a quote from an old article on CBMW’s Gender Blog …
“The position Grudem and Ware hold is of course the position of CBMW and we believe it has considerable implications for gender issues. The doctrine of God, specifically the Trinity, is intrinsically important as a type of parallel to how we relate to both God and to each other. The relational structure within the Godhead is a pattern for those created in his image. Bruce Ware commenting on Genesis 1:26, writes:
“There is an intentionality expressed in these words indicating that man, more fully than any other part of creation, will reflect and represent what God is like. Although the heavens declare God’s glory (Psalm 19:1), only man is made in God’s image” (132).
He sums up his point nicely saying, “It is God-like to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is God-like to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority.” The next two posts will draw out more implications of the Trinity debate on gender issues for marriage, the family, and the Church.”
It really sounds like Bruce Ware is saying that only the male human is fully made in God’s image??? This is of some importance, since this is a basic doctrinal stance of CBMW. And I am of the opinion that most believers regardless of their views on gender consider both male and female to be in God’s image.
J.B. Starke from CBMW has clarified that “man” in the quote was intended to be understood in the inclusive sense, that is, as humans.
full article here…
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Debating-the-Trinity-Part-I
“It is God-like to submit to rightful authority with joy and gladness as it is God-like to exert wise and beneficial rightful authority.” The
Sounds like the old slave holder’s mantra.
I have done a lot of historical study and I can tell you that Bruce Ware’s attitude about submission to rightful authority is the same argument that many forms of oppressive hierarchal authority have made. I’m surprised Ware has not noticed this.
When Ware and Grudem go from the relationship of Christ and the Father in the Trinity and use it to say that the husband has all authority and the wife has all submission, then they are in fact promoting a loss of authority in the Son in order to link the Trinity and marriage together.
Also, when they attempt to link the relationship of the Messiah (as creator, savior, and God) and the church to the husband, they imply a godlikeness to the husband/man that the wife/woman does not have.
It’s complicated. But I see some things in the Ware/Grudem philosophies that I think would have been anathema in the early church…. even though their world view held women as inferior.
Equally confusing to the average person is the idea that one can be fully equal in essence and worth, yet fully unequal in essence and worth because their gender subordination is based on their essence.
To be fair – I can’t believe I’m saying this! – could this be a lack on the part of the English language? Man can mean a male or a human being, either male or female. To immediately assume he means that only male humans reflect and represent God above all else in creation is spurious.
However, if a later post on this blog states that Ware really means that a male human fully reflects and represents God above all else in creation, I won’t be surprised.
I wrote that article and Bruce Ware is not saying “man” as in gender male, but as in mankind – both male and female. Both male and female display the image of God is what I was saying, not simply male. Please adjust this since that is not what I said nor is it what Ware said.
Thank you,
John Starke
Well, I’m not sure who said it, but there are a few of the gender hierarchalist leaders who claim that men represent or reflect the image of God not only differently but more fully than women do. I believe the Five Aspects group does and it seems to me that others have said the same. And if I’m remembering rightly, it is all centered around the male’s responsibility of carrying authority, which the women are supposedly not qualified or called to do. Of course, then they have to tweek Gen. One to claim that. ???
believer3 –
I don’t care who represents this view. It is not me nor is it Bruce Ware. I am asking that you either take this post down or change it to fit the purpose of the actual article. I’m not asking that you agree with our understanding of Gender. I’m just asking that you not misquote or misrepresent us. Again, please take down the post or make appropriate changes.
Thanks,
John Starke
I completely agree that there are those who believe such a warped theology, but we can’t assume that from this one particular quote.
You are correct Tami. Not enough information in that one quote to support that conclusion. I’m using the quote as a sort of jump start into discussing more things about what Ware believes or doesn’t believe. The confusion of what is stated in that quote is what got me going.
here are some of my ‘wonderings’…
By saying that the relational structure in the Trinity is one of authority versus submission, he can then incorporate this ‘eternal subordination’ to women. But what ends up transferred to women is a complete loss of authority as all authority is given to the husband to disperse as he sees fit. And all submission is given to women, leaving men not having to be submissive. BECAUSE that is what ends up, then one has to look again at their view of the Trinity and say that they are assigning a lessor eternal role to the Son, than to the Father. And that lessor role is given to the woman.
So, where is God’s image in all of this.
a quote by JB Starke in the CBMW article bring further questions to my mind…..
In their view, only the Father initiates and the Son only responds. To me this sounds like the Arianism that Athenasius wrote his creed to correct. Athenasius says that there is no lessor or greater, not 3 wills but one will, and all share the same authority. Here is only one place where Grudem appears to claim that the Father and the Son have 2 wills, to which the Son yields His will to the greater authority of the Father. ??? And where does Scripture use a difference of authority question to differentiate between Father, Son and Spirit?
What do you mean misrepresenting you. What exactly are you referring to.
This is a discussion. Questions are being asked. People are just talking. No one is representing you or Ware here.
But I am looking for some other Ware quotes, that relate to this discussion. Perhaps, when I find them, you can clarify them for me. That would be greatly appreciated.
Molly or Wayne, could you please email me…. I’m on another computer while my computer is being fixed and do not have your email addys. Email is working, but no email history.
J Starke, You wrote in part 2…
Would you please expand on this. It seems to me that when one determines ones function by reason of their essence and then determines that function to be an inferior one to another, which is an eternal designation, then there is no difference in function and essence. If woman is determined to be eternally subordinate (never able to rise above her subordination into equal authority) by reason of her womanhood (essence), then her essence is equally subordinate and less than those who are not eternally subordinate by reason of their essence. So where is the equality?
I’m covering a lot of this stuff too at the moment at Re vis.e Re form.
J.B. Starke,
I added the following to the original post “J.B. Starke from CBMW has clarified that “man” in the quote was intended to be understood in the inclusive sense, that is, as humans.”
Does this meet your concern?
To JBStarke,
1) Do you believe that men more closely reflect the image of God than women?
2) Do you believe women are to joyfully submit to men?
Please answer my question. Thanks.
Thank you for making that adjustment, Don.
I’m not sure what else Starke wants.
Sounds like JBStarke was building up to teaching that women should joyfully submit to men’s authority.
Was that in fact what you were doing, Mr. Starke?
“I wrote that article and Bruce Ware is not saying “man” as in gender male, but as in mankind – both male and female. Both male and female display the image of God is what I was saying, not simply male. Please adjust this since that is not what I said nor is it what Ware said.
Thank you,
John Starke”
Actually, Ware is on the record as teaching that women are made in the ‘indirect image’ of God. He described them as a ‘derivative’.
Has he changed his position?
I have posted a few thoughts on my blog.
Yes, according to Ware, men more closely reflect the image of God; women are one step removed due to the method and order of their creation. (He does affirm that men and women “share a common humanity and equal worth before God”).
consider this smattering of quotes from Ware:
while God did intend to create male and female as equal in their essential nature as human, he also intended to make them different expressions of that essential nature, as male and female reflect different ways, as it were, of being human.
male was made image of God first, in an unmediated fashion, as God formed him from the dust of the ground, while the female was made image of God second, in a mediated fashion, as God chose, not more earth, but the very rib of Adam by which he would create the woman fully and equally the image of God. So, while both are fully image of God, and both are equally the image of God, it may be the case that both are not constituted as the image of God in the identical way. Scripture gives some clues that there is a God-intended temporal priority bestowed upon the man as the original image of God, through whom the woman, as image of God formed from the male, comes to be.
In the very formation of the woman, it was to be clear that her life, her constitution, her nature, was rooted in and derived from the life, constitution, and nature of the man.
her very human nature is constituted, not in parallel fashion to his with both formed from the same earth, but as derived from his [the man's] own nature so showing a God-chosen dependence upon him [the man] for her origination
quotes from Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God.
Suzanne has a comment on this post:
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/
She gives an excellent answer to Bruce Ware’s idea of men being more the image of God than women.
While I take Mr. Starke at face value that
his intention was not to exclude females by the use of the word “man” in his article, Ware has expressed elsewhere of the image of God in female humans that they were formed “in a mediated fashion” while “the male was made image of God first, in an unmediated fashion”:
from Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God:
“because man was created by God in his image first, man alone was created in a direct and unmediated fashion as the image of God, manifesting, then, the glory of God. But in regard to the woman, taken as she was from or out of man and made for the purpose of being a helper suitable to him, her created glory is a reflection of the man’s”
Does anyone notice that the end result of this statement is that it is concluding that woman is less in God’s image than the man, because she received her ‘image’ derived through the man.
It is unfortunate, that this concept also allows an incorrect view of what ‘ezer kenegdo’ meant. It did and does not mean God created an assistant to the man.
I know from science that a little girl’s body is the template for the body shape of the human race. If men were meant to have priority, why is it the female body that is the template?
Per Starke . . . I think it’s very important (and a basic Christian responsibility) to accurately report what is being claimed. Ware et al deny forcefully that they believe that women are less valuable or bear the image of God to a lesser degree than men, as Ware clearly stated in the quote above. Likewise, they fully affirm the equal divinity of Christ. They aren’t Arians. Mr. Starke is right to insist that their position be fairly described, and not misrepresented or caricatured. This is a matter of fundamental Christian integrity. I support him in this, and look forward to his continued efforts to pursue truth and expose bias as he defends egalitarians from misrepresentation and attack by complementarians with the same initiative, alacrity and zeal he has shown here.
I agree that we need to be fair and honest.
However, Ware states that women are in the image of God through men, and men are directly in the image of God. Men and women are in the image of God in different ways. It is not a symmetrical paradigm.
Ware writes,
“It appears that God intends the identity of both to contain an element of priority given to the male,”
It isn’t really equal because a woman is only in the image of God in that males, the opposite sex, have priority; and men are in the image of God, if they themselves have priority, with no mention of the opposite sex.
So men are fully in the image of God, without any mention of women, and women are only in the image of God with their relying on men.
No, I don’t find this equal.
Women are not in the image of God apart from being under men, but men are in the image of God independent of women. That appears to be what Ware is saying.
There must be a component of opposite sex headship for women to be in the image of God. But there is no opposite sex component to the way men are in the image of God.
So women have less God-imaging content than men.
Having said that, I can’t agree with Ware’s position as I understand it. I don’t have his writing in front of me, so if I’m misrepresenting him I’m more than open to correction.
First, if memory serves, he uses I Cor. 11:3, 7-10 as key for his understanding of both the Trinity and gender roles. In order to do this, the word “head” must signify “authority”. Needless to say, this is debated. The only undisputed “authority” mentioned in this passage is in v. 10, and it has been argued that the grammar more easily indicates authority borne by the woman, rather than placed over her. Besides the fact that Paul missed a chance to clarify a husband’s authority earlier in 7:3-5, where he advocates reciprocal authority and mutual consent, Paul sums up his dissertation on hair length? head coverings? veils? angels? in relation to appropriate public prayer and prophesying by men *and women* by affirming their unity and interdependence “in the Lord” (v. 11-12).
Sarah,
If you click on my name it will lead you to my website where I have posted on this topic, linking to an article by Ware on this topic.
Second, (sorry for the long posts here, but I’m trying to be thorough), while I believe Ware affirms the full deity of Christ, I’m concerned about a view of essential hierarchy so entrenched that he and others can’t conceptualize meaningful distinction without it. Thus those who don’t embrace hierarchy in the Trinity are accused of modalism, and those who support gender equity are accused of promoting androgeny (For the sake of clarity, I think everyone here should determine who is in authority over whom so we don’t get confused and start thinking we are identical, or worse yet, the same person). Not only has this led to conflating a secondary issue with primary doctrines of the Trinity and even salvation, but mis-using verses such as John 8:28-29 to support eternal rather than incarnational subordination undermines established Trinitarian apologetics and cult ministries. The Gospel can’t be added to w/out being diminished, and we’d better be very careful before tying it to something Scripture never does.
When I look at Ware’s theology (and by extension cbmw’s), I see an integrated story, a tapestry woven with grand themes and each thread placed in such a way as to draw the whole together. In certain lights it can be glorious-order and unity culminating in a portrait of the great King, giving meaning and beauty to the smallest stitch. It encompasses creation and eternity, and when seen this way removing the thread of gender hierarchy ravages the whole.
But even though it’s a lovely picture that weaves Bible verses and tradition and human logic and even the best of intentions into a pattern that seems to cover the pages of Scripture perfectly, when I lay the Bible over it the tapestry just doesn’t fit. I see holes and the shape is wrong. The portrait relies on a speculative premise Scripture never gives. The picture only makes sense when it overlays the Bible. When the Bible is placed over it, the wonder fades and it’s clear that the images of the King and his creation are too small.
Sue, sorry I cross-posted you. Between my somewhat cumbersome cell phone commenting, my assumption that on one else would be nuts enough to be up this time of night, and my sleep-deprived rhapsodizing (will I regret this in the morning?) I wrote right over you. Thanks for the link. I agree with you – the derivative image aspect, particularly since the difference that isn’t a difference carries such profound practical and symbolic consequences, is a huge logical problem. However, I can see the argument that as the concept of the Trinity itself can seem to be self-contradicting on the surface it wouldn’t be a leap to say that their idea falls got the same category. The difference is that the Trinity has real scriptural and historical legs while Ware’s theology doesn’t as far as I can see. If gender hierarchy was key to serving God, why doesn’t the Bible clearly make that tie? Why aren’t “godly” femininity and masculinity clearly described and emphasized repeatedly in the new test?
You feel as if you are posting on top of me because I am being moderated in case I say something impolite.
Don’t worry about it, I am more used to this kind of treatment now, than I was.
I am reading now about how for the first three centuries the Syriac church had a different paradigm of the trinity. For them the spirit was feminine, and some writings portray the trinity as our father God, our mother the spirit and our older brother, Jesus.
It is clear from this that the early church did not have an order in the trinity of Father, Son and Spirit in descending order as Ware has.
For the Syriac church, however, this was just one of many metaphors, not a reality carved in stone for eternity.
I will post on this soon.
Sue -. I think you’re correct in your assessment. Men are independently in the image of God, women derive the image of God through man. In the broader theology the choice of generic “man” to indicate humanity rather than a male is deliberate, as males are considered to be representative heads. Ware mentions “temporal priority.” It seems to me that there has been some dabbling with the notion that the priority isn’t only temporal – that it extends to eternity – at the cbmw website. Unfortunately I can’t link over there, but I remember discussion about that a while ago. I understand the point about Ware’s assertions leading to the conclusion that women are less in the image of God than men, but as he specifically denies that conclusion and asserts that men and women both have equal spiritual standing, I don’t think saying he views women as inferior is fair. However, I think it’s more than fair to hold his logic and interpretations to the light of day and point out logical incoherence and scriptural errors.
I agree with this assessment, Sarah. If you want to talk to me here you will have to scan back up the thread for my comments added from time to time into the discussion.
Joy on August 27, 2009 at 1:07 am
Yes, according to Ware, men more closely reflect the image of God; women are one step removed due to the method and order of their creation. (He does affirm that men and women “share a common humanity and equal worth before God”).
How is this much different from what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9? (Unless one concludes that Paul is quoting from what someone wrote/asked him in order to refute it, and not expressing his opinion/view of the matter.)
jlp_that’s_me on August 26, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I have done a lot of historical study and I can tell you that Bruce Ware’s attitude about submission to rightful authority is the same argument that many forms of oppressive hierarchal authority have made. I’m surprised Ware has not noticed this.
But isn’t this attitude of submission to rightful authority similar to what Paul writes in Romans 13 and Peter writes in 1 Peter 2:13ff?
I.e., it seems like Ware has Scriptural and Apostolic support for the ideas that are being contested.
“Yes, according to Ware, men more closely reflect the image of God; women are one step removed due to the method and order of their creation. (He does affirm that men and women “share a common humanity and equal worth before God”).”
Eric writes:
How is this much different from what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9? (Unless one concludes that Paul is quoting from what someone wrote/asked him in order to refute it, and not expressing his opinion/view of the matter.)”
Keep in mind, Paul is teaching in this passage that a woman DOES have authority over her own “head”. The words ’symbol of’ were added by translators. He further makes this point by mentioning the angels which refers back to 1 Corn 6…ALL believers will judge the angels. Even women believers.
But Paul clears it up for you in this passage if you read further on:
11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
We have to take the entire passage into consideration.
Woman came out of man but every man since then has come from a woman. There is a tendancy to want to give men extra credit because a woman was formed from man…but Paul is telling us all things are from God.
Lydia:
I didn’t say anything about “symbol of.” (I work from the Greek text, not translations.)
But if Paul is telling us all things are from God, he is also telling us that man is God’s glory and woman is man’s glory, right? (Unless, as I said, Paul is simply quoting a view with which he disagrees.)
And if “we…take the entire passage into consideration,” doesn’t that still leave us with both teachings in tension with each other and unresolved – i.e., 1. that man is closer to God’s image than woman, and 2. that in the Lord men are just as dependent on women as women are upon men?
The 1 Cor 11 pericope is one that I understand from the inside out starting with the conclusions and working backwards to the reasoning, as some parts are more perplexing than others. Paul’s rationale does not make much sense to us today.
The 2 conclusions are:
1. A man should not wear a headcovering in church.
2. A woman can choose whether to wear a headcovering or not in church.
Just from this one can see that Paul is concerned with cultural symbols and one needs to see what a headcovering MEANS in 1st century culture, that is, what it is saying by wearing or not wearing.
Another aspect is that women are given freedom in something that men are simply prohibited from. This is puzzling, as some teach that women are prohibited from doing some things men can do in church, but here we see the exact opposite.
I wonder why all Biblical movies re: the 1st century show the men, including Jesus, wearing coverings/robes/shawls on their heads when they pray when Paul seems to argue against this in 1 Corinthians 11?
I wonder if the 2 Corinthians “removal of the veil when one turns to the Lord [Jesus]” was meant by Paul to include/mean Christian Jewish men no longer covering their heads when they pray, since Christ in the Law is no longer veiled from them – and they are no longer to veil their heads since the veil has been removed for them?
Just curious….
The Jewish custom was to wear a headcovering and to make a mini-tent with it while praying alone. However, the reason for the headcovering was to acknowledge one’s unworthiness before God. Paul disagrees as this is not appropriate for those in Christ.
However, there was another meaning for a headcovering, a married woman was to wear it when in public to show she was married. Others might, but a married women must, or it would be considered asking to be treated as a single.
For men, Paul can just say no headcovering, as the message is simply inappropriate. For women it is more complicated.
What is a church, is it a public or private meeting? In private, a married woman did not need to wear a headcovering. The possible concern is that a church is both semi-private and semi-public.
Among friends she can choose to remove her headcovering and no one will think she is single. But what if a new person shows up in a home church meeting? Perhaps he might get the wrong idea. She can then choose to wear a headcovering. The Roman empire also sent out informants called messengers (or angels as we might translate it as this is the literal meaning of the Greek word) to check on possible sedition, bad morals, etc. So a married woman can be properly decorous if there is any question.
great response Don.
However, the literal meaning of anggellos (sp?) is messenger. Whether it is a human messenger or angelic, or what type of messenger (spies, etc.) is supposed to be determined by context. I think it’s a stretch that traditionally we have assumed it’s angelic messengers in that verse.
TL:
Based on Qumran documents, the idea that “because of the angels” could refer to heavenly participants/observers of the church’s worship gatherings does have some credibility, and perhaps more plausibility than other explanations that have been suggested, IMO.
YMMV
“But if Paul is telling us all things are from God, he is also telling us that man is God’s glory and woman is man’s glory, right? (Unless, as I said, Paul is simply quoting a view with which he disagrees.)”
It’s a bit of a different style of communicating here. Old Greek from a different culture.
I believe Paul is saying something to the effect that God creating man as in humanity, was a point of high esteem, a finishing touch on all the creation. And in a similar way, in the creation of humanity, woman was the finishing touch on the creation of humanity, a point of high esteem.
“Based on Qumran documents, the idea that “because of the angels” could refer to heavenly participants/observers of the church’s worship gatherings does have some credibility, and perhaps more plausibility than other explanations that have been suggested, IMO.”
Fast response, brother Eric!
This is true. It is plausible. But the question is, what concern is it of the angels for a woman to wear a head covering. If that were true, then all women who are Christians should wear a head covering because the angels are watching. But I don’t know of any law in the Torah that states so. Do you?
However, I still think that the more natural response is that there could have been spies sent by the Sanhedrin or Pharisees to find some fault with them. And it is my recollection that there was law which was a punishable crime if not heeded, for the married woman to wear a head covering. Thus if she were caught being what was considered loose in that city, it would bring shame on the church as well.
“Yes, according to Ware, men more closely reflect the image of God; women are one step removed due to the method and order of their creation. (He does affirm that men and women “share a common humanity and equal worth before God”).”
The fact that he affirms that men and women share a common humanity and equal worth, does not erase the larger foundation that he paints, of women being one step removed from God’s image. One cannot erase the strength of that theory. It has a sense of saying something to the effect that God loves all of His creation, but the human is special to Him. So, to those who believe in Ware’s philosophy, it would be that of course God loves all of humanity (men and women) but men are special to him.
On exactly what angels/messengers means in 1 Cor 11 I am not sure.
It is means human ones, then I go with the informants. If it means heavenly one, then I go with humans also judging them later in 1 Cor 6, so that certainly a woman can decide (judge) what to wear for herself in church. I think either is possible and we simply do not have enough context to tell which was meant, it is too short a phrase.
One needs to know that adultery was ASSUMED if a woman bared her arms or undid her hair in front of an unrelated male. Perhaps she would be given one chance to change her ways, but it was a shame based society, much more than we have today. So if there is any doubt about the potential for her shame, she is free to cover her head and avoid any accusations. This is Paul accomodating to the cultural norms in order to avoid even more shame associated with Christianity than there already was, a crucified God made no sense at all, crucifixion was shameful!
TL: I believe Paul is saying something to the effect that God creating man as in humanity, was a point of high esteem, a finishing touch on all the creation. And in a similar way, in the creation of humanity, woman was the finishing touch on the creation of humanity, a point of high esteem.
But Paul uses the word anêr/andros in 1 Cor. 11, which means “male, husband”; he doesn’t use the generic “man/humanity” (anthrôpos).
This is true. It is plausible. But the question is, what concern is it of the angels for a woman to wear a head covering. If that were true, then all women who are Christians should wear a head covering because the angels are watching. But I don’t know of any law in the Torah that states so. Do you?
The NT evidences influences of Jewish thought/tradition/practice/understanding that are outside the Torah and even the Tanakh. E.g., the proper and full understanding of the Lord’s Supper as described by the Gospels and Paul might be dependent on knowledge of the Jewish meal ritual/liturgy as it had developed outside the Scriptural information/commands/instructions, if Louis Bouyer’s thesis re: the development of the Liturgy for the Eucharist is correct.
I think Jewish understanding of the NT is critical for some verses. I know nothing of Bouyer’s thoughts on the last supper, but this is far from headcoverings.
“I didn’t say anything about “symbol of.” (I work from the Greek text, not translations.)”
The fact those words are not in the Greek change the whole meaning of the entire passage. It is crucial to understanding where Paul is going with this passage. Because he is saying she has authority over her own head!
“But if Paul is telling us all things are from God, he is also telling us that man is God’s glory and woman is man’s glory, right? (Unless, as I said, Paul is simply quoting a view with which he disagrees.)”
I have to agree with Don about this passage when he says:
“The 1 Cor 11 pericope is one that I understand from the inside out starting with the conclusions and working backwards to the reasoning, as some parts are more perplexing than others. Paul’s rationale does not make much sense to us today.”
Anything else and you end up with woman not being the Glory of God but man is. And you end up with all sorts of sinister mistranslations on ESS. Ware uses this passage as his foundation for ESS.
John McArthur uses this passage to teach that long hair is a sin for men! I heard him use this passage to teach just that! He also said that since her husband is with her, that is her ’symbol of’ authority in worship! oy vey.
If we look at Paul’s perspective on this passage, a woman being a man’s glory was pretty radical thought for that time. And ‘uncovered’ she was his glory. That was not the norm for both Jews and Greeks.
You would have to say make the case that the converse is true: Woman is not the Glory of God.
“And if “we…take the entire passage into consideration,” doesn’t that still leave us with both teachings in tension with each other and unresolved – i.e., 1. that man is closer to God’s image than woman, and 2. that in the Lord men are just as dependent on women as women are upon men?”
Exactly how is man closer to the image of God? Where does God’s image come from? Creation materials? He used the same materials to make cows that He used to make man.
I do not think the teaching is in tension at all. I know you only use the Greek but stil the passage is badly translated and has been abused to prop up all kinds of silly doctrine.
As far as the angel reference…since it is in the same letter, I think it makes sense to refer to 1 Corin 6 and see he is transporting the same idea to this passage. Women will judge the angels, too.
Bottomline is that much is read into this passage about headcoverings because it is easy to do.
For me, Paul gives a clue in saying man is the image of God. Paul, for sure, KNOWS that woman is also the image of God. So when he says man is the glory of God, he is NOT saying woman is NOT, this is also implied but unstated that woman is ALSO the glory of God, see 2 Cor for additional confirmation that ANY believer is God’s glory.
However, the additional concern is that woman is ALSO the glory of man, specifically, a wife is a glory of her husband. For me, this is an oblique way of saying that she might WANT to wear her headcovering, for the sake of decorum. And she is allowed to for that reason. She does not want to shame her head/husband, so she can wear it in that culture.
I agree that these verses get mangled horribly by some non-egals. As far as I can tell, they make a guess as to what some puzzling verse might mean and declare all sorts of craziness from that as the “plain truth”. It would be much better to admit that some verses are puzzling and we are not sure.
The fact those words are not in the Greek change the whole meaning of the entire passage. It is crucial to understanding where Paul is going with this passage. Because he is saying she has authority over her own head!
DOES change the whole meaning, or CAN change the whole meaning?
I think the most one can say is that one’s opinion/conclusion is that he is saying that she has authority over her own head. IIRC, commentators have noted that exousia by itself denotes one having one’s own authority, but I’m not sure this is a statement/conclusion that one can absolutely categorically make about the verse’s meaning unless shows that the extant Greek texts that use exousia in this kind of construction overwhelmingly have this meaning. That in fact may be the case (i.e., that such is overwhelmingly the meaning in the great majority of such instances), but I don’t know if that’s true or not, or if those commentators who say this base their statement/conclusion on such a finding. Perhaps they do.
Eric, regarding your earlier question: How is this much different from what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9?
Still thinking of what Ware might think about “image…”
I wonder, what is the significance of the word “image” NOT being repeated in the second phrase in verse 7?
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
Most notably, it does not say that woman is the image of man. The “glory” part is admittedly puzzling (to me), but this verse doesn’t seem to be evidence for woman’s image being indirect.
Paul is giving a rationale for a woman’s/wife’s freedom to choose. That is, seeing the primary meaning of 1 Cor 11:10 is that a woman HAS authority over her own head (to decide whether to wear or not wear a headcovering, depending on circumstances).
ISV 1Co 11:10 This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels.
IMO, this is the key verse that MUST be understood correctly.
The reason some add “symbol of” is they misunderstand Paul’s rationale and figure that it cannot result in a conclusion of freedom to choose, so they “tweak” the plain meaning so it becomes something that makes sense to them.
In the womb, for the first 6 weeks both male and female children develop the same. And both will go on to create the female reproductive system if left unchecked. However, at about 6 weeks two genes kick in boys. One produces testosterone, and the other stops the growing embryo from developing female reproductive organs.
All embryos (both XX and XY) will develop female reproductive organs unless stopped. Scientists consider females the default gender for the human race and perhaps for all mammals.
How does this square with the concept of the male having priority?
A male starts out with the basic female template and is then changed. A female starts out with the female template and never changes.
I don’t think Paul knew embryology.
but I’m not sure this is a statement/conclusion that one can absolutely categorically make about the verse’s meaning unless shows that the extant Greek texts that use exousia in this kind of construction overwhelmingly have this meaning. That in fact may be the case (i.e., that such is overwhelmingly the meaning in the great majority of such instances), but I don’t know if that’s true or not, or if those commentators who say this base their statement/conclusion on such a finding. Perhaps they do.
Eric,
This is correct. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that exousia means to have someone else’s authority on your head.
There is one case of a woman having three exousias on her head, since her father, husband and son were all rulers.
So yes the exousia in this case was a symbol of someone else’s authority, but not their authority OVER HER. It meant that she was the consort/relataive of a ruler three times over.
There is no case at all where exousia on the head meant to be under someone else’s authority. This is why commentaries will not agree that the Greek might mean this.
Having said this, the best secular scholars find this passage obscure and do not to my knowledge venture a strong preference for what the meaning might be.
Perhaps the best is that a head covering is a symbol of authority, that is citizenship and matrimony for a woman, as slave women were not allowed to cover their heads.
I really can’t tell you a clear answer.
No, he didn’t. But it would be nice if the Christian community understood it. Especially some of the comps who claim that women derive their image from men, when in fact men derive their image from women.
For this reason, some scientists dispute the Biblical belief that a man was created before a woman.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942519,00.html
THE Book of Genesis had it wrong. In the beginning God created Eve,” says Johns Hopkins Medical Psychologist John Money. What he means is that the basic tendency of the human fetus is to develop as a female. If the genes order the gonads to become testicles and put out the male hormone androgen, the embryo will turn into a boy; otherwise it becomes a girl. “You have to add something to get a male,” Money notes. “Nature’s first intention is to create a female.”
So if males are changed form of the female, how can males have the priority that Bruce Ware speaks of?
“Earlier” doesn’t necessarily mean “better.” I.e., if earliness were the mark of priority/authority, then the sun and the moon and the stars and the sea and land and air animals and the plants would have “priority” over the humans. However, it is adam who is given dominion and priority and authority over all these things (except the stars, sun, moon, and sea, of course).
So on that basis, creating female first embryologically doesn’t require that female have priority over male.
Yes, adam as in humankind, or at least 2 people, man and woman, per Gen 5:2, is given dominion.
“But Paul uses the word anêr/andros in 1 Cor. 11, which means “male, husband”; he doesn’t use the generic “man/humanity” (anthrôpos).”
Eric, that is likely because there is a double meaning and a flow of wording, which Hebrew thinking likes, in doing word plays.
To Ware, it is simple logic that “earlier” means “better”:
So, notice then that whereas 1 Tim. 2:13 (“For Adam was formed first, then Eve”) states the more basic and simple truth that the man was created first (indicating temporal priority strictly), 1 Cor. 11:8 indicates more fully a God-intended derivation of her very being as “from” the man.
Whether or not this logic works here, it certainly doesn’t work well in ESS.
““Earlier” doesn’t necessarily mean “better.” I.e., if earliness were the mark of priority/authority, then the sun and the moon and the stars and the sea and land and air animals and the plants would have “priority” over the humans. “
So true Eric. Although you are aware, are you not, that hierarchalists actually do think that the forming of the single human before creating the female human gave priority to the male. But there is no basis for that thought in principles. The first is often the most powerful. But that power is supposed to be harnessed to support what comes next. Thus the sun, moon, and stars, sea and land, etc. all support the living creatures that follow. Animals and plants also support humanity. Thus, IMO the male, the stronger of the human species, should be supporting the life of the female, the less powerful physically.
So what does that do to the fact that embryo’s start out as female first? Well, it is the female that supports the new born life more fully. The woman provides the milk for life.
So on that basis, creating female first embryologically doesn’t require that female have priority over male.
It doesn’t? Darn! I wanted so much to be boss over the males on this forum.
jlp
As a sign I saw said:
“A man’s home is his castle, and in his castle, the man is king…
…until the Queen comes home.”
Since men are created in the physical image of women, I don’t think it’s correct for Ware to say that women are the image of men.
Since men are created in the physical image of women, I don’t think it’s correct for Ware to say that women are the image of men.
Right, and 1 Cor. 11:7 (as I said above) avoids saying that women are the image of man, although it says men are the image of God.
I guess when Ware deduces that women are made in the image of men he is adding something to scripture that isn’t really there.
Even in Genesis, it does not say that the female is the image of the male, although it does have God taking the woman out of the man.
A well-trained embryologist cannot tell the difference between a male and a female embryo if the embryo is less than seven weeks old. At that early stage of prenatal life, there is a fork in the road of development. If there are no hormonal changes in the prenatal environment, the embryo developes into a female. If, however, the embryo is destined to become a male, its Y-chromosomes trigger the production of testosterone (the male hormone), which masculinizes the brain and genitalia (internal as well as external) of the embryo. But it takes no female hormone to produce a female infant. (Only at age ten or later does the female body begin to produce the hormones that transform the girl into a woman.)
Every person begins life with a proto-female brain. Testosterone masculinizes the brain (and genitals) of those embryos that are genetically marked to develop as males.
Take that, Bruce Ware!
I accidentally left out the web reference for the quote above. Here it is:
http://www.narth.com/docs/berman2.html
”believer3 – I don’t care who represents this view. It is not me nor is it Bruce Ware.”
J. Starke,
Actually Ware does represent the view that the man more fully images God than the woman does. Which was my original question….. “sounds like Bruce Ware is saying that only the male human is fully made in God’s image.”
Please accept my apology that I did not more perfectly state my question and did not provide enough quotes to support the question.
Joy provided this quote. I’m reposting it to make certain that you see it .
oops, I forgot to end the blockquote. Can someone end it after the line ………”quotes from Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God.””.
I just want people to know that I actually don’t care that a male is a testosterone (with other hormones and genes) altered female. I only care because people like Bruce Ware claim that males are created more closely to the image of God than females are.
JLP, The whole point is that woman came from man and every man after that came from a woman.
)
Paul makes that point in 1 Corin 11
How can woman come from man when a man is a changed female?
I am not talking about women having babies, I’m talking about the fact that the male physical form is based on the female physical form. If the first woman came from man, why isn’t the female physical template based on the male instead of the other way around?
Females are the default gender, not males. If the first human was a male, why was his physical form based on the female’s?
Ware should be aware of this. Women are not a physical imitation of men, men are a physical imitation of women. This fact should not be left out of this type of discussion.
I want to re-quote something from above:
Every person begins life with a proto-female brain. Testosterone masculinizes the brain (and genitals) of those embryos that are genetically marked to develop as males.
My point is, women are not the image of men, but rather men are the image of women.
Very interesting science. But how does it fit with the woman from the rib passage? What do we do with Gen 2:21-22?
I haven’t a clue, Zhou ya. I have often wondered that myself. I suppose we will have to wait till heaven to know the answer to that one.
I made a mistake. It’s actually the body of a little girl that is the physical template for the human race, not that of an adult female.
Zhou ya, it’s all about cosmic balance
First God takes the substance of humanity from the first human and reforms it into a female human. From then on, all humans take the substance from a female baby from which to grow into a baby girl or to be reformed into a baby boy.
Our lives are knit into an interdependence that is good.
But what about the chimpanzee, with whom we share 99+% of our genes? Where does the proto-human proto-chimp come into the picture?
Inquiring minds want to know!!!
I think we all start out as chimpanzees, and then certain genes and hormones change us into humans.
I started out as a unicellular creature, made in the image of God.
I’m glad I can say the same for myself, whatever the rib had to do with it.
Believer 333,
The importance of the male comes in the fact that they bring diversity to mammals. That diversity makes us so much better than animals that are created asexually. In fact, I don’t think mammals could exist without the diversity that males bring. No males, no mammals. I think I’ve got that right.
But Ware claiming that men have priority because females are created in the image of males is totally backwards.
Instead of saying “No males, no mammals” I should have said “No males, inferior mammals.” The diversity males bring is irreplacable.
For all the males here who I may have accidentally made to feel inferior – here is a tidbit about why males (sexual reproduction) are so important:
Perhaps sexual reproduction has kept in style because it provides a mechanism to weed out harmful mutations that arise in the population (through the recombination process of meiosis).
Asexual reproduction (no males) doesn’t provide that.
Here’s more about sexual reproduction made possible only by having males around:
So sex provides a mechanism for testing new combinations of alleles for their possible usefulness to the phenotype:
deleterious alleles weeded out by natural selection;
useful ones retained by natural selection.
See, without males we mammals would be much inferior creatures than we are.
jlp:
That all humans are created female, and roughly half become male due to y-chromosome-triggered testosterone release (if all goes well and the trigger is not impacted by genetic abnormalities or physiological/hormonal disturbances), has implications for sexual orientation and associated religious beliefs and practices. I.e., same-sex attraction may in many cases be a result of a testosterone mishap in the womb and therefore be a person’s physiological “nature” and not unlike other “handicaps” or “birth defects.” Though not “normal,” it would truly be how the person was “made,” and not a result of choice on their part.
There are some sad cases, termed intersex, where the transition from female to male forms had a glitch, and these people share attributes with both sexes. For example, some hyperfeminine women are XY in their DNA and have Testosterone Insensitivity Syndrome.
Paul’s thoughtflow and meaning in 1 Corinthians is very confusing at times. Read, e.g., chapters 8-10 related to food sacrificed to idols and the Lord’s Table where he at times seems to say different things. Many scholars think that 1 & 2 Corinthians are 4 letters cut-and-pasted together into two. Some see 1 Corinthians 9 as an intrusion; others don’t. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is also confusing, and not only because we don’t understand some of the things he’s saying (e.g., “because of the angels”). The final verse is also vague – i.e., what is he supporting? Because of my interest in the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper, I have spent much time on 1 Corinthians 10:16-22 and its relationship to the surrounding chapters, including 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. Just when I think I’ve begun to forge a straight path, I find myself lost in the woods again and doubling back on myself. Doing it gives me a headache!
I think people should be wary about drawing any absolute definite conclusions about what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.
Sometimes Revelation is clearer than Paul. :^)
I think people should be wary about drawing any absolute definite conclusions about what Paul is saying ….
Which leaves room for a plug for John Stackhouse’s Humble Apologetics. I love that book. It gives us a hopeful view of doing apologetics in the postmodern mindset. We don’t have to know everything (which is read by outsiders as smugness/arrogance). In fact it’s better to admit that we don’t.
Which leaves room for a plug for John Stackhouse’s Humble Apologetics.
Put it in my Shopping List at Amazon.com. Thanks for the recommendation!
You’ll have to let me know what you think.
Eric,
I know I’ve read that some people believe men with homosexual orientations are ones who didn’t have as much testosterone in the womb as straight men. I don’t know if there are any type of studies to back that up.
Don,
I have heard also that many intersex people are that way because in the womb the process by which the embryo becomes male got interrupted.
What this says to me is that, while there are clearly two genders, the distance between them is not so very cavernous.
I sometimes wonder whether our culture really is waging an all-out war on gender, as is often claimed. Is our society really bent on obliterating any differences? Is gender distinction really so high on God’s list of priorities?
Piper says: masculinity and femininity belong at the center of God’s ultimate purpose. These are not an afterthought of creation and are not peripheral to the purpose of the cross. They are right there at the center at Calvary.
Yes, there are steps in the process of development and things can go wrong at each step.
How is gender at the center in Calvary? I don’t think gender had anything to do with calvary. Christ didn’t die for gender, he died for sin.
I personally don’t listen to John Piper. Over the years I have lost respect for him.
“Piper says: masculinity and femininity belong at the center of God’s ultimate purpose. These are not an afterthought of creation and are not peripheral to the purpose of the cross. They are right there at the center at Calvary.”
This thinking can only go one place: Works salvation
“Is gender distinction really so high on God’s list of priorities?”
I don’t think so -
“Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they niether marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” Matt. 22:29-30
Well, I suppose Piper has a small point. After all all of creation is divided into male and female, even insects.
But this makes it NOT a major point for humans.
Not all living things have sex, some clone themselves and some have more than 2 sexes. But much of life we see has 2 sexes.
There is even a fish that will change gender if there are not enough males.
Zhou ya,
Does John Piper say how gender affects the cross? I don’t see anything in the Bible that indicates that gender means anything to Christ’s sacrifice.
If I understand it correctly…Piper’s view is that the purpose of marriage is to be a symbol to demonstrate the cross to the world. Marriage means a union between two genders, which represents Christ’s union with the church. Christ/man and the church/woman have different roles and characteristics.
Here are some quotes:
So putting those three texts together-Revelations 13:8, Ephesians 1:5-6, Ephesians 5:25-27-I draw the conclusion: The ultimate purpose of all things is the praise of the glory of the grace of God supremely manifest on Calvary when the Son of God laid His life down to purchase and purify His wife out of an absolutely hell-bent rebellious people. That was the apex, and that’s why God created the world, and that’s why He created you.
When God designed in His own eternal mind how He would make a creature called a human in two varieties-male and female, when He thought about that, He had in His mind already the cross.
He made us this way so that our maleness and femaleness would display more fully the glory of His Son in relationship to His blood-bought bride.
Marriage among Christians is mainly meant to tell the truth about the gospel—that Christ died for his church who loves him and never breaks his covenant with his bride.
The main point here is simply that in Paul’s mind the covenant union between a husband and wife is designed by God to reflect and display the spiritual union between Christ and the church.
I don’t know if the point of gender or marriage is suppsed to go beyond that of symbolic meaning.
Thanks for explaining, Zhou ya. I can’t say I agree with him but at least I see what he is trying to convey.
So, if one follows Pipers hypothesis to the end of the road, it suggests that in his view husbands demonstrate Christ, godliness, God’s power and authority, etc. to the world. This leaves women demonstrating the helplessness of fallen humanity, human propensity toward sin, depending solely upon Christ (now husband) for everything (“in Christ I can do all things” and so forth). Linking maleness with Christ lends easily to male worship.
Of course they won’t say that, and I’m not saying they do or would. What I’m saying is that when one follows this logic to its conclusion, this is one place it is likely to lead some. And often we follow something through to an end that we haven’t given much forethought to.
It has always bothered me the way the gender hierarchalists unconsciously change Ephe. 5 to be about mirroring marriage, when what I see as more accurate to be a comparison between God’s sacrificial love for the church to be the way a husbands love should be for his wife. Its not about marriage, but about husbands demonstrating the same kind of sacrificial love.
In my mind, I collect all these gender hierarchalist ideas and place them in a basket together, then look to see what kind of picture they paint together. And it keeps coming out looking like a picture of masculinity and manliness being viewed as more closely being in the image of God, than femininity and womanliness.
What do you think.
It’s certainly worthwhile considering what the logical outcomes of this framework are…
This emphasis on the symbolic nature of marriage seems to leave out the fact that it is women AND men who make up the church. Are men performing dual roles – are they both Christ and church? There’s no mention of men also being the church.
And should my marriage be lived out in the constraints of symbolism so that the world sees and is drawn to Christ?
It makes sense that the world will see Christian love, for instance, and be drawn to Christ. But when the world sees subordination of women, inequality of “roles” based on gender alone . . . are they really catching a glimpse of the glory of God?
I agree with you, TL. Considering that Paul says “It is good for a man not to marry” (1 Cor 7:1) and “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried” (1 Cor 7:8) – I don’t see how John Piper can take the analogy of Christ and his bride as far as he does.
I do not think Paul is speaking in 1 Cor 7:1, rather he is quoting aesthetics from Corinth. The quote is “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” where touch is a euphemism for sex. Note that this would include married people. They are claiming that choosing no sex would be better. Paul then handles this carefully, but rejects this basic premise.
Note that most modern translations recognize this as a quote from Corinth.
So the word “marry” isn’t actually in 1 Cor 7:1? This is from the NIV. If the word isn’t there, the fact that the translators put it in is scary! It makes you wonder what translation you can trust.
1 Cor 7:1 says: “…it is good for a man not ἅπτεσθαι (infinitive – i.e., “to…”) a woman.
ἅπτω,v {hap’-to}
Middle Voice (as it is here): to fasten to, adhere to, touch, take hold of
Active Voice: to fasten fire to a thing, kindle, set of fire
The NIV botched it in this verse “Touch” is an idiom meaning to have sex with, but they euphemized the idiom to “marry” which changed its meaning. ALL translation involves interpretation, sometimes a lot and sometimes it can be wrong.
Thanks Eric and Don.
Jlp,
“I am not talking about women having babies, I’m talking about the fact that the male physical form is based on the female physical form. If the first woman came from man, why isn’t the female physical template based on the male instead of the other way around?”
Could it have to do with sin entering the world through Adam and the male passing on the sin nature (if it’s true)?
I think it’s a matter of balance. God is a very balanced personality. God took from the substance of the first human to make the woman. Now all humans take of the substance of the female in their birth/creation process.
Kathy,
I haven’t a clue. I wish I did.