.

I want to add that looking for order is not necessarily a limitation as Mara suggests. There are many situations that require structure, order, and even hierarchy, or chaos ensues. A hierarchical approach isn’t necessarily inferior and it certainly isn’t inherently sinful. It may not be what God calls for in certain situations, but to have a general approach to life that focuses on order and structure does not make a person limited in mind or heart, and it can add great benefit to culture if applied appropriately.

From a very young age, males seek order and hierarchy. We have a seemingly inherent need to know where we “fit in”. We operate well and usually comfortably in hierarchical environments. I don’t know why God made us this way, but it is how we are made. It isn’t surprising, then, that we seek to find an order or structure in all our interactions and endeavors. It’s our nature to do so.

Having said that, all that is natural is not necessarily godly. That nature is tainted by sin. To be true godly men, we need to seek not what feels easiest or best to us but what God desires of us. And in terms of His gifts and His Church, He desires that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female.” I don’t know if females can appreciate how scary a concept that is for many men.

Have patience with us sisters. To resist imposing order on our world takes us way out of our comfort zone. To not know where we fit in the “pack” is confusing and, frankly, scary. Simply put, we don’t know what to do with ourselves if we don’t know who we are over and who we are under.

That is why many men revert to their nature. It makes sense to them. Understand what I’m saying. In this realm, the bible makes NO sense to a man’s natural way of doing things. But a good Christian man truly believes that the bible is a book that makes sense. So a paradox is created. And the only way to resolve that paradox is to manipulate the words until they do make sense. And so you get a man, truly good willed and seeking truth, but also truly convinced that the bible says what he says it says because that is the only way it makes sense TO HIM.

I agree with Cheryl that this is not a creation/evolution or old earth/young earth discussion site. There are only about a bazillion of those out there to have that argument.

Just to show Ramiro that even within the Christian community there can be vigorous debate on such subjects, I offer another Christian creation apologetics site where they don’t adhere to a young earth view while still adamantly supporting the biblical account and the inerrancy of God’s word.

http://www.reasons.org/

Now, what were we talking about…..