October 30, 2009
WWGHA (Chapter 15)
You can read Chapter Fifteen here.
In what follows I hope to provide a clear account of the Bible’s teaching on men and women. I believe this account will reveal that God loves and values men and women equally, but perhaps gives them different roles to play. I’m aware that many will understand this to be misogynistic and/or sexist even if it is clear that there is no inferiority-superiority at work. I’m afraid I don’t have a response to that. My goal is simply to refute the author’s claim that, “God seems to have a major problem with women.”
We read in Genesis 2 that woman (Eve) was made out of man’s (Adam’s) rib. What seems to be in view is that Eve “proceeds from” or “comes to exist” out of Adam. This certainly means that man holds a special place with regards to woman, but does it require that she is lesser than he is? Here it is helpful to look at the Trinity. The orthodox understanding is that though the Son proceeds from or is begotten from the Father, the Son is no less God, no less worthy of glory, no less important, etc. In fact, the Son plays an essential role in the activity of God. So, we cannot conclude that woman is less than man, worth less, etc. And she too has an essential part to play in creation.
Now a lot of people get messed up because Eve is called a “helper” to Adam; they think this means his role is central and hers is secondary. All that seems to be in view here is that: 1) Adam is lonely and is “missing something” in his life, and 2) the task of organizing and ruling creation is a big one, too big for one person, and 3) He can’t have kids by himself. So, Eve is created. The end of Genesis 1 links mankind being created in the image of God and the creation od both males and females. Clearly, women are essential is mankind is going to fully reflect the image of God and accomplish what God has set for us. In fact, the same word for “helper” is used about God several times (Psalm 70:5 is one example). Clearly there is not an implicit inferiority.
Next we get to Genesis 3 and the Fall, and Eve is stricken with the pain of childbirth and the promise that the man “shall rule over [her].” Two points here. First, the author’s assertion that Adam is not punished is false; he is to toil in pain against a curse so that the ground will produce food. Second, we see here an explicit mention of man’s tendency to dominate women as an effect of the Fall; it is not God’s desire. Thus, as Christians, we cannot understand patriarchy and all its related abuses as God’s will. We understand it as the result of sin that, as God re-establishes His kingdom, will fall away. The abuses we see are a product of evil, not good.
I need to make one confession here. The vast majority of the Church for the vast majority of history has gotten this issue almost completely wrong. So wrong, in fact, that many will question whether the reading I’m giving is actually there or if it simply me imposing an “enlightened” perspective onto the Biblical text. In what follows I hope to show a trajectory (as I did in the case of slavery) from the culture of the day, to the Old Testament, to the New Testament of increasing honor, respect and privilege for women. This would be evidence that, even though the Church has gotten it wrong a lot (partly because of the Fall, no doubt), the Scriptures tell a very different story. I would also like to apologize to any woman who has been offended, marginalized, abused or in any way mistreated by Christians. Please know that those actions certainly were not God’s will.
In the Old Testament we see that women were afforded few rights, and the vast majority of people regarded them as inferior. Now it is true that the Old Testament Law provided women a safety and security they would not have found anywhere else (and I don’t want to understate how important this is), but certainly it is a far cry from ideal. That being said, I’d like to briefly contend two of the author’s points.
- The author mentions how men are given a sign of the covenant (circumcision), but women are not. He concludes that women are not part of the covenant, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. Multiple women are praised for their faith (Miriam, Rahab and Deborah both come to mind). Deborah was a prophetess and a Judge (Judges 4), roles the Israelites would not have given to someone outside of the family of God. And she wasn’t the only one; the Old Testament has several references to prophetesses, women acting as the very mouths of God. It is peculiar that there was not a sign of the covenant for them (many argue that they were included in the covenant through their father), but one cannot conclude they were outside of the covenant.
- The author says that no books of the Bible were written by women. That may be true. It is not clear who wrote Ruth and Esther. However, having two books of the Old Testament with women as the main and title character was radically counter-cultural, evidence of the trajectory I spoke of earlier.
Moving on to the New Testament and Jesus we find an increased role and respect for women despite the culture of the day (Hebrew, Greek and Roman) being decidedly anti-women. Here is just a brief survey of what the New Testament says about women.
- The Holy Spirit enters both women and men (Acts 2:18).
- Paul refers to Tabitha as a disciple (Acts 9:36).
- Women prophesy (Acts 21:9).
- Paul refers to Phoebe as a deaconess (Romans 16:1).
- Paul refers to Priscilla as a coworker of his (Romans 16:3).
- Paul refers to Junia as an Apostle (Romans 16:7). *NOTE* – this translation is sometimes contested.
- In Christ there is no male or female (Galatians 3:28).
While we’re at it, let’s address a few of the author’s misconceptions about the New Testament.
- John 20:17 doesn’t have anything to do with Mary being a woman. The word is better translated “cling” than touch. The point seems to be that Mary is not to try to hold Jesus back or get the wrong idea and think that He is staying on the earth. There is nothing to support the author’s reading, and the author can’t make sense of how, if this were the case, Jesus would have chosen to reveal Himself to women first (which is a huge, huge deal!).
- When mentioning Ephesians 5:22-24 the author fails to put the passage in context. The previous verse says that everyone should be in submission to everyone else, and the next verse says that men are to love their wives, “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her.” Clearly mutual submission and sacrificial love are supposed to characterize a marriage, particularly the actions of the husband.
- There is a good case to be made that 1 Peter 3:7 refers to the fact that, on average, women are physically weaker than men. In any event, one would have to present quite an argument to get this verse to support anything like the author’s main thesis.
So why, given all this, does Paul say things like “I do not permit women to teach,” and the like? Here you will get two radically different answers, and Christianity is largely divided on how to interpret the Bibles on this issue (i.e. both perspectives are widely supported).
One line of thought goes that, at the time Paul was writing, women were largely uneducated, to the extent that most could not read. The byproduct of this was that they were unfit to teach (not as women, but as uneducated people). One counter-cultural thing Paul did was to allow women to attend the same church meetings as men; thus, they could learn and grow in the faith.
The other line of thought is that God has given certain functions to women and certain functions to men, not because of an inequality of ability or worth, but for some other reason (I leave this vague because this is the place most fall back on the “mysteries” of God). Thus, while allowing for exceptions (like Deborah in the Old Testament, and some of the New Testament women mentioned above), the primary teaching and leadership duties are for men.
I’m not going to go into the intricacies of the two views, nor will I make a case for one over the other. What I will do is to conclude with some of the things both camps agree on. These are enough to show that, Biblically speaking, God does not have a problem with women.
- Women are not less intelligent, less respectable, less worthy of honor, less valuable, less useful, or less spiritual than men.
- God loves men and women equally, and has given an essential role for each to play.
- God, though referred to in the masculine, is not a man. In fact, both masculinity and femininity find their root in Him. (For a good survey of the Biblical, feminine imagery of God, go here.)
