First Mark Driscoll, Now John Piper
by hamiltonmj1983
So, recently John Piper made some interesting comments.
Rachel Held Evans has asked for responses to these comments, so I thought I’d chime in.
As the husband of an incredible beautiful and smart United Methodist pastor, it should be pretty obvious where I stand on this issue (you could also check my track record commenting on Mark Driscoll’s rubbish).
I obviously disagree with Piper (on many levels, starting with his Calvinism, but certainly including this desire for a “masculine” church). For example, this quote of his:
“God appoints all the priests in the Old Testament to be men; the Son of God came into the world to be a man; He chose 12 men to be His apostles; the apostles appointed that the overseers of the Church be men”
I would argue that God did not appoint all priests in the OT to be men; society appointed all priests to be men. The Son of God was a man yes, but he came in the world to be human (there is a significant difference). He did have 12 disciples who were all men, just like other rabbis took men as disciples – another example of society at work, not divinity. Finally, what does it matter who the apostles appointed as overseers of the Church? That is again society, not divinity.
There were many women who held important positions in the Church. There were also many women who held important positions all through the Old Testament. It seems that Piper has purposefully ignored these.
Next point – what does it mean when Piper says that:
“…the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male.”
He gave them the name “man,” the name of the male? The Hebrew word אדם is better translated, “humankind” in this instance, and Adam is simply a representative of humankind.
Also, note, Piper states that “the Father and the Son create man and women in His image.” Piper is directly adding “the Son” into the mix (which is not found anywhere in Genesis) in order to add another masculine element and support his argument. What he leaves out that both man and women are made in God’s image, which leads one to believe that God is neither male or female, but that man received some elements of God’s image and woman received other elements. A better understanding of God would not be to see him as masculine, but to see him as a combination of male and female.
Edit: I also wanted to link to two other really good responses that I’ve read by Frank Viola and JR Daniel Kirk. Kirk’s is especially enlightening, because it talks about Jesus’ man-boobs. Rock on, JR Daniel Kirk!
The title comes from my own experience the past two weeks, where everyone I know was blowing up over Driscoll last week, and now people are all starting to talk about the same issues with Piper.
[...] added a post recently about John Piper’s call for a more “masculine” Christianity. Just this morning, Dr. Ben Witherington III added his own very well thought out [...]
Please view this thoughtful response to Frank Viola’s “God’s View of a Woman,” written by a Jewish friend:
http://reviya.blogspot.com/2012/02/woman.html
Here is an excerpt:
“After God had founded the earth, the unfathomable depths of the sea, the gigantic burning stars, sunsets, gentle breezes, puppies, tigers, trees and their fruits, man with his creative faculty, wonder, yearning, capacity to care and feel, and every other good thing in the physical world and said it was very good, then God created as his finale: Woman. In the Israelite mind, she is the crowning achievement of all of God’s creative work in the first six days.”
I came across this blog via a google search, and enjoyed the read. However, there are some scriptures that can contribute to the topic.
Concerning who created them:
Genesis 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”
John 1:3: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (speaking of the Jesus Christ, the Son of God)
Concerning what name God gave them:
Genesis 5:2: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam…”
Concerning the topic:
Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
You said, “I would argue that God did not appoint all priests in the OT to be men; society appointed all priests to be men. The Son of God was a man yes, but he came in the world to be human (there is a significant difference).”
Please be careful not to undermine the reason why God gave the priesthood to Aaron and his sons (all male) (Numbers 3). The priests were to be male because God was sending his Son (who was male) to be the everlasting high priest and all other priests were simply types pointing to Christ (Heb 4:14). Similarly, when God told Moses in Exodus 12:5, “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male a year old” He was also creating a pointer to Christ. Christ would be a male without blemish.
As much as people want to make this a male vs female thing, this “male requirement” has absolutely nothing to do with how much God values males or females. It has everything to do with pointing us to Christ. The maleness of the priests and the lambs was important, not trivial, God-dictated, not society-dictated. To say otherwise misses the point in it all.
Thank you for your response!
Your hermeneutic is valid, yet one that I disagree with. Typology removes the human element from scripture, and reduces it to nothing more than divine dictation.
A love letter must be intelligible,but grammar and logic are not the point. Love is the point!
“Typology removes the human element from scripture, and reduces it to nothing more than divine dictation.”
I never cease to be amazed by the diversity of opinions among Christians. And yours is quite interesting indeed! It seems clear enough you mean for “divine dictation” to be derogatory, as if words from God are somehow less personal and meaningful than words from humans. Yet, “divine dictation” (words that proceed from God’s mouth) is exactly how Paul describes Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16 and Peter in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Oh that everyone would see the Bible as divine dictation! We’d all take the Bible much more seriously then! Seeing the Bible any other way is what reduces it. I’d embrace truth sourced from God over “truth” sourced from humans any day.
That said, types are used rather explicitly in the Bible, and for good reason:
the flood is a type of baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21)
the tabernacle where the priests served was a type of what is in heaven (Hebrews 8:5, 9:24)
the entrance procedure into the Most Holy Place by the High Priest was a type of the present time (Hebrews 9:8-9)
the veil of the tabernacle is a type of Christ’s body (Hebrews 10:19-20)
the feasts and Sabbath are a type of things to come (Colossians 2:16-17)
the whole sacrificial system is a type (Hebrews 9:19-26)
the Passover lamb is a type of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:7)
Adam is a type of Christ (Romans 5:14)
the bronze serpent, lifted up in the wilderness for physical healing of the people is a type of the lifted-up Christ (Numbers 21:8, John 3:14, John 12:32, Isaiah 53:5)
the bread at communion is a type of Christ’s body (Matthew 26:26)
the wine at communion is a type of Christ’s blood of the covenant (Matthew 26:28)
Is the significance of the wine I drink at communion “reduced” because it is a “type” of Christ’s blood? No, in fact the only reason the wine has significance at all is because it is a “type” of Christ’s blood.
A couple more…
Melchizedek was a type of Christ….(Hebrews 7)
The rock the Israelites drank from was Christ….(1 Corinthians 10:4)