Comments on: The Throne of Eve

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 22:26:17 +0000

Well put.

Also, Eve’s body, like her authority, was sourced in Adam, and this involved his “death.”

By: jared

jared — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 16:01:29 +0000

The last sentence of your first paragraph is exactly what I was thinking. It’s like women don’t understand that being the embodiement of glory is given to them by design. Without their imaging of glory then man’s imaging of the altar is mundane. Though, I suppose it doesn’t help that men don’t understand they’re designed to image an altar which can receive/reflect this glory…

In Galatians Paul is talking about being heirs according to the promise (succession, as you say) and as the promises go there is no distinction or role that is given preference. We are all recipients of the same faith, of the same grace, even if in different measure. I think this is a good way to combat an egalitarian interpretation of this passage.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:47:40 +0000

The context is serving in the Tabernacle. Women, lepers, eunuchs, etc. are all priests. There is certainly an element which prefigures the eternal state (neither male nor female, like the angels) but this verse cannot be taken in isolation. Do we read it in the dissected light of modernism, where every issue is boxed off separately? Or do we read it in the light of the integrated worldview of the Bible and all previous history? If Paul believed this truly, how did it play out in the Church for 1900 years? Paul was obviously not assuming any sort of sexual egalitarianism here, so his context must be something else. The structure of passage seems to put it at “Succession,” which is Adam and Eve together, mediating between heaven and earth as elohim (see blog post above). Her throne is the direct result of his faithfulness toward her. So, whereas modernism says women should be empowered to free them from abuse by men, the Bible says that women should be empowered but by faithful men. In its misguided attempt to free women from abuse by men, feminism has unwittingly freed them instead from being women.

As far as being lesser, male and female image the “to and fro” of the Trinity. They are different, and there is a flow of authority, but it is the authority of servanthood. Ballroom dancing is a perfect analogy. He leads her, and she submits to his leading. His love and her submission make it beautiful. If he deliberately trips her over, her dancing by herself dressed as a man ain’t pretty.

By: jared

jared — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:09:34 +0000

Tricky indeed. What do you say to someone who thinks that “derived” is tantamount to “lesser” when it comes to authority and the designated roles of men and women? The schtick is that Jesus supposedly levels the playing field, so to speak, such that anything a man can do a woman can do as well. We are both created in the image of God but man “moreso” than woman? How can that be received as anything other than an insult?

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 02:11:37 +0000

Yes, but we are “Nazirite” priests. It’s the priesthood of resurrection, not death. Adam wins the sword, and Eve shares in the sword. Fractals are tricky.

Within the Holy Place, Adam is the link to the Holy and Eve is the link to the Courts. They are both within the Holy Place as priests, but they have different roles.

Liturgically, ministers used to face the congregation to speak for God (as Adam), then face the altar to speak for the congregation (as part of Eve). We should pick up that practice again.

By: jared

jared — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 01:56:23 +0000

So what do we do with Galatians 3:28? Now that, on account of faith, we are no longer under a “guardian” (i.e. no longer lead by the law/priest), how does that factor in to our view of gender roles today? As the body of Christ we are all “priests”, man and woman alike, are we not? We are equal with regards to rightly dividing the word of truth, or delivering it to the rest of the body? How does union in Christ not blur or outright eliminate much of what you say here?