gengwall

“Why would Moses say things differently? Well, he’s Hebrew, comes to mind. Plus, he may be trying to be more explicit on what was actually said.”
How is being more cryptic being more explicit? “The man and his woman” and “both” are explicit references to Adam and Eve. There is no other construction we could derive from that. “ha’adam”, as we have been discussing here, variety of meanings. The immediate context both before – where it was NOT used to describe them both – and after – where it is used to describe just Adam (vs. 12) – plus the fact that Adam alone responded is substantial evidence that it means just Adam in vs. 9. If it doesn’t, Moses is confusing the situation by using ha’adam in vs. 9, not making the situation more explicit.

“Can you imagine God saying , “Hey, human and woman”. Seems more reasonable since God named THEM Adham/Human, that since there were not any ‘first’ names given yet, that God would just call out Human (which included a plural) and wait for them to answer.”

You continue to treat Genesis 3:9 as a quote from God. It is not. It is a description of God’s action. We have no idea what God’s words were. We also are not privy to any direct conversation God had with Adam where God uses ‘adam in any form, so we don’t know if God had yet used it as a proper name. Frankly, we have no idea how God addressed the first couple either individually or together.

“Seems more reasonable since God named THEM Adham/Human, that since there were not any ‘first’ names given yet, that God would just call out Human (which included a plural) and wait for them to answer.”
OK – if this is how God addressed them as a couple, how did he address them individually? If he were calling out to just Adam, how would he do it?

And really there are no qualifications that God was speaking to ONLY the man. Why would God do that since both disobeyed Him. ??? I don’t know. This makes sense to me.
But there are – all the surrounding text. There is qualifiaction that God was not speaking to them as a couple because in 3:9 Moses doesn’t use “couple” grammer as he did in 3:7-8, and because Adam responds and nothing in the text indicates that his solo response was unexpected or inappropriate. Yours is an argument from silence.

And although both disobeyed Him, they did not disobey Him in the same manner or degree. As has been discussed here at length, Adam’s was a direct, intentional act of disobedience. Eve’s was a coerced act of disobedience. Plus, as Cheryl points out above, Adam was the watchman who failed at his post. What makes sense to me is that God would approach the one who failed more seriously and did so more deliberatly first. Consider if these were your children. Which would you question first in a similar circumstance? If this were the army or a business, I can assure you that Adam would be called on the carpet first.

It is…to a degree. Since the “first! first!” argument results in a logical fallacy, we need not be afraid of it. Moreover, at least in terms of creation (interrogation is part of this debate), it is a simple biblical fact. We can’t argue away that Adam was created first denying the testimony of Genesis 2 and 1 Timothy 2:13. So, we have to accept at least one “first!” as being a fact. What we don’t need to accept without support is that “first!” of any kind equals “leader” or “authority”. Since there is no proof of THAT synthesis in scripture, the “first!” argument fails regardless of the factual reality of the “first!” in question.

I should back off even more on the last paragraph and not speak for Susanna so much. What I know is that she is passionate about this issue and her passion extends beyond a love of grammatical correctness. She has real fear about the ramifications of this debate for the broader debate against heirarchy. I will let her articulate those fears.

Just a clarification – I do not believe that either view directly tips the scale toward hierarchalism. I don’t know exactly if Susanna does. I do know her anxiety level about the resolution is far greater than mine.

There is only one negative implication to Susanna’s view in my mind. Susanna’s view leads to the inevitable conclusion that both Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden by God in Gen 3:24. I fear that may leave complementarians with a flanking manuever – Eve was just as much a cause of sin as Adam. Even then, I don’t think that argument has much weight. So in the long run, I am not too worried about hierachy being “proven” either way. My persistence in this debate is simply due to the fact that I think my gramatical view is correct. But I don’t fear that complementarian philosophy will win the day if I’m wrong. Frankly, at the risk of being redundant, I don’t think the resolution to this debate has any impact at all on the hierarchy debate.

I don’t want to speak precisely for Susanna but I will sumarize her fear to the best of my knowledge. I believe she thinks that the complementarian arguments about order of creation, and even more so, order of interrogation, have significant weight in proving hierarchy. Or maybe more precisely, I believe she thinks that if my view of ha’adam were accepted, it would at least enbolden comps and at worse, give them offensive ammunition for their arguments. She can (and has) provide much more substance and focus to that summary.

Cheryl – I sure hope I am not dragging you kicking and screaming into an exegesis you are uncomfortable with. In sticking to my guns, I am straying pretty far from normal translation on some of these verses (Gen 5:1 is a prime example). On the other hand, Susanna isn’t exactly true to translational tradition on quite a few others so I guess picking sides is kind of like deciding which rebel faction to join. What I suspect you are MOST uncomfortable with is blind acceptance of traditional translation (knowing its roots), so I guess maybe this is not such bad company to keep.

Yes Lmb, I think I can sum it up pending Susanna’s confirmation.

The discussion is around the Hebrew word ‘adam and it’s definite form ha’adam. Specifically, Susanna sees the definte form ha’adam (literally, “the human”) as primarily representing a collection of humans – “humanity”, if you will. That collection could be all humans over all time or a subset of humans, specifically, in Genesis 1-3, the subset consiting of Adam and Eve. She only views it as representing a definite, specific, singular instance of that collection – i.e. “the human being” or “that human” – if there are other words in the text which support the isolation or decollectivization of ha’adam.

My view grammatically is basically the opposite. I believe a specific human is in view when ha’adam is used unless there are defining words that indicate the collective is the usage.

Scripturally, many verse have been covered but the immediate discussion revolves around the uses of ha’adam in Genesis 1-3 in general, and specifically in Genesis 1:26-27, Gen 3:9, and Gen 3:24-4:1 (with the repeat of the creation story in Gen 5:1-2 rolled in by implication).

The ramifications of the usage of ha’adam affect both the inter-egalitarian debate of the fall and, subsequently, the egalitarian arguments against complementarian views of male authority. (Well, I don’t think the inter-egalitarian dust up impacts egal/comp arguments at all.)

I’m taking off pretty soon. I am doing sound for another show and we have final dress tonight. Hopefully I won’t miss too much of the party.

I have put in my first entry in the “show stoppers” series of posts on my blog. It deals with Genesis 1 and 2 and hierarchy vs. equality. This line of debate, of course, runs perfectly parallel to that. This discussion only bolsters my confidence in the equal nature of God’s marriage design. Carry on.

“When I think of these men and their man-centered ideas, I understand that without a divine intervention from God to soften their heart, they will never change.”

At the risk of sounding androcentric and prideful, I think this is where egaitarian men can really have an impact. If a woman proposes equality to a man who believes in hierarchy, she is considered nothing more than a rebellious mutineer (just like Eve). But if a man, who shares the supposed authoritarian domain with his hierarchical brother, challenges the paradigm, he can not be similarly accused (or dismissed).

Not that Cheryl should just close up shop and “leave it to the men”. On the contrary, it is forums like this that will “break the spell” that many complementarian men are under and open thier minds to a different paradigm. Why? Because of the very nature of the forum – written by a woman and supported by like minded men. Other men can’t ignore this blog like they might ignore a fiercly feminist forum that focuses on male bashing or promote matriarchy.

Here they see the reality rather than the myth about egalitarianism. Here they see that women are not the threat they have been portrayed to be. Is this because Cheryl tells them so? Not exactly. It is because she tells it and other men agree with it, and objective, rational examination of scripture supports it.

Lmb – Good grief! Someone actually has argued that? I wonder what criteria they use to determine that tending to corpses is “women’s work”

Oh noooooo! I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry.

I’ve got it! “Deer” has no separate plural form in English so it is a good comparison.

Then God said, “Let Us make deer in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them…” God created the deer in His own image, in the image of God He created it; male and female He created them.

Now, “the deer”, again, may refer to a generic prototype. But if this passage was followed soon after by the excerpt from “Bambi” where Bambi and Faline first meet, wouldn’t you be inclined to think that the prior verse was about those two specific deer?

Hmmmm. I sense a pattern.

Adam was first – men rule; women drool…

and Deborah? She was an anomaly.
and Esther? She knew her place.
and Rahab? She doesn’t count because of her vocation.
and the Proverbs 31 woman? Aw, she was just a sweet little homemaker.
and Priscilla? Well, she was not in “church”.
and Phoebe? Don’t you know that Greek words like diakonos and prostatis mean subservient things when applied to women?
and Junia? Wasn’t she a man? Oh no, now I remember, the apostles thought she was a-okay!

and Mary, Mary, Joanna, and the other women? They just happened to be the ones who saw Jesus first. It’s was coincidence. And what they did was no big deal.

Mark,

Your replies are red herrings. The issue is the gifting of women (and men) to be teachers, not about whether or not the teaching about gifts is true or false. The assumption is that the women gifted to teach or preach are truely gifted. The bone of contention is the fact that some in the church try to discredit or diminish that true gift. Do you believe that no woman ever has or will receive the true gift of teaching or preaching? If no, then do you believe that true gift is somehow less of a gift if given to a woman than if given to a man? If no, then we are back to our age old question to you. Do you believe that somehow the setting determines whether or not the gift is edifying to the body (and therefore allowed) if, and only if, it is a woman who is the one gifted?

Hey Jay – thanks for the clarification. Could you see the storm clouds rising? Playing devil’s advocate (maybe quite literally in this case – oh no!) can ne risky business around here. But we are all square now.

I highlight the translation of hesychia for good reason as I’m sure you can see. One of the main pillars of complimentarian doctrine regarding 1 Timothy 2 is the demand for the literal silence of women. It is absolutely crucial that Christians understand that silence isn’t even in view in the Greek text. The bible versions with “quietness” make a small step toward the correct meaning of the verse (“quietness” can mean either silence or calmness) but they aren’t clear enough about the proper meaning to even make someone take notice (nor am I sure they intend to be clear). Only one obscure version makes a clear and accurate translation. Kind of got our work cut out for us to spread the word.

Thanks Imb. The link is supposed to go to the first post in the former series and then you can leap frog from there. I will check it out. I’m sure I forgot a quote mark or something somewhere.

It’s a slow day, so….

We have covered this ground countless times but it is worth going over again for Jay’s benefit.

Here is an edited 1 Timothy 2:11-15 using phrases from different translations that come closest to the true Greek meaning. I have inserted the bible version in parenthesis when a specific translation was used, or “common” if all translations carry the same meaning with only slight word variations.

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).

I have italicized three important phrases that are almost universally incorrectly translated.

The first is in verses 11 and 12 and is usually translated “silence” (utterly wrong) or “quietness” (right if you take it the right way). This Greek word hesychia actually deals with your demeanor in a situation, of which verbal expression may or may not be an element. The word is what we might use wishfully when talking about people with ADD and refers to a calm or quiet disposition. The Complete Jewish Bible is the only one that captures the meaning of this Greek word unequivocally correctly with their translation of “in/at peace”. What is important to learn from this specific issue is that the passage has nothing directly (and maybe nothing at all) to do with women speaking (or speaking out/up) in formal church services. Put simply, it does not at all mean verbal “silence”.

The second key translation is of the Greek verb ginomai (“to become”) in verse 14. The verb is in the perfect tense but is almost always translated as if it were English past tense (typically, “became” in bible versions). But the perfect tense in Greek conveys past action with continuing results. The transgression that is spoken of regarding “the woman” is current and ongoing. Therefore, the woman in view in this verse can not be Eve (although her deception and its result mirror Eve’s). Note also that in the Greek the definite article is present with “woman”, dictating that it is a specific individual, not a generic representative of all women. This passage is speaking about a specific Ephesian woman, not Eve and definitely not all women. Only three versions get the correct tense of the verb in this phrase – The Hebrew Names Version as listed, the American Standard Version, and the World English Bible.

The third and final key translation is regarding the “child bearing” spoken of in verse 15. Every translation except 2 translate this as the child bearing activity of the woman, or even worse, all women. Only Young’s Literal Translation and God’s Word Translation correctly note the use of the definite article and translate it “the child-bearing” (although the GWD mysteriously pulls all women into the translation through a parenthetical addition). So, the salvation spoken of in this verse is not some works based salvation for the woman (or all women) but comes through the birth of The Child – Jesus. Another note is that the salvation is yet to come, confirming that “the woman” can not be Eve.

There are, of course, other translational problems with this passage depending on the version being reviewed, but these are the main three. I also have taken some liberty with the few translations that refer specifically to husband and wife because, although it is not literally stated (and can not be in Greek where there were no separate words for husband and wife), there are plenty of hints that a husband and wife are in view (as opposed to the completely unsupported idea that all women and all men are the object of this teaching).

If I were to single out one of these translational issues to focus on, it is the fact that verses 14 and 15 refer to an individual woman, it is a specific woman, and it can not possibly be Eve because it is a living woman who is still in transgression and whose salvation (or restoration) is in the future. That leaves only one possible choice: a specific living woman in Ephesus. Since it is universally accepted that verses 11-15 are all tied together, the only logical conclusion is that this woman was engaged in false teaching and domineering behavior toward a man (most likely her husband) and it was that specific circumstance, not some global “church” problem, that Paul’s instruction to Timothy is regarding.

Jay is not around. I hope his participation here was not a “hit and run” job.

“I was thinking of ‘lording it over’?”

Well, that certainly would tie the behavior back to Jesus’ teaching to the church on how we are to relate to each other within the body, especially Matt 20:25/Mark 10:42/Luke 22:25. I’m sure you were thinking specifically of those verses when you came up with that definition.

Lin – Interestingly, I have been thinking about authenteo a lot lately. The ASV reads “have dominion over” and a few versions refer to “rule”, which, if tied back to a proper understanding of Genesis 3 (which is certainly relevant in this passage), can have the proper negative connotation. That is close, but not exactly on the nose IMO. I would rather see “dominate”, for I think that, while only subtly different than “have dominion over”, still leaves the proper bitter taste in one’s mouth for the type of behavior this woman was exhibiting. And it is a little colloquial, and maybe seems somewhat androcentric a term, but “bullying” has a nice ring to it IMO.

Incidentally, 1 Tim 2:11-15 is one of the passages I will be discussing in my “Show Stoppers” series of posts. If one depends strickly on a parsed reading of the (mostly horrible) English translations of this passage, one will definately come to the same conclusion that Jay has and it is almost impossible to have any valuable discussion about women in ministry. I believe a main focus of the egalitarian movement should be to clear up the confusion and mis-interpretation of this very important text. If clarity and concensus can not be achieved regarding 1 Timothy 2, it is a “show stopper” in the wider discussion of gender and authority.

Hi Jay,

There have been numerous posts with massive discussion here on Cheryl’s blog related to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. The conclusion of Cheryl and those like minded here is that this passage isn’t even addressing the church setting, let alone “clearly state[ing] that women should not speak in church, much less teach or lead”. If you look carefully at the Greek and keep in mind Paul’s overall theme, which is false teaching, you will see that the last half of 1 Timothy 2 is about a specific woman in Ephesus who was engaged in false teaching and bullying of her husband at home. I invite you to check the topical index here and look into some of these discussions regarding 1 Timothy 2. I think you will find them fascinating and hopefully enlightening.

Wow – I actually tracked down the thread where the afore mentioned debate took place. So all know I am not exagerating, here is the actual response I received regarding the two kinds of love in the Greek:

“There is no distinction. Christ loves the church, meaning all believers, the same…I only speak one language, English. I trust that God led the translators of the time tested English versions and so I have no need for knowing Greek”

Thanks Dave. We are going again tonight. Last night was a catch up lesson and tonight is the real class. We are learning Texas Two Step. (Later they are teaching Waltz but my wife and I rock at waltzing so I’m not so intimidated by that).

“We are all subject to those false presuppositions but if we are lovers of the truth, we will earnestly desire the truth and not just to have our ears tickled by what we really want to find in the passage.”

I once was having a debate with another brother about domestic discipline. He was trying to demonstrate that Revelation 3:19 was proof that disciplining of the wife by the husband (including physical punishment) was a Christlike activity. Here is the verse, and his line of reasoning.

“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline”
Since husbands are to love their wives LIKE Christ loves the church; and since one of the wasy in which Christ shows love to the church is through discipline; domestice discipliine of the wife by the husband is a Christ-like, loving act.

Now, there are many ways to defeat this argument, but my first stab at it was to look at the Greek. I pointed out that the type of “love” in the Revelation’s verse was phileo while the love of husbands for their wives, and the corresponding love of Christ for the church, in Ephesians 5 is agapeo. Therefore, one can’t even begin to make a parallel between the two sections of scripture. His response astonished me (and effectively cut of any further discussion).

He responded that he didn’t know Greek and “love is love” (in English) and therefore he didn’t care what the different Greek words were, the two passages were talking about the same thing.

This is the error that ensues when we ignore the original languages, and even more importantly, the original cultural and linguistic contexts and idioms, in preference for the much more easily derived belief we arive at from trusting in our native language. *sigh*

Another flaw in reliance on the English idoims is that they are not anatomically based. When we say “head of the company” we don’t get an image of a head and a body. In a sense, in English, “head” has a completely non-anatomical usage and it is that specific usage that is employed when we talk about the “head of the company”, et al.

The opposite is true in almost all of Paul’s metaphors. They all parallel the human relationship with an anatomical relationship. Because of that, we really need to throw the English idoms out the window and start from scratch. We need to examine if there is a hierarchical authority structure within our anatomical body. Now, some may say that the head is “in charge” of the body. But Paul never even implies that. Paul’s usage is clearly relational, not hierarchical. Paul is never trying to teach us that certain parts of the body are superior to others. And when the Corinthians apparently attempted to employ a hierarchy within their body, Paul quickly put such a notion to rest.

So, on a number of levels, we fall into significant error when considering the English idioms related to “head of…” We fail too when we look at the Hebrew idioms (and any Greek translations of them) that parallel our English ones. Again, their is no anatomical relation present so they can’t be used to define Paul who very specifically is employing anatomical themes.

(sorry for the multiple posts.)

Of course, English also uses “head of” as origin or source, as in “head of the river”. But that type of usage is not related to people, so we don’t consider that maybe in Greek the origin/source usage may be much more common when talking about humans. To sum – we default to head=authority when the bible talks about humans because in English head=authority is the consistent result in human contexts, and in turn, we ignore the possibility that head=origin when the bible talks about humans because in English, we are unaccustomed to thinkinhg about “head” this way in human contexts.

…but, I also believe that the presumption of head=authority has just as much to do with our dependence on or preferred treatment of English understandings of words. Mark is right if we only consider how “head of” is used in English. “Head of state”, “head of the company”, “head of the platoon”, “head coach”, even “head of the household” all conjure up authoritarian images to a person thinking in English terms. The problem is that “head of” in English contains no “body” counterpart as Paul uses the metaphor. Simply put, the English language and Paul are talking about completely different things when “head of” is used. It is our preference for English meanings that causes a presumption of authority and then we ignore the fact that authority is never even on the radar when Paul uses “head of”.

I think it is absolutely in all men’s fleshly nature from the fall. “He will rule over you” is not only a prediction of what men will do but, IMO, a revelation about how men will feel and react. It is, to my thinking, a revelation of the core of male nature in the flesh. (Incidentally, we do it to each other too.)

And this still remains unanswered from my post #53:

B. You have not shown that the the passage is dealing with the concept of authority between husband and wife, you have just assumed it and declared it.

Hey – only a 108 comments so far. Not bad.