gengwall

Kay – I understand the head/body metaphor and agree that it authority is not part of it. The probelm is that comps do not separate the head/body or husband/bride arrangements from the “Jesus is Lord” arrangement. Put another way, whenever they see Jesus acting in authority OVER the church, they declare that such is part of His “headship” or “husbandry” OVER the church. They make a connection between two different…again, I can’t find the right word…arrangements/orientations/organizations/relationships…between Christ and the Church. They see it all as one marriage. As such, they justify husbands acting in authority over their wives as reflecting Christ’s relationship with His bride. In turn, since it is all or nothing, they see men in the church acting in authority over the women as a reflection of Christ’s leadership of the church. To them, it is all one seemless structure and relationship and they truly believe they are modeling Christ properly.

As you can see, I have a hard time even articulating the dilema, let alone forming a cogent response to their arguments.

I hope you understand where I am coming from. I don’t disagree, but the arguments are fuzzy for me. I am looking to be educated.

“authority granted” is probably not exactly right – you would probably say “authority possessing” or something like that.

Yes – and I agree, “head over” is misleading. So you agree that there is a distinction, or a dual…I can’t think of a good word that isn’t already inflamatory in the debate…anyway, let me see if I can summarize.

Jesus exists as head of the body, husband of the bride in his state as the resurrected man. The head/body, husband/bride pictures are synonymous – they are not two different designs.

Jesus exists as the authority granted leader of the Church (and the world) as God.

Is that it?

You all know, of course, that I am simply playing devil’s advocate here. I think it is important to review and address the arguments we are likely to get. I know it helps me keep the picture clear in my mind.

Kay and Cheryl, I agree. But, how does one then avoid connecting the God/Creator oneleader in relation to the church with the head/body, husband/bride pictures in scripture? What I mean is – if Jesus is leader over the church because of what you say, how does that not make Him authority over His bride (and in turn, make the husband authority over the wife and the male authority over the female)? This is where comps make the connection. I believe that Jesus exists in a variety of capacities in relation to the church and husband/bride is just one. But I don;t have this well formulated in my head. I’m curious how you handle the apparent conflict within the egal view.

The trouble is with the word “leader”. It inherently implies authority. If we equate “head” with “leader” then we equate “head” with “authority over”. But that is never the meaning of “head” in the Greek. So, I do not believe “leader” is a valid word to include in the Pauline Head/Body metaphores. But I do believe “leader” with its authoritative implications is a word we can associate with Jesus. But in what context?

Word games not withstanding, we still need to contend with the argument that Jesus was indeed both servant to and leader of the church. So, the comps have a “servant leader” paradigm to point to. Any thoughts?

As I have said before, “servant leader” is an oxymoron.

It seemed that when ever we raised and issue or even offered an opinion to church leadership (elders and pastor) we were labelled this and our view dismissed (and told to be quiet to boot). I will give three examples.

We directed the children’s Christmas and Spring musicals for 8 years. Whenever we asked for more rehearsal time and space, or objected to reductions in the same, we were told we were usurping authority and conflicting with the “important” ministries of the church.

When we were involved in the worship ministry including being on a call committee for a new worship director, we were told numerous times that we were conflicting with the head pastor’s authority over worship when we offered ideas, opinions, and recomendations that differed from those of the head pastor and the elders regarding the “direction” of worship ministry in the church. Not only were we told we were out of order, but also that our ideas subverted the mission of the church for reaching the community.

When we started our own performing arts ministry outside of the church, we were “hauled in” to a meeting with the head pastor, the elders, and the current worship director and accused of a variety of offenses including planning to “rob” the worship ministry of human resources, not focusing enough on our ministry within the local church body, and using stolen ideas from the church’s internal worship creative team to “seed” our own ministry creativity. (To be fair, this was mostly the head pastor and the worship director. The elders either remained mute, supported us, or considered the whole thing much ado about nothing.)

These are the extreem examples, of course, but that atmosphere was purvasive in the church not only for us but for a number of other people. If you objected, suggested, or even opined on any area of church operations from administration all the way to the preaching, you were told to hold your tongue or be disciplined for divisiveness.

For a while in our old church, my wife and I started to think that “devisive” was our last name. Even now, I feel oddly out of place in studies that I generally enjoy and support (“Men’s Fraternity”, “Promise Keepers”, “The Truth Project” to name a few) when they suddenly start talking male leadership and such.

“The further we are from the culture of the NT and indeed the OT the harder it is to understand the culture.”

But…the further we are away from the paganism and ignorance of the NT and OT culture the less influenced we are by them. It is a double edged sword, which is why we evaluate and scrutinize the early Church writers rather than just take their word for it.

The proposition is a non-sequitur, a straw man, an over generallization, and cherry picking all rolled into one. The supporting arguments are even worse, nothing but a variety of “appeal to” arguments (authority, wisdom of the ancients, and even silence). Susanna in particular will love this – the supporting arguments boil down to “because the Church fathers said so”.

LOL – I am not sure what a “falcor” is, but I know it wasn;t what I meant. I menat “flavors”. I am looking at my keyboard in dismay even as I type this wondering how I typed that.

My logical dilema was an aside. I’m past it now. I have determined that there are so many falcors of fallacy in the argument that no one term fits.

BTW Kay, this may interest you. The actual argument is taking place on my contraception post, which I believe you have commented on in the past.

Cheryl – sorry for the off topic distraction. So, Adam…..

The sudden silence here is unnerving.

I should have added – the conclusion would be “anyone who believes the husband is the leader is sinning by rejecting the biblical truth Romans 5”

I just heard an argument that I know is fallacious but I’m not sure which logical fallacy to label it as. I will put it in terms of this post so maybe I can get a little help while still pursuing the topic.

“The bible teaches that sin came through Adam; everyone who believes the husband is the leader of the family rejects this teaching.”

Although it is possible that a person who believes that the husband is the leader of the family subsequently rejects the teaching of Romans 5, it is absurd to insist that EVERY person who believes that the husband is the leader of the family subsequently rejects the teaching of Romans 5. They may in fact embrace Romans 5 but try to explain it away, or may even embrace Romans 5 but see it as irrelevant to the topic of family structure. At any rate, The logic of the argument certainly fails. Still, I can’t seem to find this precise argumental progression in my handy dandy list of logical fallacies. Can anyone help?

I keep hearing you all refer to this John MacArthur and I though “it can’t be the same John MacArthur who wrote ‘A Tale of Two Sons'”, an expository narrative of the prodigal son which I found exceptional. Now I see that it is! I am so disappointed to read of him now on other subjects and see how wacked out his interpretation is on matters of gender. *sigh*

Frankly, I think we bombard him with so much that there is no way he can address it all. That is no excuse for avoiding questions (he has not answered a single one of mine that I can remember), but it is understandable that he won;t be replying to everything everyone has written or asked. It would satisfy me if he would just directly answer Cheryl. If he has time for anybody else, that is icing on the cake.

“I shudder to think what extra words the Message put in Romans 5 to make that square up.”

Although it is hard to believe, “woman was deceived first – our pioneer in sin!” is NOT the worst part of this translation. It is “with Adam right on her heels”. Why? Because it makes Adam “deceived second”! The message says exactly the opposite of what Paul says, which is that the man was not deceived!

It is interesting how some older versions of the bible do a better job than newer translations. I have heard it argued that there was less of a threat from women prior to the 19th century so translators didn’t have to bolster male authority in their translations. Could be. Of course, in some ways the older translations are just as bad as new. Still, I wanted to see how authenteo was treated in less common, often pre-KJV versions. Here are a couple examples which, while maybe not getting it exactly right, at least offer an interesting change from the vanilla “have/usurp/exercise authority” we get in most bibles used today.

Wycliffe (1382) (adjusted to current spellings) “neither to have lordship on the man” (“husband” in the John Purvey Bible-1395),
Mace New Testament (1729) “nor to dictate to her husband”

Has anyone read The Message translation of 1 Tim 2:14 in relation to the fall? It is horrifying.

“woman was deceived first – our pioneer in sin! – with Adam right on her heels.”

And we wonder where people get the idea that Eve had a sin nature and coerced Adam into taking a bite. Yikes.

Two of the resources I mention are:

the scripture4all.org online interlinear bibles with the Greek and Hebrew including Strongs numbers and, for the Greek, complete parsing of the text. These can also be downloaded as a software program complete with great search facilities which help with word studies.

and blueletterbible.org, which includes not only Strongs definitions but lexicon entries for words, and multiverse and multitranslation displays.

Hey Jim! I, too, have listened to the arguments about 1 Tim 2 over and over. Then I determined to actually look deeply at the text. There are wonderful resources on the internet that allow regular folks like you and me to look at the Greek (or Hebrew) and get “first hand”, as it were, what the author was saying. What I discovered is that all the arguments stemmed from an understanding of English translation, which, in the case of 1 Tim 2, is some of the worst in the entire bible. Let me ask you this. If you read the below translation of 1 Tim 2:11-15 in an English bible, what impact would it have on your interpretation of the verse, and maybe more importantly, the value you place on the various arguments.

11 Let a woman learn in peace and all humility 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to rule a husband; she is to remain at peace. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience. And she shall be saved through the child-bearing if she and her husband continue in faith, love, and holiness with self control.

Now, I suspect your first reaction would be something like “Well, I’ve never seen it translated like that before. Must be gengwall just paraphrasing to support his own argumnet.” Yes and no. It is a paraphrase – but it is a paraphrase taking each verse or portion of a verse from a different English Translation. I have chosen the translation for each portion based on how close it comes to the actual meaning of the Greek. Here it is again with the English Translations notated.

11 Let a woman learn in peace (Complete Jewish Bible) and all humility (Good News Translation) 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach (common) or to rule a husband (Young’s Literal Translation); she is to remain at peace (CJB). 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve (common) 14 And Adam was not deceived (common), but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience (Hebrew Names Version). And she shall be saved through the child-bearing (YLT) if she and her husband (Weymouth NT) continue in faith, love, and holiness with self control (common).

Not the intalicized words. This is what Lin was getting at above. A number of the words, and even tenses and numbers (singular vs. plural) of the words have been obscurred in English translations. Lin pointed out authenteo (“rule” in vs. 12). This may be the worst of them all as it is almost impossible to find an English translation that does justice to the sinster sense the Greek word carries. Are all women like this? Of course not. So immediately we need to ask if this passage is for all women or only women engaged in certain sinister behaviors.

I will point out a couple other translational problems. The word typically transalated “silent” in vs. 11 has nothing to do speaking – it relates to one’s demeanor. The word typically translated into the past tense “fell” in vs. 14 is actually Greek perfect tense, which indicates a past action resulting in continuing results. “The woman” can not be Eve bcause her transgression is in progress in the church at Ephesus. More confirmation that it can not be Eve comes in verse 15 because the salvation spoken of is in the future. Lin also noted that “childbearing” is a noun, not a verb. It is accompanied in the Greek by the definite article which means that a specific birth is in view. Translators almost universally change this into a verb and apply it to all women. That simply is wrong. And finally, the fact that it is “the woman”, not “women”, that has fallen into transgression eliminates all women or even a group of Ephesian women from the equation. Unfortunately, many translations play fast and loose with the number of women in vs. 15 and change it into a prohibition for women in general instead of a prohibition for “the woman” in Ephesus that Paul is writing about and who Timothy most certainly is well aquianted.

In summary, when there are differeing opinions, interpretations, and arguments about a passage, especially one is difficult to understand or seems to contradict other passage of scripture, it is best to go back and start from the source language. You will be stunned to discover how horribly inaccurate some (or even almost all) English translations are when it comes to many difficult passages. They really read completely different in English than they would have to a Greek speaker at the time they were written. Best to try to put yourself in the place of that Greek speaker if you want to know the intent of the passage for that audience.

Hi Cheryl. I think we are starting to cross-thread again. I wonder if this discussion would go better in one of the “Maqrk” threads. Just a thought.

Sorry – I could go back and check but it is in the other post. Anyway, SOMEbody was saying the ha’adam was part of what God actually said.

And it may not have been Susanna – it may have been Kay. I can’t remember it was so many comments ago.

pinklight – “What is this about gengwall?

Looking at scripture4all I see God speaking in 3:9 “and he is saying” and then the man in 3:10 speaking next in response to God, “and he is saying”.”

Susanna had continued to insist that God had called out “Human” (ha’adam), as if ha’adam was part of the verbiage GOd used. It was not. That was my point. It was rather clumsily made.

We are conditioned both personally in our own lives and through the testimony of cultural history to believe those things. One of the things I point out in my blog entry on equality in the original marriage design is that both the “first” and the “naming” arguments rely solely on the traditions of man, not the teaching of God. Ah but those traditions! Susanna shows in her book how long some of those traditions have held sway over us. We are slowly shedding their influence but old habits (and beliefs) die hard, especially if they have been passed down by those we love and trust (although they themselves are victims of the same conditioning). And so, even though we hear the truth a number of times, it makes us uncomfortable because we find comfort in the familiarity, stability, and apparent trustworthyness of our traditions. Hang in there Lmb – soon the new garments will help you forget the old worn out tatters of patriarchal tradition.

Do you mean you do not believe the creator made humans first or males first?