Adj. Pertaining to complementarianism and egalitarianism.

***Working to be a safe place for all sides to share.***


Thursday, October 25, 2007

Challies on Submission cont.

Tim Challies published his views on submission. This is my response.

    1. The order of creation is fish, birds, animals, man, woman. Quotes in the NT do not always reflect the semantic content of the OT. See Eph. 4:8.

    2. Adam may represent the human race. No one submits to Adam.

    3. Hagar names God in Gen. 16. This involves recognizing the qualities of the person.

    4. The human race was called Adam which normally means “human”. In Gen 5:2 the word “Man” was not used until 1952. Grudem did not check this point when he said that it was “man” until the 1980’s. It was not.

    5. Sapphira was accountable for her own sin.

    6. “the fact remains that in any given situation, the person doing the helping necessarily places himself in a subordinate role to the person needing help.”

    In fact, the person who assists in the scriptures is the one who is a superior position. That is why it is used of God. That is why the King James said that Phoebe was a succourer of many. To succour means to assist someone in danger out of ones own resources, or from ones own position.

    7. “This desire is to interfere with or distort the role of her husband.” The scripture does not say that.

    8. There is exactly one time only in the NT when one person is given authority over another. It is completely mutual and reciprocal. This is in 1 Cor. 7. There is no other mention of authority of husband over wife. It does not exist.

    9. It is extremely dangerous to equate sinful men with Christ. Women are still abused at the same rate in Christian homes as anywhere else.

    10. This goes far beyond what the scriptures say. Adam may be the head of the human race, in that he is the representative progenitor. God is the representative progenitor of Christ and Christ of man.

    Christ teaches that you should love your next one as yourself. There is no greater law than this.

Ochuk responds at greater length here. I was particularly interested in what he had to say about #4.

    4) The naming of the human race. It is not at all clear that the Hebrew ‘adam has any “male-oriented aspect” in this context. Certainly, it is used as a name of the first man, but it is being used as a generic which implies no male-orientation. To make such an inference fails to understand the nature of generics. In Numbers 31 we read of the spoils of war brought back by the Israelites were 32,000 women. These women are referred to by the Hebrew generic noun ‘adam no less than six times (28, 30, 34, 40, 46, 47). Therefore, no “male-oriented aspect” should be inferred when ‘adam is used as a generic as it is in Genesis 1.

I also receive email. From someone who wrote to me today.
    If the church has kept women from participating in ministry because of a misunderstanding of Scripture, there is a lot of repentance and change that will need to happen. The most important thing is that everyone involved (male and female) seek to know the truth of the Scriptrures for our life with God.