pinklight
Active 2007–2012
Tag Cloud
But now we are going to talk about functions in the body of Christ. Is their giving and using based on equality of essence (God’s image), sex (not God’s image), or the “new man/creation”?
What’s interesting is that God’s image (equality of essence, humanity) to the comp is not considered proof of equality of function and that the reason why is because inequality of function is based on sex which was not made in God’s image. I just think that that’s very interesting.
“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.”
I agree here but I would use stronger words and say that ezer doesn’t prove total equality or an authority of Adam’s. It doesn’t show any of it because it doesn’t prove any of it.
“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.”
Me too! The tighter the argument, the better. Where’s the proof is what it all comes down to for me.
I think that in your last comments you’ve made some great points, Mark! 🙂
“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.”
Mark, you mean like “equal in function” in the sense of assingment by God, right? I hope I have this correct as to what you mean.
Total equality = no prohibitions (like protecting, helping, teaching, leading etc) placed on one gender. If there is no total equality then it must be that prohibitions are placed and sin is the result, but that would need to be proven, but it can’t.
Had God prohibited this and that for women? No. Are they free to do this and that. Yes. Why? Because God has not given prohibitons because there is no sin.
“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.”
Do you mean, Mark, like roles/functions that cannot be interchangeable because it would be sin? No. Could Eve protect the garden? Could Adam be a help to Eve? Would either be sinning if either did such things? Could Eve protect the garden just as well as Adam and could Adam be a help to Eve just as well as Eve could be to Adam? These thing can be interchangable because we are talking about human capability made in God’s image (total equality), not capability determined by gender. So now, is total equality read into the Gen text? How can it be without prohibition or lines drawn? And who’s drawing the lines? In other words what’s read into the Gen text is (comp) prohibition and lines are drawn here and there when such boundaries are not given by the words of the text itself.
What’s total equality? It’s the lack of prohibition because it’s TOTAL. So what’s read into the Gen text? Your view of authority which comes down to – prohibiton or drawing lines where they are not drawn by the words of the text themselves. “Roles/functions” (like guarding the garden and being a help) don’t matter unless it can be proven that they are prohibitons for one sex so as to be a matter of sin.
It makes sense that sin would come into the world through the one who became unlike God.
Now that I think about it, how else could sin enter?
“It makes sense that sin would come into the world through the one who became unlike God.”
And then add that to the prophecy that Christ would come through the woman’s seed alone and not man’s.
Still thinking out loud…
It makes sense that sin would come into the world through the one who became unlike God.
I’m back to thinking on why Adam alone became unlike God, Gen 3. It seems it has to do with him eating knowing the truth because he wasn’t deceived and the result of that along with his eating fruit of “knowledge of good and evil”.
“So, the question is, what died immediately upon their completion of the disobedience?”
“What could it be other than thier innocence?”
There’s a knowledge or “knowing” that Adam did not have before he ate, and he ate with knowledge of the truth since he wasn’t deceived into eating. Hum…
“So, the question is, what died immediately upon their completion of the disobedience?”
What could it be other than thier innocence?
“Yes, the fact that both man and woman were created in the image of God is the first place to show of their equality.”
I agree and it’s the most important place to show their equality.
So the core of comp doctrine is based on what isn’t even a part of the essence, nature of God – sex.
If sex (like the male and female sex of animals – Gen 1) were made in God’s image, then the comp argument of “role differences” based on sex could have some merit. So I think what comps fail to understand is the foundational teaching that our humanity was made in God’s image, NOT our sex. Comp doctrine is BASED on sex differences. Why is it that it is NOT based on what the image of God is??
Let me add to #158 – Besides even in Gen 2 the progression is from 1 human being to 2, and Gen 1 speaks the same, from the singular “the human” made in God’s image to the plural, 2 (male and female he made them).
Thanks Cheryl for responding. Night!
OH, thanks Cheryl for #155! We agree! 🙂
I do not think that “the human” in Gen 1 should be translated “humankind”.
If Gen 1 is the same story as Gen 2 but just told in a different way then “the human” in Gen 1 refers to the first person ever created and not the second who was created FROM the first.
When it says “the human” in Gen 1, 2 and 3 I think they all refer to the singular Adam exculding the woman. Even in Gen 5 when God names them it’s “human” not “the human”.
If I’m going to be consistent and the man alone was banished which according to the grammar only he was, then also only the man had become unlike God.
How do I know that “the human” in Gen 1 is inclusive meaning “humankind” while not in Gen 3 where “the human” is banished and has become unlike God? After all, I absolutely believe that Gen 1 is just a further view of the creation account while Gen 2 is a close up of it. So how do I determine when “the human” is inclusive and when it isn’t used in that sense? I think I can now get an idea of why some egals have argued that when God made “the human” in Gen 2 that he made the first singular human being both male and female? So now it appears in my mind as I’m thinking about it presently that in Gen 1 “the human” stands for the very first singular human being made and NOT both of the humans.
So God made the human in his own image, in the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.
K, here’s what I think Gen 1 is saying. God made Adam, the singular human being from Gen 2 in his image. So the first person ever made, his HUMANITY was made in God’s image. Then Gen 1 goes on to say that he made “them” male and female, which means that the female has the EXACT(!!) same “humaness” as the male (like a cloning process) therefore since the image of God is their HUMANITY and NOT their gender as they have the exact same flesh and bone therefore there was no need for God to say he made “the humanS” (pl) in his image in Gen 1.
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/08/25/satan-the-liar-2/
Earlier I posted the following comments at the link above and have copied and pasted them here since they are relevent to the discussion.
“Behold the man was like one of us…”
Cheryl,
I’m wondering, could this mean that Adam alone became unlike “one of us” because he alone and not the woman ate while not deceived? So Adam alone experienced evil (unlike God) because he ate while not being deceived?? Or am I way off base here?
“What the serpent is saying is that God experientially “knows” evil as well as good.”
God does not experientially “know” evil. So Adam alone, and not the woman experientially “knew” evil because Adam alone ate willfully??
“God is saying “Behold the man was like one of us…” God is not agreeing with satan that the likeness with God came on the day of their eating the fruit but the likeness started on their day of creation. They were like God in the beginning.”
So God was saying this about Adam but NOT the woman and which has to do with why God did not bannish the woman from the garden – because she did not experience evil like Adam did because she was deceived. So it could not be said by God that the woman “was like one of us” because she did not sin the same way Adam did.
So while the woman was still like “one of us/God” Adam no longer was???
“God is saying “Behold the man was like one of us…” God is not agreeing with satan that the likeness with God came on the day of their eating the fruit but the likeness started on their day of creation. They were like God in the beginning.”
So God was saying this about Adam but NOT the woman and which has to do with why God did not bannish the woman from the garden – because she did not experience evil like Adam did because she was deceived. So it could not be said by God that the woman “was like one of us” because she did not sin the same way Adam did.
So while the woman was still like “one of us/God” Adam no longer was???
“What the serpent is saying is that God experientially “knows” evil as well as good.”
God does not experientially “know” evil. So Adam alone, and not the woman experientially “knew” evil because Adam alone ate willfully??
“Behold the man was like one of us…”
Cheryl,
I’m wondering, could this mean that Adam alone became unlike “one of us” because he alone and not the woman ate while not deceived? So Adam alone experienced evil (unlike God) because he ate while not being deceived?? Or am I way off base here?
Here’s two articles of Cheryl’s on the serpent:
Hi Mark,
I am just popping in to point out two things here… I’ve been reading everyone’s comments, and today I figure I might as well comment myself 🙂
“You said about it only being the man who was banished not the woman by ‘the man’ refence in Gen3. Your view then only suggests that Adam was the only one who became like God, ‘knowing good and evil’ because this is directed only to ‘the man’. But then this is a contradiction to what is said in 3:7 where both their eyes were opened and they new they were naked. You see if it was only Adam who was banished as ‘the man’, then in your interpretation it was only ‘the man’ who became like God. Therefore Eve never sinned, nor did she suffer the consequences.”
God did not say that they would become like him if they ate, but the serpent did – the Liar.
And in regards to whether or not Adam was with Eve when the serpent approached her with a question Mark, did you know that the serpent asks his question in the plural and phrases his lie in the plural and the woman responds in the plural? The whole conversation is in the plural, it’s about “them”, both Adam and the woman. Now if Eve were alone when the serpent first asks his question, why didn’t he then ask her in the singular? (Just providing more evidence showing that Adam was with Eve when the serpent approached her).
Neo:
“Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12…”
This is not a most respectful way at an attempt to understand the written word. His thought CLEARLY is merely based on what he wants to presume. How can anyone honestly just make scriptural presumptions and then create doctrine out of them? What kind of Truth seeking is THAT?
“Resurrection- this is a good one, i have never really considered it to be honest, but we must clearly state that it obviously wasn’t the person of Jesus who did the raising. If we try and seperate Jesus deity at this point i think we may be wrong. For it was necessary for the Son of God to endure the wrath of God not merely his ‘human’ side. Besides once resurrected ‘the christ’ didn’t then re-unite with the human Jesus. I’d be interested in your take on this?”
Hi Mark,
Food for thought…he died King of the Jews and was raised King of Isreal.
Cheryl,
I was just speaking my mind. Um, I’m still confused ;P It’ll take me time to get this issue down. Thank you for helping!
Well I am still very much confused over this subject, or cannot see clearly on it. And I’m still stuck on how we human beings could be considered perfect like Adam was created? Or was Adam not created “perfect”?