Humanity: Male and Female

 

Welcome! Today we continue our series on Sound Doctrine, this time is the second of three messages on humanity. Last week, John talked about the nature of man, “Soul and Spirit, Flesh and Bone.” This week we venture into an area that is controversial in the sense that our society has changed dramatically in what it believes to be true and right – the area of humanity as male and female. Now, I am the pastor among the three of us that generally develops sermon series and assigns teaching assignments. Fred has pointed out that in the past that I tend to give him the most controversial or difficult assignments. Fred is, by and large, right about this, although I have some good excuses – Fred is the one among us with significant training and experience as a counselor, and a lot of these difficult topics fall along these lines. This week’s topic is one I would consider controversial, so I would like to ask Fred to come up here and finish today’s message. Just kidding! Fred, this is an early Christmas present to you – stay in your seat! 

The important thing, as always, is to first gain an understanding of what Scripture really says. What does the Bible have to say about men and women, their similarities, their differences, their natures, their roles? This is what we want to look at today. Let’s start by briefly talking about God. Is God male? Well, God the Father is not a physical being; John 4:24 says God is spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth. And I Tim. 1:17 says now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. However, it is true that the Bible refers to God as the Father, a masculine word, and we know that Jesus, when he came to Earth in human flesh came as a male. But female imagery is also used for God. For example, God gives birth to Israel (Deut. 32:18), God nurses believers like a mother (Ps. 131:2), God is called a mother in labor (Isa. 42:14), God describes himself as a mother bear and a lioness (Hos. 13:8), and Jesus describes Himself as a female hen who desires to “gather her chicks under her wings” (Mt. 23:37). So it is a mistake to strictly say God is male in the sense of “totally like a man but not at all like a woman.” Don’t misunderstand what I am saying – what I am trying to say is that God is so far above us in His nature that we need to be careful in how we describe Him. Yes, I just used male pronouns, but they are “generic” male pronouns. It would be even worse to call God an “it,” because that would make God seem impersonal, and in my mind that would be one of the biggest mistakes of all we could make about God.

Well, compared to talking about that, talking about men and women should be relatively easy! Let’s start at the first reference of men and women, in Genesis 1: 

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in Our image, in Our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” – Gen. 1:26-28 

The word translated here as “mankind” is translated “man” in many other editions, but based on the context here, it clearly does refer to the entire human race, to people as a whole, to both men and women. We tend to take this passage for granted, but look at what it implies: Both men and women are made in the image of God. I think we can add the word “equally:” Both men and women are equally made in the image of God. 

This is really profound and is at odds with the vast majority of cultures and religions of the world, both now and throughout history, in which men have been portrayed as superior to women. From Bible times until present times (in China, for example), new parents in non-Christian cultures and religions have gone so far as to leave newborn baby girls to die because parents wanted a son. This is the most tragic consequence (but there are many more) of believing that men are superior to women. Unfortunately, there have been times when professing Christians have taken the same view, but it is opposed to God’s Word. This passage makes clear that all babies, male and female, are God’s blessing, that all people, male and female, are made in His image, that all people, male and female, are the pinnacle of God’s physical creation on Earth, meant together to rule over all of the rest of His creation on Earth. By the way, one of the things the earliest Christians did was rescue a lot of those baby girls, bringing them into their homes and raising them as their own. The problem was severe back then; an inscription in Delphi shows that of more than 600 wealthy families, only one percent had raised two daughters, whereas most raised multiple sons. 

In Genesis 2, we read the details of how Eve came to be. We first have God’s thoughts on the matter: 

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” – Gen. 2:18 

First God brought all the animals to Adam for naming; in this experience, Adam learned that all these animals were entirely unlike him; he was far “above” them in all the things that mattered. I believe God did this so that Adam would better appreciate what was about to happen: 

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. – Gen. 2:21-24 

So how do we reconcile this passage with the previous one? Is Eve an afterthought for God? Is she inferior after all? 

The Biblical answer, I believe, is that man and women had different roles, but differences in roles imply nothing about superiority or inferiority in essence. Actually it is really interesting to explore the Hebrew word used in Gen. 2:18 for “helper.” The word is ezer, and it comes from root words meaning power and strength. The word is often used in the Old Testament for God Himself as He helps His people (in power and strength). No one would argue that God, in helping people, becomes inferior to the people He helps; instead, He is choosing to do something He does not need to do, take the role of a servant. This is a theme echoed throughout Scripture; Jesus washes His disciples’ feet, the Holy Spirit – one “person” of God Himself – chooses to serve believers, angels help people, etc. It is in this sense that ezer is used here; Eve is in no way inferior to Adam. Yet God gives her this role to play, this task to carry out, in Adam’s life. 

In fact, if you think about God parading all those animals before Adam, isn’t this the whole point? All these other animals are inferior to Adam, but Eve is not. She is a helper, an ezer, suitable for him! I think you see this too in the mystery of Gen. 2:24, that when a man leaves his parents and is united to his wife, they become one flesh. This too implies equality in essence. 

I know it can be difficult to separate the concepts of essence and roles, but it is essential that we do so. Let’s go on and look a little more at the differences in roles. Throughout the Old Testament you see the idea that the firstborn has leadership over his siblings. The term “birthright” is associated with this. There are times in the Bible where this birthright is sold or otherwise transferred to a younger person, but these are highlighted in the Bible because they are so unusual. The fact that Adam is made first, then Eve, is the first indication we have that God sees Adam as the leader in this first family. Note that God didn’t have to make Eve out a rib of Adam; He could just as well made them both from the ground simultaneously, but He didn’t choose to do that. I believe the reason for this is precisely because He intended for Adam to be the leader. You see this also in how Eve was made a helper for Adam. Again, nothing about that word implies inferiority. Adam also names Eve, not the other way around. 

We will talk about the fall of mankind next week, but I think it is very significant that the serpent came to Eve before he came to Adam. Part of the serpent’s temptation was really to get Eve to usurp the leadership from Adam. In contrast, when God confronts them, He speaks to Adam first. Both Adam and Eve are punished, but the Bible speaks of how in Adam all die (not in Adam and Eve) in I Cor. 15:22 and how many died through the trespass of one man (not one man and one woman) in Romans 5:15. In other words, the Bible sees Adam as the one ultimately responsible for our current mess, and this is because Eve, in her role as helper, did not have this primary responsibility. 

One of the things that happened in the curse was a distortion of the original roles of Adam and Eve as responsible one and helper. The curse distorted many things – Adam worked (at least light work) before the fall, but after the fall it was “painful toil,” “thorns and thistles,” and “the sweat of your brow.” Based on the Genesis 1 passage we started with, childbearing was a part of God’s plan before the fall, but after the fall childbirth would be painful. And then we have this: 

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. – Gen. 3:16b 

The Hebrew word translated desire is teshuqah, and it is also used in Gen. 4:7, when God tells Cain, sin is crouching at the door, and its desire is for you, but you must not master it. In fact, there is an entire set of 6 consecutive words the same in both passages. The desire sin has for Cain is a desire to overcome him, and in the same way, it would appear that part of the curse is that the woman’s desire would be a desire to overcome the leadership of her husband. Furthering this argument, the Hebrew word translated rule is mashal, which is a very strong word indicating a dictatorial type of rule. For example, Joseph’s brothers use it when asking him “And shall you rule over us?” What I see here is a distortion of the original pre-fall plan in which Adam would gently and humbly lead, seeing the union as a partnership, and in which Eve would serve as a powerful helper, a distortion into a situation in which Eve would desire to lead over her husband and Adam would try to lead harshly, even ruthlessly. 

Is that supposed to be our lot? Is that how marriages are supposed to look today? Absolutely not! Christ came to bring in the Kingdom of God, and while some of what that means is yet to be, some of it begins now. And in the area of husband-wife relationships, that is what we see again and again in the instructions we find in the New Testament. 

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. – Col 3:18-19 

This is a restoration of the pre-curse situation! It is directly an undoing of the curse! In Christ, husband and wife, empowered by the Holy Spirit, can do this! (Apart from Christ we can do nothing.) We see similar ideas (with more details) in Ephesians 5: 

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to Himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. – Eph. 5:22-28 

And so not only does the coming of Christ, the redemption available to us because of His death and resurrection, available to us through entering into a genuine relationship with God, begin this process of undoing the curse – Christ’s relationship with His believers, His body, the church, is also an example of what this pre-curse relationship should look like. Another passage speaking to men and women is in Titus 2: 

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. – Titus 2:3-8 

This passage is a little less direct, but again, we see the instructions that a wife should return to the model of being the husband’s helper, and the husband should return to the model of self-control, of gentleness, not ruling like a dictator. We have yet one more entreaty of this, in I Peter: 

Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear. Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. – I Peter 3:1-7 

Now, I’m not entirely sure what Peter was thinking of with regards to Sarah – I don’t think she batted 1000 when it came to following Abraham, but I really want to focus on the beginning of this passage – who are women supposed to submit to? And indeed, this question goes for all four of these passages – who are women supposed to submit to? Their own husbands. These passages do not say that all women are to submit to all men! In fact, you won’t find such a passage in the Bible. 

Now what did Peter mean by “weaker partner”? I think he simply meant that, in a typical pairing, the husband was stronger than the wife. That is true today as well, not always, but usually. But the point of the passage is exactly the opposite – it is saying, men, even though you are strong enough to push your wife around, don’t do it! Treat her with respect, as a partner (don’t miss that word!), and as a co-heir with you. Again, the idea is coming back to the pre-fall model of marriage. 

Now, apart this idea of being a “helper” in marriage, are there restrictions on women? Very few! Scripture does seem to be clear that elders in the church are to be men. The two passages that list qualifications for elders (I Tim. 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9) both say an elder should be a husband of one wife. From the Greek, it is clear that husband means man and wife means woman. (By the way, I don’t think these passages disqualify a remarried widower. I think the intent was to prohibit a polygamist. That may sound funny to us today, but in New Testament times, among the upper class, marrying multiple wives was not uncommon, even among Jews.) 

 Now at the risk of getting in trouble, let me touch on a difficult passage, I Tim. 2:11-15:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. – I Tim. 2:11-15 

What a land mine this passage is! Well, I’m going to do some jumping up and down. Hopefully I won’t blow myself up! Let me start with the traditional view of this passage. The traditional view is that women should not teach or assume authority in a church; Paul backs this up by looking at the Adam/Eve relationship; men should lead just like Adam did. Eve was the one who bought into the serpent’s story (although Adam bought into Eve’s). As for that last sentence, “saved” could also be translated as “preserved” – in any case, commentators are all over the map on this verse. But the idea seems to be that women simply have a different role. 

Some have argued that by man and woman Paul was really referring to husband and wife. This is possible, although the words used in Greek are the generic words for man and woman, not the specific words for husband and wife. But in this context, the childbearing line at the end seems to make more sense – or at least be more relevant to the topic. My problem with this view is the surrounding context – Paul has been talking about church matters. It feels like quite a jump for him to be suddenly talking about the husband/wife relationship (especially since he did not use the specific words for husband and wife). 

There is one more interpretation that I am intrigued by, because it takes into account a running theme in I Timothy, the issue of Gnosticism in the Ephesus church. This is all over I Timothy, for example, in verses 1:3, 1:6, 4:3, 6:4, and 6:20. You also see Paul addressing this in II Timothy. Then in I Tim. 5:13 and 15, Paul specifically mentions women spreading false teaching; many translations call them “busybodies,” but the same phrase is used elsewhere for those who are false teachers. Similarly, I Tim. 4:7, Paul says to have nothing to do with worldly fables of old women. Modern translations often imply these are something innocuous, what we today sometimes call “old wives’ tales,” but in Ephesus there were old women who were important storytellers, keeping alive the old stories and myths that were known in Ephesus. In other words, and this make sense to me, given Paul’s warning, these old women were a serious threat to the gospel, especially if Christians were listening to them and taking their stories seriously. Once Christianity spread in Ephesus (i.e., at the time of Timothy), it makes sense that the stories would adapt to the Christian “stories”; Ephesus had a long history of incorporating whatever current popular stories of gods were out there and modifying them so as to fit into their overall mythos. We even have some of these stories; some state that Eve preceded Adam; not only this, Eve was the one who made Adam come into being! Read this passage again in this light. Interesting, isn’t it?! 

 Let me comment a bit more on the “women will be saved by childbearing” verse. There is a definite article in there that isn’t translated here. Some translations do include it, and one rendition is “the bearing of the Child.” It’s possible that Paul is saying that sin came through Eve, but the Savior (through childbearing) came through Eve as well. Well, let’s jump from one landmine to another! Let’s look at I Cor. 14:34-35. 

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. – I Cor. 14:34-35 

Let’s start by looking at the context of this passage. The entire chapter pertains to how the Corinthians were having wild and crazy meetings, talking simultaneously, speaking prophetically, etc. In verse 23, Paul asks the Corinthians if an unbeliever were to drop in, wouldn’t they think you were all crazy? Three verses later, Paul tells them that everything should be done for edification, for building up the church. In verse 27, Paul tells the men to “keep silent” (same word) unless there is an interpreter. The same word is used in verse 30, where it tells the one prophesying to be silent once an interpreter desires to speak. Now we come to our passage. The phrase “remain silent” doesn’t mean “never speak,” any more here than it does for the people in the preceding verses. Furthermore, women are not forbidden from prophesying; I Cor. 11:5 says “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.” Now this gets into the whole head covering thing which I am not going to discuss today; I have to draw the line somewhere! (I think the link http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/nt-difficulties/romans-2/1-cor-115-6-is-it-wrong-for-a-woman-to-have-her-head-uncovered-while-praying/ discusses the question well.) But my point is that it doesn’t make sense, in light of Chapter 11, for Chapter 14 to say women could never speak. I believe it is talking about speaking in a particular sense – and we see what that sense is in verse 35. The women were apparently talking to one another or to their husbands while the main person was speaking. As a professor I can tell you this is incredibly distracting, so much so that I now stop teaching and say excuse me while looking directly at the offender. When that doesn’t work I will walk right up to them and ask them if they will be able to keep quiet. This is just as uncomfortable for me to do as it is for the person I am talking to. I think this is what Paul is talking about in this passage. Again the overriding goal of the whole chapter is that “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (verse 40). 

Coming back to our overall discussion about men and women, I should point out that we take this for granted, but the way Jesus treated women was nothing short of revolutionary. Think of how He treated the Samaritan woman at the well, for example – going into theological discussions with her, treating her respectfully – even taking the water from her. All of this was shocking for that culture. Think of the Mary/Martha incident. Mary sat around listening to Jesus like the men would do. Martha complained, but Jesus had no problem with Mary doing this! When Lazarus died, Jesus explained the gospel to a woman, Martha, saying “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though He dies. And whoever lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” Jesus broke with tradition by not only teaching a woman, but, even more, by requesting her response. Women followed Jesus around – this too was unprecedented. And the first people Jesus chose to appear to after His resurrection were women. And then He told them to tell His disciples that He was alive! This was especially shocking because in those days the testimony of women was not allowed in court. Biblical scholars have pointed out that the fact that women are written as seeing Him first adds great credence to the claim that the Bible is reliable, because the fact that they were women significantly weakens the story. If someone were to have made this up back then, they certainly would have used men. 

Dorothy Sayers, a friend of C.S. Lewis, wrote this: “Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there had never been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, who never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as ‘The women, God help us!’ or ‘The ladies, God bless them!’; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously, who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no ax to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious.” 

I have one additional topic to address today, the area of homosexuality. Our culture in America has moved rapidly away from Biblical ideas; the redefinition of marriage is only the latest example of these changes. And we need to understand that the changes won’t end there; for example, there is a growing push for preferential hiring of homosexuals, in essence, affirmative action for homosexuals. To fully go into how we might respond goes well beyond the purposes of this series, but for those who struggle with these questions, come see Fred, John or me as we have resources that can help. 

Again our focus today is on what the Bible teaches. And although there are some supposedly Christian books out there that take great liberties with the Bible texts and distort them, I think the Bible is pretty clear. The verses we have already looked at in Genesis clearly show that God defines marriage to be between a man and a woman. The “becoming one flesh” is reserved for this relationship. Furthermore, homosexuality is clearly defined as a sin. In Lev. 18:22 and Lev. 20:13 it says “don’t do it” in no uncertain terms; both verses call it detestable. And under Old Testament law, it was potentially punishable by death. 

God confirms the same moral standard in the New Testament. For example, from I Corinthians: 

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. – I Cor. 6:9-11 

It is important that we not elevate the sin of homosexuality over every other sin. This verse shows that unrepentant homosexual behavior is simply not the behavior of a genuine believer, one who is being renewed by the Holy Spirit. But in the same list are also drunkards and even the greedy. The mark of a true believer is genuine brokenness over their sin, a genuine desire to turn from their sin. And this verse should give great hope to those who struggle to leave behind homosexuality or any other addictive sin – it says that is what some of you were. In Christ we are new creations; in Christ we can walk day by day, moment by moment, in victory. 

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. – I Tim. 1:8-11 

Just as we should not elevate the sin of homosexuality, neither should we minimize it. Our culture can easily twist our thinking. But look at this verse. Those who kill their fathers and mothers and murderers are in this same list. But sins we might consider as more “minor” are here too. 

Some argue that people are born homosexual, but there is strong evidence to the contrary. Studies show that failure to bond with a same-sex parent early in life is more common among gay and lesbian women than in the general population. And in addition, a high percentage (higher than the general population) of homosexuals were victims of childhood sexual abuse. There are people in both categories who do not become homosexual, and there are homosexuals who did not experience either situation, but the fact that these situations are more common strongly argues that it is a learned behavior. Even if one day scientists find convincing genetic evidence that some mutations make it more likely, it would no more argue that people are born homosexual than the fact that some genetic markers increase the likelihood of alcoholism argues that people are born alcoholic. 

Romans 1 explains that homosexual desires are just one outcome of a people that choose to reject God. 

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. – Rom. 1:21-27 

It’s important to understand that anyone who comes to Christ other than at the age of a very small child experiences this kind of separation from God, even if they don’t fall into these particular lusts. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Because of this, our heart for homosexuals should be the same as for any person – compassion, love, and a desire that they find the true object of their desire, the Lord Jesus Christ.