Theology for the Masses

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. [↩]

• Women in Christianity
• Comments(4)

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. [↩]

• Women in Christianity
• Comments(27)

tom October 15th, 2007

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.

• Women in Christianity
• Comments(11)

tom October 10th, 2007

For most scholars, dealing with this passage is like trying to fold a fitted sheet – no matter how you manipulate it, it still doesn’t look right. The most they can hope for is to jumble together some cockeyed story and throw it in the closet hoping their guests won’t see the mess.*

This final verse in our pericope has taken a beating with the various interpretations – none of them offering anything theologically, contextually, or practically helpful. Most scholars would rather ignore the verse altogether. However, read in light of the Artemis Cult, it makes perfect theological and practical sense.

The usual interpretation – that is, taking the def. art. in front of ‘childbearing’ as specifying a specific childbearing, namely that of Mary’s deliverance of Christ, has nothing necessarily wrong with it. Both Egalitarians and Complementarians claim this as a legitimate interpretation. However, I do question it for this reason: Paul NEVER speaks of Christ’s birth anywhere else, and if this is going to be the only time he does so – why would he leave it so ambiguous? Just seems a bit odd to me. This doesn’t eliminate this interpretation as valid; rather it just poses a problematic question related to its oddity.

Now:

As noted previously, many Ephesian women considered the goddess Artemis superior to her brother Apollo because she preceded him in birth. This fact gave her female followers the ability to challenge the male dominance of Ephesus and rise above patriarchy (I know it’s an anachronistic term, but still helpful).

After her own birth, she helped her mother (Leto) in the delivery of her brother Apollo. For this action she became known as the goddess that assisted women in childbirth. Unfortunately, though, she killed many of these women, and this caused women to fear her as well as need her.

When Paul counters the Artemis cult in I Timothy 2 and replaces it with Hebraic narratives, he barbs Artemis in the process. Artemis couldn’t be trusted to save women. These women ‘will be saved,’ but not by Artemis. God (implied in the divine passive referred to later), by means of the Christian virtues he lists in this passage, will liberate these women.

The Genesis narrative offers no solutions to pain in childbirth; it only gives the origins thereof. Paul can use it to point to the problem, but cannot offer a solution. So Paul leaves Genesis and relies on Christian praxis for this liberation. (I know the dichotomy is a bit anachronistic, but I think it’s helpful at this point.)

By turning to Christian praxis, Paul can maintain that these women will be ‘saved’ (the Gk. word can mean ‘save’ ‘liberate’ ‘kept from harm’) through childbearing. This comes about “if” they appropriate a few specifically Christian virtues: faith, love, holiness, and modesty.**

The verb “will be saved” is a Gk. future passive indicative. This passive form is known as the ‘Divine Passive’ – suggesting that it is not the virtues that save, but divine action by means of the virtues. The salvation is contingent upon the virtues, but is enacted by God.

She will be saved “through childbearing” according to our English text. The Greek preposition here can also mean ‘during’ or ‘throughout.’ Thus, Paul may be speaking of being saved from the pain and possible death that arises during childbirth.

Following this, the listed Christian virtues actually transcend the punishment for the woman’s original sin. Christ’s death purchased salvation for sinners. In this act, He reverses the curses of the human sinfulness and institutes a community that is supposed to reflect pre-sin conditions, eliminating male patriarchy and pain in childbirth (the two punishments for the woman which just so happen to be the subjects of our pericope).

As women, through the appropriation of these virtues, return to the condition of the original community, they experience liberation from the original punishments. In other words, there is a reversal of the dominant world system of sin and a return to the original created order. Paul calls for a complete reversal, not only of our mythologies, but also of the way we order the world and see our community as a ‘new creation.’

SUMMARY: Sure, in their current sinful bodies, these women will still experience pain. But Paul offers a promise of hope. He barbs Artemis – where as Artemis may or may not save a woman in childbirth, Christ, through these virtues, offers these women hope of a future salvation (“they WILL be saved”) and a restoration of the created order within the community of faith – providing them present salvation from the original consequences of sin. They are being saved (both socially and spiritually) and will be saved (both socially and spiritually). He eliminates the fear of male dominance (as the first punishment) and death (the second punishment) in Christ and Christian virtues. Even though he is placing the original sin on the woman – he is liberating her from that sin through Christian virtues; something Artemis could have never done.

Ok: I’m sure there are some holes in my argument. Point them out so I can reflect on them. I’m still thinking through this issue and how this text works.

* Yep, I was doing laundry when I cam e up with this simile

** I don’t’ think these are strictly FEMALE Christian virtues. In fact, men are commanded to have these virtues in other place in the scripture. But in light of the female dominance in this community, Paul wants to emphasize these specific virtues and direct them at the women.

• Culture , Women in Christianity
• Comments(13)