Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood

John Piper asserts women were made, right from the start, to represent the church, and man to represent Christ. (Why his view is logically untenable can be found here.)

Let us suppose that from the creation story, one of the two is a character who need rescuing (representing humanity, the church), and the other came down to rescue (representing Christ).

Who, in creation, has a problem? “It’s not good for a man to be alone…” The man has a problem. Who, in the Christ – church picture, has a problem? We do, not Christ.

What help is sent for the man? An ezer k’negdo*, a help meet for him. Ezer translates as helper, but not as in assistant. Almost every time it is used in the Bible, it refers to God helping humans, a strong, rescuing help you cannot do without. In the Christ – church picture, Christ is the helper, the strong, rescuing help you cannot do without.

Next to ezer is k’negdo (meet for him), which mean “opposite him” or “facing him.” The ezer, which denotes the strong superior helping the weak inferior, is brought down with this word to be on eye-to-eye height with the needy man. The analogy, like any other, is far from perfect, but Christ is the strong Savior who became a human for our sake.

Man took Eve’s company, and the church took the salvation offered by God.

Who represents Christ in the creation story? Eve does. And who represents the church? The man does. If marriage is a picture of Christ and the church (I do not call it that), should one partner always be Christ, and the other always the church?

——————————————————————————————————————

*Not every source transliterates k’negdo the same. Some write it as kenegdo or neged.

About these ads

Comments on: "Women were made to represent Christ, and man the church?!" (15)

  1. Oh boy. If men were the “Christ’ he wouldn’t need a helpmeet. God didn’t place women on earth to do the chores, inflate the ego of her partner so he could ‘lead’.

    Sorry, but if ‘men’ represent Christ in the way he claims? Look at the world! They have been in charge for how long? Now the women wish to have a hand in helping in more than one area, and they throw a tantrum. Ahem. That is not the Christ I read about.

    Seriously. None of us are ALL THAT as they kids say.

  2. It is so refreshing to read posts and comments with good logic.

    Both of you would be welcome to post some articles on the Equality Central Blog. Just let me know….. :^)

    Retha, mind if I add your Blog to our Links of Interest list?

    • TL, am I getting crazy or what? I really thought I answered you already, but now the answer isn’t here?

      I’d love to post something there. If there is any article here that you would want there, take it.

      And of course I’d like being on your list.

      • Great. Process is for you to sign into the ECA Blog. Then I’ll update you to contributor. You then post it…. you can change or fancy it up as you wish. I’ll then approve it, spacing it a few days from whatever was posted last, and wala! your’re on. I’d like to see your last post about submission on there also, if you don’t mind.

  3. Please sign in as Retha on ECA Blog so I’ll recognize you.

    http://equalitycentral.com/blog/

  4. While I could state a lot of reasons why I personally think men need a lot of help, why look at relational issues in terms of who needs (more) rescuing? Both men and women are sinfully jacked up and need a lot of rescuing, but from Christ alone, not fellow sinners. Are the bible verses that admonish husbands to love and wives to submit not talking about treatment of one another, rather than who’s Superman and who’s Louis Lane? In Ephesians, Paul spends more time telling husbands to love than telling wives to submit. And if you look at the way Christ actually loved/loves the church, what we see is grave humility (no pun intended); what we see is what Paul said in 5:21: submit to ONE ANOTHER in the fear of God.

    You pose an interesting question at the end – “Should one partner always be Christ, and the other always the church?” Good food for thought. But at the same time, if we only look at it in terms of who’s “in power” between the two, I think we’ll miss it. Both men and women (whether married or single) are supposed to “be imitators of God as dear children and walk in love as Christ loved the church.” That’s a question of how we treat one another, not so much who has the upper hand.

    • Thank you, Laila – That’s exactly the kind of things we should be thinking about the matter. A post like this isn’t to push down men, it’s to show that our silly little constructs that place the one in a hierarchy above the other could as logically be reversed. Our little constructs are just that – silly little constructs.
      You are right, and welcome.

  5. [...] an eploration of the meaning of the Hebrew words in Genesis 2:18 and 20, start here and here. I’m going to focus instead on Michael and Debi Pearl adherence to the King James Only [...]

  6. The church is the woman, the wife, the bride. Christ is the man, the husband, the groom. To allow a woman to be symoblic for Christ would make the relationship between Christ and the Church a “Gay Relationship”. Plain and simple. A woman pastor is blasphemy to God. When the Christ and the Church is finally together in heaven there will be a wedding, Christ (the groom) and the Church (the bride). Ephesians 5:31-32, that’s the profound mystery that Paul spoke of in regards to marriage between one man and one woman, Christ and the Church. All those who have allowed women to be pastors and support this blasphemy need to repent. That’s why samesex marriages are moving at an alarming rate, not only in America but the world. This sin (woman pastoring) has grieved and quenched the Holy Spirit. He who has an ear let him and her hear, and repent. rad

    • Radford, you suggest women should not be symbolic of Christ. Which Christ-like qualities should I not show, to make sure I do not symbolize Jesus?

      As for men, what should they (not) do to make sure they never blaspheme by being symbolic of the church? If, for example, a man listens to a sermon, could that not symbolize the church listening to Christ? If he follow Jesus, does he blaspheme (your word choice for someone who acts the wrong role in the Christ/church picture)?

  7. Radford – It seems, from knowing some history of Christianity, that the spirit always moved the fastest when women were allowed to speak. For example, on Pentacost God poured his spirit out on manservants and maidservants, sons and daughters. And they all spoke! Before that, the Christian era began when women told the tomb is empty.

    Just because the wife is like the church in the Eph 5 picture, does not mean she cannot be the Christ-type in another Bible picture, for example creation.

    As for homosexuality – the Romans of the era Jesus and Paul lived in made a norm of homosexual acts (today, most men do not engage in it) and that was an era where women’s word did not count. As such, I do not believe their is a correlation between women pastors and homosexual acts.

  8. [...] an eploration of the meaning of the Hebrew words in Genesis 2:18 and 20, start here and here. I’m going to focus instead on Michael and Debi Pearl adherence to the King James Only [...]

  9. Radford claimed: “To allow a woman to be symoblic (sic) for Christ would make the relationship between Christ and the Church a “Gay Relationship”…blasphemy…”

    Here is something Jesus answered the Pharisees:

    Luk 8:
    15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” …
    8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[a] and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

    A women symbolizes Jesus in this parable, told by Jesus Himself. According to some, this is a horror of horrors: It is a gay relationship! Jesus was blaspheming, to let a woman symbolize Him!

    But when Jesus find it completely appropriate to let a woman symbolize him, and some churchgoers find the thought against their constructs, I’ll go with Jesus.

  10. this is not saying women represent christ . read the verse in the bible that says the woman was made for the man….im not exactly sure where it is but search and you will find

  11. Joel, the text that women were made for the man also say: “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.” and: “”Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” You should not take one small part of a verse out of context.

    If the woman was made for the man, it does not mean that she does not represent Christ: Christ (the Saviour) exists as Savior (Jesus existed before us, but was not in the position of Savior before anyone needed to be saved) for us – for meeting our true need and not to be commanded around by us or meet our selfish wants.

    There are pictures in the Bible (like this one) in which the woman acts in a Christ-representing manner, and others where the man does. But the actual Bible teaching is that all believers (male and female) represent Jesus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers

%d bloggers like this: