Article Series - Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia |
As Paul draws on narratives from the Hebrew Bible to support his case, and as he considers it authoritative for the Ephesian church, I think it is necessary for us to look at Genesis 2 and 3 over the next few posts. As they are often used to justify patriarchy, and as chapter 2 is (as I argued in my last post) what the redeemed community is to reflect; a detailed examination is needed. The next few posts may ‘fill in’ what some of you felt was lacking in the previous post.
First A Brief Word Study:
It is often argued that the word “helper” in Genesis 2 has an inherent idea of subordination. That is, for the woman to be created as man’s helper, means she is supposed to be subject to him.
What I would like to demonstrate here is that patriarchy is placed onto the text, not drawn from it. The Hebrew word ezer does not have to mean subordination.
Let’s take a few examples:
Genesis 49:25 – where God is described as being an ezer – a helper. Now, what kind of theological problems would arise if we said God was subordinated to anyone simply because he is described as a helper?
Exodus 18:4 – where, again, God is described as helping them ‘escape the sword of Pharoah.’ No subordination implied here.
I Samuel 7:12 – where the word is used in the title Ebenezer – God is my helper.
I could go on, but this will suffice for now. There are many uses of this word in the Hebrew Bible, and most, if not all*, of them have no connotation of subordination of the helper.
In fact, as this word is employed in Genesis – it only refers to two beings – the woman and Yahweh. Would this not, then, suggest that the female gender is an exalted gender – one reflecting Yahweh’s assistance in ways that men need. Who’s the “weaker vessel” in reality? The woman is never said to need the man, he is said to need her. He needs her help, not her subordination. The idea of subordination is read onto the passage unnecessarily. We assume patriarchy, so we see it wherever we want.
If the church is to reflect, as a new creation – a new humanity, the original created order, it doesn’t appear patriarchy is part of that order. In fact, patriarchy is part of “the fall,” which I will examine in my next post.
14 Comments
I don’t think anybody is in support of patriarchy or subordinationism. I don’t in anyway think men and women are inequal. I view the scriptures as teaching that God has ordained different roles for different folks and one of the lines dividing the roles is gender. Again BIBLICALLY different roles does not lead to inequality se (1 Cor 12 and 14) in Corinthians there are all sorts of different roles for individuals and Paul is emphatic that this does not mean inequality.
All that to say that when you use terms like “patristic” you are not representing the complementarian view, and are just using the pop-feminism swear words to refer to complementarianism. (I know you will now try to qualify your use of the word)
I agree and there’s an interesting discussion of some of the creation factors at opensourcetheology.
Tom,
I’ve noticed in your posts that you will demonstrate that a word can mean something but you never actually show in the particular context that you are addressing, e.g 1 Timothy 2:11 and Genesis 2, that this is the meaning intended by the author/redactor. This in my mind has severely weakened your case. What I have noticed as a result is that egalitarians remain egalitarians and complementarians remain complementarians (I agree with Bob that calling this view "patriarchy" is misrepresenting complementarianism). I am hoping that this is due impart that you are busy and that you aren’t writing dissertations. I am also hoping that your next posts will do more to present a compelling argument, especially on a grammatical level as I have noted.
Bob, something I find interesting is how there is no mention of gender roles within 1 Corinthians 12 at all and when it is found in 14 it really seems like it is a function of making the church look acceptable in the eyes of the Romans, who were suspicious of any new movements that deviated from the social norm… unless you want to call it patriarchy.
Bob,
I’m not going to qualify my use of patriarchy - I’m going to continue to use it. Youo accuse me of using pop-feminism words, but I’m using the word in it’s original sense - pointing to a male-rulership within a family, organization or society. I do not agree with patriarchy, but I in no way am using this terminology in these posts in a pejorative sense or in a derogatory sense.
Furthermore, I have Complementarian support for the use of this word. Russ Moore, professor of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was quoted a few years ago in support of redeeming the word ‘patriarchy.’ He was frustrated by its negative connotations as a result of feminism, and he wanted to reinvest the word with non-feminist meaning.
So, no, I’m not going to qualify the use or stop using the word. It is the position of the Complemnatarians that men hold the positions of power within the church and family. Not only that, but I have BC’s calling for the use of this word. And finally, if I meant the word in a pejorative sense, then I would need to stop using it altogether for the sake of my own soul, but as I am using it neutrally, I don’t feel convicted to cease using the word. Seems you’re so afraid of pop-feminism that you want to abandon traditionally held language.
Hank,
I’m not sure what you mean. It took me 3 posts in I Timothy, but I think I supported my claim that this is what Paul meant with the use of Authentein. If there was a violently matriachal bend in the femals within the church at Ephesus, as the whole Artemis reading suggests, then there is the justification for my applied definition of the word. That combined with all the historical evidence that suggests the word was overwhelmingly used that way - I think its a shut case.
As for ezer - I’m not trying to redefine this word. ‘Helper’ is a fine translation. I just don’t like what we have placed on that word through our cultural biases. No where in the Hebrew Bible does this word have implied subordination - so the burden of proof lies on those who claim it implies subordination. That’s all I’m saying.
Unless, of course, I’ve misunderstood what you were saying….then, just ignore all I have just written.
In this post, you assert that ezer "does not have to mean subordination." Then you cite places where the word is used of God to mean helper. But you don’t show from the context of Genesis 2 that this is what the author meant in Genesis 2, nor do you offer evidence that this word is used to only mean helper with no nuance of submission in reference to women (I have not looked this up myself I am merely commenting that you are asserting without much evidence). Now I don’t disagree with what you are stating in this post, but that was because I had already come to that conclusion.
But it is interesting in your post you said, "The woman is never said to need the man, he is said to need her. He needs her help, not her subordination." Woman was created to fill a role, which is what Bob has been arguing–unless I miss your point in these words.
In regards to 1 Timothy 2:9-15, again the actual text is left alone to show that αὐθεντεῖν the meaning you show exists for the word is the actual meaning that Paul had in mind. You failed to demonstrate that Paul was not using αὐθεντεῖν as a synonym to ἐξουσιάζω, you just ruled it out. That is key. No argument is given for why Paul is using αὐθεντεῖν the way you argued it could mean. You did an amazing job showing that αὐθεντεῖν could mean dominate or domineer, but failed to put it in 1 Timothy 2:12 as Paul’s intended use. Also, I always think it is a bad idea to deal with "well if this author wanted to say this, he would have used this term." Not that you can’t get some good exegetical information from that line of thinking, it often leads to an exegete going off on some rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the text.
As regards your view of Artemis being the source of Paul’s concern in the text, it is interesting, but is unconvincing. You admit it yourself that Paul might not be dealing with Artemis. She just fits the way you understand the text. The argument itself is sound, but just cannot be proven from 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy or Titus.
As a result, all of the complementarians are left unconvinced and all of the egalitarians are left convinced. My objections are not to say that you are wrong because I find your argument lacking necessary substance, especially for my mind. But I am say just that, your argument lacks substance on key issues, especially in the realm of grammar, when so much of your argument hinges upon those issues (αὐθεντεῖν not being synonymous with ἐξουσιάζω or that the meaning you have shown αὐθεντεῖν to have is the intended meaning of Paul; Artemis being the "godless myth" that Paul was addressing Timothy about; ezer in fact meaning what you say it does in the context of Genesis 2).
(And you may not intend for your use of "patriarchy" to be pejorative or derogatory, but it does come off that way. I can see why Bob might be a little upset by it.)
Hank, you say:
In regards to 1 Timothy 2:9-15, again the actual text is left alone to show that αὐθεντεῖν the meaning you show exists for the word is the actual meaning that Paul had in mind. You failed to demonstrate that Paul was not using αὐθεντεῖν as a synonym to ἐξουσιάζω, you just ruled it out. That is key. No argument is given for why Paul is using αὐθεντεῖν the way you argued it could mean. You did an amazing job showing that αὐθεντεῖν could mean dominate or domineer, but failed to put it in 1 Timothy 2:12 as Paul’s intended use. Also, I always think it is a bad idea to deal with “well if this author wanted to say this, he would have used this term.” Not that you can’t get some good exegetical information from that line of thinking, it often leads to an exegete going off on some rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the text.
What is a text but a grouping of words? You make it seem like one word doesn’t changed a text. Yet, individual words signify something, and if we can place a word in it’s broader literary context (ie - the greater corpus of contemporary Greek texts), we can get a sense as to what exactly a word is trying to signify.
αὐθεντεῖν, understood in the broad realm of Greek literature, has a fairly specific meaning in reference to domination, and originally even meant the murder by one’s own family member. This is the word’s history. If Paul is using the word to signify a different idea, then he absolutely failed to alert his audience, as his audience would have already had a specific idea associated with that word.
Since the word had a specific contextual meaning, one that is markedly more nuanced than ἐξουσιάζω, the burden of proof resides with whoever supports an alternate understanding of αὐθεντεῖν. It is the one equating the two words who must “go off on some rabbit trail that has nothing to do with the text.”
PS - someone needs to teach me how to use quotes here…
Regarding the concern about understanding the meaning in it’s own context: please remember that the Jewish understanding of words was different than many of our understanding of words. To use the same word in one place meant connecting it to other locations where it was used. Understanding scripture as a whole is essential and so when we put passages like 1 Tim in context, we need to remember the overarching themes of the entire Bible.
I wonder what Hank meant by the statement: “Woman was created to fill a role, which is what Bob has been arguing–unless I miss your point in these words.” Were men created to fill a role? Is there just one role or many? What about all the women and men who are used by God throughout the Bible and don’t fit into the “role”, or do they?
Also, as we look at the issue of “patriarchy”, equality, and submission, we need to look at the reality of how things have been manifest - the truth is that in most cases, women have been treated as subserviant, being given tasks in the church that require less intelligence and skill. Would a complementarian please explain what you believe the relationships between women and men, their roles and skills, etc look like in a prefallen or post redemptive world.
Man, I had a really freaking long (and in my opinion, good) response to Hanks comments, but they were accidentally deleted just after I pushed submit.
Hank, thank you for your comments….I will get back with you, brother….I promise.
Jesse, you wrote:
Regarding the concern about understanding the meaning in it’s own context: please remember that the Jewish understanding of words was different than many of our understanding of words. To use the same word in one place meant connecting it to other locations where it was used. Understanding scripture as a whole is essential and so when we put passages like 1 Tim in context, we need to remember the overarching themes of the entire Bible.
Indeed, not just Jewish, but the general ancient conception of words is usually far removed from our own. Heck, the word “word” (greek “logos”) had an absolute plethora of meanings.
Problems arise with the general issue of what constituted “scripture” for them (which we discussed a bit not too long ago). Also, Timothy’s approach to the texts may not be entirely what one would consider “Jewish” (not sure if we can really determine such thing though) considering he was a convert of some sort. And finally, the main problem with αὐθεντεῖν is that, to my knowledge, it doesn’t occur in the septuagint, which would more or less have been “scripture” to the intended audience. So, unfortunately, we can’t make the necessary connections. However, connections can be made between the uses of “ezer,” like Tom has done.
Well, basically I was going to take a long time to say the same thing cheapham said in just a few paragraphs….so, I’ll leave my response at that. Thanks Matt, you spoke my mind.
I have a question. As I was reading genesis 2 I started wondering what was meant by suitable helper. I almost think that maybe suitable helper is meant to be more like a complement of adam. They both help each other out, and it says that the animals are brought to adam and they can help in some ways but there isn’t one that is perfectly suitable, or complementary, or adam. Does that make sense and does anyone have any comments on that?
Josh,
I think both sides of this discussion can get on board with what you’re saying. What your saying doesn’t necessitate that ‘helper’ implies subordination.
oh no i wasn’t trying to say that i was trying to figure out what it means, because i dont think it means subordination in anyway. i was trying to show an alternative to what it might actually mean instead of subordinatio, which is a complementary helper. they complement each other and are made for each other almost like peanut butter and jelly, one is not better than the other but they go great together. i just didnt know if anyone had thought of that and if they thought maybe that was the case.