1 Timothy 2:13 The Chronology of Creation
Submitted by tcblack on Sun, 09/24/2006 - 1:14pm
Please turn in your Bibles this morning to 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and if you would, please stand and read along as I read aloud from God's word. <Read 1 Tim 2:8-15>.
What do you do when you are confronted with a finding in scripture that either goes against what you've always believed or at least contradicts what you would like to believe? There are really only two choices. Understand it, accept it and conform to it or reject it and go on doing whatever you want.
There is no doubt that our current topic in first Timothy for the last few weeks has been a culturally unpopular one. It is interesting to note, as I did last Sunday night, that it most certainly is not the most important doctrine in scripture; but as Christians we don't have the liberty of merely tossing out segments of scripture we have problems with. We must wrestle with the text in order to discern both its meaning at the time it was written and after determining the timeless principles make appropriate application to our lives today.
If having done so, we surrender joyfully to it's instruction as obedient children of our heavenly Father, we will find - in that moment of obedience - peace and joy. But resisting against what we know to be truth will invariably lead to the Lord's loving discipline, for he does discipline those he loves. The path to freedom is the narrow gate of God's word, the path to bondage is the wide road of our self centered opinions and preferences.
If we remember the context of the letter from 1 Timothy 3:15 we discover that this letter written to Timothy in Ephesus as an instruction manual concerning how we should "do church" or Church 101. We don't have a problem with prayer or teaching; and we can acknowledge them right away. But suddenly we come up against this smallish doctrine concerning the role of women in the church and we are tempted draw back because the world's pattern of thought is different.
If we have a hard time with Paul's conclusion it is not because the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:12 is ambiguous, it isn't. The text is rendered correctly in most modern English versions of the Bible. God wants his daughters to learn; requires mature women to teach the younger women (Titus 2) but prohibits a woman from taking the pulpit and authoritatively teaching or holding authority over men.
I came across one person who disagreed with the conclusion but was honest enough to agree with the meaning of the text. German Scholar Judith Hartenstein confesses that "the text demands a hierarchy between men and women..." She goes on to say however that she has, "...a different, far more critical view of the Bible, I need not accept it as God's word. (It helps that I do not regard 1 Timothy as written by Paul.)"1
If we accept God's word as authoritative then we have to acknowledge there is a difference between men and women, but it is not a difference of inequality but rather a difference of design and intent. This brings us back to the question concerning verse 12. Why does God declare through Paul that a woman shouldn't hold authority over a man, nor teach him with the authoritative proclamation of God's word? That is precisely the question answered in verses 13-15.
As God allows we'll deal with each verse in turn and then hopefully fuse them all back together. For the moment, please look at the thirteenth verse which presents the first explanation for this teaching.
I can fairly well assure you that the first century Christians were probably taken back by Paul's statement as well as any twenty-first century American. But that was due to what he permitted: learning rather than what he did not permit: teaching or having authority over men.
Now that most modern Christians have learned the first lesson: women must learn the scriptures2; we have need to learn again the second lesson: the restriction on teaching and holding authority over men. But it's a hard one to take because like many doctrines it goes against the grain of American culture.
To comprehend why Paul isn't merely a chauvinistic wet blanket we need to know the theological rather than cultural reasons for his saying so. It starts as an issue of Chronology.
Chronology
Typically the arguments for the egalitarian interpreters will either seek to discredit the pastoral letters as non-Pauline or failing that they'll agree that Paul wrote it, but it's not the word of God3. Else, they will seek to typify Paul's restriction as being a reflection of the culture.
However, as if in answer to the claim that the Apostle is being moved by his own cultural bias, Paul bases his restriction on the Chronological order of creation. Contrary to the opinion of some4, Paul does not write based on some fabricated idea that women are dumber than men, or that they can't handle the position because of it's stress. Any wife or mother can testify to the high stress levels of those jobs. The restriction has nothing to do with capacity but has everything to do with chronology. There are three specific elements regarding the Chronology of Creation which help us to understand this explanation: Design, Purpose and Headship.
Design
God had created Adam as the head of earth's creation. Eve was created to be Adam's helper. (Note: "helper" not "servant". She was created to serve with him not under him.) Early on God decreed that it wasn't good that man was alone and then God said, "I will make him a helper suitable for him..." (Genesis 2:18). Yet immediately God begins parading all the animals in front of Adam as if to demonstrate to Adam that he was missing something. The conclusion isn't missed when the text concludes: "but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:20). That is why God created Eve - to fill in the blank spot.
Ladies you are custom designed by God to bring wholeness to your husband. And every married man in here who dares to be honest would readily admit that life as he knows it would be impossible without you. Men and women are different by design, and that is good.
Understanding how The Chronology of Creation explains the restriction means recognizing the issue of design. "...man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Corinthians 11:9) God created Eve because Adam was incomplete without her. Moreover men and women were created with a purpose.
Purpose
Together they were instructed to fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:28)
Going back to the sixth day of creation we see that Adam was formed first, then Eve. It's significant to note that the early text of Genesis could be understood to indicate that every creature on the planet was created in quantity. It appears that multiple birds, fish, reptiles and bugs were created apparently in mass quantities and with a mixture of male and female among them. Apparently they were created simultaneously. Whatever the case, it is certainly pointed out to us that God created Adam first. That is not because Adam was more worthy of being created: he started out as a mud pie for goodness sakes!
Paul explains the purpose of the creation order in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Adam was created in God's image so that he would reflect the glory of God. The woman is created from the man's side - in order to reflect the man's glory which is itself the reflection of the glory of God.
It's the purpose of God's glory being passed on which infuses the second layer of meaning in the Chronology of Creation. It is not just mere chronology in view, but that which chronology implies.
And finally Chronology implies leadership or what the Bible calls "Headship5."
Headship
Throughout the Old Testament the status of "firstborn" is continually lifted up as the rightful heir of leadership and authority. In the context of Creation Adam is the firstborn and Eve the second. Thus in Paul's mind the rights of the firstborn which are chronologically imparted are due to Adam not to Eve. As the many instances in which God reversed the pattern (e.g. Jacob and Esau - / Ephraim and Manasseh - ) indicate the right to lead is not a moral issue of good and evil. Thus again, the fact that men are to exercise godly headship and women are to exercise godly submission is completely removed from issues of superiority and inferiority as well as being separated from issues of women somehow being more sinful than men. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Application
In this we see God's perfect design for why men are to lead the church Specifically why Paul wouldn't permit a woman to hold authority over a man and it has nothing to do with superiority. But has everything to do with the reflection of God's character and nature which is seen in his design revealing itself to the world through the church.
When God designed Men and women he designed each of us differently with different purposes. He desires that we live within that purpose. Most importantly he desires that his church reflect the beauty of his design to the watching world.
As we choose to live in accordance with God's design we will live with peace and joy; and by living in obedience to God's word we are released from bondage to the self centered whims of shifting opinion and preferences into the wide open spaces of God's freedom.
1Cref: Köstenberger's response to Judith Hartenstein's review (p3.) of Köstenberger, Andreas J., Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 38). New York: Lang, 2001. Pp. xiii + 378. Hardcover. ISBN 0820452750.
2The Focus is upon the manner of "quietly" and yet to expand on this here would be to start another unnecessary rabit trail.
3As Judith Hartenstein review (p3.) of Köstenberger, Andreas J., Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship (Studies in Biblical Literature, Vol. 38). New York: Lang, 2001. Pp. xiii + 378. Hardcover. ISBN 0820452750.
4The list is too long and disheartening. But many otherwise trustworthy commentators, due perhaps to a lack of scholarship or because of their own bias have resorted to some brand of the argument that "women can't handle hard decisions because they're too emotional" or some other such blather. How I wish I could get them to recant. The same could be said of all men, that they cannot make hard decisions because they're minds and hearts are corrupted from the fall. I must simply reiterate what has been said, women are not stupid - that is neither my argument nor Paul's.
5Compare Knight's comment on primogeniture: George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1992), 143.
Comments
"What do you do when you are
"What do you do when you are confronted with a finding in scripture that either goes against what you’ve always believed or at least contradicts what you would like to believe? There are really only two choices. Understand it, accept it and conform to it or reject it and go on doing whatever you want."
It's a question of trust. God is not like us, not some 21st century middle class American. His ideas may initially seem distasteful to us. Frankly, he doesn't care, all that matters in his estimate is whether our thinking is brought into conformity with his or not. Abraham didn't know if Isaac would live, and God's demand was certainly strange and terrible. But Abraham trusted God and did as he required. That is our choice - to trust or not.
Trust is always the "burden"
Trust is always the "burden" of Christianity. Faith is just that. Do I trust God to guide me or not? A lack of trust is a lack of faith.
"Let God be True and every man a liar".
You are so close! I really
You are so close!
I really enjoyed the clarity with which you presented the Adam and Eve
material. The only place that I think you still need some work is on the
point of the order of creation and why that is significant. It seems that
you are still linking the issue of "order" with patriarchy and gender.
Please consider this:
1. The order is relevant because the man was given the law prior to the
formation of the woman.
2. The deception began "Did God really say..."
3. The woman was not there when God said..."
4. Her understanding of what God said was distorted a bit..."nor shall we
touch it or we will die." This gave the serpent a foothold.
5. When they touched it nothing happened diminishing the force of the
original law not to eat of it. (the age old problem of hedges around the
law). This also shows that God was not the source of this part of the
law.
6. Paul links the women of Ephesus to Eve not because of their gender but because of their inferior information (doctrine) because this was making them (as was their wealth ie. prohibition on expensive clothing and hair
braided with gold...) targets of the false teachers who were trying to worm their way into the widows homes and into the church.
7. This usage of Eve's deception in connection with the problem of immature believer's being deceived is confirmed in 2 Corinthians 11:3
where Paul is warning all of the church at Corinth that they might be deceived just as Eve was! This is not gender based but immaturity based.
Patriarchy is a bias imposed upon the Genesis narrative.
A big culprit is the 1 Corinthians 11 passage that claims women must have a sign of authority on their heads when praying or prophesying in the presence of men because:
a) men are the image and glory of God...implying that women are not which
is bad theology. Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:1, 2.
b) women came from men and were created for men...which after v.11's "in the Lord, however..." Paul argues against by making the case that just as the woman came from the man, so also every man is born of a woman! But every thing comes from God. Is Paul arguing with himself here?
c) because of the angels. o.k. I don't know for sure what to do with this one but I think it is related to the Jewish link between their covenants and the mediation of angels.
BUT,
about the sign of authority that someone is demanding in vs.5, 6 notice this:
the only acceptable options in those verses are either head covered or hair shaved. It is
absolutely not an option in those verses for hair uncovered.
Yet, after the "in the Lord, however..." of v.11 Paul argues from 13-16 that neither he nor any of the churches of God have any other practice
than allowing the woman's HAIR to be the covering! This being the NON-option of vs. 5, 6.
This is significant because the very statements that Paul is arguing against here are placed in Paul's mouth (by Christians) and taught as Paul's doctrine and imposed upon the Genesis narrative as well.
These things should not be.
God Bless
Randy
Thank you for your kind
Thank you for your kind words Randy.
Your First five observations are dead on, and explain precisely what "caused" the fall. The sixth
is a bit of conjecture, albeit supported by your seventh. The fact however that Paul explicitly mentions chronology and not the effects of the chronology (re:Eve's inadequate understanding of the law against eating the fruit) would lend itself more readily to being the real reason.
Paul does in fact bring Eve's deception into the discussion immediately after chronology which demonstrates, I think, that Paul was attempting to be specific regarding the reasons upon which his restriction is based.
As far as the 1 Cor 11 Passage, I'm going to ruminate on that a bit.
Absolutely! Chronology and
Absolutely!
Chronology and the woman's inferior information are exactly what set her up for the fall (literally). Just note that these are not related to gender but to chronology. When Paul identifies the woman as the one who was deceived we should not think that he is making her out to be a greater culprit for the Fall than the man. He sinned knowingly and without putting up any resistance, as I believe you have well said in another post about Adam and Eve.
His point is, as in 2 Corinthians 11:3, that the immature are more susceptible to the serpents cunning. Therefore, the women in Ephesus, in general, should not assume these roles. I say in general because I believe that Priscilla taught Apollos while they were in Ephesus.
Our challenge should be to determine if this prohibition was something permanent for all time for all churches or if it was a concession to the circumstances at hand. (The false teachers infiltrating the church there?)
Remember the Jewish council in Acts 15? Paul left there with instructions to teach the church to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols. There is no indication that this is temporary. Yet, Paul teaches in Romans 14:14 that he does not believe that any food is unclean or forbidden as long as it is received with thanks to God.
So we know that some commands and restrictions were addressed to specific circumstances of the church and not intended to follow the Gospel wherever it goes.
If the prohibition on women is based upon their lack of training in the truth, though Priscilla was not prohibited, then we should lift the prohibition in cases where women have corrected this problem.
One other consideration regarding the Timothy text is the statement that "they shall be saved through childbearing." Is this a reference to their eternal salvation? I hope no one believes that. It seems more likely that Paul is offering "salvation" or saving from the situation at hand, namely, these untrained wealthy widows being targets for false teachers. They would be saved from this dilemma by returning to the domestic role, (at least until such time as they are no longer inferior in their religious training).
I posted a comment somewhere about woman as "helper" from Genesis 2. Did you read that? Just wanted your response but can't remember where I posted it. I am new to the blogging scene.
Take care friend,
Randy
I can't remember reading
I can't remember reading your post about woman as helper, though I'd like to see it.
I delved into the "saved through Childbearing" issue though in "she will be saved". In brevity I argue there for a translation which sees the birth in question as an allusion to the birth of Jesus Christ. Some would argue against that based on the fact that nobody is saved by Jesus' birth, but rather by his death. However it's not difficult to see how the birth of Christ stands as a kind of indicator (terminus a quo) of his life, death and resurrection. Moreover in the context of Genesis 3 which is alive in the context of 1 Timothy 2:15 - the birth of the Messiah receives it's very first prophecy.
You desire to refer to Priscilla teaching Apollos. Please be mindful that Aquila was also present in that meeting about which we have no other details. Much is made of the textual order of Priscilla listed before Aquila but I am unconvinced of it's importance (or lack thereof). Whatever can be said about that time of explanation - Luke seemed intent on communicating that both husband and wife were present in that exchange - a fact which must not be lost for it readily lends itself to both interpretive camps (Egalitarian -vs- Complementarian).
If Paul had placed the foundation of his 1 Timothy 2 arguments upon a lack of education that it would be clear that education was also the breaking point of the prohibition. In fact he had the opportunity. Immediately prior to this passage he laid out a requirement for women to learn. Immediately following that command he says, "But they can't teach men or exercise authority over men." If education was the reason he would have likely continued in that line of reasoning. Instead he switches over to Chronology and Headship. Two issues which have nothing to say about superiority or inferiority. If that were the case than we would have some interesting issues to work out WRT equality in the Godhead.
I'm enjoying this interchange Randy.
I enjoyed reading your
I enjoyed reading your comments, TC, and I recognize the difficulty in establishing with certainty what "saving" is in view here.
I do want to address a couple of things here, though.
The first and most glaring issue for me is regarding the idea that Paul switched over to Chronology and Headship.
I agree that Chronology is in view here. But notice where "Headship" came from. You brought it into the the text (I say that with no disrespect intended.)
And you are still treating chronology as a reality related to headship and gender. I have previously argued from Paul's usage of the problem of Eve that it is not inherent in her gender, rather due to chronology she was absent when the law was given. (2 Corinthians 11:1-3) This fact places her at a disadvantage (not due to her gender) when facing the serpent's question "Did God really say...?"
This usage of chronology in view of gender and patriarchy is at the heart of one of the problems in Corinth and Paul argues against it in chapter 11. Prior to v.11 of that chapter there is some very bad theology, which Paul argues against after v.11 which says "in the Lord, however..."
I think you will need to work on that text and its bad theology before we can sort some of this out further. I know that if you came to the conclusion that your position aligns with Paul's adversaries you would be more willing to filter out whatever patriarchy is not intended by the scriptures.
Had Paul really taught that the man, and not the woman, is the image and glory of God? Furthermore, that this is rightly among the several reasons why he has been called to headship? Could Paul have been ignorant of the fact that male and female are created in the image of God? Of course not.
I am confident that you will find there is an argument in chapter 11 and positions on either side of the argument land on both sides of verse 11.
I am not saying that there are no passages that reflect a culture of patriarchy, and that we might determine these passages to be normative for the church. I am just wanting to sift out what we both know to be a patriarchal bias in the way some of the scriptures have been taught so that we may more closely portray what God has taught us.
The post is about woman as "suitable helper" and it was the first post you responded to.
Your comments began with "only the ignoramus..." I also followed up that post with comments on chapter three.
Take care, brother.
Playing Catch-up.... It has
Playing Catch-up....
It has been so long since I've been on this topic that I've had to revisit it and try to find all the comments I was supposed to be answering. :-) I've probably missed something but I'm going to submit this comment and then I have to move on to other items.... My biggest difficulty at the moment is trying to remember the entire flow of the discussion since it was taking place in several different comments.
It almost appears as if you're misaligning patriarchy (men are superior to women) with Biblical complementarianism (men and women are created to fulfill different but complementary roles).
Men and women are equally created in God's image and therefore are equally deserving of honor one to another. The man was created from the dust and the woman was created from the man in order to complete what was missing in him. Men and women are created with very different functions and abilities. These go beyond skin deep comparisons. Only women can bear children, only men can "father" them. In the instance of generating children God has clearly defined the functional roles which only men and women can participate nobody (outside of the lunatic fringe) wants to argue against that which is clearly biologically true.
I remember a beloved professor warning us to break out the exegetical fire extinguishers whenever we "discover" something in the text which has been missed for 2000 years by men of far superior intellect to our own. By your own admission many have "missed" the quotations you want to include as coming from Paul's enemies in 1 Cor 11. (Incidentally is not a biblical headship clearly defined in 1 Cor 11:3 ?)
You state:
Paul didn't "switch". Headship is embedded in the concept of Chronology. It was the reason that Paul brings chronology into the account. I agree, as you stated elsewhere, that the chronology of the woman's creation was apparently after God's decree that the fruit ought not to be eaten. In which case Adam was supposed to pass on the restriction to his wife. Apparently he did not do so effectively for she either misquoted Adam, or - as is possible - she merely quoted the extension of the law which he gave her ("don't even touch it!")
Whatever it's origin Eve's misinformation is not the point of Paul's first argument. The first argument is Chronology which includes the concept of headship the second argument begins to play on Eve's deception which at least partially sprang from her misunderstanding (?) regarding God's law. Paul does not join the arguments they are separate as is indicated by the ascensive "and" in 1 Timothy 2:13 -> 14. It is as if he is saying, "first God created it this way, and second she was decieved." Neither one of the arguments strives to indicate some kind of inferiority in women, but rather points to the proper allocation of role and responsibility.
That responsibility is indicated in Genesis 3. As you noted, Nothing happened when the woman touched the fruit. However, we must be certain to note that nothing happened when Eve ate the fruit either. It was not until Adam ate that their eyes were both opened... Adam was responsible both through headship (chronology) as well as responsible as the party who heard the restriction from God's own mouth. Perhaps it is true that a false patriarchy is often imposed on Genesis 3 but it is also true that a model of Biblically appropriate headship is indicated in the moment of failure of Genesis 3. The responsibility for the sin firmly falls upon Adam's shoulders and not upon Eve's. Nobody argues that this is unfair for Adam was the head of his wife. Not because she was inferior and he was superior - headship is not an issue of inferiority or superiority.*
I would certainly join you in putting the kebosh on godless patriarchy, but we must at the same time be willing to submit to proper principles of headship and submission. A headship born out of God's designed authority structure rather than upon a false sense of superiority or inferiority.
I'll start off by saying
I'll start off by saying that I have as yet only read the last 3-4 paragraphs of the last comment. I will try to read the whole thing later, but must sleep very soon. :(
My question - which may have already been covered - as dealing with Chronology (as Tom put it) is the Scripture that states something to the effect of "believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy household." This has always sat a little wrong with me - at least in terms of how we define "salvation" nowadays. The description of Chronology that you have stated here seems to fit perfectly with the words of this Scripture though. Ie, it is when the male (head of house) believes that his household is granted "salvation."
Again, very late and little sleep. But also, this Scripture has always be unsettling as meaning something different than how we describe salvation. And I get the feeling that the meaning of this Scripture is true - but haven't digested yet what that means.
Thoughts?
It is late when I am reading
It is late when I am reading this but I must at least point out that Genesis 1-3 does not mention headship of the man over the woman. It does describe a chronology that places the male at an advantage against the question of the serpent over the female. If you are suggesting that his being created first, and being given the law, automatically gives him the place of headship over the woman (what I thought patriarchy meant) then it seems to me this is eisegesis (is that correct spelling?).
I believe you have brought this headship into Genesis from 1 Corinthians 11. I understand the principle that scripture cannot mean what it has never meant. However, I also understand that we may or may not have access to reflections from earlier writers on what every passage meant when it was written. This passage, even if no one ever understood it since Paul penned it, must still be put to the test of basic reason and argument. As I have pointed out in other posts, and as I can further explain if you wish, there are several passages in 1 Corinthians that are best explained as material that ought to be in quotes. Some of that material is already being placed in quotes in the newer versions.
"Everything is permissible for me" but not everything is beneficial.
"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food" but God will destroy them both.
There are some others that I believe will be found in quotes in a hundred years or so.
This eventuality is necessary to keep Paul from sounding like a confused man. Please answer my question about the bad theology in 1 Corinthians 11 before using that passage to support male headship.
1. In that passage women are to show that they are under male authority (patriarchy) by wearing a sign on their heads to cover their hair. They may choose rather to shave their hair if they don't want to cover it. But they are not to wear it uncovered! 11:5-6
Yet, after v. 11 when Paul writes "in the Lord, however,..." he teaches that a woman was given her hair as a covering to fulfill this need for those who desire it.
Was Paul making the demands of vs. 5,6 and then the concession of 13-16? That cannot be.
2. In that passage women are to be under male authority because men are the image and glory of God. What? This implies that women are not! This is bad theology and it is not Paul's.
3. In that passage the women are to be under male authority because of chronology.
But...
After v.11 where Paul writes "in the Lord, however," Paul argues that just as the woman came from the man (the argument for patriarchy) SO ALSO EVERY MAN IS BORN OF A WOMAN.
Is Paul arguing with himself?
My friend, it matters not to me that you cannot find this in the commentaries. I know you can find it in the Bible and you can discern the truth of it with your mind. I have seen your parsing of sentences and working through the structure of the text.
So, I implore you to place your mind and the Spirit of Christ in you as sufficiently competent to exegete this text and see the problems with the basic arguments being made if they were to come from one man and the force of v.11 about what is and is not in the Lord.
If you are interested I will try to post (again?) another passage in 1 Corinthians that reveals this dynamic.
Time for bed.
God Bless!
Randy
As you urge, I will indeed
As you urge, I will indeed dig deeper into this text. I appreciate your vote of confidence regarding exegetical competency. If the entirety of my theology in this arena came only out of 1 Corinthians 11 I assure you that I would have already spent the commensurate amount of time on that passage and would be frantically posting rebuttals. However that text plays only a small portion in the overall picture and is by no means a linchpin. While I do not initially agree with your assesment (hence my agreement to continue to work on it behind the scenes before responding here in the future) neither am I about to throw it to the dogs and forget it. That would be unconscionable.
For the time being, much of which has already been described in the posts regarding 1 Timothy 2:12-15 are sufficient for understanding my position on complementarianism -vs- abusive patriarchy -vs- unbridled egalitarianism. Others have not yet made it to posts, though I expect they will eventually.
Nevertheless I owe it to everyone who reads this blog to give a reasoned response. So I am not ignoring you Randy, merely shifting my focus now to where it needs to be. We'll both be able to revisit this in the somewhat near future. At the moment I'm going to put an exhaustive exegesis of 1 Cor 11 on my "to do" list.
Hello Very interesting
Hello
Very interesting information! Thanks!
Bye
These passages on headship,
These passages on headship, head coverings, authority, and dress have always created a great deal of angst for me as a Christian woman attempting to navigate our culture, while being obedient to God. I was very encouraged by the posts on 1 Timothy 2, and I look forward to reading Mr. Black's exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11.
Thanks so much!
Jessie
It's coming Jessie, Please
It's coming Jessie,
Please be patient.
tcblack
TC, here is the original
TC, here is the original post on "the woman as suitable helper":
One thing that contributes to the patriarchal bias that is commonly taught in our churches is the fact that God decided that the man needed a helper in Genesis chapter 2. We interpret this to mean that the woman was somehow the subordinate, gofer, sidekick, or lackey to the man. He was Batman and she was Robin. He was the dad working on the car and she was the kid fetching the needed wrench or screwdriver.
But is this the only way we have helpers? I saw firemen rescuing people from the World Trade Center; weren’t they helpers to the ones rescued? I saw Good Samaritans carrying people out of Katrina’s flooded areas; were they not helpers to those stranded? These rescuers were not subordinate to the ones they helped, were they? When we consider that there are different types of helpers we are left to determine how the woman was to be a helper to the man.
The first clue for us should be in the needs of the man. What did he need help with? Why was it not good for the man to be alone? What would the man have learned from observing the animals?
God’s commission for mankind was that they would be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. He can not accomplish this alone. He might have seen in the animals how each alligator had an alligator mate and each elephant had an elephant mate but he found no mate for himself. So the man needed a helper, someone without whom he was powerless to accomplish his commission from God.
Another consideration that should have been part of the discussion all along is the meaning of the Hebrew word ezar ( rz<[Eß). This word is used (in the same form) eighteen times outside of Genesis 2. Four of these are in names. The other fourteen are used exclusively to describe helpers in the rescuer sense! 1 Ki. 20:16; 2 Ki. 14:26; Job 29:12; 30:13; Ps. 30:11; 54:6; 72:12; 89:20; 107:12; Isa. 31:3; 63:5; Jer. 47:4; Ezek. 11:1; Dan. 11:34.
Look at the role of the helper in Job 29:12 “because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him.” Does this sound like it is referring to a subordinate?
In some of these God himself is the helper! Psalm 54:4 Surely God is my help; the Lord is the one who sustains me.
What should be somewhat disconcerting to us is how it is that simple considerations like these have been conspicuously absent from discussions in our churches about the woman as a helper for the man.
The search for Truth is as needed today as ever! May God richly bless yours.
Randy
Bookmark/Search this post with:
* Delicious
* Digg
* Reddit
* Magnoliacom
* Newsvine
* Furl
* Facebook
* Google
* Yahoo
* Technorati
* Icerocket
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.stilltruth.com/trackback/810
* macsdad_777's blog
* 237 reads
* unpublish
* submit spam
* Download PDF
* send to friend
why is this unpublished?
macsdad_777's picture
On July 21st, 2007 macsdad_777 says:
why is this unpublished?
* reply
Because you forgot to hit
tcblack's picture
On July 24th, 2007 tcblack says:
Because you forgot to hit publish. :-)
* reply
Bullseye. Only the ignoramus
tcblack's picture
On July 25th, 2007 tcblack says:
Bullseye.
Only the ignoramus would interpret Genesis 1 & 2 to describe the female gender as some kind of sub-creation. Eve was created as Adam's equal; a point echoed through scripture and yet despairingly ignored throughout much of the culture it describes and created. Christianity is not unique in this massive failure however. Islam has gone further IMO to debase women than many other religions.
* reply
There sure are a lot of
macsdad_777's picture
On July 28th, 2007 macsdad_777 says:
There sure are a lot of ignoramuses (ignorami? lol)
So, that leaves us with Genesis 3. Nothing is more clear in the Bible than that the man, not the woman, is held accountable for breaking the command. This is mentioned by God twice to the man in this passage and not at all to the woman.
Furthermore, the entire Bible testifies to the responsibility of the man in the Fall, not the woman. Hosea 6:7; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22; and especially Romans 5:12-19.
A common thinking in my experience has been that "Eve blew it and Adam had to be put in charge of her." This is somehow taken as the implication of God's message to the woman in Genesis 3:16. Yet, here are a couple of questions to ask the text:
1) Did God tell the woman to submit to the rule of the man in this passage?
Seems like "No."
2) Did God tell the man to rule over his wife in this passage?
Seems like "No."
3) Did God express this truth as what He wills to be the situation or was He describing a consequence that is a direct result of the expulsion from the Garden?
Seems like a consequence.
4) How many of the four or five consequences spoken to the man and woman were God's ordained will for all time and how many resulted from expulsion?
Seems like almost all are treated as consequences and one is considered a direct command from the will of God. How did we differentiate the incidental consequences with the command of God here? What a surprising coincidence that this one special consequence spoken to the woman teaches patriarchy! Could this be more of the same problem of patriarchal bias encountered in the common understanding of Genesis 2 and 3?
5) If the man is the one who is guilty of breaking the command why isn't the woman put in charge of him!?
Oh wait, God did mention that part of the problem is the fact that the man listened to the woman. Adam should have known what everyone knows; he broke the cardinal rule that you never listen to a woman! Right?
Had the one who was deceived been Adam's nephew, is it not conceivable that God would have said "since you listened to your nephew"? Would we then be convinced that nephews are always bad to listen to? Or his brother, uncle, aunt, sister, cousin, etc...
While it is absolutely true that he should not have listened to his wife in this situation, we have no reason to believe that he had any reason to refuse to listen to his wife for other reasons.
There was no patriarchy by this time, as we have already agreed, for the man to have know this "eternal truth" that it is never a good idea to listen to a woman. The issue is not about gender, it is about who we listen to! God said "do not eat" and yet for whatever reason the man ate! That is what the Bible deals with, not that Adam failed to keep his wife in check.
Back to the consequences.
Isn't it odd that we don't mind if a woman has an epidural or morphine in childbirth even though God ordained that she suffer this pain and meant for it to be for all time?
Or that the farmer can have combines with air conditioning and television and work the ground without ever breaking a sweat. And what about those weed killers! Don't they know that God ordained for all time that he suffer the pain of working the ground with those weeds in it?
Or if it is the case that God had not intended all of these to be His will from then on, how in the world did the one consequence that had to do with male and female relationships end up as a command of God that supports a patriarchal model.
How has this doctrine been maintained, especially after the responsibility for the Fall is rightly placed on the man instead of the woman?
Why did God mean by this statement?
There is a similar phrase (almost exact) when God said to Cain "But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; "it desires to have you, but you must master it."
What is God's point? Is it not that there is a power struggle going on and sin is trying to take over Cain but Cain needs to remain in control of himself?
The point for the woman would be, in my view, that as a consequence of being put out of the Garden, there is going to be a power struggle between her and the man.
Her "desire for her husband" according to the BGT Greek text in Bibleword could be translated:
gen. objecti, u[datoj avp. a resource or means for getting water, Id.; swthri,aj avp. Thuc.
If this is the meaning, it points to the common power imbalances which have existed in hunting and gathering societies and well as in agricultural ones that the man has over the woman. This has survived even into our industrialized world and services based economies.
When in the Garden the woman was dependent only upon the Garden and God for her survival. Having been booted from the Garden, she finds herself dependent upon the man for food and safety. After bearing children she finds that her only means of providing for their safety and sustenance is through the man. He is out there breaking the soil and hunting the animals and cutting the wood while she is becoming soft (at least softer than the man) in the nurturing of her children and caring for their home. The man gains all power having physical dominance and controlling the income of resources. Power corrupts...
So, because she has become dependent upon the man he will use this to rule over her. Why was this "rule" not challenged by or at least defined in light of Jesus' warnings about not being rulers over each other but servants to one another?
Had God intended the man to be the greatest in the relationship, would he not have been asked to serve the woman?
And what about the "curse"?
It seems to me that Christians believe Adam and Eve were cursed by God in the consequences of the Fall.
God never curses the man or the woman? The serpent is cursed because of what the serpent did and the ground is cursed because of what the MAN did but no curse is even mentioned in connection with the woman and the man himself is not cursed either.
What do we do with the fact that in this chapter the woman is identified (at least in Christian thought) as being the one through whom God plans to bring redemption for mankind and restoration to the presence of God?
Isn't it significant that the woman is given the name living because she would become the mother of all living things? While the man was told that he would die and return to the dust from which he came?
Life and redemption are associated with the woman in this passage and death is associated with the man!!!!!!! Oh my goodness! How inside out is common Christian theology here?
Am I the only one who is frustrated with how much patriarchal bias is taught from these chapters and how much of the real information is so unknown?
For any readers, I realize that I present things a bit chaotically, and I apologize. I have failed to devote the necessary attention to form and have usually made it through on substance.
God bless your study and your journey to His presence.
Post new comment