gengwall

Hi Gazza. Cultures, Hebrew or otherwise, do not define God. Just because a culture engages in some activity or paradigm does not mean that God approves or that it is a reflection of God’s intent. The Hebrew culture participated in polygamy for a large protion of its history. Does that mean that polygamy is godly? Certainly not. You have to be careful to distinguish biblical history from biblical teaching. Nowhere in the bible does God say that identifying (or even naming) something grants you authority over it. Who cares what the culture says about naming! It only matters what God says about naming and God is silent, at least in terms of authority.

Even if you appeal to cultural standards instead of God’s standards, you run into a problem if the bible is your source of truth. Other than Genesis, can you find even one other instance in the bible where a husband named his wife? The cultural argument is entirely irrelevant because naming (or renaming) one’s wife was not in fact a cultural practice. You can’t claim the culture sees an act as a demonstration of authority if that act is never actually carried out in the culture.

Oh, and I almost forgot, another point to my post 123 above.

4. The Hebrew word used to describe the forming of the animals (yatzar) is very different than the hebrew word used to describe the construction of Eve (banah). In fact, of the three Hebrew words used in Genesis 1 and 2 to describe “creative” actions, only Eve is said to be banah. There is simply nothing about her creation that parallels the creation of the animals.

Mark – Another thing struck me reading through Cheryl’s responses. You appeal to the “historical setting of Hebrew naming” to claim that Adam was exercising authority over Eve by naming her (and I assume over the animals by naming them). Exactly how many years of Hebrew history do you think Adam had to look back on when he uttered “she shall be called Woman”?

“2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals. God ‘forms’ the creation ( and the narrative identifies what the created animal is i.e. beasts, birds and woman), then God ‘brought them to the man’, to ‘see what he would call them’. To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point.”

There is much to disagree with in your numbered list but this one jumps out at me. While the “sentence structure” may have some passing similarity in each account, the narrative is strikingly different. Some examples:

1. God formed the animals from the ground but Eve was the only creature in creation formed of material from another living creature. This is a striking difference which sets Eve apart from the animals.

2. God brought Eve to Adam but nowhere does the text say he did so “to see what he would call her”. Your claim that the two narratives are parallel on this point is simply false.

3. The narrative says that “whatever name Adam called it [an animal] by, that was its name”. BTW – Adam did not call the animals “bird” and “beast” – another flaw in your argument. There is no such narrative when it comes to Eve. Nothing indicates that “Adam called Eve ‘woman’ and from that point forward that was what her name was”. The two narratives are mutually exclusive on this fundamental point. Your claim that Adam’s “naming” of Eve was identical to his “naming” of the animals is not supported.

A pretty convincing argument pinklight.

“I think they see it as humiliating and there are some men who would rather die than submit to a woman.”

“to a woman” is a key part of that statement. I think men get hierarchy and to an extent gravitate toward it or feel comfortable within it….as long as the hierarchy is filled with men. Once women come into the mix, our “rule over” flesh gets in the way.

“I agree that God knew before Adam that he would call her ‘woman’. What I disagree on is that God ‘called’ her woman before Adam did.”

I’m pretty sure Cheryl didn’t mean that and I certainly wouldn’t agree. I said: “I think the most that could be said is that…the term “woman” existed in the mind of God before her creation.”

By that, I certainly don’t mean God didn’t “call” her woman. None of us were in heaven, so we don’t know if God’s statement was audible or not. But that doesn’t make it any less of a statement than “let there be light”. Whether in his mind or out loud, God “called” her “woman” before Adam did. In other words, unlike the animals, the term, the category, the identification “woman” existed before Adam uttered it. It therefore can not be equated to Adam’s action of identifying the animals, which was hardly an act of authority to begin with.

You have to remember that the traditional view of 1 Tim 2 is that it silences women. Comps then have to find kinder gentler ways of explaining away such a harsh instruction. It used to be simple enough to say that women were more easily deceived (or even worse, more deceptive) than men. But in the current culture, that is just not very PC, let alone complete hogwash based on both sientific study and common sense. So next they contrive this wishy washy double-speak, as Kay puts it, to essentially say the same thing.

Regardless of approach, it all enables comps to avoid the faulty exegesis from which the premise arises! For 1 Timothy 2 does not, in fact, say women universally need to be silent in church. Shine light on the truth of this passage, and all silliness about gender disappears as well.

SM – more importantly, it is based on no rational analysis of the text. It makes a blind assumption about the text, then tries to justify that assumption based on stereotypes.

I was wondering when you would get to this one, Cheryl. Another point which discredits the “women are easily deceived” argument is that in the 1st chapter of the letter, Paul talks about his own deception or “ignorance”. If Paul can be “duped” into sinful activity, anyone can.

Deception, or lack thereof, are constant topics in the 1st 2 chapters of 1st Timothy. Paul was deceived and became “chief” of sinners. But he received grace because he did not openly rebel. Eve was also deceived – but also received grace. And the woman in Ephesus that 1 Timothy 2:14 is really talking about (she “has fallen” into transgression but may still be saved) has followed Eve’s and Paul’s path but is also eligible for the grace.

Contrast that with Hymenaeus and Alexander, who, like Adam, were not deceived but engaged in open rebellion. Adam’s treachery condemned the whole human race while H & A only condemned themselves. Still, H & A were like Adam, whereas this Ephesian woman was like Eve.

Which makes Paul’s little treatise on Genesis clear. 1 Timothy 2:13-14 seems strange and out of place if the issue is generally conduct in worship services or the more specific ministry of teaching. What does order of creation have to do with either of those two topics? Or gender? It is nonsensical. But, if we instead understand Paul’s usage of Adam and Eve not as examples of gender distinction but as examples of deceived status distinction, Paul’s extension of grace to the Ephesian woman (and condemnation of H & A) makes perfect sense.

Kay and Lin,

To be clear, and I think Kay realized this, I do not question that this is a big problem to the person it happens to. What I am wondering about is if it is a big problem in society. In other words, does it happen to large numbers of people? I doubt it does, regardless of what wing-nuts teach it. But in terms of the few it does happen to, I would agree it is huge.

I’m with you Kay, except – is this really a big problem? I know of no teenage girls being railroaded into marriage by their fathers unless that father’s name is Tevye or they live in a compound in Eldorado Texas.

I think parents have a valuable role to play in the choice of spouse by their children. Parents are not “in looooove” with the potential mate and subject to the subjective, emotional, irrational ramifications of that infatuation. That isn’t to say that parents should chooce their children’s mates. But many a marriage disaster could be avoided if children would listen more carefully to their parent’s wisdom and advice.

I think the most that could be said is that, unlike with the animals who got their identification directly from Adam, the term “woman” existed in the mind of God before her creation. As such, Adam did not identify her but directly but reiterated the identification God gave her.

More on Adam’s identification of the animals.

Genesis 2:19 reads “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. ” (KJV)

Since God brought the animals to Adam, does not that indicate that God was stil sovereign over them? That he had not yet delegated authority over the animals to humans? If Adam had been in authority over them, why wouldn’t Adam have commanded that they come to him? In fact, we don’t actually see humans literally exercising authority over animals until Genesis 4:2. I am in agreement with pinklight that no authority existed of man over beast until after the creation of woman and maybe even only after expulsion from the graden.

Adam identifies the animals before the woman is created, but he doesn’t name them, or give them names like “Tommy the cat”, “Leo the lion”, or “Sparky the dog.” The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”. There is a difference between naming a creature and identifying or recognizing one.
Adam had rule over the animals only because God himself gave this authority to both the human and the woman. But God gave both the human and the woman authority over the animals and the earth only after he created the woman. So did Adam have authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created?

This insight by pinklight deserves more play. Was the identification of the animals by Adam even an act of authority?

I think PL is onto something here. Why were the animals brought to Adam in the first place? Was it so he could exercise dominion over them in some way? In what way is authority manifest simply by identifying something? Was it not instead related specifically to his aloneness? Maybe the identification of the animals (really the first taxonomical exercise) was an object lesson to Adam to illustrate to him just how “fish out of water” his situation was. That would account for his identification of Eve along the same lines in the midst of his exclamation – “Finally! Here is one like me”. That makes “she shall be called woman” not an act of authority but a proclamation of great joy.

Thanks Kay – that’s right. Another topic which has been discussed extensively here. I also address Paul’s use of “head” in my show stoppers series.

Opps – forgot link to Mark Gungor’s blog:

http://www.laughyourway.com/blog/attention-desire-disorder/

Ah Nicole – I will take up the challenge.

-Men: ultimately responsible for family…
This is generally derived from a very narrow and context ignorant reading of 1 TImothy 5:8. The passage is about families taking care of their widowed relatives so the church is not burdened, but patriarchalists (and even many well meaning speakers I have heard) turn it into a man’s duty to provide. The correct passage when dealing with providing is, of course, Proverbs 31. Both the husband and wife are involved in provision and protection of the family.

…SOME teach they are even responsible for their sins
This comes straight from a misunderstanding of Genesis 3 where God confronts Adam first. There has been much discussion here around that presumptuous and quite erroneous interpretation.

-Men: glorified ATM. Veiled as “providing”, even if it means an 80 hr. work week and no time w/ the family
I agree from a sociological perspective that men seem to have a drive to provide. I think testosterone plays into that. But nowhere in the bible are men commanded to be the provider, and making work your “wife” is adulterous and idolitrous.

-Men: Lust-driven beasts who cannot control themselves. Men become animals that must be tolerated by wives “doing their duty”
Husbands and wives have a mutual “duty” to each other when it comes to sex (1 Corinthians 7). As far as the lust filled part, well, I don’t think desire for one’s wife can be correctly be called “lust”. Mark Gungor has just recently posted a two part series on his blog titled “Attention = Desire Disorder”. You may want to read it. Mark makes a strong case that desire for one’s wife is a very, very positive thing, and the more there is, the better it is for the marriage. Read also Proverbs 5:15-23 for another view on desire and why it is important (and should not be shuned) for the marriage.

-Men: solely responsible for outcome of the kids, even though he gets less time with them than the mother
I hear this a little less in comp circles. Actually, I hear more often how the mother should be almost entirely responsible for their upbringing until probably their teen years. Of course – the observation is correct – men spend less time with their children than they should. Robert Lewis, in the Men’s Fraternity program, correctly points out the negative impact that both the industrial revolution and World War II had on father’s and their children in terms of quality time. The bible’s teaching allows for no such disparity in time spent with the kids – men and women are equally responsible to “bring up a child in the way he/she should go”.

-Men: Expendable. God forbid a woman/mother joins the military and deploy, but a man is encouraged to. At the risk of his life and being away from his family for 6-15 months. A mother should never work because the children need her so much, but a father MUST.
Interestingly, in ancient Israel a newlywed man was forbidden to go off to war in the first year of marriage. But from a “design” perspective, it does seem undeniable to me that men are better designed physically to bear the brunt of war. Now, my wish would be that there were no wars and so it would be a moot point. But never the less, if we do have to have wars and a parent has to leave to fight them, in most cases I agree that it should be the father. As with anything, circumstances will dictate for the individual family and there is certainly no absense of female warriors and other “deployed” women in the bible.

-Men: spiritual leader of the wife and children….
We have been discussing this one extensively too in recent weeks. The simple response is that the bible decalres no such thing. As I mentioned in another post, my response to this is “I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to be our spiritual leader.” To an extent, men look again to Genesis 3 and somehow pull this idea out of thin air from that passage. But it has no actual support. Quite frankly, in the majority of the marriages I know, the women are better spiritual “leaders” than the men. The most succesful marriages acknowledge and embrace that reality.

Men: Sperm donors. If a woman’s HIGHEST calling is to be a wife/mother, then (forgive the crudeness) a man becomes a trophy p*nis. A mere thing she convinced to give her a ring and climb in her bed so she can extract his sperm. And he can “provide” for her and her children. Mission Accomplished; she has fulfilled her calling.
Interestingly, that sounds more like an argument from radical feminism than from patriarchy. I agree with your distain for the concept. But I am not sure you wuold catch a complementarian making the argument.

Kay – It is this mysterious link to “leadership” that has me constantly baffled. I as much as anyone here celebrates differences between males and females. But what do those differences have to do with leadership? I can think of nothing. In fact, as I stated on a comment in another post, if anything all that testosterone flowing through us guys can have a detrimental effect on leadership ability (makes us do rash, risky, aggressive things without thinking through the consequences) That is what is so confusing. They claim men are “designed” to lead, but can never even once point to a design feature that yields better leaders. And this is the best – they claim men are more logical (a scientifically disproven claim) but employ no logic what-so-ever in their arguments. As a man, I have to say it’s a little embarrassing.

Here is the dirty little secret. Men, if anything, because of our testosterone levels, are designed to lust after power. Now, of course, I don’t claim God desires this greed in us. But the fall titls us that way and there is no clearer indication of that than “he will rule over you”.

Cheryl – I must first dispense with the non-spiritual necessities. USA 5, Canada 3, Miracle on Ice II going according to plan. OK, now for the important stuff.

In my show stopper post on Genesis 2, I address this idea of naming as an authority granter. It is, of course, as presumptuous and ill supported as the created order argument. But I find something even more disturbing about the comp side of the debate. They base their whole argument not on scriptural principles but on cultural practices. Are the traditions of fallen humans really the best support upon which to rest a theological argument? I suppose, if that’s all you got, then they are. But I would hope that we could look more to God’s word for clarity on what God meant and less to the dark and murky realms of cultural anthropology.

Mark – “However whether or not God gives us seperate roles is another matter, which does not detract from the spritual equality.”
Lin – “That is not true. And it makes no sense. ”

Unless Mark is looking at the “roles” themselves as not having a bearing on spirituality.

Mark – do you consider the role of pastor/teacher to be a spiritual one? If you do, then Lin is right: you can not claim there is spiritual equality between the genders and then turn around and say a specific gender can not equally fulfill their spiritual calling. But, if the “job” of pastor/teacher is just an earthly occupation then, discirmination or not, how society fills that occupation has no bearing on spiritual matters. But, of course, I doubt Mark has such a low view of pastor/teacher.

I see that the focus in this post will be on “spiritual function” and not “physical function”. I gravitate toward the physical end because my focus is on marriage, which leads me down a different, albiet parallel, path when thinking about Genesis. So, I will probably hang back on this one unless there is a drift toward physical activities of daily living that impact us.

Just a quick word regarding this: “As far as design, “helper” isn’t a term just for females as we can understand God is the main “helper” in the Scriptures and guardian isn’t just a term for males as women apologists guard the faith too”. Of course that is true, and I would never suggest that something was a universal role, function, or designation for either gender. I would no more suggest that women aren’t to love and men aren’t to respect their respective spouses, even though Paul is gender specific with those instructions. What I am curious about, and would like to pursue at a more appropriate time, is if our clear design differences mean anything at all in terms of how we interact with the world and relate to each other. Food for future thought.

A comprehensive review which should require little commentary. Let me offer my “little”…

The problem Adam had which required a “helper” was not a domestic one, but a heart and soul one. Eve rescues Adam from his aloneness, a far greater problem than needing someone to tiddy up the garden home while Adam plays king. To presume that Adam had some unique earthly, domestic, ruling mission in which Eve was subordinated under him as assistant, or even worse, servant, completely misses the point of Genesis 2:18.

I continue to think there is significance in the “guardian” and “helper” designations for Adam and Eve and that significance is reflective of design. That can be argued another day (I am thinking of opening a forum for authors on my blog to offer their views on this topic). The glaring reality of those two “roles”, if hierarchialists want to use that term, is that neither contains an element of authority. In fact, both are positions of sacrificial service!

Paul reinforces this theme of selflessness in Ephesians 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 when dealing with husbands and wives. I still can’t help but think that Paul’s gender specific instructions in the former, echoed by Peter in 1 Peter 3, are related to design differences. But those differences don’t grant authority! The only time Paul grants authority in marriage – in 1 Corinthians 7 – it is reciprocal, equal, and astonishingly still balanced by selflessness.

Hey Cheryl – when you get a chance, I would love for you to take a look at my 6 part series on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which closes out my broader “Show Stoppers” series.

“presumptive evidence” – sounds oxymoronic to me.

“They teach the sinful consequences of the fall as virtue.”

In the worst case. But even in the best case, where they teach it as unfortunate remedy, male “rule” is still a sinful consequence. I never will understand how some can interpret what is clearly sinful as God’s intent.

“The comps would tell you it is a result of the fall and sin. They interpret Gen 3 to mean that she desires HIS ”role” as authority”

The falacy in the argument is that they attribute this “role” to (biological) design but derive it from scripture based soley on events (and a presumptuous interpretation of those events at that).

No Kay – I am referring to general biological knowledge. Testosterone levels are universally higher in anatomically normal males males than in anatomically normal females. In most cases, they are 20-30 times higher. But even at the extremes of the ranges of each gender, there is no overlap.

“Good point. I wonder if they would try to claim more testoserone as inherently better for leadership?”

I think you and are in synch now Lin. That is exactly my point. Gender differentiation in testosterone levels, as one example, is indisputable. Yet – higher testosterone levels can hardly be claimed as a condition necessary for superior leadership. Ironically, the opposite conclusion has more evidence – that elevated testosterone inhibits effective leadership.

This is true regardless of the differentiating factor and regardless of the gender gap (which is rarely large and often overlapping). All of these things may impact HOW we lead, but as with virtually anything, they have both positive and negative impacts on how EFFECTIVE our leadership is. And no biological reality no matter how gender specific it might be grants a whole gender the right to take authority over the opposite gender.