Showing posts with label Marriage/Relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage/Relationships. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Show Stoppers – Kephale Redux: Heading to a Head on the Heady Heading of “The Meaning of ‘Head’: leader or not”.

Back in 2010, I wrote a series called “Show Stoppers” where I explored some of the biblical passages and concepts that divide the church when it comes to gender relations. One of those posts dealt with the Greek word kephale, which translates as “head” in English. Specifically, I addressed this word as it is used by Paul in his head/body metaphors. I did not address other meanings of the word, noting that “the ongoing debate between [other] definitions is at the forefront of discussion of the difficult text of 1 Corinthians 11” and that those distinctions will need resolving at some future point. Apparently that time has come, as I continue to hear Christians use 1 Corinthians 11 as a proof text that husbands are designated to “lead” their wives.

The fundamental question at issue here is: does kephale have a meaning of “leader” in Greek? Before any interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 (and also Ephesians 5) takes place, we need to know what “head” means. If it does not mean “leader”, such a meaning should not be forced into the text of scripture and interpretations and teachings of certain passages need to be adjusted accordingly. If it does mean “leader”, then based on 1 Corinthians 11 complementarians have a legitimate claim to male authority in marriage. Such a chasm is why the meaning of a single word turns into a show stopper.

Back in that 2010 post, I also wrote this in regard to definitions: “both sides have their favorite lexicon which they say proves their point.” Most Christian lexicons grant an authoritarian meaning to kephale. Here are the Thayer definitions as shown on blueletterbible.org:

1. the head, both of men and often of animals. Since the loss of the head destroys life, this word is used in the phrases relating to capital and extreme punishment.
2. metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
  a. of persons, master, lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
  b. of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
  c. of things: the corner stone

Definitions 2.a. and b. are derived directly from 1 Corinthians 11. I would argue that they show interpretational bias. In other words, the definition is being driven by a historical interpretation, not the other way around. But maybe kephale has a broad meaning of “leader” in ancient Greek. What do more general Greek lexicons have to say about the word?

The definitive Greek lexicon for research and study purposes is the Liddell-Scott lexicon, which can be viewed online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu. It incorporates all of the Greek literature from ancient times, including the Greek New Testament from Westcott and Hort. Certainly, if kephale means “leader”, we would find that usage in other texts that are contemporaries of the bible. Yet the entry for kephale[1] in Liddell-Scott shows no such meaning anywhere in ancient Greek literature (including the New Testament). The basic meanings in Liddell-Scott are: anatomical head; the top, end, or leading edge of objects; and source, origin, or starting point of something. Nothing in the extensive entry comes close to showing authority of one thing over another.

So how do we resolve this discrepancy? I would suggest we should go to a third source – one that is contemporaneous with and even contributory to the New Testament, and which has biblical relevance. That other source is the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Why is such an investigation helpful? Because Hebrew also has a word for “head”, namely ro’sh, and that word definitely includes meanings that convey authority. The question is: in contexts where the Hebrew word ro’sh means some kind of leader or authority, is it translated as kephale in Greek, or is another Greek word substituted? If kephale is the translation, then the ancient Greek translators recognize “leader” as a legitimate definition for kephale. If not, they recognize the opposite: that kephale does not include “leader” as one of its meanings.

The Hebrew word ro’sh shares much with the English word “head”. As it is in English, ro’sh has a wide variety of meanings. In the NASB translation of the Old Testament, ro’sh is translated using 41 different English words and expressions. A sampling:

• beginning
• captain
• census
• chief (i.e. foremost)
• chief[tain]
• company (i.e. military group)
• end
• exalted
• finest
• first
• head (of human or animal)
• head of...(i.e. start, source, or origin)
• head of...[some group]
• head of...house[hold]
• leader
• master
• sum
• summit
• top

One would assume that if kephale had as broad a range of meaning, we would see a similar translational pattern in the New Testament. But the opposite is true. In the same translation, the NASB, the word kephale is translated as “head” in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE except where an Old Testament Psalm is quoted. That same pattern is true regardless of English translation. Why would the translators not use “leader” or some equivalent if they felt that the meaning had an authoritarian component? They did for ro’sh in the Old Testament, so why not for kephale in the New Testament? The only conclusion is that unlike ro’sh, the Greek word kephale has a very narrow set of meanings.

That is not conclusive, so back to the Septuagint we must go. Forget English translations, how did the Septuagint translators handle the transition of ro’sh into Greek? If kephale was universally equivalent to ro’sh, we would see a one-to-one pattern of translation. Again, we see the opposite. In the Septuagint, ro’sh is translated into 22 different Greek words, with a range of meanings similar to the range in English.

That is still not conclusive as it does not address the Greek translation when the meaning points to some kind of leadership or authority. So we dig deeper. Of the 596 occurrences of ro’sh in the Old Testament, 128 indicate some kind of leadership or authority. Significantly, almost half of those occurrences refer to the “head of…father’s households”, which has particular application in family relationships. Other occurrences refer to military and civic leaders. (It goes without saying that all of these leaders are men.) Obviously, there was ample opportunity for the translators to make a connection between ro’sh and kephale in a leadership context if such a link was appropriate. So did such a linkage occur? By now the answer should be obvious. In all but a few verses in Judges and one in Lamentations, the translators chose words unrelated to kephale to convey a meaning of leadership. And in those rare instances where kephale was used, it is unclear if leadership or prominence is the actual intended meaning of ro’sh.

The Greek translators of the Old Testament, who were contemporaries of Paul, have made clear through their translation of ro’sh that, when “head” in the Hebrew means leader or authority, kephale is not an appropriate equivalent in the Greek. Put simply, kephale does not mean leader or authority as evidenced by those who spoke the language at the time. Imposing a definition of “leader” on kephale is a misapplication of one of the English meanings of “head” and represents an interpretational bias. Greek has different words that are used when such a meaning is intended and Paul certainly would have used those alternates if he had meant to convey leadership in 1 Corinthians 11[2]. What kephale does mean, a meaning it shares with ro’sh, is source or origin. It is that definition that should be applied in 1 Corinthians 11 and interpretation and teaching should follow[3]. Insistence on an authoritarian definition despite the evidence is a show stopper, and aborts any meaningful discussion on gender relations.

Notes:

1. Here is the Tufts URL for the kephale entry in Liddell-Scott: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dkefalh%2F

2. The most common Greek equivalent to ro’sh in authoritarian contexts is archon. Does Paul know the word archon and does he use it extensively? Yes to the first and no to the second. Paul uses it only four times. In three he is referring to the “princes of the world”. But that is not definitive. Paul rarely talks about leadership or authority in any contexts, and never addresses it directly in marriage except in 1 Corinthians 7 where husbands and wives mutually have authority over each other’s body.

3. An exhaustive study of 1 Corinthians 11 including the meaning of kephale in context has been undertaken by Cheryl Schatz at her Women in Ministry blog. In lieu of a separate Show Stoppers post on the 1 Corinthians passage, I highly recommend the reader go to Women in Ministry and review all the material there. You can access the blog at the following URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/.
Posted by gengwall at 11:03 AM 0 comments
Labels:

Friday, January 9, 2015

Naming Eve

Back in 2008, I wrote a series titled “Equality in the Original Marriage Design”. In one of the posts, I addressed several arguments that are used to support a hierarchy in the first marriage; one where Adam has authority over Eve. That original post can be found here. 

I was recently listening to a sermon series from a prominent LA area mega-church where one of these arguments was used to maintain that husbands have a superior position in marriage and are designed to “lead” their wives. Specifically, the pastor was using the “naming” argument to claim male authority. The argument goes like this: 
  1. Naming is an act of authority over the thing named. 
  2. Adam named the animals, establishing his authority over them. 
  3. Adam then named Eve in the same way, establishing his authority over her. 
Those who follow this blog should not be surprised that I had a rather visceral response to that sermon. Apparently this argument is alive and well even in laid back So-Cal evangelical churches. This experience prompts me to write an even stronger rebuttal to this erroneous conclusion about the text of Genesis 2.

I am going to repeat and enhance the rebuttal from that 2008 post and then add 2 more reasons why the “naming” argument is incorrect and even dangerous. 

 “Your Delta Tau Chi name is…” 

In the movie Animal House, there are several ways in which the fraternity members exercise authority over their new pledges. One of them is by giving each pledge a new name. This concept of “naming = possession of/authority over” is certainly not new. Like birthright, it has been a staple of societies throughout history. Even our common practice of having the new wife “take the name” of her husband is a faint reflection of the patriarchal notion that a woman is the property of her husband. So goes the naming argument when applied to the first marriage. Because Adam named Eve (twice, no less), he automatically assumes a position of superiority, authority, and ownership over her, and she becomes subservient to him. So what is wrong with this reasoning? 

First of all, it is man-made. God has never said that naming something gives you dominion over that something. Apologists for this line of reasoning admit no less. They say things like “in the culture of the day, naming….” or “it was a common practice to name….” or “in the ancient world, to name….” In other words, it was a practice of fallen man, not a teaching of God. There is a further problem with this. In the garden, there was no ancient world, no common practice, no culture of the day to appeal to. Even if naming did become an established exercise of authority over time, Adam certainly could not have looked at it that way. Where was his frame of reference? Only if God had decreed that it was so could Adam have viewed his naming of the animals as an authoritarian practice. If God had meant it as such, certainly he would have said so. Of course, God had a very different purpose and outcome in mind for Adam when he brought the animals to him to be named. More on that shortly. 

While naming may have cultural significance, in reality it holds no power at all. Humans don’t have dominion over the animals because Adam named them; they have dominion because God delegated it to them. The dominion would exist whether Adam named the animals or not. The naming of the animals was simply a function that Adam performed with no authoritarian weight to it. Moreover, the dominion role was given to all humans, male and female. Presumably, if there were animals left to name, Eve would have been just as qualified and empowered to name some of them. 

In fact, nowhere in the bible does it say that it is the male’s unilateral job to name anything, nor does it teach that naming something gives you authority over or possession of that thing. As we have learned, that is a cultural standard, not a godly standard. In fact, there are many significant cases of women naming things (mostly children). Are we to assume that Eve had sole dominion and authority over Able and Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25) because she named them instead of Adam? What about the command of the angel that Mary was to name Jesus (Luke 1:31)? Did that cut Joseph out of the picture in terms of having authority over his son? In reality, the naming of something does not grant any authority that does not already exist. Parents have authority over their children not because they name them but because they simply are their parents. Humans have dominion over creation not because we name the animals but because God has designated us to rule over the earth. (As a side note, I’m sure the animals, in whatever way it is expressed, have names for us too). Naming is simply a necessary task with no inherent godly grant of superiority associated with it at all. The fact that we attach human significance to the act of naming does not impress God. 

 A Rose by any other Name 

Even if naming did ascribe some form of authority to the namer, did Adam actually “name” the animals in line with the cultural practice? In fact, Adam didn't “name” the animals at all, he categorized them. For example, he didn’t call the male and female lions Simba and Nala, he called them “lion”. Claiming authority in Adam’s actions would be like saying you have authority (as does anybody else) over your child because you call it a “child”. Adam’s “naming” of Eve was actually a categorization of her in line with what he had been doing with the animals. Adam doesn't “name” Eve until Genesis 3 after the fall; his first act of ungodly authoritarian rule over her. 

Furthermore, Adam’s act of categorizing the animals wasn't an act of authority; it was an act of discovery. Note the purpose for God sending the animals to him: “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). No other reason or circumstance is given to explain God’s purpose. Do not miss this. There was only one thing in all of creation that was “not good”. Adam’s authority over the animals was perfectly intact. There was no need to establish that. Only his alone state needed to be addressed. God’s exercise for him has no other purpose than to solve that one “not good” thing. Therefore, God sent the animals to Adam to be investigated, observed, and cataloged. What did this accomplish? First, it allowed Adam to see that there were no other animals morphologically like him. Second, it allowed Adam to see that every other animal had a mate except him. God’s entire purpose was to show Adam that it was not good that he was alone. This revelation leads to Adam’s exclamation when Eve is finally presented to him. His subsequent categorization of her is to point out that she is what the animals were not – someone just like him – “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!” (Genesis 2:23). It isn't an expression of authority; it is an expression of joy. 

Woman! Know Thy Place 

Perhaps the most disturbing and even dangerous result of the “naming” argument is the position in which it leaves women. If Adam’s naming of the animals is an expression of his authority over them and if his naming of Eve is a parallel act, then it leaves Eve at the same level in the hierarchy as the animals. This would be in direct contrast to the declaration in Genesis 1:28 that men and women equally rule over the animals. 

The naming argument also infantilizes Eve. Even if you are not bold enough to lower Eve to the level of the animals (the correct conclusion to the naming argument), at best you reduce her to the level of a child. Even in ancient culture, peers did not name each other. The practice, in human circles, was limited almost exclusively to parents naming children. If Adam’s “naming” of Eve is a legitimate practice of authority, it is the authority of a parent over a child. Are our women, and especially our wives, equal only to our children? We say “of course not” but the naming argument says definitively “yes!” 

The sad reality is that this paradigm is exactly what we see since the fall. Patriarchy through the ages has treated women as no more than chattel (talk about your cultural “norms”). The “naming” argument supports this patriarchal position. God told us, because of sin, men would “rule” over women in a domineering, ungodly way. Patriarchy is the ultimate expression of that rule. The “naming” of Eve is one of the fundamental debating points in support of patriarchy. Yet this sinful rule of women is clearly in contrast to the pre-fall gender relationship and the naming of Eve (if authoritarian) is clearly in contrast to the gender-equal dominion granted to humans in Genesis 1. Pay attention to this point. If the naming argument is correct, then Genesis 2 is a complete repudiation of Genesis 1 and puts the garden relationship on par with the Genesis 3 post-fall relationship. 

Put simply, the “naming” argument contradicts everything we know about God’s purpose for Eve and God’s designed gender equality before the fall. Only after the fall do we see gender inequality. The naming argument is an appeal to gender inequality, is completely man-made, and has no place being applied to the wonderful, symbiotic, loving, equal relationship God designed in the Garden.
Posted by gengwall at 7:35 AM 1 comments
Labels:

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

David and Jonathan - Part IIc

...a continuation of the detailed analysis begun in this post: Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?

Another claim arises from this last verse that we have examined. In the first half it speaks of how “pleasant” Jonathan was to David, but in the second half of the verse, we read this:

Quote:
2 Sam 1:26b Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women.

Is David saying, in the midst of his mourning over both Saul and Johnathan, that he prefers sex with Jonathan over sex with women? I suppose, if one were to take just that phrase alone without context one might raise an eyebrow. But a more complete read of the text makes the meaning clear. David starts the verse off with the words “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan.” David declares the relationship here. If he had said “my lover Jonathan”, we could throw out everything I have said to this point. Instead, David’s own words confirm that which the scripture has already informed us: David and Jonathan had a brotherly love for each other. What David is telling us now, is that brotherly love has dimensions that exceed the bond and companionship that even a wife can provide. There is nothing to suggest that this refers to a "better" sexual love than sex with a woman. In fact, it reflects a stark non-sexual contrast to the sexual love between man and wife. David knew both the romantic, sexual, marital love of a woman (with Jonathan's sister, no less) and the “comrades in arms” love of a brother. David’s last words regarding Jonathan prove their love was of the latter type.

One last word on words before I tackle the last minor argument. I have demonstrated how NONE of the words and phrases used in the text are universally or even remotely related to romance, sex, or marriage. But that doesn’t mean the bible doesn’t talk about those things. There are plenty of Hebrew idioms for, as well as direct discussions of, sex and marriage throughout the bible, including, importantly, descriptions of homosexual sex. But not a single one of them are used do describe David and Jonathan’s relationship. So, not only does the text not say what homosexual advocates say it says, but it is completely void of those expressions in the bible that do mean what they want it to mean.

There is one final argument that I have heard regarding David and Jonathan. It is a minor consideration but I will cover it simply to avoid it coming up later. There are some who claim, through a very selective parsing of the text of 1 Sam 18:6-13, that Saul kept David under surveillance and then kicked him out of the palace because of Saul’s displeasure with David and his son’s sexual relationship. Here is all the pertinent text for review. The context and reason for Saul’s actions should be clear.

Quote:
1 Sam 18:6 It happened as they were coming, when David returned from killing the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tambourines, with joy and with musical instruments. 7. The women sang as they played, and said, "Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands." 8. Then Saul became very angry, for this saying displeased him; and he said, "They have ascribed to David ten thousands, but to me they have ascribed thousands. Now what more can he have but the kingdom?" 9. Saul looked at David with suspicion from that day on... 12. Now Saul was afraid of David, for the LORD was with him but had departed from Saul. 13. Therefore Saul removed him from his presence and appointed him as his commander of a thousand; and he went out and came in before the people.

Saul’s motivation is clearly jealousy over David’s fame, not any kind of anger over his relationship with Jonathan. In fact, at this point in the text, it is not even clear if Saul knew how close David and Jonathan were.

Conclusion

To conclude, there is simply no scriptural foundation to the theory that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers. You may believe the theory if you want to, but do so knowing that you have no rational, factual basis for those beliefs. Enjoy your fantasy, but I prefer the truth.
Posted by gengwall at 12:44 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,

David and Jonathan - Part IIb

...A continuation of the detailed analysis begun in this post: Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?

The next set of arguments focuses on three words in three verses which supposedly insinuate romantic or sexual relations. The verses are:

Quote:
1 Sam 19:2b ...But Jonathan, Saul's son, greatly delighted in David
1 Sam 20:3a Yet David vowed again, saying, "Your father knows well that I have found favor in your sight...
2 Sam 1:26a I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me.


It is suggested that the first word, translated “delighted”, refers to sexual intimacy. This is another one of those generic words that can refer to many kinds of delight, desire, or preference. The context determines who delights in whom or what. Sometimes it refers to a husband’s delight in his wife, but even those cases are not specifically sexual. It refers more to whether or not he is generally happy with her. Esther 2:14 may possibly refer to, or emphasize, the sexual component of a woman’s appeal to King Xerxes as he seeks a queen. But that is not clear. Otherwise, it is used in many, many different ways. We delight in God, God delights in us, kings delight in their subjects, fathers delight in their sons, etc. It should be noted that this very same word is used in the previous chapter. 1 Sam 18:22 says – “And Saul commanded his servants, [saying], Commune with David secretly, and say, Behold, the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee: now therefore be the king's son in law.” Clearly, this has no sexual overtones to it at all. So, the Hebrew word translated “delighted” is not an idiom for sexual intimacy and may very likely never refer to sexual intimacy, or, if it does so, only does so once out of 75 OT occurrences.

The next suggestion is that the “favor” David found in Jonathan’s sight was of a romantic nature, as if to say Jonathan was romantically smitten with David. As with the other words or phrases we are examining, we need to see if such a use for the word exists elsewhere. The word translated “favor” or “grace” occurs 69 times in the Old Testament. It is almost always used to refer to the “favor” a person in authority shows to a subordinate. Even the few times it is used within a martial context, it reflects the patriarchal notion that the inferior wife finds favor in the superior husband’s eyes. There is never a sense of any romance involved. In addition, as we have found with most of these words and phrases, we have an example right within the 1 Samuel narrative we are reviewing which clearly shows the meaning of the word. 1 Sam 16:22 says – “And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favor in my sight”. As even a casual reader of the Old Testament knows, Saul had NO romantic feelings for David.

Finally, it is suggested that the “pleasant” company that Jonathan and David kept has romantic or sexual overtones. A scriptural review of the word is once again in order. This word occurs only 8 times in the OT in its verbal form, and 13 times as an adjective. Two times in Song of Solomon it refers to the feelings of one of the lovers to the other. All other references to human relations are decidedly not romantic. Two such uses stand out. In Psalm 133:1, David exclaims “how pleasant it is For brothers to dwell together in unity!” Here, David himself, the composer of this lament that we are looking at regarding Saul and Jonathan, uses the same expression to refer to the bonds of brotherhood. But we don’t even need to go outside of the lament in question. Just 3 verses earlier (v. 23), David says “"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in their death they were not parted…” There is no reason to believe that the pleasantness David speaks of in verse 26 is any different than the pleasantness he speaks of in verse 23 (which also includes Saul), where it is not romantic in any way.
Posted by gengwall at 12:38 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,

David and Jonathan - Part IIa

In the previous post, I gave a brief, verse by verse, breakdown of the claim and the facts surrounding the preposterous idea that David and Jonathan were gay lovers. Below and in the next couple of posts is a more detailed exegetical analysis.

The first verse relating David and Jonathan is 1 Samuel 18:1. It supposedly contains three such "proofs" that their relationship was romantic and sexual. (Also listed are the two other verse that echo one of the "proof" phrases.)

Quote:
1 Sam 18:1 Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself.

Quote:
1 Sam 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Sam 20:17 Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

Proponents of the theory say that:

1. the "love" that is mentioned is inherently romantic,
2. that the phrase "knit to the soul of" harkens back to Genesis 2:24 and the "oneness" of marriage,
3. that the phrase "loved him as himself" is a marital idiom. (this is repeated in 1 Sam 18:3 and 1 Sam 20:17)

The Hebrew word translated "loved" is 'ahab (and the noun derivative 'ahabah). It is like our word "love" in that it can mean many things and many kinds or degrees of love. Although it can mean the romantic love between two spouses, it does not inherently mean that. Context, primarily the participants in the love, determines what particular "flavor" of love is involved. So, we need to look at the rest of the text to determine that context. Let us see if there is anything in the surrounding text which suggests, even remotely, that romantic, sexual, or marital relations are being discussed.

The Hebrew word translated "knit" is qashar. It is a verb meaning to bind or tie together. It can also mean to conspire against. In terms of human relationships, it is used 18 times in the sense of a group in a conspiracy. It is only used 2 other times for human relationships and both times it references this binding of two souls. The one time is, of course, in the reference to David and Jonathan. The other occurrence is in Genesis 44:31 referring to the relationship between Jacob and his son Benjamin. After Benjamin had been framed for stealing, Judah is imploring Joseph (who the brothers do not recognize) to allow Benjamin to return to Jacob, for if he doesn't, Jacob will die of grief over the loss of his only other son by Rachel (the first being, of course, the very same Joseph). Judah describes this unbreakable father son bond in this way: "Now, therefore, when I come [i.e. return] to your servant my father, and the lad is not with us, since his life is bound [qashar] up in the lad's life; It shall come to pass, when he seeth that the lad [is] not [with us], that he will die". Unless one is to suggest that Jacob and Benjamin were incestuous gay lovers, the indication in this verse is that this "knitting of souls" is a father/son, or brother to brother type of bond. At any rate, that expression is never used in reference to husband/wife, marital bonds anywhere in the OT. And what of the leaving, cleaving, and oneness in Genesis? Well, those are completely different Hebrew words and expressions that are never used to describe David and Jonathan's relationship. The scriptural evidence demonstrates that this expression is not romantic in any way and enforces the fact that David and Jonathan were "as close as brothers".

The third expression referring to Jonathan loving David as he loved himself occurs in three verse. The assertion is that this phrase mirrors Ephesians 5:28 - "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;" and therefore is an idom for the marriage relationship. Of course, on the surface the two don't match up well because the verses related to Jonathan speak of his "soul", not his "body". Paul also goes on to make further reference to the church "body" and to Christ and the church. But Paul does also reference the Genesis 2 marriage declaration. Still, a comparison to similar wording in the New Testament is simply a diversion. The real issue is how the Hebrews of the Old Testament would have viewed this phrase. This form "loved...as...own...self/soul/life" only occurs four times in the Old Testament. The first three are, of course, the three verses noted above pertaining to Jonathan. But the forth is highly significant because it also uses this phrase AND speaks of the marital relationship. It is Deuteronomy 13:6 - "If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly..." Note that the expression is here used to describe only friendship. It is expressly distinguished from the marriage relationship within the same verse. Here, we see that an expression that supposedly describes a marital relationship not only doesn't do so but is specifically contrasted with it.
Posted by gengwall at 12:31 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,

Were David and Jonathan Gay Lovers?

*sigh*

The gay marriage debate has brought up this very tired and sordid old lie about David and Johnathan and I feel compelled to respond with an old post of mine from christianforums.net to refute it. We should be past having to deal with this nonsense but alas, we are not. Get ready for a several part article.

This claim pops up from time to time in the forums as homosexual advocates struggle to find anything positive in scripture regarding homosexuality. I wrote a long refutation in a thread which I will repeat here and in the next few entries. The thread itself lived a very short life, probably due to the length of my commentary, and did not produce any tangible counter arguments (it didn't produce any debate at all). I think that means the reasoning was rather sound (*pats self on back*). Never-the-less, I wish to reproduce it now for posterity.

Part I - An overview of the relevant scriptures.

There are many here, including many of the more liberal Christians, that claim that not only is homosexual sex not universally condemned in the bible but that there is a homosexual relationship that is blessed by God. That is the supposed gay love affair of David and Jonathan. They go as far as to claim that David and Jonathan had the equivalence of a "marriage" and that it would be recognized by God as such. Although such speculation has always seemed preposterous to me, I had not ever actually done an exegesis of the associated texts to see if the claim had merit. That is until now. Below I will break down the "proof texts" that are claimed by proponents of this theory and show that there is absolutely no support or justification for their claim.

For reference, the main chapters that relate David and Jonathan's relationship are 1st Samuel 18, 19, and 20, and 2nd Samuel 1.

First let's take a 10,000 foot approach to the text. One of the claims is that God "blessed" this supposed affair and that God recognizes it as a "marriage". Since 1st and 2nd Samuel are books of history, we would need a direct confirmation that God weighed in on the events and relationships at hand. For example, in 1 Samuel 9:17 we have this - "And when Samuel saw Saul, the LORD said unto him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of! this same shall reign over my people." Although this is a historical account of the ascent of Saul, we also know that God ordained Saul because God said it directly. Later, in 1 Sam 15:11, God says directly to Samuel - "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul [to be] king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night." God is interjecting His opinion into the history. Then God says in 1 Sam 16:1 - "And the LORD said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons."

In all of these texts, it is clear God is the one doing the blessing and rejecting, ordaining and dethroning. But, when one reads the texts regarding David and Jonathan, God is silent. Nowhere does it say that God blesses, ordains, or institutes their relationship. But God is not completely silent in the entirety of these passages. There is plenty of evidence that God blessed David in his military endeavors. But nowhere is such a blessing given for David's and Jonathan's relationship, per se. David and Jonathan do swear a covenant between them to the Lord. But that is for the prosperity and continued existence of their families in light of the imminent danger posed to David by Saul; kind of a "You watch my back, I'll watch yours" agreement. (We see David later honoring this covenant with Jonathan's son). So, regardless of what kind of relationship it was, the bible is meerly giving a historical account. The claim that God blessed the "love" relationship is without basis and the claim that God recognized it as a "marriage" is pure fantasy.

Now let's look at the specific verses, phrases, and words that are claimed to show that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers. There is a lot of analysis so I will summarize the findings first. In the second part I will give the detailed analysis of each claim.

Claim: The use of "love" to describe David and Jonathan's relationship points to the romantic aspects of it.
Truth: The Hebrew word is used for all kinds of love - romantic, brotherly, Godly, selfless (agape). Context decides.
Ref: 1 Sam 18:1,3; 1 Sam 20:17 and others

Claim: The phrase "the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David" alludes to the cleaving and oneness of the martial relationship as exemplified in Genesis 2:24.
Truth: The phrase in this form relating to the knitting of two souls is used only one other time and that is for a father son relationship (Jacob/Benjamin). It is never used in scripture to describe romantic or marital relationships. The Hebrew word translated "cleave" in Genesis is a completely unrelated word.
Ref: 1 Sam 18:1

Claim: The phrase "he [Jonathan] loved him [David] as his own soul" is a marital idiom.
Truth: This phrase is never used in OT scripture to describe a marriage relationship and in fact is used only one other time outside of the Jonathan and David narrative. There it actually unequivocally differentiates the love between close friends (the kind Jonathan and David had) from martial love (Deut. 16:6)
Ref: 1 Sam 18:1,3; 1 Sam 20:17

Claim: The phrase "Jonathan...greatly delighted in David" is a sexual innuendo.
Truth: Like "love", the Hebrew word translated "delighted" is a generic term and context determines its use. Significantly, it is also used in the midst of the David/Jonathan narrative for Saul and the people's delight in David (1 Sam 18:22). It is never used in the OT to refer to sexual intimacy (a possible exception may be Esther 2:14), but instead refers to one person’s non-sexual (i.e. relational) satisfaction with another.
Ref: 1 Sam 19:2

Claim: The phrase "Your father [Saul] knows well that I [David] have found favor in your [Jonathan's] sight" is romantic.
Truth: This is typically used as an expression between a subordinate and their superior, as in "let me find favor in your sight, O my lord, the king" (2 Sam 16:4). Saul even says of David in 1 Sam 16:22 that "he has found favor in my sight".
Ref: 1 Sam 20:3

Claim: The phrase "You [Jonathan] have been very pleasant to me [David]" refers to sexual intimacy.
Truth: There is only one instance, in Song of Solomon, (a poetic book with clear sexual context vs. this historic book), that the word translated "pleasant" might be referring to sexual intimacy. Otherwise in scripture, it simply means delightful and is used non-sexually for both people and things. Significantly, in Psalm 113:1, it is used to describe the company of brothers.
Ref: 2 Sam 1:26

Claim: The Phrase "Your [Jonathan's] love to me [David] was more wonderful Than the love of women" is comparing the homosexual relationship to David's heterosexual relationships.
Truth: This occurs in a lament over Jonathan's (and Saul's) death. The verse starts "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan" clearly establishing that the relationship is brotherly. Rather than compare two types of sexual love, this verse contrasts brotherly love from sexual love.
Ref: 2 Sam 1:26

Claim: Saul was wary of David and first kept him under a watchful eye and then had him removed from the palace because of Saul's displeasure over David and Jonathan's homosexual affair.
Truth: The surrounding verses make it clear that Saul's actions were out of jealousy that David was being so militarily successful and was receiving so many accolades from the people.
Ref: 1 Sam 18:6-13

The next few posts give a detailed breakdown of each of the above claims.
Posted by gengwall at 12:19 PM 0 comments
Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

“We’re Just Friends”: Opposite Sex Interaction Outside of Marriage - OR - How Wrong Is Really Right and Not Wrong Is Actually Wrong.

I’m fixin’ to make a speech…

This goes out to all the young husbands and husbands to be who believe their wives are unjustifiably trying to control and change them because their wives don’t like that they have social interactions with other women. YOU’RE ALL BUTT-HEADS. I will explain in a moment.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I once felt the same way. Not that I had a lot of friends that were women, but I do get along with women pretty well. In all modesty, I’m a pretty charming guy. And, at least according to my wife, I’m also a pretty nice guy. And when I was young and first married, I saw nothing wrong with spending social time with other women from work or other social spheres. After all, they seemed to like having me around. And since I loved my wife and would never cheat on her, what could be the harm. I simply couldn’t understand why it bothered my wife. I would argue: “I’m not doing anything wrong”, the rallying cry of the mind stuck in singleness mode. But that was then…when I was a butt-head…just like you. I was wrong, and here is why..

The situation…

You’re married (or in a serious, "leading to marriage", relationship), but you also have this girlfriend…er…friend who is a girl. She may be a new acquaintance or a lifelong pal. She may even be an old flame (which moves you up a class to stupid butt-head). You probably have no romantic interest in her at all, (although, if you have even the slightest twinge of attraction to her, you move up another notch to complete moron butt-head.) You and this girl are maintaining a social interaction* with each other, and your wife is none too happy about it. In fact, she’s very upset. Your description of her reaction is probably something like “psycho crazy jealous”. It makes no sense to you because you and this girl “are just friends”, and you “haven’t done anything wrong”. You feel your wife is just flat out wrong about you and this friend and you wish she would stop trying to control you and change who you are. Sound familiar, butt-head?

Why your psycho crazy jealous wife is really right…

When you make your wedding pledges, one thing that you promise to do is some version of: “forsaking all others, keep myself only to you (your spouse).” I have two bits of insight into women for you. First, they take that pledge very seriously. That should be no surprise, as I’m sure you take it just as seriously in regard to her monogamy. The second insight will probably be more startling – she considers that “forsaking” and “keeping” to go well beyond the sexual. Basically, your wife wants to be the ONLY woman in your life of any consequence (also why you must “leave” your father and, especially, your mother, and “cleave” to your wife). While she understands that you have to have business and other more formal interactions with women, she expects that in ALL social situations, you will “forsake” all other women and direct not only all of your affection but also ALL of your ATTENTION toward her. When you make your wedding vow, that is what you are promising from her perspective. ANY social attention toward another woman is attention taken from her and a violation of your promise to her. You may think that is crazy, but that is reality. If you aren’t ready to fulfill that promise, you aren’t ready for the type of oneness that marriage demands.

So, if you are carrying on a close social relationship with another woman, you are breaking your vow just as much as if you were sleeping with another woman. You may not see the connection but your wife sure does. And the betrayal she feels can be just as painful as it would be if you were engaged in full-fledged adultery. That is why your wife is perfectly justified in being “crazy psycho jealous”. Be honest now. If the tables were turned, you would probably be just as upset. Why? Because you’re a man and you know what men are thinking and even if you trust your wife, you don’t trust those other men. How come you think it should be any different for a woman? I got news for you; it isn’t.

Not only that, but she is justified in attempting to “control” you (she is actually just trying to bring order to the marriage) because your behavior is in fact, out of control. Frankly, if you can’t stop a trivial interaction with another woman, how can she be sure you can stop ANY interaction with other women? You need boundaries. It is truly unfortunate that you don’t have other men in your life to show you that because it leaves her to be the “bad guy”, but it is a lesson you need to learn anyway. I hate to be the bearer of such bad news but being married means that you can’t act the same way with women that you did when you were single.

Finally, she is justified in trying to “change” you, (or really, trying to show you what rightly needs to change in your life). What?!? You didn’t know you would have to change when you got married? You figured you could just go your merry way as if you were still single? Who did your marriage counseling anyway? Sorry to tell you this butt-head, but marriage is not a relationship where two people pursue their own agendas. It is a relationship where they forsake (there’s that word again) their individual pursuits and submit their lives to the good of the whole. That requires change, particularly in areas that are counter to oneness.

I hope that you see that, even though your wife is in essence wrong about you and your friend, she is actually quite justified in her reaction to your extra-marital relationship. “But”, you are probably screaming right now, “I still haven’t done anything wrong”. Ah, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t wrong.

Why you are actually wrong, even though you haven’t done anything wrong…

There are three specific ways that your extra-marital relationship causes harm and therefore is quite wrong, even if you and the other woman are, at least currently and from your perspective, “just friends”.

“Cruel to be kind” - It is time to burst your bubble butt-head. Maybe you are just a “good guy”. I know you think you are charming and nice and understanding and all, and you are just trying to be a decent person by letting this other woman cry on your shoulder or blow off steam or have a good clean time or whatever. Guess what? Secure women don’t need you to be their friend. They are fulfilled by their husband or boyfriend or other women in their life. In most cases, the kinds of women who seek out the attention of a married (or otherwise off-limits) man are those who are actually looking for such a man to bond to. They are needy, and insecure, and desperate for love and attention (this even includes many married women). Such relationships can only end one of two bad ways. One possible outcome is that you get sucked into their needy world and forsake your wife even more. The cruel irony is that you will claim that you are just trying to help a friend when in fact you are enabling that person, deceiving yourself, and abandoning your wife. The other, only slightly less harmful outcome is that you wake up and realize what is going on and greatly harm the other person in the process of breaking off the relationship. In essence, if you are truly devoted to your wife, and would never cheat on her, then you are leading another woman on by giving her the kind of love (non-sexual) and attention that should be reserved for your wife. How cruel of you to let this woman think that you are some knight in shining armor when in fact you will never give her the devotion that she is so desperately seeking. Even though you aren’t doing anything wrong (that you can tell), what you are doing is wrong.

“Pride goes before a fall” - The annals of history, not to mention marriage therapists’ notebooks, are filled with accounts of marital affairs which started as “just friends” relationships. How many men (or women) have boasted “I never would cheat on my spouse” only to stumble down the road when the going got rough or the grass looked greener? In the previous paragraph I presumed you are a good guy, and that may be so, for now. But let’s be honest – you still are a flawed human being, just as are your spouse and your friend. Nobody can claim to be immune from cheating. How many truly good, wholesome, people – pastors, neighbors, relatives – that you know have fallen? 1, 5, 10, 100? To assume, especially now in your butt-head state, that you have some inherent anti-cheating gene that makes it impossible for you to ever betray your wife (even more than you already are) is so ridiculously naïve that it makes one wonder if you have ever matured past the age of 16, when you most certainly knew that you were indestructible, invincible, and oh so absolutely right about everything in the universe. You think you are special? I’m here to tell you that you are wrong, even though you aren’t currently doing anything wrong.

“Live with your wife in an understanding way” – Men are given two very important and specific sets of instructions in the Bible on how to be a loving husband. (NOTE - these are not inherently religious instructions, but practical instructions which apply to any marriage, Christian or not.) The first is in Ephesians 5, where Paul orders husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. In a nutshell, give up your entire life in service to your wife. Everything you do should revolve around making her life better. Ask yourself butt-head, is your relationship with another woman, no matter how innocent, exhibiting sacrifice and service to your wife? In fact, it is the opposite. It is an act of sacrifice and service TO THAT OTHER WOMAN! What betrayal! No wonder your wife is so mad.

The second instruction is found in 1 Peter 3, where Peter tells husbands to “live with your wives in an understanding way”. The literal translation is “live with your wives according to knowledge”. In plain English, don’t be a butt-head when it comes to your wife, her feelings, and your life together. The reader’s Digest version: use your head, man! While you don’t necessarily have to “understand” how she feels or why she feels that way, you do have to be understanding of her feelings. Why doesn’t it matter to you that your behavior is upsetting? Is it so important to you that something make sense in your butt-head mind that you would purposely be mean to her out of spite? So much for the “good guy” image you perpetuate. It is fundamentally wrong for you to disrespect your wife with such a total disregard for her feelings and it is doubly wrong for you to do it while feigning innocence by claiming you are doing nothing wrong.

Always treat a gun as if it’s loaded…

In conclusion, I would like to help you to not be a butt-head by suggesting a course of action via this analogy. I come from a hunting family. To get a hunting license in MN as a youth, you must go through gun safety classes. To hunt with my family, you have to go through the much more rigorous family gun safety training. The overriding principle of our family’s gun safety training is this: the gun is always loaded. I know that is a cliché, but we take it very seriously. In fact, we are almost obsessive in our unwavering application of this attitude (I won’t even point a fake gun at a person, just out of principal and to set the proper example for anyone who is watching). The reason is simple: we don’t want anyone to get hurt and the only way to ensure that happens is if you always, ALWAYS, treat the gun as if it is loaded..

Some people may think that is silly. Guess what. People get shot every year by guns that everyone thought were empty. Think it is silly to avoid social interactions with members of the opposite sex. Guess what. People get divorced every year because of acquaintances that started off (or even remained) as “just friends”. Just like my family’s gun safety rules, you must adopt an unwavering principle when it comes to this issue: I will not enter into close social relationships with members of the opposite sex, ever, regardless of how harmless they seem. If you don’t adopt this position, sooner or later, that “unloaded” gun is going to hurt someone..

EPILOGUE – While the main focus of this post has been husbands and their treatment of their wives, don’t assume this phenomenon is restricted to the martial dynamic or a male to female gender direction. While this situation occurs most often under those circumstances, it is by no means restricted to them. Nobody is immune from the danger and pain of an opposite sex relationship with someone who is not your significant other, no matter how innocently it may begin or appear to be..

*Social interaction is ANY kind of interaction, whether face to face or not. That includes calling, texting, Skypeing, chatting, Face Booking, tweeting, or snail mailing. It obviously includes personal meetings, even those where your wife is present. It is basically any kind of one-to-one, personalized, contact other than purely professional contact.
Posted by gengwall at 12:16 PM 0 comments
Labels:

Monday, October 1, 2012

Minnesota Amendment 1 - Why I'm Voting "NO"


Update 11/7/2012: The Amendment failed. Also see update to note 5 below regarding this issue and the courts.

I admit for the longest time I wasn’t sure how I would vote. I thought maybe that I wouldn’t make up my mind until I got into the booth. But some serious discussions, and some serious introspection, have led me to the conclusion that, to stay true to myself as well as my faith, on this issue, in this context, I have to vote “no”.

Some who know me (mostly the afore-mentioned family and friends), will be baffled that this is even a question to be pondered. To them, a “yes” vote is a no brainer, and they would expect that I would concur(1). Many others who know me just as well will not be surprised at all that I am voting “no”. In particular, my younger daughter will applaud this decision (having voted similarly on the California proposition) and consider it to be an encouraging turning point in my Libertarian development. Neither side, I suspect, will appreciate the deliberation I went through to get to this point. So in order to avoid disownment (or misplaced praise), and hopefully provide a little enlightenment, I offer this post.

This will be a long post so I will summarize first. You can slog through the arguments at your leisure. 

Biblical marriage and civil marriage are not the same institutions. Since the government has decided to regulate certain civil unions, including bestowing certain privileges and imposing certain obligations on the participants, they should do so without prejudice. The fact that government has decided to use the term “marriage” to describe these licensed, contractual arrangements is irrelevant (or maybe, unfortunate), and certainly does not justify limiting those arrangements on a gender basis any more than it would justify limiting them on a racial or religious basis. Regardless, it has no bearing on the biblical institution for which religious people use the same term and therefore is of no consequence to our citizenship in God’s Kingdom. Never-the-less, as Christians we are sent into this world to witness even though we are not “of the world”, and part of that witness is upholding the laws of the world, often in spite of our personal opinion on their worthiness.

Some background information for those who aren’t familiar with the amendment or me:

Minnesota already has a law that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The purpose for enshrining this into the MN Constitution is to avoid what happened in Iowa a couple of years ago, where the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the similar Iowa statute. Minnesota conservatives want to make sure that “the courts” do not circumvent “the will of the people” of Minnesota. I don’t disagree with this course of action on a fundamental, constitutional basis. 

As for me personally, it should be clear from many posts on this blog that I actually do consider marriage, at least in the biblical sense of the word, to be strictly between one man and one woman. In fact, as far as the bible is concerned, “gay marriage” is an oxymoron at the very least, if not a completely nonsensical term, and the “one man/one woman” structure of marriage is a simple, unalterable fact. As a Christian, my personal position on marriage unwaveringly reflects the text of the proposed amendment. With that in mind, here are my reasons for voting “no”.

In this world but not of it

When Jesus was praying to the Father for his followers, he described his disciples as being sent into the world but not being of the world (John 17:14-17). This is understood as the “dual citizenship” of the Christian. We simultaneously exist as citizens of secular society (Minnesota-America-Earth) and of God’s kingdom. We are to keep these citizenship spheres distinct from each other, and as long as they don’t conflict, we are to maintain a balance between the two. Only when society imposes upon us rules that violate our faith are we allowed to disobey.

As citizens of these two worlds, we have two primary guides to inform our behavior. As a citizen of the world, I have the law, and specifically in America, the Constitution. As a citizen of God’s kingdom, I have the Bible. And while the law has very little to say about the Bible (thankfully), the Bible has plenty to say about the law. Paul and Peter make it very clear that, as citizens residing in this world, we are to obey all of the laws and the authorities. Jesus is truly our model for this behavior, as he obeyed the law of the land (Roman law at that!) even while being falsely accused and sentenced to death. None of the New Testament writers ever called upon the Church to write the law or even make any effort to change the law, regardless of how good or bad, moral or evil, the law was. Significantly, neither did Jesus. Indeed, this indifference to affecting the law is what we see in the early church. Only after Constantine did the church and the state become intertwined, to everyone’s detriment.

Sometimes, society and the Christian disagree on principal. That is alright as long as neither tries to impose their will on the other. I am perfectly comfortable with society defining marriage differently than I do, as long as they don’t require me to believe their definition. As long as the Church is not being required by law to marry gay people, it is of no concern to us as citizens of God’s kingdom. We may be required to extend certain civil rights to those married gay people, but that is part of our societal citizenship and we are obligated not only by law but by scripture to comply.

As a society, America provides the best possible environment for us to exercise our dual citizenship. Nowhere on earth is it as permissible for me to outwardly disagree with the law (note - disagree does not mean disobey) than here. Society cannot legislate my faith. But, that freedom from intrusion by society into my godly citizenship is a two way street, because my faith also cannot legislate society. In our free society, if I am free to believe what I believe about marriage, then others are as free to believe something else about marriage. This is the blessing and curse of liberty. As long as the law doesn’t dictate either of our beliefs, and neither of our beliefs tramples on the rights of the other’s, liberty is preserved. 

As Christians, we need to face two facts: society has decided to involve itself in the marriage business, and gay people have marriage-like relationships. To be fair, as far as our marriages are concerned, the first fact doesn’t much impact us as our definition of marriage is inherently part of the regulatory scheme. What we need to decide is whether or not other civil marital arrangements harm us in either citizenship realm. If they harm us societally, then the scales of justice are tipped and the law is unconstitutional. If they harm us spiritually, then society is intruding on our godly citizenship and we are allowed to disobey. If we are not harmed in either way then, like it or not we are compelled to obey the law. 

Frankly, I don’t see how gay marriage impacts me at all, either positively or negatively. Some Christians will argue that it corrupts society(2). Maybe so, but what is that to us? We are not of this world! We should expect corruption in society. We are to be the antidote for that corruption (how are we doing BTW, hmmm). That is why Jesus sends us into the world. Moreover, and this is crucial to understand, our calling is NOT to overturn the worldly law, even if it allows actions we consider corrupt, or even that we simply disagree with, as long as it doesn’t corrupt US. I repeat – Jesus NEVER directed us to change worldly law. To attempt to do so in the name of Jesus…well…I won’t say more other than to say there is no justification in scripture for such activity(3). We are required to obey laws (or lack of laws) that may lead to societal corruption as long as they do not corrupt US.  Frankly, if there were no corruption, there would not be much point in us remaining here to show the world a better way.

More to the point, what possible impact can the attachment of a word to a relationship have on any corruption that relationship may bring? If you view two gay people in a relationship as a corrupting influence on society, does it matter what you call their relationship? Does the word alter the relationship’s impact on society in any way? As Christians we are sent into this world to be salt and light with the full expectation that we will be living amongst people who conduct their lives in ways that we abhor. Who gives a rip what words are used?

Others worry that allowing gay marriage in society will start us down a slippery slope where eventually, we will be forced to perform and recognize gay marriages in our churches (although some already do). I don’t fear this slippery slope as long as the Constitution remains in place. I also see no evidence that gay rights activists want to strip the Church of its right to define marriage its own way. But let’s say that we do plummet down that slippery slope. What that fundamentally would mean is that the Constitution’s protection of religious liberty has been removed. If that ever happens, all bets are off(4).

All of the above might lead me to simply not vote at all on the amendment (equivalent to a “no” vote), but I have to consider one more issue. As Americans who are compelled by Scripture to obey the law, what is our duty to that law? Let’s not forget, in America we live in a society which believes in liberty and equal protection under the law for all people. If this society is going to regulate certain civil relationships with certain obligations and privileges, it needs to do so without prejudice. We need to support that principle. How can we claim liberty for ourselves but deny it for others? What is “Christian” about that? We may believe that there is no such thing as “gay marriage” in the biblical sense, but we are blind if we believe there are no such things as gay unions. People in those civil unions deserve the same legal rights as people in parallel civil unions. That includes the right to use the same terminology(5,6). If Christians should be mad at anything, they should be mad that government co-opted the term “marriage” for heterosexual civil unions in the first place. This would all be a moot point if all such contracts were called “civil unions” from the beginning. But they aren’t. We need to let it go.

One last word about that pivotal word: “marriage”. Very few Christians are aware of an obscure biblical fact. The word “marriage” does not exist in the Old Testament, and doesn’t really occur in the context we are using it here even in the New Testament(7). Simply put, the word we are making such a fuss over is actually never used in Scripture. Oh, to be sure, the relationship to which we attach the word is abundantly present in the Bible. But we have done the attaching; it isn’t a native biblical term. It should be neither shocking nor concerning to us that other people use the word for other relationships. In fact, the term “marriage” is used figuratively for many kinds of paired relationships outside of the intimate human context. Christians, (or more correctly, religious people), do not own this word, nor is it particularly religious in its breadth of meaning. And to reiterate, it isn’t even biblical.

Notes:

(1)    I have heard many of my fellow brothers and sisters recount interactions they have had or witnessed with “no” voters. In those recollections, they shared some of the arguments given by the opponents of the amendments – arguments that, to me, seem rather sound and at least worthy of consideration. But my friends summarily dismissed those arguments without, seemingly, giving them a fair hearing at all. Truly, to many conservative Christians, this is a no brainer.

(2)    This is often aggravated by the “homosexuality”=”super sin” mentality of many in the Church. I would argue that divorce and fornication (both legal) are equally if not more corrupting on society yet the Church has a disturbing tolerance for those two activities, probably because of the rampant practice of them within the Body.

(3)    Those who want to legislate Christian morality need to be careful what they wish for. Ask yourself first which Christian sect gets to make the rules. If it is the Catholics, birth control would be banned. If it is the Baptists, dancing might be prohibited and prohibition returned. Even more conservative denominations may try to outlaw even more activities most of us consider amoral, or impose activities to which we object. If it is the Mormons (I know, not Christians), coffee and coke are off the menu. And what if another religion takes the reins? Want to live under Sharia law? God tried a Theocracy once and humans made a horrible mess of the whole thing. We are ultimately too fallen to agree on a universal moral code. Some people think that the legal system in America is based on biblical principles and morality. They are wrong. The legal system in America is based on a balancing of rights. It is secular, and should remain so. If you don’t believe that, ask the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson.

(4)    Of course, we Christians know that this persecution against the Church will come someday, but we also know that gay marriage is not going to be the cause. Besides, the persecution is unavoidable, regardless of how anyone votes on this cosmically trivial amendment.

(5)    UPDATE 12/7/2012: The SCOTUS has indeed agreed to hear both gay marriage cases this term. The docket numbers are 12-144 and 12-307. TTatOT will be paying close attention as this makes it way to the court.

UPDATE 6/10/2013: Oral arguments on the cases were heard March 26th.
The Supreme Court will eventually deal with this issue and I firmly believe that they will affirm the use of “marriage” as a legal term of art for gay civil unions, thereby striking down state gay marriage bans, just as in the past they struck down laws banning inter-racial marriage and laws refusing to recognize marriages of couples from non-Judeo-Christian faiths. It could come up as soon as this next judicial term with the California Proposition 8 case.

UPDATE 4/28/2015: The beginning of the end.
The Supreme Court hears argument today on four consolidated cases brought by states asking the court to uphold traditional marriage. Virtually all commentators expect the court to, instead, uphold gay marriage on 14th amendment grounds, thereby making it the law of the land and striking down any state laws and constitutional amendments which define marriage as only a heterosexual union.

 (6)    To be fair, I also do not buy the outrageous outrage on the part of gay marriage advocates over not being able to use the word “marriage”. It is equally as silly. They claim that using separate terms for gay vs. heterosexual unions is tantamount to the “separate but equal” policies of racial segregation. I find little merit in that argument.

(7)    Some translations will use the English word “marriage” for certain Hebrew and Greek words, but further word study reveals that these translations are presumptuous paraphrases. The relationships described might be marriages, but the actual Hebrew and Greek words used are not those languages’ equivalents of the English word “marriage”. In fact, the creation of a particular equivalent of “marriage” in the source languages may be a post biblical event.
Posted by gengwall at 1:07 PM 6 comments
Labels: , , ,

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Eve the "Helper" - The Complete Picture

In my last post, I dug deep into the Biblical use of the Hebrew word ezer as it relates to God, and subsequently, Eve. But God's intent in his provision for Adam is not fully described by this one word. Now I would like to expand the inquiry to the full phrase that describes what exactly Eve will be for Adam.

For this post I will be using, for purposes of comparison and contrast, two translations of ezer k-neged-u from Genesis 2:18.

King James Version
And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (ezer k-neged-u) for him.

NIV
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable (ezer k-neged-u) for him.”

“help meet” vs. “helper suitable” - there is quite a disparity between the two translations. The King James sounds strange to our contemporary minds. It may surprise the reader that “help meet” is actually a far more literal, and accurate, translation than “helper suitable”.

Let's begin with ezer again. There is a subtle difference between the English words “help” and “helper”. The latter is part of the solution to a problem but the former is the solution in and of itself. We see that when the word is used for God. In most cases, God isn't a “helper” per se, leaving it up to us to help ourselves to some degree. No, God is the all inclusive “help”, without which we would be completely helpless.

Which state did Adam find himself in, one where he needed a little assistance or one where he was completely hopeless. Remember that Adam did not need help with any domestic tasks. That is not what Eve was created for. Genesis 2:18 is crystal clear that the only condition that was not good and therefore required a help was Adam's state of being alone. In fact, Adam was hopelessly alone and could do nothing on his own to remedy that situation. This became even more stark of a reality when God had him name the animals and he found none that could cure his alone state. So, did Adam need a helper to fix what was “not good”, or did he need an all encompassing “help”. To me, it is clearly the latter. Eve was Adam's “help”.

This seems like a nit picky semantic exercise to go through but it is important because of the subtle differences between the English words. To an English speaking mind, helper immediately brings to mind synonyms like “assistant” which leads easily to “subordinate”. It is this very thought process, coupled with the tendency to think Adam needed help with the gardening or something, that leads people very easily to believe that Eve was made to be under Adam's authority. Using “help” instead of “helper”, while a little clumsy linguistically, fits much better with the context and reality of Adam's need.

Now on to this other word, neged that translates as “meet” vs. “suitable” in our two example verses. Beginning again with the NIV. To me, “suitable” is a terrible word to describe a person. It makes Eve in the context of the passage sound like some kind of tool. After all, if you need help with domestic chores, the most suitable helper is a domestic servant is it not? Again, it is nit picky, but I really think there are better words than “suitable”, and indeed many translations use alternatives that don't sound quite as domesticating. More on that in a minute.

Turning to the King James, a contemporary English speaker is initially quite stumped. What in the world does “meet” mean? Often we jump to a conclusion: “Well, 'meet' must mean that Eve 'meets' Adam's needs”. While that isn't the worst thought in the world, it really misses the true meaning of this word. Often too, people who have just heard the verse without reading it erroneously translate this as “helpmate” (although one translation – Darby – makes the same mistake). This is going in the wrong direction all together.

The Hebrew word neged actually means “in front of”, as in “standing face to face”. In negative contexts, it means to “oppose”. In positive contexts, it means one thing compliments or corresponds to another thing. So, literally, the King James translation of “meet” is very accurate. Eve is a “help” that “meets” Adam face to face.

Putting that together, can we find a better translation of ezer k-neged-u that removes all aspects of hierarchy and shows the true purpose behind Eve's creation for Adam? I think there are several good candidates.

The New Living Testament phrases it “a companion who will help him”. I certainly agree with the companion part, but I think we can do better.

The New King James has “helper comparable”. That's a little better. And even better still...

Young's Literal translation renders it “helper -- as his counterpart”. That isn't too bad. It certainly removes any thought that Adam was the boss of Eve. “counterpart” and “partner” are very similar words and they really get the sense of neged. Which leads to...

The New American Bible has “suitable partner”. I like “partner”, but as stated before I'm not so keen on “suitable”

The New English Translation gets a little wordy with “a companion for him who corresponds to him”. Seems “corresponding companion” would have done just as well. Never-the-less, I like this. “Companion” focuses on the correct context for the help Eve provides and “corresponding” gets the correct sense of neged. All things considered, this is my favorite.

Eve was indeed Adam's companion, not his helper. This is the correct understanding of ezer in the context, for the problem Adam needed help with was his alone state. A companion was the very “help” that fixed Adam's “not good” state. And she indeed corresponded to him. She was not his clone, but instead was his “standing in front of him” compliment.
Posted by gengwall at 2:55 PM 8 comments
Labels:

Monday, February 14, 2011

Eve the "Helper" - The Wit and Irony of God's Word Choices

Much has been made of the designation of Eve as “helper” for Adam in Genesis 2:18;20. Some claim that it means Eve was designed to provide Adam some domestic aid as he went about his preeminent job of tending the garden. Kind of a “maid with benefits”, if you will. On the other end of the spectrum (where I fall), some point out that the word often translated as “helper” is a word in Scripture that is almost universally used for God. If God is not subordinate to us, how could Eve be subordinate to Adam. Those positions have been long discussed, including here, and I do not intend in this post to resurrect that tired debate (especially since it is clearly settled in my mind). Instead, I want to share a small but significant new irony that I have discovered about this little Hebrew word - ezer.

As mentioned above, the word ezer more often than not is used of God in scripture. In fact, of the 19 occurrences outside of Genesis 2, all but three are in reference to God. But what does this word say about God? And how is that ironic in terms of how we view both Genesis 1-3 and marital relationships in general? Let’s look.

In 5 of the 16 God-reference verses[1], God is spoken of as a “shield of…help” or “help and…shield”. In these verses, God is clearly identified as a protector. He both fights off foes and shields His people from their attacks. One legitimate interpretation of ezer, then, is clearly “protector”.

In 7 more of the 16 verses[2], God is spoken of as a provider or supporter. Phrases such as “may he send you help (ezer)…and support”, and “my help (ezer) comes from the LORD” are examples. So, “provider” is another prominent (in fact, the most prominent) general interpretation of ezer.

“Provider” and “protector” - there is something very familiar about those two words. When do we often hear them in connection with marriage? It is, of course, almost exclusively in reference to husbands. Culture (and many Christian philosophies) tells us that the males are the sole providers and protectors in the marriage and the females are the sole nurturers. Isn’t it ironic that the bible tells us the exact opposite.

Now, to be fair, the translation of ezer as it relates to God that best describes Eve in relation to Adam is “rescuer”, as in “you are my help (ezer) and deliverer”. That occurs in 3 of the 16 verses[3]. The “help” that Eve provides is actually to rescue Adam from his “not good” state of being alone by being an equal partner[4] with him. Still, I can’t help but chuckle that God in His infinite wisdom also turns the concept of gender “roles” on its ear in His provision of Eve for Adam.

Notes
1. Deu 33:29, Psa 33:20, Psa 115:9-11
2. Psa 20:2, Psa 89:19, Psa 121:1-2, Psa 124:8, Psa 146:5, Hsa 13:9
3. Exd 18:4, Deu 33:26, Psa 70:5
4. The final verse with ezer referring to God - Deu 33:7 - shows God as a fellow warrior, standing side by side as an equal with His people.
Posted by gengwall at 12:18 PM 1 comments
Labels:

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

1 Timothy 2:11-15, Scoring 80 Translations

Coinciding with the 1st Timothy 2 entry in my "Show Stoppers" series, I have "scored" all English versions of the passage (vs 11-15) that I could find online for their translational accuracy. Enjoy browsing through and looking for your favorite bible version, although beware, in most cases, it ain't a pretty picture.

Translations are scored on the following criteria with ten points awarded for each correctly translated section:

General - All human references retain their grammatical number as reflected in the original text.
Verse 11 (and 12) - hesychia translated to suggest peace or tranquility rather than verbal silence
Verse 12 - Paul’s authority (“I do not allow”, etc.) is clear
Verse 12 - Negative word such as dominion or dominate is used AND it is not suggested that such dominion is taken away or usurped from men
Verse 14 - Translation reflects correct tense
Verse 15 - “childbearing” is translated as a noun with the definite article AND salvation (rather than bodily safety) is emphasized

Individual points are added or subtracted as follows:
If reference is made to husband or wife in the passage, +1
If it is clear that “they” in verse 15 are the couple, +1
If Eve is clearly identified as “the woman” in verse 14, -1
If Eve is shown as being deceitful or in any way having brought sin into the world, or if the portrayal implies women in general are more easily deceived than men, -1
If there is an indication in the translation that the worship service is the setting, -1
If there is an indication that a woman’s “place” is in the home, -1

A perfect score is 60 and the maximum score (with bonus points) is 62. Minimum score is -4.

The top scoring translation with a perfect score is The Concordant Literal New Testament. The lowest score goes to our template translation, the Contemporary English Version, with a -1. It should be noted that the vast majority of the translations scored 30 or under.

Correctly translated phrases are in blue; incorrectly translated ones in red. Neutral phrases or those that are always correctly translated are in grey. Underlining indicates bonuses or reductions.

American Standard Version (ASV)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 50

Amplified Bible
Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness. I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies]. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression. Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls' salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child.
Score - 28

Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT)
Let a woman be learning in quietness with all submission. But I do not permit a woman to be teaching, nor to be exerting dominance over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if they remain in faith and love and sanctification, with decency [or, self-control].
Score - 50

Aramaic Bible (English Translation)
A wife should learn quietly during all worship. For I neither advocate the wife to be a teacher, nor to order her husband around, except she should be serene.* For Adam was molded first and then Eve. And Adam did not mislead her, however it was the wife that misled him and transgressed the commandment. She Lives then through her children, if they be strengthened* in faith, love, holiness and modesty.
Score - 39

Basic English Bible (BEB)
Let a woman quietly take the place of a learner and be under authority. In my opinion it is right for a woman not to be a teacher, or to have rule over a man, but to be quiet. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; And Adam was not taken by deceit, but the woman, being tricked, became a wrongdoer. But if they go on in faith and love and holy self-control, she will be kept safe at the time of childbirth.
Score - 40

Bible In Worldwide English
A woman must learn quietly and be very humble. I do not allow any woman to teach or to rule over a man. She must remain quiet. Adam was not fooled. But the woman was fooled and did wrong. But anyway, the women will come safely through the time of delivering a child, if they keep on believing and loving God, and if they live a clean life and keep humble.
Score - 30

The Bishop's Bible
Let the woman learne in scilence in all subiection. But I suffer not a woman to teache, neither to vsurpe auctoritie ouer ye man, but to be in scilence. For Adam was first fourmed, then Eue. And Adam was not deceaued: but the woman beyng deceaued, was in the transgression. Notwithstandyng through bearyng of chyldren she shalbe saued, yf they continue in fayth and loue, and holynesse, with modestie.
Score - 20

Christian Community Bible
Let a woman quietly receive instruction and be sub­missive. I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men. Let them be quiet. For Adam was created first and then Eve. Adam was not deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and fell into sin. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided that her life be orderly and holy, in faith and love.
Score - 10

The Common Edition NT 1999
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. But women will be saved through the bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-restraint.
Score - 10

Concordant Literal New Testament
Let a woman be learning in quietness with all subjection. Now I am not permitting a woman to be teaching nor yet to be domineering over a man, but to be in quietness (for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve, and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression). Yet she shall be saved through the child bearing, if ever they should be remaining in faith and love and holiness with sanity.
Score - 60

A Conservative Version
Let a woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to act autonomously from a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, became in transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 20

Contemporary English Version (CEV)
and they should learn by being quiet and paying attention. They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. But women will be saved by having children, if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
Score - (-1)

Coverdale Bible
Let the woman lerne in sylece with all subieccion. I suffre not a woman to teach ner to haue auctorite ouer the man, but for to be in sylence. For Adam was first formed, and the Eue: Adam also was not disceaued, but the woman was disceaued, and hath brought in the trasgression. Notwitstondynge thorow bearynge of children she shalbe saued, yf she contynue in faith and in loue & in the sanctifyenge with discrecion.
Score - 20

Darby Translation
Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness; for Adam was formed first, then Eve: and Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been deceived, was in transgression. But she shall be preserved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with discretion.
Score - 30

Douay-Rheims
Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Easy English Bible Translation
A woman should learn quietly when you meet together. She should obey the men who teach in the *church. I do not let a woman teach men. And I do not let a woman take authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet when the men are teaching. I say this because God made Adam first. Then he made Eve. It was Eve, not Adam, who believed *Satan. She believed the false things that *Satan said. And so she was the first to do what was wrong. But God will save women who give birth to children. He will do that if the women continue to believe him. Also, they must continue to love people. They must continue to live right lives because they are God’s. And they must always do what is proper.
Score - 9

Easy-to-Read Version
A woman should learn while listening quietly and while being fully ready to obey. I don’t allow a woman to teach a man. And I don’t allow a woman to have authority (power) over a man. The woman must continue in quietness. Why? Because Adam was made first. Eve was made later. Also, Adam was not the one the devil tricked. It was the woman who was tricked and became a sinner. But women will be saved in their work of having children. They will be saved if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, and control themselves in the right way.
Score - 19

English Majority Text Version NT (EMTV)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam first was formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, has come to be in transgression. Nevertheless she shall be saved through childbirth, if they remain in faith and love, and sanctification, with self-control.
Score - 30

English Standard Version (ESV)
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 20

Evidence Bible
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 20

A Faithful Translation NT
Let [the] women be learning in silence in all subjection. For I do not permit [a] woman to be teaching, nor to be dominating [a] man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman having been deceived came to be in transgression. But she will be saved through childbearing, if they abide in faith and agape-love and holiness with decency.
Score - 20

The Geneva Bible
Let the woman learne in silence with all subiection. I permit not a woman to teache, neither to vsurpe authoritie ouer the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eue. And Adam was not deceiued, but the woman was deceiued, and was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, through bearing of children she shalbe saued if they continue in faith, and loue, and holines with modestie.
Score - 20

God's Word Translation
A woman must learn in silence, in keeping with her position. I don't allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she should be quiet. After all, Adam was formed first, then Eve. Besides that, Adam was not deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and sinned. However, she [and all women] will be saved through the birth of the child, if they lead respectable lives in faith, love, and holiness.
Score - 18

Good News Translation (2nd Edition)
Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 9

Hebrew Names Version of WEB (HNV)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Havah. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 40

The Heritage Bible
Let a woman learn in silence in all subordination. And I absolutely do not allow a woman to teach nor dominate a man, but to be in silence, Because Adam was first formed, then Eve. Also Adam was absolutely not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the violation; And she will be saved through bringing children into being, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with soundness of mind.
Score - 30

Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSV)
A woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.
Score - 20

Inspired Version
Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding they shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 10

International Standard Version (ISV) NT
A woman must learn quietly with full submission. Moreover, I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. Instead, she is to be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became a lawbreaker. However, women will be saved by having children, if they continue to have faith, love, and holiness, along with good judgment.
Score - 9

J.B Phillips New Testament
A woman should learn quietly and humbly. Personally, I don't allow women to teach, nor do I ever put them into positions of authority over men - I believe their role is to be receptive. (My reasons are that man was created before woman. Further, it was Eve and not Adam who was first deceived and fell into sin. Nevertheless I believe that women will come safely through child-birth if they maintain a life of faith, love, holiness and gravity).
Score - 8

The Complete Jewish Bible (OT: JPS)
Let a woman learn in peace, fully submitted; but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace. For Adam was formed first, then Havah. Also it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who, on being deceived, became involved in the transgression. Nevertheless, the woman will be delivered through childbearing, provided that she continues trusting, loving and living a holy life with modesty.
Score - 29

English Jubilee 2000 Bible
Let the woman learn, becoming silent in all subjection. For I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a [mature] man, but to be at rest. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived in the rebellion; notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if she continues in faith and charity and sanctification and modesty.
Score - 20

King James Version (Modern/Green)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. But she will be kept safe through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sensibleness.
Score - 20

King James Version
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 20

The Last Days Bible
She should learn in quietness and be fully submissive Nor do I permit a woman to teach men or have authority over men. She is to remain silent, because God made Adam first, then Eve. It wasn't Adam who was fooled by Satan to believe a lie; but it was the woman who was deceived, and who fell into sin. But women will also be saved as a result of the birth of the Child, it they continue in faith toward Christ, showing true love fro God and mankind, being ever watchful to live holy lives, and control their appetites of the body, and other desires.
Score - 19

Literal Translation Version (LITV) (Green)
Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection. And I do not allow a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has come to be in transgression; but she will be kept safe through the childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with sensibleness.
Score - 30

Living Oracles (4th Edition)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission: for I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over a man, but to be silent; for Adam was first formed, then Eve. Besides, Adam was not deceived: but the woman, being deceived, was in transgression. However, she shall be saved through child-bearing, if they live in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Mace NT
Let the women with submissive silence attend to instruction. for I don't allow a woman to be a teacher, nor to dictate to her husband; but let her be silent. for Adam was the first that was form'd, then Eve. Adam was not seduc'd, but the woman, who was the cause of his transgression. however the women may be saved by educating their children, and persevering themselves in faith, in charity, in holiness and chastity. this may be depended upon as true.
Score - 10

The Message
I don't let women take over and tell the men what to do. They should study to be quiet and obedient along with everyone else. Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived first - our pioneer in sin! - with Adam right on her heels. On the other hand, her childbearing brought about salvation, reversing Eve. But this salvation only comes to those who continue in faith, love, and holiness, gathering it all into maturity. You can depend on this.
Score - 19

Modern Literal Version of the New Testament
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to dominate a man, but to be in quietness. For* Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman having been deceived has become the one in transgression: but she will be saved through her child-bearing, if they remain in faith and love* and sanctification with self-discipline.
Score - 50

Montgomery NT
Let a woman learn quietly in entire submission. I allow no woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man; but let her keep quiet. It was Adam who was first formed, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; but it was the woman who was thoroughly deceived, and who became involved in transgression. Notwithstanding she will be saved by the Child-bearing; (so will they all), if they live in faith and love and holiness, with self- restraint.
Score - 10

New American Bible (NAB)
A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 10

New American Standard Version (NASV)
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
Score - 10

New Century Version (NCV)
Let a woman learn by listening quietly and being ready to cooperate in everything. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to listen quietly, because Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not tricked, but the woman was tricked and became a sinner. But she will be saved through having children if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 30

New English Translation (NET)
A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. For Adam was formed first and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression. But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.
Score - 20

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
When a woman is learning, she should be quiet. She should follow the leaders in every way. I do not let women teach. I do not let them have authority over men. They must be quiet. Adam was made first. Then Eve was made. Adam was not the one who was tricked. The woman was tricked and became a sinner. Will women be saved by having children? Only if they keep on believing, loving, and leading a holy life in a proper way.
Score - 9

New International Version (NIV)
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Score - 9

New King James Version (NKJV)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 20

New Living Translation (NLT)
Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly. For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. And it was the woman, not Adam, who was deceived by Satan, and sin was the result. But women will be saved through childbearing and by continuing to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.
Score - 9

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 20

New World Translation (NWT)
Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.
Score - 20

Peshitta - James Murdock Translation
Let a woman learn in silence, with all submission: for I do not allow a woman to teach, or to be assuming over the man; but let her remain in stillness. For Adam was first formed, and then Eve. And Adam was not seduced, but the woman was seduced and transgressed the command. Yet she shall live by means of her children, if they continue in the faith, and in love, and in sanctity, and in chastity.
Score - 20

Peshitta - Lamsa Translation
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I do not think it seemly for a woman to debate publicly or otherwise usurp the authority of men but should be silent. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and she transgressed the law. Nevertheless, if her posterity continue in faith and have holiness and chastity, she will live, through them.
Score - (-1)

Recovery Version NT
Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection; But I do not permit a woman to teach or to assert authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, having been quite deceived, has fallen into transgression. But she will be saved through her childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 30

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 10

Rotherham's Emphasised Bible
Let, a woman, in quietness, be learning in all submission; But, teaching—unto a woman, I do not permit, nor yet to have authority over a man,—but to be in quietness; For, Adam, first was formed, then Eve, And, Adam, was not deceived, whereas, the woman, having been wholly deceived, hath come to be, in transgression; She shall be saved, however, through means of the child-bearing,—if they abide in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobermindedness. Faithful, the saying.
Score - 50

Sacred Scriptures (Family of Yah Edition)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 50

The Scriptures
Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, rather, to be in silence. Because Adam was formed first, then Hawwah. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression. But she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in belief, and love, and set- apartness, with sensibleness.
Score - 20

Third Millennium Bible
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobermindedness.
Score - 20

Today's English Version (TEV)
Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God's law. But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Score - 9

Today's New International Version (TNIV)
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Score - 9

20th Century New Testament
A woman should listen silently to her teachers, and show them all deference. I do not consent to a woman's becoming a teacher, or exercising authority over a man; she ought to be silent. Adam was formed first, not Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was entirely deceived and fell into sin. But women will find their salvation in motherhood, if they never abandon faith, love, or holiness, and behave with modesty.
Score - 10

21st Century Version
Let a woman learn in silence in all subjection. I do not allow a woman to teach, nor to have a man’s authority, but rather to be in silence. The reason is because Adam was formed first, then Eve. Also, Adam was not deceived, but in contrast, woman, having been deceived, has come to be in transgression. However, she will be protected through her bearing children, if they continue in deep conviction and benevolent empathy for others, along with sanctification and soundness of mind.
Score - 19

2001 translation - An American English Bible
Let women learn quietly and obediently. For I don’t allow women to teach or to preside over men… just to be silent, because Adam was created first, then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and went beyond [what she was told]. However, [the women] will be kept safe through childbirth as long as they remain in the Faith (in love, holiness, and sensibleness).
Score - 8

Tyndale New Testament
Let the woman learne in silence with all subieccion. I suffre not a woman to teache nether to have auctoricie over a man: but forto be in silence. For Adam was fyrst formed and then Eve. Also Adam was not deceaved but the woman was deceaved and was in transgression. Notwithstondynge thorow bearinge of chyldre they shalbe saved so they continue in fayth love and holynes with discrecion.
Score - 10

(An) Understandable Version NT
A woman should learn [the Scriptures] in quietness, being fully submissive. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man [in the assembly], but she should remain quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve was. And Adam was not [the one] deceived, but [it was] the woman who, when deceived, fell into sin. But she [i.e., womankind] will be saved [from condemnation, in spite of the curse of suffering pain] through childbearing, provided they [i.e., all women] continue to have faith and love and holiness, along with discretion.
Score - 9

Updated Bible Version (1.9)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled has fallen into transgression: but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they stay in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 50

Urim-Thummin Version
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Because Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in violation. Notwithstanding she will be preserved through childbearing, if they continue in Faith, Love and consecration with sobriety.
Score - 20

A Voice in the Wilderness (VW)
Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to usurp authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be kept safe through childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Score - 20

Webster's Bible Translation
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding, she will be saved in child-bearing, if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Wesley NT
Let a woman learn in silence with all subjection. For I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, transgressed. Yet she shall be saved in child bearing, if they continue in faith, and love, and holiness, with sobriety.
Score - 20

Weymouth New Testament
A woman should quietly learn from others with entire submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, nor have authority over a man, but she must remain silent. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but his wife was thoroughly deceived, and so became involved in transgression. Yet a woman will be brought safely through childbirth if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and growing holiness, with habitual self-restraint.
Score - 20

The Word of Yah
Let the wife learn in quietness with all subjection. But I suffer not the wife to teach [the husband], nor to usurp authority over the husband, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being wholly deceived came to be in the transgression. But they shall do well in parenthood, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Score - 31

World English Bible (WEB)
Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I don’t permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam wasn’t deceived, but the woman, being deceived, has fallen into disobedience; but she will be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
Score - 40

Wycliffe Bible 1395
A womman lerne in silence, with al subieccioun. But Y suffre not a womman to teche, nether to haue lordschip on the hosebonde, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, aftirward Eue; and Adam was not disseyued, but the womman was disseyued, in breking of the lawe. But sche schal be sauyd bi generacioun of children, if sche dwellith perfitli in feith, and loue, and hoolynesse, with sobrenesse.
Score - 20

Yes Word (revised Tyndale)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. I suffer (allow) not a woman to teach, neither to have authority over the man: but for to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, and then Eve. Also Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and was in transgression. Notwithstanding through bearing of children they shall be saved, so they continue in faith, love and holiness with discretion.
Score - 20

Young's Literal Translation
Let a woman in quietness learn in all subjection, and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness, for Adam was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came, and she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Score - 50
Posted by gengwall at 11:40 AM 5 comments
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)