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

Headship

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.

Advertisements

Comments on: "Men should lead? Responding to Wbmoore (Part 2)" (1)

  1. KR Wordgazer said:

    *applauds* Nicely reasoned!

    Like

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

%d bloggers like this: