OS and Adam

Hank January 31st, 2008

I felt like we were just going to go down the same path as in another post about the historicity of Adam and whether or not sin and righteousness is imputed (I would say both are imputed because that is the very parallel that Paul is drawing out in Romans 5:12-21, and thus for this parallel to work Adam must be historical and his sin must be an actual event in history) on the Myth thread. So I just went ahead and posted this so that we could devote an entire thread to OS, picking up some where Brad left off, and Adam being historical.

By my reading of Calvin’s Institutes, he would not say that there is a specific gene, like modern science would understand "genetic," that contains sin. Rather Calvin points to Romans 8:20 and says that humanity is part of the creation (ἡ κτίσις ) that was subjected to futility. He also understands original sin not to be sin itself but rather it is the corruption (cf Romans 8:21 ESV "bondage to corruption") of the imagio dei that all humans have. Thus we who are in the image of Adam bear that corrupted image as well (Notice the parallel of "futility" [ματαιότητι] in 8:20 and "bondage to corruption" [τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς] in Romans 8:21), being part of the created order. Thus it was Adam’s sin that corrupted humanity’s being the image of God and it is God’s curse that confines all of creation under that corruption. Therefore the corruption of sin rules over all of the creation, including human beings and their wills–which is precisely what (that is the human will) Calvin argues to be what makes humans the bearers of the image of God. The creation is enslaved or in bondage (Gk. δουλείας) to the corruption that is removed when the bodies of the sons of God are redeemed. I think "genetic" is too much of a caricature of the Reformed view of OS, at least from Calvin’s point of view expounded in The Institutes that is.

Curse of the Feminine 2/2

tom October 23rd, 2007

After the ‘Original Sin’ of Adam and Eve, God shows up to collect on their transgression. In ultimate graciousness, God doesn’t come and do as he had promised – that is, He did not bring the Grim Reaper with Him. Rather, Yahweh shows up and calls out for the creatures, giving them opportunity to acknowledge what they have done and repent. Rather than fessing up, they decide to hide (Though, I’m not really sure why they thought it would be a good idea to play hide-and-seek with God in the garden that He created.) When God finds them, the man blames his wife, and the woman blames the snake. No one wants to take responsibility – they still don’t.

After some dialogue, Yahweh pronounces judgment on the snake, the woman, and the man for all that has transpired. The judgment brought on the 3 of them is interesting. A curse is brought on the snake and the man,1 but not on the woman. That is, she is punished, but the word “curse” never comes up when Yahweh meets out her judgment.

The woman’s punishment is 2 fold:

  1. Increased pain in childbirth
  2. Her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her

Now, the traditional approach often overlooks what the text actually says. The traditional approach justifies patriarchy on the bases of #2. That is, they say men should be the leaders in home and church because that is part of the woman’s curse.

Now, this would be the case if the Hebrew sentence contained an imperative. But in actuality, there is no imperative present. #2 is not a command for men to rule and women to submit. Rather, it is a description of the post-fall gender relationships. Because of sin in the human community, men will dominate women. In other words, patriarchy is a result of the fall, not an original part of the human community, and definitely not the ideal.

God does not command women to have pain in childbirth, nor does he command them to be ruled by their husbands – these are results, not ideal situations.

As this is the case, why do we continue to insist on patriarchy in our homes and churches? In Christ we are a new humanity which is not bound to these old results. In Christ these shackles have been broken. This new community created in his image is to reflect the original creation – one that did not involve male dominance.

Until we see that this verse does not command male rule and female submission, until we realize that male rule is a result of the fall and does not predate it, we will continue to anachronistically read our own prejudices back onto the biblical text.

Response to Challie’s 10 points

1. “The order of creation” Nowhere in the Genesis text is the creation order used to justify patriarchy and submission. I do agree that submission is a part of the created order, the church, and even the Trinity. But the practical application of submission of men over women is not found within the text of Genesis 1 or 2. Furthermore, he reads I Timothy 2 back onto Genesis without first letting Genesis speak for itself. Had Genesis been allowed to speak for itself, maybe he would see his interpretation of I Timothy 2 needs reworked.

2. “The representation of the human race” I suppose this comes down to your hermeneutic when approaching Genesis. As I think it is myth, I think Paul is drawing on a particular mythological figure, one which represents the sinful human race, and contrasting that figure with Christ, who is also the beginning of a new humanity – one not marred by sin. (I’m sure this will get some discussion, but oh well. I’ve avoided the language of mythology thus far b/c I didn’t want it to be distracting, but it needed to be brought up here in refutation of this point.) As Adam is not a literal individual person, but a mythological representative, there is no reason to assume Eve is not included in Paul’s mentioning of Adam.

Even if you don’t read it as mythological (which I’m assuming many of you won’t.) Paul does not make male-leadership related applications in Romans 5. It is an inference not found within the text. In my view, there’s no reason to read it into a text that is speaking of something else entirely.

3. “The naming of the woman” Interestingly, I don’t think he examines all the evidence here. “Woman” is not a name! It is not until after the fall that the woman is give the name “Eve.” If naming the woman supports patriarchy, and the woman is not actually named until after the fall, then patriarchy is the result of the fall! Which is exactly what I’ve been arguing for.

4. “naming of the human race” – What? Before there was a human race, when just the man existed (according to the 2nd creation account), the man was still called man. But man as male cannot exist without the female. Also, the term ‘man’ is applied to both of them in the 1st creation account. “Man” is the result of patriarchal language, not necessarily the originating factor of patriarchal language.

5. “Primary Accountability” – Why did God call upon Adam first? Was it because he was the man? The text does not affirm this. However, as Challie says, it may be because he was older – it was his responsibility to teach the younger Eve. As Eve was decieved, it was Adam’s fault. Adam is called to account, not because he is the man, but because of the two of them, he should’ve known better because God gave him the direct command! (Genesis 2:16-17)

6. “The purpose of the woman” – I already dealt with this word ‘ezer.’ There is no reason to assume hierarchy from this word’s usage.

7. “The conflict” – I just deal with this in this post.

8. “The restoration” – he offers to scriptural support, here. But Egalitarians have pointed out several texts which support the view that God reverses even the marital consequences of the fall. And again, this still assumes patriarchy is a pre-fall condition.

9. “They Mystery” – I think it’s going to take a few posts on Ephesians 5 to deal with this, but Challie assumes male headship is being upheld here, and I think it more has to do with mutual submission and the decrease of male privledge. I don’t expect you to accept my thoughts here….I’m sure I’ll have to write a post or 2 on it, so don’t jump me yet.

10. “The Trinity” – This could go a lot of different ways. Stephen Seamands, a Methodist Theologian, has recently argued for the Trinity as an example for a radically egalitarian community that submits to one another.

Well, I hope you’ve enjoyed these posts. I’ll think about putting some things together on Ephesians 5, but that may be a while coming. I’m enjoying your thoughts. And as someone else pointed out in the last post, I too am glad this has not spun into polemics, but has rather been beneficial spiritually and academically.

  1. the curse of the man is indirectly through the ground. [↩]

Curse of the Feminine 1/2

tom October 18th, 2007

Though I have posited that I Timothy 2 is best understood in light of the Artemis Cult, I have not attempted to dispel the traditional reading of this text. In this post that is what I intend to do. The BC’s generally make two assertions regarding Paul’s reasons for women not being able to pastor. I will suggest here that these 2 assertions, as interpreted by the BC’s, cannot stand up under close biblical scrutiny. They suggest Paul forbids women to pastor/preach because 1. the woman was created 2nd and 2. The woman was deceived, not the man.

1. A Woman Cannot Be a Pastor B/c She Was Created Second

When we examine the Genesis text from which Paul draws his argument, we see that Genesis makes no reference to a pre-Fall hierarchy. That said, as I have already argued, there is no reason to read patriarchy into the pre-sin community.

Genesis NEVER draws any kind of headship related inferences in regards to her being created second. In fact, her creation sets her as the man’s equal – she is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh – she is the same as me! Unlike those beasts who could not be my companion, she is like me! The emphasis of Genesis is NOT on their distinctiveness, it is on their SIMILARITIES!1 We run into problems when we attempt to read our arguments of male/female distinctions onto this text.

On another note, one of the dominant storylines in Genesis is the reversal of societal expectations. That is, especially as it relates to primogeniture, Genesis has a recurring theme of the youngest receiving the blessing, while the oldest gets the leftovers. This is a reversal of societal expectations – and the prevalence of this idea means there is no reason to assume coming second implies subordination within either the immediate Genesis narrative or the surrounding context of the whole book. In fact, that concept completely contradicts the current of the Genesis narrative.

Follow this up with the fact that the first creation account says they were created at the same time – if it is really that important that she was created second, why would the first account not have emphasized this as well?

2. A Woman Cannot Be a Pastor B/c She Was Deceived and Adam Was Not

This assertion is as fallacious as the first when it comes to the evidence in Genesis. First, it should be noted that the man was present when the temptation occurred. It was not that he was of somewhere trimming hedges. The serpent’s uses plural pronouns because he is speaking to both of them. Second, if he is present with Eve, and only she is deceived, why doesn’t he correct her? Why does he just stand by and let this happen? She tries to justify the boundaries Yahweh has set in their lives, and the man stands by silently. What is worse, being deceived or standing by with the truth and not rescuing others from falsehood? Sorry, I see the man’s sin as worse than the woman’s.

Second, supposing the man had a responsibility to teach the woman about God’s rules, he failed to do so. If she didn’t know the rules of Yahweh in relation to the Tree, it was not only her fault, it was his too. Maybe men should be ousted from their pastoral responsibilities because they have the universal characteristic of being negligent in their teaching roles!2

In the end, I find the traditional reading of Pauls’ 2 assertions lacking in evidence from the Genesis narrative. I see proof-texting mostly based on presuppositions. If we do not read our presuppositions from I Tim. 2 back onto Genesis, we see that Genesis does not provide support for our presuppositions.

If Paul supports the Complementarian view in I Timothy 2, then he is contradicting and prooftexting from Genesis. As we conservatives are not willing to say that, we need to reexamine how the texts relate to one another – because the Complementarian view simply doesn’t do justice to Genesis or Paul. My assertion is that the Artemis Cult allows Paul to read Genesis without contradiction and in its proper context.

  1. One of our problems in this discussion is that we want to emphasize the differences between the man and the woman [strength vs. nurture, for example] because we are reacting to Feminism. The problem with this, though, is that when we are reacting to something in our reading of a text, we always run into the danger of not allowing the text to speak to us. Genesis wants to emphasize the similarities of the man and the woman. Are there differences? – yes. But that is not the focus of Genesis. [↩]
  2. This completely fits the I Timothy context as well. In pagan temples women were allowed to take priestess positions upon conversion [whatever that meant]. They didn’t have to have experience, they just needed to be a vessel for prophetic utterances from the deity. These same women, upon converting to Christianity, would have wanted to teach in the Ephesian churches even though they were novices. Paul is creating a distinction between the pagan practice and the Christian practice. One cannot simply come into a Christian church [male or female] and start teaching without having a good knowledge of Christ. [↩]

Bad Behavior has blocked 441 access attempts in the last 7 days.