Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)


Wbmoore quotes both verses that call the man(husband) the head of the woman(wife). But that would only mean something if the headship idiom actually meant the same in Greek, which the New Testament was written in, as it does in English. It does not. (Perhaps more on his post on what headship mean later.)

For example, 1 Corinthians 11:3 (“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ”) would have been written in hierarchal order if head meant authority. But the order is right for head meaning source in Greek – Christ made the man (Adam), Adam’s rib was the source of Eve after that, and Christ appeared as a human, via the source of God the Father, long after that.

When directly asked about it, Moore changes the topic and asserts without evidence:

Me: How do you motivate your understanding of head as “authority figure” and not any of the many other meanings? I explain my understanding this way: Paul never used the head metaphor in a way he explains as about leadership. (The heart is usually called the thinking, leading organ in Bible speech.) In the chapter after the one you quoted a “head verse from, he uses the body metaphor extensively, in the sense of the whole body needing one another. (“The head cannot tell the feet: I do not need you” :21)

Moore: I am not saying the wife is any less important than the husband. I am simply saying God said the husband is to lead sacrificially.

As for ‘head’, its clear that head means the one in charge, the one making the decisions.

It is clear in your English-thinking mind, Wbmoore. Not in the language the metaphor was written in.


Could we read that Timothy verse on face value?

1 Timothy 2:11-15 is one of the hardest passages in the Bible to understand. Without going in on the questions like “Is one woman compared to Eve, or all? Is one particular woman told not to have authority over/ dominate/ seduce/ do violence to (all possible translations of :12, according to different scholars) one (particular) man, or are all women told not to do this to men?,” let’s quote :12-14 in Wbmoore’s chosen translation:

12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

What Moore seemingly gets from it is:

12 But I (Paul, and God with me that is Paul,) do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (On the other hand, God want men to exercise authority over women.)13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (And because of her transgression, her female descendants should not teach or have authority, but the willfully disobedient Adam’s male descendants should.)

Some things about this passage is rather hard to see, but there are obvious things Moore or any serious student of the passage should spot:

  1. Paul speak of “I allow not.” Not “God allow not.” Paul’s will should not be our source of church doctrine.
  2. (Whatever authority mean – question 5 in this post), the passage never, ever, say husbands are allowed to have authority over wifes, or men over women. To read “a woman should not have authority over a man” as “a man should have authority over a woman” simply does not follow. A similar argument will be reading “young women and men should be enslaved to wine” into Titus 2:4: “Older women should not be enslaved to wine.”

And now for something that W.B. Moore may not have found so obvious:

Just before this, Paul tells in 1 Tim 1:13 how God had mercy on him, as his sin was the result of being misled. And after God had mercy and Paul learned the truth, he could preach. On the other hand, those who sinned knowingly did not get God’s mercy. (1:19-20) In this context, why would 2:12-14 forever bar everyone from the same gender as the misled Eve from teaching while not barring the gender of the knowingly sinning Adam from anything? Paul certainly admit that Adam also sinned, see Romans 5:14

It is easy to see how “women should never teach or have authority, because Eve was misled, men (from the knowing sinner Adam) should lead” really does not fit the context. Nor does it fit God’s character, His perfect atonement, or His statements about children not being punished for their parents’ sin. Scholars struggle with this passage, but whatever the correct interpretation, Moore’s does not fit the data.

Comments on: "Men should lead? Responding to Wbmoore (Part 2)" (3)

  1. KR Wordgazer said:

    *applauds* Nicely reasoned!


  2. KnowtheWord1 said:

    God qualifies those who he calls to preach. A man not qualified and called by God shouldn’t be teaching either, and many men are deceived also, and men in general are more lawless than women.
    However, God chooses and equips specific men that He qualifies to preach and oversee His flock. God chose men to lead and bear the heavier responsibility, and they have authority to do so. But it’s a love thing. No demonic cruelty, selfishness and harshness.
    I cannot reason my way around anything the Bible says, and it is dangerous to do so.
    God is a God of order.
    Men are not better than women, smarter, holier or anything. That has nothing to do with it.
    If women could accept that just because men and women have different roles, doesn’t mean one is better than the other, it might help us accept the truth of God’s word.
    God tells us in His word how to conduct ourselves. It is enough that God’s word says women shouldn’t have authority over and teach men. He chooses certain men to bear the responsibility of teaching and preaching. He chose to place the man as head of the woman.
    It’s no tyranny. The man has greater responsibility- someone has to, and if both people were head, how would decisions be made? A woman should only marry and submit to a man who is submitted to God. Men need to be led. He can only lead lovingly, selflessly and properly if he is completely submitted to Jesus.
    I can’t come up with my own reasons as to why women shouldn’t preach to men or have authority over her husband or congregation.
    It is enough that the Word says so.


    • Do you realize that your “the Word say so” cuts no ice here? That I, the blogger, actually am studying the Bible in this blog entry, the same Bible which you call “the Word”*? I am reasoning God does not say what you think the passage means. Your understanding does not equal God’s message.

      And nobody is rebelling against God by studying messages like these deeper. We who study it are willing to do whatever it takes to understand God right.

      *I call Jesus “the Word”, as John wrote. The Bible is “the word” without a capital letter.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: