Author Topic: Another contribution to the endless controversy  (Read 30757 times)

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #375 on: June 16, 2021, 12:07:14 PM »
As with the TLSB study note, I think treating the word “being” as an ontological statement presses it into service beyond what anyone intended. Clearly male and female are categories. The first and typical female was Eve. Adam saw her and recognized her as a new category of… creature? Thing? All the note was getting at is that Adam recognized Eve as different from himself and that the difference was/would not be limited to them as individuals but as categories. She wasn’t just a different person, she was in a different category, a different kind of person. Mankind, not just the two of them in the garden, is male and female per God’s design. To make the word “being” in the note refer to an ontological statement that somehow denies Adam and Eve are both in same category as humans is not only to read into the wording way too far but also to assume the authors of the notes were quite foolish. Same with Ladylike. Let the book serve the particular purpose it was written for. It wasn’t written to be a Pieper-esque anthropological study. It was a popular defense of traditional feminine self-understanding and practical attitudes and behaviors against feminist criticisms.

Remember in the Genesis 2 story, Eve shows up after God had presented all the animals to Adam. They were the creatures who were different - not fit for him. The attraction of Eve is that she was like Adam in nearly all aspects. Certainly much more like Adam than all the other animals God presented to him. Adam's words about Eve are not, "She's so different than me," but "she's the same. Bone from my bone, flesh from my flesh."
I know. Like Adam, she was human. Unlike Adam, she was female. There was a new category of thing in the world requiring a name. The objection seems to be calling this new category of thing a new category of being. I think the authors of the note intended the word "being" to be a simple noun. Here is a new category of thing/being/creature that is also uniquely new in being both the same and different from Adam just like men and women generally are the same and different. Marie seems to be taking the word "being" at a more more philosophical level as though the authors of the note were declaring that men and women are not both ontologically human, which, we all agree, would have disastrous results for soteriology and other doctrinal disciplines.

Being female was not new. That category was present among animals and plants. What made this creature a fitting helper to Adam was not her femaleness (which was present among the animals,) but that she was human like him.

No one is suggesting, as you imply, that a woman is no different from a cow. The new category is woman.

God could have simply cloned Adam as a helper for him. He didn't. He created woman. Thanks be to God!


Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.


Then the LORD God said, "It's not good that the human is alone. I will make him a helper that is perfect for him." So the LORD God formed from the fertile land all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky and brought them to the human to see what he would name them. The human gave each living being its name. The human named all the livestock, all the birds in the sky, and all the wild animals. But a helper perfect for him was nowhere to be found. (Genesis 2:18-20, CEB)

What was different about this last creature was not that she was female, but that she was human like the man.

What was different was that she was woman, not a clone of Adam.
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17538
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #376 on: June 16, 2021, 12:35:50 PM »
The first thing God said to mankind was "Be fruitful and multiply." I'm pretty sure the fact that Eve was female was almost just as important as the fact that she was human.

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #377 on: June 16, 2021, 01:03:14 PM »
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.

The way this sentence is constructed it means that God formed all the animals with (or for) the purpose of seeing if they would be perfect helpers for the human. If that is your intent, where in the language of Genesis is that supported?
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #378 on: June 17, 2021, 01:52:45 AM »
The first thing God said to mankind was "Be fruitful and multiply." I'm pretty sure the fact that Eve was female was almost just as important as the fact that she was human.


But in that account, male and female were created at the same time. As the CEB translates Genesis 1:27


God created humanity in God’s own image,
    in the divine image God created them,[1]
        male and female God created them.

[1] Genesis 1:27: Heb has singular him, referring to humanity.

The same command was given to fish and birds in 1:22. In some fish species; they can change their gender, e.g., the clown fish.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #379 on: June 17, 2021, 02:23:28 AM »
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.

The way this sentence is constructed it means that God formed all the animals with (or for) the purpose of seeing if they would be perfect helpers for the human. If that is your intent, where in the language of Genesis is that supported?


After God decided that it wasn't good for the man to be alone and "I will make a helper fit for him.῾ God then forms all the animals and brings them to the man who calls the name of each animal. Then the narrator tells us, "a helper fit for Adam was not found." It sure sounds to me that God was presenting all the animals to Adam so that he might find a helper fit for him. At least in English translations, v. 21 begins with "So," a word that designates a result. (It is a וְ in Hebrew, which is often not translated, or translated with "and," but it can also mean, "so.") So as a result of Adam not finding a proper helper among the animals God presented to him, God puts Adam to sleep to build another human from his side. Adam will also call the name of his wife, "Eve" in 3:20 - the same words used earlier with Adam naming the animals.


(Interestingly, at least to me, in the LXX, it gives her name in verse 20 as Zoe (Ζωή) but else where, e.g., 4:1, she is called Eve (Εὕα).)
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Donald_Kirchner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 11527
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #380 on: June 17, 2021, 07:56:35 AM »
The same command was given to fish and birds in 1:22. In some fish species; they can change their gender, e.g., the clown fish.

What do social roles have to do with being fruitful and multiplying? Was Eve simply a second man who identified as a woman? If so, how could she be fruitful and multiply?   ::)
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 08:00:47 AM by Donald_Kirchner »
Don Kirchner

"Heaven's OK, but it’s not the end of the world." Jeff Gibbs

D. Engebretson

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #381 on: June 17, 2021, 08:51:44 AM »
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.

The way this sentence is constructed it means that God formed all the animals with (or for) the purpose of seeing if they would be perfect helpers for the human. If that is your intent, where in the language of Genesis is that supported?


After God decided that it wasn't good for the man to be alone and "I will make a helper fit for him.῾ God then forms all the animals and brings them to the man who calls the name of each animal. Then the narrator tells us, "a helper fit for Adam was not found." It sure sounds to me that God was presenting all the animals to Adam so that he might find a helper fit for him. At least in English translations, v. 21 begins with "So," a word that designates a result. (It is a וְ in Hebrew, which is often not translated, or translated with "and," but it can also mean, "so.") So as a result of Adam not finding a proper helper among the animals God presented to him, God puts Adam to sleep to build another human from his side. Adam will also call the name of his wife, "Eve" in 3:20 - the same words used earlier with Adam naming the animals.


(Interestingly, at least to me, in the LXX, it gives her name in verse 20 as Zoe (Ζωή) but else where, e.g., 4:1, she is called Eve (Εὕα).)

A clarification: Your original sentence implied that the animals were created for the purpose of finding a helper for man.  Your reply shifts to their presentation before Adam and their naming. 
Pastor Don Engebretson
St. Peter Lutheran Church of Polar (Antigo) WI

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #382 on: June 17, 2021, 12:22:35 PM »
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.

The way this sentence is constructed it means that God formed all the animals with (or for) the purpose of seeing if they would be perfect helpers for the human. If that is your intent, where in the language of Genesis is that supported?


After God decided that it wasn't good for the man to be alone and "I will make a helper fit for him.῾ God then forms all the animals and brings them to the man who calls the name of each animal. Then the narrator tells us, "a helper fit for Adam was not found." It sure sounds to me that God was presenting all the animals to Adam so that he might find a helper fit for him. At least in English translations, v. 21 begins with "So," a word that designates a result. (It is a וְ in Hebrew, which is often not translated, or translated with "and," but it can also mean, "so.") So as a result of Adam not finding a proper helper among the animals God presented to him, God puts Adam to sleep to build another human from his side. Adam will also call the name of his wife, "Eve" in 3:20 - the same words used earlier with Adam naming the animals.


(Interestingly, at least to me, in the LXX, it gives her name in verse 20 as Zoe (Ζωή) but else where, e.g., 4:1, she is called Eve (Εὕα).)

A clarification: Your original sentence implied that the animals were created for the purpose of finding a helper for man.  Your reply shifts to their presentation before Adam and their naming.


Why does the author tell us about the LORD God forming all the animals immediately after telling us that the LORD God said that it's not good for the human (ha`adam) to be alone; I will make a helper fit for him? My answer: it is presented as God's way of providing possible helpers fit for the man. Exactly the same Hebrew grammar is used in v. 19 as in v. 21. In v. 21, the waw consecutive is translated "so." In v. 19 it is translated "now." It could just as easily be translated, "so." That is, as a result of it not being good for the human, God now formed (or had formed earlier and now brings them to the human) all the animals.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3793
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #383 on: June 17, 2021, 01:24:21 PM »
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.

The way this sentence is constructed it means that God formed all the animals with (or for) the purpose of seeing if they would be perfect helpers for the human. If that is your intent, where in the language of Genesis is that supported?


After God decided that it wasn't good for the man to be alone and "I will make a helper fit for him.῾ God then forms all the animals and brings them to the man who calls the name of each animal. Then the narrator tells us, "a helper fit for Adam was not found." It sure sounds to me that God was presenting all the animals to Adam so that he might find a helper fit for him. At least in English translations, v. 21 begins with "So," a word that designates a result. (It is a וְ in Hebrew, which is often not translated, or translated with "and," but it can also mean, "so.") So as a result of Adam not finding a proper helper among the animals God presented to him, God puts Adam to sleep to build another human from his side. Adam will also call the name of his wife, "Eve" in 3:20 - the same words used earlier with Adam naming the animals.


(Interestingly, at least to me, in the LXX, it gives her name in verse 20 as Zoe (Ζωή) but else where, e.g., 4:1, she is called Eve (Εὕα).)

A clarification: Your original sentence implied that the animals were created for the purpose of finding a helper for man.  Your reply shifts to their presentation before Adam and their naming.


Why does the author tell us about the LORD God forming all the animals immediately after telling us that the LORD God said that it's not good for the human (ha`adam) to be alone; I will make a helper fit for him? My answer: it is presented as God's way of providing possible helpers fit for the man. Exactly the same Hebrew grammar is used in v. 19 as in v. 21. In v. 21, the waw consecutive is translated "so." In v. 19 it is translated "now." It could just as easily be translated, "so." That is, as a result of it not being good for the human, God now formed (or had formed earlier and now brings them to the human) all the animals.

Are you suggesting that God did not know, even before He created, that the animals would not be suitable helper(s) for Adam?  That the creation of Eve was sort of a Plan B to remedy His failure?

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 43165
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #384 on: June 17, 2021, 02:16:33 PM »
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.

The way this sentence is constructed it means that God formed all the animals with (or for) the purpose of seeing if they would be perfect helpers for the human. If that is your intent, where in the language of Genesis is that supported?


After God decided that it wasn't good for the man to be alone and "I will make a helper fit for him.῾ God then forms all the animals and brings them to the man who calls the name of each animal. Then the narrator tells us, "a helper fit for Adam was not found." It sure sounds to me that God was presenting all the animals to Adam so that he might find a helper fit for him. At least in English translations, v. 21 begins with "So," a word that designates a result. (It is a וְ in Hebrew, which is often not translated, or translated with "and," but it can also mean, "so.") So as a result of Adam not finding a proper helper among the animals God presented to him, God puts Adam to sleep to build another human from his side. Adam will also call the name of his wife, "Eve" in 3:20 - the same words used earlier with Adam naming the animals.


(Interestingly, at least to me, in the LXX, it gives her name in verse 20 as Zoe (Ζωή) but else where, e.g., 4:1, she is called Eve (Εὕα).)

A clarification: Your original sentence implied that the animals were created for the purpose of finding a helper for man.  Your reply shifts to their presentation before Adam and their naming.


Why does the author tell us about the LORD God forming all the animals immediately after telling us that the LORD God said that it's not good for the human (ha`adam) to be alone; I will make a helper fit for him? My answer: it is presented as God's way of providing possible helpers fit for the man. Exactly the same Hebrew grammar is used in v. 19 as in v. 21. In v. 21, the waw consecutive is translated "so." In v. 19 it is translated "now." It could just as easily be translated, "so." That is, as a result of it not being good for the human, God now formed (or had formed earlier and now brings them to the human) all the animals.

Are you suggesting that God did not know, even before He created, that the animals would not be suitable helper(s) for Adam?  That the creation of Eve was sort of a Plan B to remedy His failure?


God knew. In the same way God knew before creation that the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus would be necessary, even though he had given promises to Abraham, the Law to Moses, oracles to prophets. We don't hear anyone saying about the Law on Sinai, "This will never work, so we'll wait for God to create another plan of salvation."


Well, we do have indications that God told the people that kings wouldn't work. The people still wanted them. God gave them. In most cases, they didn't work.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

George Rahn

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #385 on: June 17, 2021, 02:30:34 PM »
Before the woman, God formed all the animals to see if they would be perfect helpers for the human.

The way this sentence is constructed it means that God formed all the animals with (or for) the purpose of seeing if they would be perfect helpers for the human. If that is your intent, where in the language of Genesis is that supported?


After God decided that it wasn't good for the man to be alone and "I will make a helper fit for him.῾ God then forms all the animals and brings them to the man who calls the name of each animal. Then the narrator tells us, "a helper fit for Adam was not found." It sure sounds to me that God was presenting all the animals to Adam so that he might find a helper fit for him. At least in English translations, v. 21 begins with "So," a word that designates a result. (It is a וְ in Hebrew, which is often not translated, or translated with "and," but it can also mean, "so.") So as a result of Adam not finding a proper helper among the animals God presented to him, God puts Adam to sleep to build another human from his side. Adam will also call the name of his wife, "Eve" in 3:20 - the same words used earlier with Adam naming the animals.


(Interestingly, at least to me, in the LXX, it gives her name in verse 20 as Zoe (Ζωή) but else where, e.g., 4:1, she is called Eve (Εὕα).)

A clarification: Your original sentence implied that the animals were created for the purpose of finding a helper for man.  Your reply shifts to their presentation before Adam and their naming.


Why does the author tell us about the LORD God forming all the animals immediately after telling us that the LORD God said that it's not good for the human (ha`adam) to be alone; I will make a helper fit for him? My answer: it is presented as God's way of providing possible helpers fit for the man. Exactly the same Hebrew grammar is used in v. 19 as in v. 21. In v. 21, the waw consecutive is translated "so." In v. 19 it is translated "now." It could just as easily be translated, "so." That is, as a result of it not being good for the human, God now formed (or had formed earlier and now brings them to the human) all the animals.

Are you suggesting that God did not know, even before He created, that the animals would not be suitable helper(s) for Adam?  That the creation of Eve was sort of a Plan B to remedy His failure?


God knew. In the same way God knew before creation that the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus would be necessary, even though he had given promises to Abraham, the Law to Moses, oracles to prophets. We don't hear anyone saying about the Law on Sinai, "This will never work, so we'll wait for God to create another plan of salvation."


Well, we do have indications that God told the people that kings wouldn't work. The people still wanted them. God gave them. In most cases, they didn't work.

It is indicative how important it is to God that He has a relationship, and a relationship specifically with His human creatures.  And, at His first preference, not even mediated by kings.  His is a loving relationship from the start and from His side.  Although and from our side sin played THE part in disrupting that relationship until God took on human flesh and blood and died in our place releasing us from our indebtedness to having to make our right and case before God!
« Last Edit: June 17, 2021, 02:44:57 PM by George Rahn »

mariemeyer

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4320
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #386 on: June 17, 2021, 05:41:08 PM »
Marie, I think Tom, Peter, and Don are correctly describing the writer's intention in this case. A philosophical ontology was not in my mind as editor. As I've noted, I had not experienced this use of the term in this category of doctrine before seeing it on ALPB. It appears to be a Roman Catholic use, although someone cited Aulen saying something similar, perhaps because of views about apostolic succession that he shares with Roman Catholics.

Pr. Engelbrecht, several characteristics of TLSB are perplexing to me.

For example: wives and women are listed as biblical topics. For some reason, neither husbands or men are listed as biblical topics.  How can this be? Are men and woman so different that only women and wives are "topics" addressed in the Bible?

The 65 scholars consulted to write comments on the books of Scripture, introductions to the books and study notes began with the premise that a created difference between man and woman is that  men know the mind and will of God in ways not given to women.  They are designated by God to  teach woman the nature of her being, her purpose and the order of her relationship to men.  Rather than being "topics" in the Bible, men are the ones designated by God  to teach women and wives are "topic" in the Bible. 

Study notes begin with a God ordained "order of creation" that is a functional hierarchy of knowledge. How God created man and woman, man first, woman from the man, woman for the man, man having the authority to name woman all are given as reasons revealing God's will that man be the more responsible "party" in the order of creation.  It's all very rational.   

According to the TLSB man's sin is that he failed to exercise his authority as the head of the human community.  From the beginning, prior to the fall, man's role was to rule over woman.  "The order God established at creation has not been altered by the fall. Together, Adam and Eve will continue to rule over creation (1:28)."   However,   "God also intends that Adam remain God's steward, responsible for cultivating creation (vv, 17,23) and that the husband will remain the head of the family."     That women may now experience "the order of creation" as troublesome and a source of suffering is a direct result of the fall. 

What does this mean??? What about the pre-Fall "order of creation" might now be "troublesome" to woman?

Another confusing dimension of TLSB  is how the Incarnation of God the Son as the true Son of Man, born of the virgin Mary, is dismissed in study notes and comments.  Again the question, "What were the biblical scholars thinking about Mary, mother of God the Son incarnate as the Son of Man, when they stated that she was"confused by his calling," that "she did not agree with his decision to  leave the carpentry trade and live like a rabbi," and that "Jesus down played the suggestion that she was especially blessed because of their earthly calling."

Ironically, readers of the TLSB are directed to Luther's Magnificat Commentary.  I wonder how many of the consultants read where Luther states that Mary, as taught by the Holy Spirit, teaches us how to know God?  Given that the majority of laymen and laywomen have not read Luther on the Magnificat, why was Luther not quoted in TLSB comments on Mary? Why was the uniqueness of her invitation from God to be God's helper in the Incarnation ignored? 

The endless controversy concerns the biblical witness to how God, from the beginning, worked as God in the creation of Man, male and female in the image of God.  I understand a Lutheran theology of creation to beCreatio ex Nihilo.  In the Magnificat Commentary Luther states that the nature of God to "work from nothing"  remained the same in the incarnation of God the Son as the One true Son of Man as at the creation of woman from man.   

Whether at the creation of woman from man or the Incarnation of Jesus the Christ from a woman, God's work originated in and revealed the nature of  God's Divine gracious goodness in the life of man and woman.  Mary, as taught by the Holy Spirit, knew that what God accomplished from her for all the good of all humanity, was all about God.  God's work from her for human did not place her above any milk maid or any shepherd boy.

Marie Meyer
   

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17538
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #387 on: June 18, 2021, 02:54:04 PM »
It seems to me somewhat obvious why women are a topic and men aren’t: most of the people named in the Bible are men. It is why there are left-handed stores but not right-handed stores. A right-handed store or a section in the Bible on men would serve no purpose other than to exclude lefties and women. A left handed store and a section of the commentary on women aren’t about exclusion but inclusion.

That God gave certain knowledge to Adam before Eve was formed, meaning Eve got it mediated through Adam, is just what happens in Gen. 2. Today, women and men have access to the same Bible; God doesn’t reveal things to men that He doesn’t also reveal to women.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 12587
    • View Profile
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #388 on: June 18, 2021, 05:54:31 PM »
You have your own understanding and interpretation of ordination and pastoral ministry. Your position on women’s ordination and service within pastoral ministry makes sense within that paradigm. Our understanding and paradigm differs from yours in several significant ways. We also have studied this carefully and prayerfully. In our paradigm, women’s ordination does not fit.


So, what are we to make of this? You argue your position, we do ours. I see no reason why we should be obligated a priori to prefer your position over the one we hold. Nor accept without question that our difference here and on other topics should not be church dividing. Seems to me that to enter into altar and pulpit fellowship with our two incompatible practices would be tantamount to giving yours priority. Can you see how that might be objectionable to us?
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Rev. Edward Engelbrecht

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 976
    • View Profile
    • church history review
Re: Another contribution to the endless controversy
« Reply #389 on: June 18, 2021, 06:09:36 PM »

Marie, I think Tom, Peter, and Don are correctly describing the writer's intention in this case. A philosophical ontology was not in my mind as editor. As I've noted, I had not experienced this use of the term in this category of doctrine before seeing it on ALPB. It appears to be a Roman Catholic use, although someone cited Aulen saying something similar, perhaps because of views about apostolic succession that he shares with Roman Catholics.

Pr. Engelbrecht, several characteristics of TLSB are perplexing to me.

SORRY YOU ARE PERPLEXED. I'LL RESPOND BRIEFLY IN ALL CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY ANSWERS.

For example: wives and women are listed as biblical topics. For some reason, neither husbands or men are listed as biblical topics.  How can this be? Are men and woman so different that only women and wives are "topics" addressed in the Bible?

PETER'S POINT ABOVE ADDRESSES THIS MATTER WELL.

The 65 scholars consulted to write comments on the books of Scripture, introductions to the books and study notes began with the premise that a created difference between man and woman is that  men know the mind and will of God in ways not given to women.  They are designated by God to  teach woman the nature of her being, her purpose and the order of her relationship to men.  Rather than being "topics" in the Bible, men are the ones designated by God  to teach women and wives are "topic" in the Bible. 

I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THIS IDEA FROM. I WOULD CERTAINLY NOT AGREE THAT MEN INHERENTLY KNOW MORE ABOUT THE MIND OF GOD THAN WOMEN. I DON'T RECALL THAT EVER BEING AN ASSUMPTION OF THE PROJECT.

Study notes begin with a God ordained "order of creation" that is a functional hierarchy of knowledge. How God created man and woman, man first, woman from the man, woman for the man, man having the authority to name woman all are given as reasons revealing God's will that man be the more responsible "party" in the order of creation.  It's all very rational.   

YOU SEEM TO BE FRUSTRATED BY 1 TIMOTHY 2:13. PERHAPS SHARE HOW YOU WOULD INTERPRET AND APPLY THIS VERSE IN IT'S CONTEXT.

According to the TLSB man's sin is that he failed to exercise his authority as the head of the human community.  From the beginning, prior to the fall, man's role was to rule over woman.  "The order God established at creation has not been altered by the fall. Together, Adam and Eve will continue to rule over creation (1:28)."   However,   "God also intends that Adam remain God's steward, responsible for cultivating creation (vv, 17,23) and that the husband will remain the head of the family."     That women may now experience "the order of creation" as troublesome and a source of suffering is a direct result of the fall. 

What does this mean??? What about the pre-Fall "order of creation" might now be "troublesome" to woman?

YOU ARE PUTTING QUOTATION MARKS AROUND TEXT THAT I AM NOT SEEING IN THE NOTES. IT WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL IF YOUR CITATIONS WERE MORE PRECISE.

Another confusing dimension of TLSB  is how the Incarnation of God the Son as the true Son of Man, born of the virgin Mary, is dismissed in study notes and comments.  Again the question, "What were the biblical scholars thinking about Mary, mother of God the Son incarnate as the Son of Man, when they stated that she was"confused by his calling," that "she did not agree with his decision to  leave the carpentry trade and live like a rabbi," and that "Jesus down played the suggestion that she was especially blessed because of their earthly calling."

I THINK THESE QUESTIONS WERE ADDRESSED EARLIER, PERHAPS IN ANOTHER THREAD.

Ironically, readers of the TLSB are directed to Luther's Magnificat Commentary.  I wonder how many of the consultants read where Luther states that Mary, as taught by the Holy Spirit, teaches us how to know God?  Given that the majority of laymen and laywomen have not read Luther on the Magnificat, why was Luther not quoted in TLSB comments on Mary? Why was the uniqueness of her invitation from God to be God's helper in the Incarnation ignored? 

PLEASE CONSIDER, WHAT OTHER STUDY BIBLE EVEN BOTHERS TO DIRECT YOU TO LUTHER'S COMMENTARY ON THE MAGNIFICAT? THE NOTES IN THE STUDY BIBLE ARE AS LARGE AS ANY FIVE VOLUMES OF THE CONCORDIA COMMENTARY SERIES COMBINED. IT IS ENORMOUS, BUT FOR PRACTICAL REASONS COULD NOT INCLUDE EVERYTHING. VERY FEW STUDY BIBLES GO TO THE TROUBLE OF REFERENCING CHURCH FATHERS AT ALL. YOU MIGHT OFFER THANKS THAT THE AUTHOR IN THIS CASE DECIDED TO INCLUDE REFERENCE TO LUTHER'S COMMENTARY SO THAT OTHERS MIGHT DISCOVER IT.

The endless controversy concerns the biblical witness to how God, from the beginning, worked as God in the creation of Man, male and female in the image of God.  I understand a Lutheran theology of creation to beCreatio ex Nihilo.  In the Magnificat Commentary Luther states that the nature of God to "work from nothing"  remained the same in the incarnation of God the Son as the One true Son of Man as at the creation of woman from man.   

Whether at the creation of woman from man or the Incarnation of Jesus the Christ from a woman, God's work originated in and revealed the nature of  God's Divine gracious goodness in the life of man and woman.  Mary, as taught by the Holy Spirit, knew that what God accomplished from her for all the good of all humanity, was all about God.  God's work from her for human did not place her above any milk maid or any shepherd boy.

Marie Meyer

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTACT THE CURRENT EDITORIAL TEAM AT CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. THEY ARE NOW THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR THIS PUBLICATION. PERHAPS THEY WILL INVITE YOU TO WORK ON A SECOND EDITION.
I serve as administrator for www.churchhistoryreview.org.