Such is the beauty of the web that while reading a post by Adrian Warnock, I ended up learning a new word, complementarianism. Adrian linked to a page from the Mars Hill Church about why they use the ESV translation of the Bible. It is an interesting read, with some good points that I generally subscribe to myself and thus have alway been partial to more literal translations such as the NAS and ESV.
Part of the rational for ESV according to Pastor Mark Driscoll is how the ESV handles gender, keeping the distinction that the original language has. For example he lists different translations of Psalm 8:4
:
Psalm 8:4
(ESV) What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
(NASB) What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?
(NIV) What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
(TNIV) What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?
(KJV) What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
(NKJV) What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?
(CEV) Then I ask, “Why do you care about us humans? Why are you concerned for us weaklings?”
(TM) What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?
(NLT) What are mortals that you should think of us, mere humans that you should care for us?
I find this very interesting, however what generated this post came next:
It must be pointed out that, in its more insidious forms, the push for gender-neutral language is in fact a clear push against Scripture. For example, Scripture states that God made us male and female (for example, Genesis 1:27
A argument against Messianic Judaism is that G-d does not want any distinctions among believers, that we are all one new man. One verse that often gets used is Galatians 3:28, which does say that there is no Jew and no Greek. It also says no man and no women. I see this verse fitting in perfectly with the statement above, and I think if you took man and female or man and woman and replaced it with Jew and Greek or Jew and non-Jew you would come up with an interesting description of Messianic Judaism. There is both equality and distinction. Messianic Jewish Complementarianism.
Praise G-d for His many wondrous ways, creating man and woman, Jew and non-Jew, each with wonderful responsibilities and blessings that perfectly complement each other.
B”H
Loading ...
1 response so far ↓
1 Tom Albrecht // Aug 31, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Bryan,
Where this argument falls down is in the nature of the distinctions, e.g., male and female were created that way. You cannot change a man into a woman any more than you can change the spots on a leopard (Jer. 13:23
). Although men in their sinful condition and rebellion against God will try to change.
The same cannot be said for Jews vs. gentiles. In a very real sense men make men Jews or gentiles, not God. When did Abraham, the father of many nations, become a Jew? When he demonstrated faith or when he was circumcised or some other point (say, when he entered the land)? (Hint: read Romans 4
and tell me what you think.)
Traditionally, men have become Jews when they received the sign of circumcision in their foreskin. Anyone who was born a gentile could receive this same mark and immediately be considered a Jew. They would be afforded all the rights and privileges of one native born, including the right to observe the fellowship meal, Passover (Exodus 12:43,44
). This is similar to what happened when the entire household of Abraham was circumcised. They immediately were considered Jews even though they were not of Abrahams flesh.
So, as Paul testifies, real Jews are Jews first and foremost by faith and not by lineage. For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. (Rom. 2:28,29
) And God gives precisely the same faith to both Jew and gentile. There is no distinction in this regard. That is the essence of the new covenant in the blood of Christ.
So I think you are mistaken to try to relate creation issues such as male/female with racial/ethnic issues Jew/gentile. For example, there is no distinction made in the Bible (at least in the new covenant) for which role a Jew may play in the Church, the body of believers, vs. a gentile. Both may teach. Both may serve as officers, elders and deacons. Each may do exactly the same as the other. Same in society. They may both be bankers, lawyers, or trash collectors. They can drive the same cars and live in the same neighborhoods (except, perhaps, for some neighborhoods in Israel or Iran).
But what about the male/female distinctions. Men may not bear children and women cannot be fathers. We are told that women are not to teach or exercise authority over men in the congregation (1 Tim. 2
:11ff; 1 Cor. 14:34
). Why? Because of the fixed creation order and the results of the fall (1 Tim. 2:13,14
).
Which leaves us with where we are today. If God intended a continued distinction between Jew and gentile in the new covenant, why, in His providence, has He made it so difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish in practice? God has removed all the religious barriers to gentiles serving in exactly the same role as Jews, namely, He destroyed the temple and once-for-all ended the Levitical priesthood that was only open to a certain class of Jewish men. Today Jewish and gentile Christians serve as priests in Gods household on an equal footing (Rev. 1:6
).
Or look at the simple question, who is a Jew? Modern rabbinic Jews for the most part a matrilineal. They view Jewishness as flowing primarily via the mother. But the Scripture are just the opposite. Men were considered Jewish by virtue of who their father was. Cf. Matthew 1
:1ff and Luke 3
:23ff. Who has the right to answer the question? Most Jews who are living today and claim Jewishness are such by virtue of the rabbis unscriptural position. How do you know, going back countless generation, that you are Jewish according to the Scriptural criteria, rather than the criteria imposed by the rabbis?
Take also the fact that many today who claim to be Jews come to that because they are descended from converts to Judaism, many of which have happened after the time of Christ. In other words, after the institution of the new covenant which superseded the old covenant that decayed and passe3 away (Heb. 8:13
). But the rabbis have been living for 2000 years believing the old covenant is still in effect. They have been making converts according to this older covenant in opposition to the revealed will of God in Christ Jesus in the new covenant. So, what do you do with these converts? Are they really Jewish according to the Bible standard, or do we just go be the error-ridden position of the rabbis?
This is just one can of worms that the entire messianic Judaism movement opened up which, in my estimation, they have yet to resolve.
BTW, I use the words Hebrew, Jew, and Israelite interchangeably for the most part, because that is how I think the Bible treat those words. Where some distinction is important (e.g., Judah vs. Israel), I will note it.
Thanks for listening.
Leave a Comment