A Reply to Andrew McColl

You can read Mr. McColl’s review of Guardian Angel on his church website, “Christian Family Study Centre” in Australia.  He posted it on 3 June 2014.  CLICK HERE for his review.

Here is my response:

Andrew McColl wrote a review of my book in June, 2014. He posted it on his church web site (Christian Family Study Centre) and I discovered it last week. Since he takes exception to some of my analysis, I thought it would serve the believing community to reply to Andrew. Perhaps he will publish this reply in order to foster continuing dialogue.

I will respond to his critique point by point, but rather than reiterate what he said, I will simply indicate where he said it. Fortunately, his remarks are carefully enumerated, so with a copy of his critique in hand, the reader will be able to follow my rebuttal easily.

Point 1. McColl finds it “suspicious” that I chose (deliberately) to avoid an academic style in order to enhance the opportunity for the ordinary reader to understand my message. He finds it suspicious because it smacks of ignoring “formal theology.” But that’s the whole point. Formal theology is a world unto itself, rarely if ever lending its insight to real, ordinary believers. It isn’t the case that I have abandoned formal theology. After all, I provided extensive footnotes to my points and considerable interaction with other scholars. Most of the readers of Guardian Angel are not professional theologians. They find even my toned-down work difficult. But I am trying to reach them, not the seminary professional. I assume that the professionals would easily recognize the arguments and scholars cited from the footnotes. I deliberately avoided that course of action. I think McColl’s real objection is that I have taken liberty to examine the hints, nuances and alternatives of the text. That removes me from the formal Christian view. But that’s also the point. The formal Christian view is not the only view of these texts and I am not the only one to point this out. Unless we are ready to embrace dialogue with the text and treat it as a rabbi would treat it, we probably cannot understand the text as a living document for its first audiences. McColl might want me to be traditional and scholarly, but that row has been well hoed and has resulted in significant error.

Point 2. McColl agrees that the opening text of Genesis offers no specific direction about a male dominant hierarchy, but he says it is nevertheless “inferred.” His argument is based entirely on temporal order. Adam came first, therefore Eve must be in a subordinate position.  “My conclusion? Adam was first created and commanded, and this means he must have been granted authority over Eve,” writes McColl. But this inference is completely unfounded. Who says that temporal priority automatically grants authority? John the Baptist came first. Does he therefore have authority over Yeshua? Moses came first. Does he have authority over Yeshua? And what of “the last shall be first”? As I pointed out in my book, the language of the formation of Havvah suggest (strongly) that she is the pinnacle of creation, the last and best of God’s work. Rabbinic tradition (which came first, by the way) agrees. Why does McColl admit that there is no definitive text that supports his claim and yet he insists it is valid? Could it be that his position is simply a reiteration of the traditional view, a view which I take great pains to show cannot be supported by the language itself. If McColl wants to uphold male authority on the basis of tradition, let him say so, but don’t tell me it is inferred from the text. I can use the same text to “infer” the supremacy of the female.

Point 3. I believe the Genesis account views the woman as the “crown jewel of creation.” McColl shudders to hear such words. But not because the rabbis or the language indicates such. He just doesn’t want to see the male’s authority diminished. He isn’t even interested in equality. He wants superiority, divinely assigned. His argument is taken from Psalm 8, where David writes that God made him a little lower than the angels. Man, not woman, concludes McColl. But let’s examine this sacred text. The pronoun in verse 6 refers to two Hebrew words in verse 5, enosh and ooven-adam (the son of man). Even the scholarly work in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament clearly states that enosh means “mankind,” not the male alone. And the “son of man” (adam) follows the same meaning. David is not writing about males. He is writing about people, male and female as God created them. McColl’s exegesis is deliberately mistaken, used to foster his argument but not possible from the Hebrew text.

McColl claims that “the assignment of cultural dominion was given to a representative head of the family of man.” He means Adam, of course. But now we see his real theological bent. To view Adam as the federal head of the human race is to introduce a specific theological doctrine, not a textual exegesis. Furthermore, this doctrine depends on the temporal sequence of Genesis 2. It must ignore the simultaneous assignment to both male and female in Genesis 1:26-27. As support, he cites Gary North. But this offers nothing to the argument. The question is not about the “need for hierarchy” but rather about what does the text say! I am not the only author to question the assumption of male hierarchy in the Genesis account. Unless the language itself designates such a hierarchy, there is no need to embrace one other than for dominance and power. What I have shown is this: the language does not support such a hierarchy, it actually specifically supports equality. Don’t tell me what the traditional theologians and commentators say. Show me the money! Show me where in these words God grants Adam authority! That might be difficult since Adam himself uses the excuse that he was merely following the instructions of his wife when he sinned. Who was in charge then?

Point 4. McColl systematically ignores the technical argument concerning the translation of Genesis 3:16. He merely asserts the standard position that the woman will bear pain in childbirth and be subject to the man in her desire. But I have shown that this translation is in error, or at the very least suspect. It depends on theological importation of doctrine and mistaken analysis of Hebrew words. Many competent scholars and linguists have reached the same conclusion (and I cite them). McColl suggests that the language means the woman is cursed. The text does not say that. In fact, it goes to great pains not to say that, and when read in Hebrew properly, actually says something quite different. McColl is the victim of Pagnino’s misunderstanding of Hebrew. He might find a curse in the English Bible, but it isn’t in the original text, even if he wants it to be there.

Point 5. Now we jump to a New Testament idea. I argue that the admonition for husbands and wives to love each other with mutually sacrificial love (Ephesians 5) and the application of the Golden Rule mean it is impossible to contend that husbands have divine authority over their wives. McColl admits that to claim authority in light of these ideas is “paradoxical” but he argues that it is not “contradictory.” His argument is that Yeshua was granted authority as a result of his sacrifice. In like manner, a man is granted authority because “all authority is given to serve.” McColl suggests that I have a poorly developed understanding of the biblical context of authority. Let’s see. If Christ is the model of authority, then it follows that authority is granted after sacrifice and obedience, not before it. That means that a husband rightfully gains authority after he has demonstrated complete obedience and ultimate sacrifice, not before he has done so. So when a couple gets married the wife should withhold her submission until the husband demonstrates total obedience and unwavering sacrifice. Right? The point of biblical authority is that it is granted on the basis of prior performance. David is granted authority as king because of his prior devotion and obedience. Solomon as well, but in Solomon’s case that authority was abused and did not reflect God’s mandate. The prophets are chosen (sometimes in advance) but that does not entail that they have authority over others. It only means they have God’s authority in delivering their messages. In the Bible, God alone determines real authority. If He does not grant it, then men only usurp it. That is the conclusion of my analysis of the Genesis 3 text. God does not grant authority to Adam. Adam usurps it. What is the point of God re-establishing the royal position of both Adam and Havvah with the “skins” (robes) unless they are to reassume their original design. Adam refuses. Disaster results.

Point 6. McColl’s next point is about trust. He suggests that the Genesis account gives no indication that Adam had any justification for trusting Havvah. But I find this quite curious. Is McColl willing to say that prior to the Fall, the relationship between Adam and the woman did not involve trust? It’s absolutely true that Adam’s actions were sinful but that isn’t the point. The point is what motivates those actions, and since the Hebrew text clearly states that Adam was present during the entire conversation with the serpent, how then can McColl conclude that Adam did not demonstrate trust in the woman? If he knew what God said but remained silent as the authority McColl claims he was, what kind of leadership is that? Everything in the story, including Adam’s excuse, indicates that he trusted her and was supposed to trust her. That’s why he can manufacturer the excuse.

When I employ Proverbs 31:11 as an example of biblical trust, McColl kindly remarks that I am right about the concept but he immediately says, “[Moen] is wrong and foolish to expect a husband to trust his wife in the same way that he trusts God. . .” I suggest McColl do a thorough analysis of batach, the Hebrew word employed here. He will discover, as I pointed out, that this word is used positively only in relation to God and in this one case with a wife. What conclusion should be draw from the language itself? That batach has multiple meanings or that trust between husband and wife is to emulate trust between a man and his God?

Point 7. McColl rejects my analysis of Adam’s naming process concerning the woman. He thinks that Adam naming her Havvah is simply a “continuation” of the original task given to him by God, that is, naming the animals. But McColl ignores the obvious question, “Why didn’t Adam name her Havvah as soon as they met? Why does this name appear only after the Fall?” Furthermore, he seems not to recognize the hierarchy of authority involved in the Hebraic idea of naming. When he says that Adam first called her “woman,” and later “Eve,” he fails to note that Adam alters his own identification (from Adam to ish) in the crucial verse about “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.” If there is any stronger indication of equality than this verse, I don’t know it. It seems quite clear from the Hebrew text and the ancient Semitic culture that naming is a kind of hierarchy establishment. For that reason alone, it is significant to note that Adam does not name her “woman.” The word play in the verse is not about a name. It is about an ontological equality (reflecting Genesis 1:26-27). The only naming of the woman that Adam does is after the Fall, establishing an authority and hierarchy that did not exist before the Fall. This is Adam’s doing, not God’s.

McColl says that Scripture “never implies any criticism of Adam” for naming the woman Havvah. But does it need too? Everything that destroys the original harmony, including the original transparency (“naked and not ashamed”) is turned upside-down after this event. McColl is right when he says there is no specific verse of criticism about Adam naming her Havvah, but look at the context. And then look at the word Havvah (which apparently McColl does not do). Sarna is correct. The word itself speaks volumes to a Hebrew reader. Nothing more needs to be said. What McColl must do is show why Adam chooses this name. To defer to the English translation or to the narrator’s explanation is not sufficient.

Point 8. McColl continues the naming theme discussion by stating,  “Adam identifies Eve and names her as a agent of God’s creation, which he had been responsible to name.” But is that true?  God gave Adam the responsibility of naming the animals! Are we to assume that Havvah is an animal? Adam was not given an assignment by God to name anything other than animals. The conclusion seems inevitable. If he names her, he identifies her as an animal. Nowhere in the text does it suggest that Adam was given responsibility to name the woman. In fact, as I argue, Genesis 4:1 indicates that she understood perfectly well the insult that Adam perpetrated against her.

McColl goes on to say that my argument that Adam never forgave Havvah is “a slur on Adam’s character.” Really? Adam is of such noble character that he readily accepts his role in the Fall, right? Adam is so upright that he does all he can to protect the woman from the consequences of her seduction, correct? In fact, Paul extolls Adam as the one who, being responsible for teaching his wife the commandment, does an excellent job of keeping sin out of the world? Right? NO! Not right. Adam uses every excuse to shift the blame to the woman when he was given the commandment directly from God. Adam is present during the conversation with the serpent but does nothing to defend the woman or rebuke the serpent. What kind of character does this man in authority demonstrate? Why McColl wants to defend Adam on this point is beyond me?

Point 9. McColl objects that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Adam and Havvah were separated for 130 years or that Adam sought relationships with other beings. He’s right. But I never claimed this idea was in the Bible. I specifically stated, and McColl recognizes this, that it is rabbinic legend. McColl says that “to suggest this is a dangerous, unjustifiable speculation.” Why? If McColl and I both agree that it is not in the Bible, that it is legend, then why is it dangerous? Is the legend of the three wise men (which is also not in the text) dangerous? It’s a legend! It’s interesting, additional, historical information about how the rabbis understood the text. That’s all. McColl’s real objection is not that this is only a legend but that I have introduced “extra-Bible” sources. Why is that dangerous? McColl cites Paul (Titus 1:14) to show that extra-biblical material is to be avoided. But the Bible itself uses material from other sources. A good deal of Proverbs comes from Egyptian religious material. Jude cites non-canonical books. Other examples could be given. The point is this. Material from outside the canonized Scriptures helps us understand the culture and context of the author and audience. That doesn’t make it canon. It just makes it interesting. I never suggested that this legend was fact or canon. McColl admits that I don’t say it is scriptural. So what is his objection? Is he ready to say that when we study the Bible we are never to use any material other than the Bible? No serious student of Scripture would ever agree to that.

Point 10, McColl’s objection here is not really about what I wrote. He notes that I cite Bilezikian when I argue, as Bilezikian does, that the Greek word for “head” (kephale) never means authority. It means source. McColl’s objection is with Bilezikian, not me, and that objection cannot be about the use of kephale, since McColl never demonstrates that Bilezikian’s exhaustive analysis of kephale is incorrect. McColl simply defers to Zorn and misses the point. Citing Zorn and some verses, McColl claims Christ’s authority over the church as grounds for a man’s authority over a woman.

This is really the heart of McColl’s concern. He wants male headship. In order to get that, he must ignore Genesis equality, the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo, and the substantial amount of examples in the Tanakh of the leadership and equality of women. In fact, he states, “This is the most disturbing aspect of Moen’s work. If he is to be consistent in denying authority over the church or the world to Christ, he places himself among the Christ-haters who crucified him.” I’ll let the insult pass by simply pointing out that nowhere in my book do I ever state or suggest that Yeshua HaMashiach does not have authority over the believing assembly or the world. Matthew 28:18-19 makes that crystal clear. But this is not the same as saying that males have authority over females. That I strongly object to, and have shown such a doctrine to be unbiblical. The relationship between a man and a woman is not determined by gender hierarchy. To employ Christ’s relationship with the church as grounds for the natural gender superiority of the male is to misread the text completely. Yeshua is granted authority on the basis of obedience, not because he was a male. A man who acts as Yeshua acted deserves to be granted authority, but it is not granted because he is a male. It is granted because he is obedient to God and self-sacrificing. Furthermore, that authority is granted to him. He does not have it by right of birth. Someone has to give it to him. My argument is that the woman grants her husband this authority on the basis of his demonstrated character, not because he has different sexual equipment.

Point 11. McColl enlists the Pauline analogy about headship (1 Corinthians 11:3) to argue that just as Christ is the head of every man, man is the head of every woman. But this just repeats an argument which I take apart and which Bilezikian shows is fallacious, even if it is typical. McColl offers no textual proof to the contrary. He simply reasserts the traditional claim. Citing additional Pauline verses (and ignoring my analysis of the same verses), he states: “Clearly, Paul derives his teaching from the Trinity.” What? Is there any definitive Pauline text which unambiguously supports the claim that Paul believed in a Trinity? If McColl has to appeal to a fourth century Church doctrine in order to support his claim about male headship, then the argument is over. I recognize and acknowledge that the Church promotes a male-dominant authority, but I am not interested in what the Church has to say. I want to know what the Scriptures say. I find it remarkably naïve for McColl to appeal to a theological doctrine in order to justify an exegetical claim. Either the text says what it says or we listen to what the Church tells us what the text says.

The question for McColl is this: Can you support the traditional male-authority hierarchy without appeal to later church doctrines? I don’t believe so. In fact, I have argued that exegetically and historically the idea of male domination is a fabrication of the Church. The text does not support it and I have gone to great lengths to show that from the text. If McColl wants to contradict my argument, let him do it with exegesis, not doctrine.

Point 12. McColl claims that I deny any legitimate use of power. He says that I want “husbands to be essentially powerless creatures, to be robbed of masculinity and confidence in their family leadership. But this is the opposite of Biblical manhood.” I find McColl’s comment confusing. I thought the correct use of spiritual power was to act as servant, to humble myself before the Lord. I thought biblical masculinity was demonstrated in compassion, charity, forgiveness, mercy and obedience.   I didn’t realize that doing these things would render me powerless and emasculated. But apparently McColl thinks they will. After all, what he really wants is the status of leader! Never once do I suggest that men need to be powerless wimps. What I suggest is that they need to take up their roles as leaders granted that role by the demonstration of their unbreakable covenant commitment to their wives. What I deny is that they have this role by right of gender. Certainly men can be powerful leaders, but not because they are men. They can be leaders because they lead like God, in humility and service. I want men to be leaders, granted that authority because they have earned it, not because they have male genitals.

Conclusion: McColl says he is not impressed with my arguments. OK, fine. But where in his analysis does he show that my exegesis is mistaken? He claims that I have moved away from “a doctrine of faith and practice fixed on the centrality of Jesus Christ.” But where does he demonstrate that? He concludes that I “implicitly rejected the notion of believers being powerful and confident individuals.” But wait a minute! Suddenly McColl is not talking about men. He slips into “believers,” implying both men and women. That’s all I am arguing for. That women be given the role God designed for them. If McColl is to be consistent, he should have said that I reject the notion of men being powerful and confident individuals. Yes, that I would reject if it means that women cannot play the same role.

McColl concludes by claiming that I said “the New Testament contains no text where Christ’s headship of the church connotes a relationship of authority.” But I didn’t say this and it is taken out of context. The statement is from Gilbert Bilezikian in a citation and the context is about the use of kephale in the New Testament. The point is not that Christ does not have authority over the church. The point is the word kephale is never used to assert that authority. McColl ignores the exegesis of the word because he wants to claim I am a heretic. He deliberately misconstrues the point.

Now my conclusion: McColl attempts to be even-handed in his critique, but he fails to make any significant headway for two reasons: First, at no point in his argument does he overturn any of the exegetical work of Guardian Angel. He never shows that I have misunderstood the words or the grammar or syntax. His arguments depend on interpretation of the text, not on the words in the text. Until he demonstrates that my exegesis is wrong, his interpretation of the texts is no stronger than mine. And secondly, McColl’s traditional male-hierarchy position uses the same arguments that have been around for centuries with the same conclusions. But they are not exegetically based. They depend on doctrine. They ignore elements in the Scriptures that outright contradict the male-hierarchy view. Furthermore, McColl makes no comments at all about the historical development of this idea in the church. He simply takes for granted that this is what Scripture says. And wouldn’t he? He’s male. He’s in charge. He’s the leader. Heaven forbid that any man would have to acknowledge that a women is designed by God to lead!

No, I won’t say that about Mr. McColl. Undoubtedly he is a genuine and upright man seeking to lead his congregation and family in the best way possible. I will only say that until he comes to grips with the actual texts in Hebrew and Greek, his critique is not very useful and simply reiterates what the church has been teaching for centuries. The fact that it has been teaching this for centuries doesn’t make it correct, by the way. The church continues to teach that it replaced Israel. Does that make the idea correct? No, Mr. McColl just needs to stick with the text, to know what it says and doesn’t say, and leave the speculation to the theologians. The greatest heresy is not his mis-stated claim that I don’t believe in the headship of Yeshua. The greatest heresy is to continue to treat women as second-class citizens of the Kingdom because they are women. As he so aptly put it in the last sentence, “There is no justification for this heresy within the Church.”