I’m back here at Men and Women to tackle another of Grudem’s “Ten Reasons For Male Headship Before the Fall.” I promised you I would tackle these ten reasons, and I will get to them all before I stop writing on them.
Reason #5 supplied by Wayne Grudem is “The primary accountability”:
“…in a similar way, when God summoned Adam to give an account, it indicated a primary responsibility for Adam IN THE CONDUCT OF HIS FAMILY. This is similar to the situation in Genesis 2:15-17, where God had given commands to Adam alone before the Fall, indicating there also a primary responsibility that belonged to Adam. By contrast, the serpent spoke to Eve first (Gen. 3:1), trying to get her to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEADING THE FAMILY INTO SIN, AND INVERTING THE ORDER THAT GOD HAD ESTABLISHED AT CREATION” (Wayne Grudem, “The Key Issues in the Manhood-Womanhood Controversy, and the Way Forward” from “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood,” page 31).
It’s good to at least be able to write a post on Wayne Grudem from time to time. I mean, there are days when (as you can imagine) I have to step away from the men and women debate. It gets to be too much. If I don’t step away, I get frustrated by the opinions out there regarding an “unequal” view of women…
However, there are times when courage is needed to approach this task; and so, no matter how frustrating the opinions of men like Wayne Grudem may be, I am on a mission and I CANNOT GIVE UP THE FIGHT!! I must persevere in this subject until women are where God places them.
Regarding Grudem’s quote above, the most striking phrase of all involves the fact that he believes Adam’s “family” played a role in his accountability to God. Before this moment, Adam and Eve were married—but there was no family except for Eve. There were no children at all (no Cain, Abel, or Seth).
Next, he claims that the serpent tried to “get her [Eve] to take responsibility for leading the family into sin, and inverting the order God had established at creation.” First, let me say that the serpent had one task—that is, to get the first couple to attempt to “overthrow” God—and the first couple did attempt this impossible feat!! This idea that the serpent tried to get Eve to “usurp” power from Adam and take his responsibility, is NOWHERE IN THE TEXT! This is Grudem’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 coming to play. As I’ve said at the blog here, Grudem LOVES 1 Timothy 2, and if there were no 1 Timothy 2 as we know it, Grudem wouldn’t have any problems with women (I’m being sarcastic…he’d still find a new reason to replace 1 Tim. 2).
Why then, is Adam responsible to God? Because God charged him with the task. God made Adam the human head of creation, the “lord” over the earth. As a result, Adam was to dress the garden and keep it (as well as watch over it). This is all Genesis 2 tells us about Adam being the head of creation.
But here’s a rare moment in time: Grudem actually goes on to say something that I agree with…but, you’ll have to stay tuned to find out what it is...
Showing posts with label Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Responses). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Responses). Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Scripture to the Rescue!
I’ve been reading a book the last two days called “The Innocence of God” by Udo Middleman. At first, I regretted the idea of having to read ANOTHER BOOK for my Christian Philosophy course called “The Problem of Evil.” However, I am so thankful that I picked up this $20 book and began to read.
I just finished reading chapter two, called “A Just God in an Unjust World,” where Middleman discusses that God is not responsible for sin, but humanity is. He goes into great detail explaining Genesis 3:16. For our purposes, we are only gonna quote a small portion of his response:
“Even in their relationship they[Adam and Eve] would face problems which they must iron out. The man will, unhappily, often, rule over the woman. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A LAMENT, NOT A COMMAND; IT IS A RESULT OF THE FALL, NOT A COMMAND
FOR MARITAL SUBMISSION!” (Udo Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” pg. 46).
What does God say in Genesis 3:16?
“"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
(A) in pain you shall bring forth children.
(B) Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
and he shall(C) rule over you."
God says that the man would rule over the woman. But who does He say this to? He does not say this to Adam—He says this to Eve: “To the woman he said…”
God said to the WOMAN that her husband would rule over her; but what does God say to Adam? Does He tell Adam to rule over His wife? Does He make Adam responsible for Eve? Does He chide Adam for not “stepping up to the plate,” for neglecting his role as the head of the marriage? No. Instead, God punishes Adam and creation:
“17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;
(T) in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
(U) for you are dust,
and(V) to dust you shall return."
God tells Adam two things: first, creation would be punished because of him; secondly, God tells Adam that he would have to work harder in order to bring forth yield from the ground. However, God mentions NOTHING about Adam needing to take control of the household, be a man, and defend his family. Yet and still, this is what men are taught today. This is what they are told in conservative circles—that they need to “step up,” be a man, act like they are men!
I believe complementarians (as evidenced from an earlier post I wrote on “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood” (Grudem), in their discussion of Adam as being the head of the marriage BEFORE the Fall, attempt to do this in order to “muster” more evidence for their position. But in so doing, they butcher the context and desecrate Scripture.
As a good rule of thumb, let me say that whenever approaching a concept or passage of Scripture, the key to interpretation is to make sure such an explanation doesn’t contradict other parts of Scripture. To maintain their understanding of 1 Timothy 2, complementarians have to violate Scripture from Genesis 3. And they call themselves the master exegetes…
I just finished reading chapter two, called “A Just God in an Unjust World,” where Middleman discusses that God is not responsible for sin, but humanity is. He goes into great detail explaining Genesis 3:16. For our purposes, we are only gonna quote a small portion of his response:
“Even in their relationship they[Adam and Eve] would face problems which they must iron out. The man will, unhappily, often, rule over the woman. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A LAMENT, NOT A COMMAND; IT IS A RESULT OF THE FALL, NOT A COMMAND
FOR MARITAL SUBMISSION!” (Udo Middleman, “The Innocence of God,” pg. 46).
What does God say in Genesis 3:16?
“"I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
(A) in pain you shall bring forth children.
(B) Your desire shall be for[a] your husband,
and he shall(C) rule over you."
God says that the man would rule over the woman. But who does He say this to? He does not say this to Adam—He says this to Eve: “To the woman he said…”
God said to the WOMAN that her husband would rule over her; but what does God say to Adam? Does He tell Adam to rule over His wife? Does He make Adam responsible for Eve? Does He chide Adam for not “stepping up to the plate,” for neglecting his role as the head of the marriage? No. Instead, God punishes Adam and creation:
“17And to Adam he said,
"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
(R) of which I commanded you,
'You shall not eat of it,'
(S) cursed is the ground because of you;
(T) in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
(U) for you are dust,
and(V) to dust you shall return."
God tells Adam two things: first, creation would be punished because of him; secondly, God tells Adam that he would have to work harder in order to bring forth yield from the ground. However, God mentions NOTHING about Adam needing to take control of the household, be a man, and defend his family. Yet and still, this is what men are taught today. This is what they are told in conservative circles—that they need to “step up,” be a man, act like they are men!
I believe complementarians (as evidenced from an earlier post I wrote on “Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood” (Grudem), in their discussion of Adam as being the head of the marriage BEFORE the Fall, attempt to do this in order to “muster” more evidence for their position. But in so doing, they butcher the context and desecrate Scripture.
As a good rule of thumb, let me say that whenever approaching a concept or passage of Scripture, the key to interpretation is to make sure such an explanation doesn’t contradict other parts of Scripture. To maintain their understanding of 1 Timothy 2, complementarians have to violate Scripture from Genesis 3. And they call themselves the master exegetes…
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Ten NOT Reasons
In his section titled “The Key Issues In the Manhood-Womanhood Controversy, and the Way Forward,” Grudem presents what he calls “Ten Reasons Showing Male Headship in Marriage Before the Fall"(http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/biblicalfoundations.pdf).
Grudem believes that these ten reasons “seal the deal” in the struggle between egalitarians and complementarians—showing that the complementarian side is best and right. Before I knock Grudem’s position, let’s examine these ten reasons:
(1) Order.
“Adam was created first, then Eve…according to Scripture itself, then, the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve has implications not just for Adam and Eve themselves, but FOR THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN GENERALLY THROUGHOUT TIME, INCLUDING THE CHURCH AGE” (25).
Grudem’s position seems true at first glance; but if one takes a clear look, one will see a presupposition at work. With Grudem’s quote, he claims that Adam and Eve are an example “between men and women throughout time,” for all generations. The fact that Adam and Eve were created in a set order (Adam first) shows that men are always the ones to lead and women are the ones to follow. Order of the creation of the first two humans, then, serves as an indicator for how life in the church is to be.
But if the original creation order is the ever-guiding principle, what about the MODERN order of creation? Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 11:
11Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God. (1 Cor. 11:11-12, ESV)
Whereas in the beginning of time as we know it, Eve came AFTER Adam, today, men are created THROUGH women giving birth. Women now come first in the creation order—for what man can give birth to a child?
Grudem’s reason of order, then, is NULLIFIED by 1 Corinthians 11. By arguing that man was created first, then woman, he is only appealing to HALF of the argument Paul discusses in 1Corinthians 11.
(2) The representation.
“Adam, not Eve, had a special role in representing the human race” (25).
Grudem emphasizes this again:
“IN REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, a leadership role that Eve did not have” (26).
However, there is a fundamental problem with this reason—it has to do with creation, not marriage! But Grudem’s reasons are to show “male headship in MARRIAGE,” not headship in CREATION. Grudem makes a huge mistake when he links creation and marriage together. If he intends to make this point stick, he’s got to argue why Adam, the head of creation, is made the head of the marriage—and he has no evidence for it.
(3) The naming of woman.
“The original readers of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament would have been familiar with this pattern, a pattern whereby people who have authority over another person or thing have the ability to assign a name to that person or thing…” (28).
Yes, it’s true: Adam does have authority that allows him to name Eve. But Adam also gets to name the rest of creation. Notice that in Genesis 2 Adam is naming the animals and notices there is no one like himself:
“18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;(R) I will make him a helper fit for[e] him." 19(S) Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and(T) brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22, ESV)
The fact that Adam names creation is a demonstration of God’s image in him. This is part of what God meant in Genesis 1:26 when He said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.” But Adam does not name Eve AFTER he is given headship of the marriage—he names her BEFORE Genesis 3:16, which shows that at the point at which he names her, he is doing so because of his headship over creation, not the marriage.
(4) The naming of the human race.
“God named the human race ‘Man,’ not ‘Woman.’ Because the idea of naming is so important in the Old Testament, it is interesting what name God chose for the human race as a whole. We read: When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them MAN when they were created’ (Gen. 5:1-2)” (28).
To back up this point, Grudem writes:
“In the Hebrew text, the word that is translated ‘Man’ is the Hebrew word ‘Adam.’ But this is by no means a gender-neutral term in the eyes of the Hebrew reader at this point, because in the four chapters prior to Genesis 5:2, the Hebrew word ‘adam’ has been used many times to speak of a male human being in distinction from a female human being” (29).
Grudem’s analysis forgets context. Looking at Genesis 5:1-2, we can see that there are TWO meanings of the Hebrew word ‘adam’ that are used: the first relates to the male (“him”); the second relates to the race itself (“he created THEM”). With the second sentence of the verse, we understand that the word “man” refers to “human,” not “male” (gender-specific).
Now I understand that the human race was named “man,” and it seems as if the race named was masculine; however, whenever the generic “man” is used, our English word “mankind” is being discussed, not “male-kind” (reference to masculine gender).
There are six other reasons Grudem writes that we will discuss. For now, however, I leave you with a question: what about Genesis 3:16? If Adam already had headship of the home, why does God need to reiterate it in Genesis 3? That’s the question Grudem and other complementarians need to answer. I’ll discuss the other six reasons in future posts.
Grudem believes that these ten reasons “seal the deal” in the struggle between egalitarians and complementarians—showing that the complementarian side is best and right. Before I knock Grudem’s position, let’s examine these ten reasons:
(1) Order.
“Adam was created first, then Eve…according to Scripture itself, then, the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve has implications not just for Adam and Eve themselves, but FOR THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN GENERALLY THROUGHOUT TIME, INCLUDING THE CHURCH AGE” (25).
Grudem’s position seems true at first glance; but if one takes a clear look, one will see a presupposition at work. With Grudem’s quote, he claims that Adam and Eve are an example “between men and women throughout time,” for all generations. The fact that Adam and Eve were created in a set order (Adam first) shows that men are always the ones to lead and women are the ones to follow. Order of the creation of the first two humans, then, serves as an indicator for how life in the church is to be.
But if the original creation order is the ever-guiding principle, what about the MODERN order of creation? Let’s look at 1 Corinthians 11:
11Nevertheless,(O) in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And(P) all things are from God. (1 Cor. 11:11-12, ESV)
Whereas in the beginning of time as we know it, Eve came AFTER Adam, today, men are created THROUGH women giving birth. Women now come first in the creation order—for what man can give birth to a child?
Grudem’s reason of order, then, is NULLIFIED by 1 Corinthians 11. By arguing that man was created first, then woman, he is only appealing to HALF of the argument Paul discusses in 1Corinthians 11.
(2) The representation.
“Adam, not Eve, had a special role in representing the human race” (25).
Grudem emphasizes this again:
“IN REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, a leadership role that Eve did not have” (26).
However, there is a fundamental problem with this reason—it has to do with creation, not marriage! But Grudem’s reasons are to show “male headship in MARRIAGE,” not headship in CREATION. Grudem makes a huge mistake when he links creation and marriage together. If he intends to make this point stick, he’s got to argue why Adam, the head of creation, is made the head of the marriage—and he has no evidence for it.
(3) The naming of woman.
“The original readers of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament would have been familiar with this pattern, a pattern whereby people who have authority over another person or thing have the ability to assign a name to that person or thing…” (28).
Yes, it’s true: Adam does have authority that allows him to name Eve. But Adam also gets to name the rest of creation. Notice that in Genesis 2 Adam is naming the animals and notices there is no one like himself:
“18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone;(R) I will make him a helper fit for[e] him." 19(S) Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and(T) brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam[g] there was not found a helper fit for him. 21So the LORD God caused a(U) deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22, ESV)
The fact that Adam names creation is a demonstration of God’s image in him. This is part of what God meant in Genesis 1:26 when He said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness.” But Adam does not name Eve AFTER he is given headship of the marriage—he names her BEFORE Genesis 3:16, which shows that at the point at which he names her, he is doing so because of his headship over creation, not the marriage.
(4) The naming of the human race.
“God named the human race ‘Man,’ not ‘Woman.’ Because the idea of naming is so important in the Old Testament, it is interesting what name God chose for the human race as a whole. We read: When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them MAN when they were created’ (Gen. 5:1-2)” (28).
To back up this point, Grudem writes:
“In the Hebrew text, the word that is translated ‘Man’ is the Hebrew word ‘Adam.’ But this is by no means a gender-neutral term in the eyes of the Hebrew reader at this point, because in the four chapters prior to Genesis 5:2, the Hebrew word ‘adam’ has been used many times to speak of a male human being in distinction from a female human being” (29).
Grudem’s analysis forgets context. Looking at Genesis 5:1-2, we can see that there are TWO meanings of the Hebrew word ‘adam’ that are used: the first relates to the male (“him”); the second relates to the race itself (“he created THEM”). With the second sentence of the verse, we understand that the word “man” refers to “human,” not “male” (gender-specific).
Now I understand that the human race was named “man,” and it seems as if the race named was masculine; however, whenever the generic “man” is used, our English word “mankind” is being discussed, not “male-kind” (reference to masculine gender).
There are six other reasons Grudem writes that we will discuss. For now, however, I leave you with a question: what about Genesis 3:16? If Adam already had headship of the home, why does God need to reiterate it in Genesis 3? That’s the question Grudem and other complementarians need to answer. I’ll discuss the other six reasons in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)