YHWH: Purest Poetry

I am taking a break from my "series" on "The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda?"

One of my ESL students wrote a brilliant poem contrasting Christ with Satan. She used "eyes" as the vehicle to convey this tenor. During the last period of the day, while we discussed her poem and just God in general, something occurred to me. Nothing new, but...I felt compelled to share it.

I know when people think of poetry, most of the time they think that sappy, lovey-dovey or purely emotional blather that happens to rhyme, repeat the same phrase a million times, or get so "deep" you are caught between not understanding it at all or making it mean anything. However, the strongest poetry is by definition "condensed thought." Those statements that hit you between the eyes and keep you thinking long after you've read them or heard them. That's pure poetry.

So as we were taking her poem apart, we were both trying to think of "the right words" for each line....if you can use one word instead of three, or if you can use a word that has two meanings instead of merely one....it makes a much stronger, provocative poem. Condensed thought. It becomes a game. It is as thought the poem already exists and you must find the correct words to unlock it.

Anyway, I'd been reading through Exodus recently and thinking about God's name, YHWH, and what it means and while my student and I were critiquing her poem, something clicked. The greatest condensed thought of all time is found in Exodus 3:14. "I AM." We've all read it and thought about it many times, yet...it still gives me shudders. "I AM." YHWH. God's very name. It is the shortest sentence in the English language and yet...the entirety of the Bible, the universe, and everything all at once.

While the "be" verb is the only verb that is not a visible action, without it there would be no action. It is the concept behind all linking verbs--verbs that connect the predicate directly to the subject--and the potential for all action verbs. The "be" verb is our way of conveying--not our actions, but rather our trappings of three spatial dimensions within the time dimension.

God saying "I AM" means He is NOT trapped by time or space. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but apparently, based on all translations of "YHWH," the Hebrew language must have the very same condensed concept as we have in the words: "I AM." It is translated: "I AM THAT I AM," "I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS," "I AM THAT WHICH I AM," "I EXIST BECAUSE I EXIST," "THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TIME NOR WILL THERE EVER BE A TIME WHEN I AM NOT," "I WAS WHO I WAS, I AM WHO I AM, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE," etc.. A constant time-transcendant existence, that is most clearly exhibited in the present tense. Basically..."I AM."

Can ANYONE you know say that they exist b/c they exist? Can ANYONE you know speak with that authority? Can ANYONE exist of their own will? Can anyone never begin or never end? Of course you can commit suicide and thereby "choose" when you will die, but can anyone "choose" to be born? (Incidentally, can anyone else die and come back to life by himself? This is another grammar nerd thought: for anyone to come back to life, he would have to be raised from the dead--as the object of the transitive verb "raise". Christ was the ONLY person to rise from the dead--no object. He did it to and of Himself. The intransitive verb "rise.")

I suppose there have been many who have claimed that they chose to exist. Cults have leaders, right? But seriously, the problem lies within proof. No one can prove that he has always existed. A person has to be taken at his word! What is God's proof then? We are. This creation is. The potential to learn about God existed before we (and cult leaders) existed b/c the Bible was there before we were. The universe existed before the Bible. And God existed before the universe. But....it doesn't stop there. Think of the hundreds and hundreds of Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled to the "T"! No other "god" has that kind of power or that kind of proof. Even if you deny this body of evidence...it's a greater body than any other being can claim! And b/c of the fulfilled prophesies, you need proof to deny this proof!

A person cannot claim "I AM," b/c that person has a beginning...even if he claims that he existed on another plane and just appeared on earth at the "right" time..."Oh!" you say, "but isn't this what Christ did?" Yes. He also rose from the dead. That's proof. He has ultimate power over existence. He and the Father ARE one. They ARE. He IS. "I AM." That would be out and out blasphemy for ANYONE else to even consider saying!

This brings us, of course, to Rene Descartes and the "I think, therefore I am" statement. I know people who claim that this is man's attempt at blasphemy b/c of the words, "I am." But consider this: this is as condensed a thought as humans can EVER have about themselves. However, it is vastly limited compared to simply stating, "I AM." This is b/c of the huge limiting qualifier in the sentence: "I think..." God does not need to think to exist. Also, our thinking doesn't cause US to exist. You didn't think before you existed, but since you now exist, you are able to think. However, that thinking and reasoning does actually little more than set you apart from the animals when you consider how great God is. Animals think, of course...but, does an animal understand what I'm talking about right now? Um...no.

Now, don't get me wrong. The human mind is by all rights astoundingly complex...however, without that Genesis "breath of Life" and image from God, there would be no "thinking" to be therefore "I am-ing" in the first place. Mr. Descartes was pointing out an unavoidable truth (whether or not his intent was blasphemy), yet...as complex as his statement is, the further condensed statement--"I AM"--is infinitely more complex, even though it takes three less words to say.

This is also why cloning is a ridiculous "playing God" argument. You are not playing God until you can first of all exist all the time, none of the time, out of time, in time, by creating time, by yourself, etc.. Forget the "ex nihilo" (creating something from nothing) argument. No one in any time, place, or dimension can ever EVER "play God" b/c we need many elements in order to exist. God needs none but Himself.

God is, all the time. This shows un-thinkable power. However, the very fact that He said these words to Moses shows His ultimate compassion and love. That a Being such as this would deign to reveal Himself in two words...How? Why? He subjects Himself to time for our sake. He subjects Himself to language and concepts that we can understand so that we can come to Him. Even if we cannot fully comprehend not having a beginning or end, we can still understand it by concept. We exist. We understand "am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been." That a Being could be all of these at once, be the very Source of that existence, and furthermore use them in a way that we cannot fully fathom or hope to replicate--that a Being like that would love us? He can. He does. He is.

I know people say that John 3:16 is the Bible in a nutshell...but really, if you condensed and whittled away that verse down to its core concept, you would have "I AM." Think about the elements of John 3:16. "For God so loved the world..." God is the ultimate Source of unfathomable power who created the universe--by Him all things consist. He loved the world. How could Love ever happen without ultimate Truth to back it up? Love would be meaningless without Truth. How could Truth ever happen without a Source of Truth that has always been? Truth by very definition is something that never changes and always exists. "...that He gave His only begotten Son..." We wouldn't know about Jesus if the Bible didn't tell us so,...but we'd never have the Bible if God wasn't first the "I AM" behind it. Also, sacrificing His own un-ending self in the person of His Son--that's eternal love that could only be ultimate if the Being giving it was eternal! "....that whosoever believeth in Him..." As Hebrews 11:6 states, we cannot believe in God until we first believe that He "is"! No-brainer. "...should not perish..." Surely the only One who can keep life from perishing in the flames of hell, is the One who sustains existence. "...but have ever-lasting life." What is the only inevitability for everyone who has ever existed? Death. Except One. That is God and He is the only one capable of giving eternal life, b/c not only is He inside the time-related concept of "eternal," but also He transcends it! He is not even bound by our narrow concept of infinity! He exists!

I could go on and on and on to explain God's existence even further and I would never completely scratch the surface of it's meaning. I would come to the same conclusion Dorothy came to at the end of that movie. I don't have to look any further than my own backyard. The answer is right there. The most condensed thought known to man. The purest poetry by which all other poetry consists and is founded. The explanation is right there. He is. "I AM."

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda? Pt. 2

2. Adam and Eve were created in order of importance.

Well...It makes sense, doesn't it? For instance, the firstborn position has long been the most important position in the family system after the father dies. The term "first" always implies a sense of "primary" or "main." It is the pattern for all the rest. We compete for "first place." "Second" or "third" might as well be last.

So man was created first. Does that mean that woman was merely an afterthought--a necessity for little more than procreation? We can cross reference this chauvinist point (as so many have done) with I Timothy 2:12-13 where Paul says that women are not to have authority over a man for this very reason. Is that what this means? I thought that women could not be secondary and equal at the same time.

First questions first. Why was there an order? If God is so all-powerful, why weren't they just created at the same time? That would solve the equality problem right there! This is the same question we find when we deal with the six days of creation. Why six days? Why not everything in an instant? Sometimes, God does things outside the box of human obviousness, so...instead of trying to reason it out, we just shut our minds off and stick them in the "Because He's God" file. However,...if we are going to tell existentialists that it is ridiculous to answer ultimate questions with: "the point is: no point," we must also do our part to figure out where we stand on any given point. Yes, the answer may be just as simple as the word "God"; however, we need to say WHY we came to that conclusion (I Pet. 3:15). Don't use circular reasoning or anger. Those are what the world uses. God has given us the gift of truth. Let's let the truth speak for itself.

So...the problem remains that God sometimes likes to do things in a humanly illogical fashion and that bothers some of us. It's like God "acts out" on purpose just to frustrate us! Like...'Okay, I'm not supposed to believe evolution, right? b/c an all-powerful God didn't need the confines of a belabored, time-consuming billions of years to create something that He could have taken an instant to do. Yeah...? So...why did He bother to take six days, then?' Well as other references will tell us, the six days were a pattern for mankind's work week. We were created within the confines of 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. In this time dimension we are given six days to do all our "stuff" (work, play, etc.) and then the seventh day we are to rest from our human activity and focus on God.

You see, it is my experience that whenever God "acts out" He is actually doing so in order to teach. Think of Genesis 6 which says that God was "sorry" or "repented" that He had created man. Does God actually regret anything that He does? Does God do something He needs to feel sorry for? No. This passage is merely relaying to us an emotion that we can understand. If we'd created people who turned against us, we'd be upset too. We understand betrayal. We need to understand the depths to which people betray God, so we can see our desperate need for Him. That can only be relayed to us is through human terms. But why use the word "repent?" Well, partly because the people were so utterly non-repentant and sinful, that God's sorrow was the ultimate contrast. However, it is important to remember that our personal experience with this emotion is a result of our own sin. God doesn't sin, so...His repentance has nothing to do with His sin and everything to do with our sin.

So what is God trying to teach us through creation order? Well, for that answer, we need to look directly at the creation account.

Genesis 1 - 2:3 gives us the overview of all creation and sets down the six days of labor/play and the one day of rest which the majority of the world still follows. However, Verse 4 and following of Genesis 2 is a special, specific account of God's most important creation: mankind. Let's go through this chapter.

Verse 7 explains how man was formed--from the dust and then life was God-breathed into him. In verse 8, man is placed in the Garden of Eden. In verse 15, man is supposed to tend and care for the garden. In verses 16 and 17 man is given a warning that he may eat of any and every tree in the garden EXCEPT one. Not only is he given this command, but also there is a death consequence attached. (Notice: There was only ONE sin in the Garden of Eden. Freewill hung in the balance of ONE tiny act. You see, God's desire is not to have all these stipulations and rules. God desire is for us to be naked in a garden of pleasure! We are the ones who chose otherwise! Few people realize that, I think. One side thinks God doesn't want us to have fun. The flip side gasps at the very word "naked.")

Now we come to verse 18 where God announces that it is not good for man to be alone, and that He will create a helper for him. Based on what was just discussed, did God actually regret not creating woman at the same time and then seek to remedy the situation? No. God does not sin or make mistakes, remember? So when He regrets, it's an emotion we can understand; however, it has no basis in sin. Rather, He was establishing something important. Let's read on in order to get a fuller picture of what was happening. In verse 19, God brings all the animals to Adam so Adam can name them, and possibly find a companion among them. By verse 20, Adam has named them all but hasn't found any animals that will be suitable as a mate.

Now, this seems strange to me because wouldn't God KNOW that animals weren't going to work as Adam's mate? It almost seems like God just really wanted the animals named and so He used a subversive method to get Adam to do it. Deceit is against God's nature, and there is a better answer anyway. First of all, notice the active statement God says at the end of verse 18 after He's pointed out that it isn't good for Adam to be alone. He says, "I will make a companion who will help him (NLT)." That is rather interesting language. He doesn't say, "I will FIND a companion from what I've already made." He knows he is going to make woman, but...he doesn't want to force the idea on Adam. Rather, he wants Adam to come to this conclusion. That's the fun of freewill, I think.

(Side note: So...why did Adam have to name the animals? Well, consider this: Genesis 1:26 is pretty clear that humans were to be the masters of the earth. God could have named them all, but he wanted naming to be one of Adam's first acts as Master of the Earth. This was also to show Adam's intellect and superiority over creation. We find later in the Bible that the act of naming is an important occurrence. It shows importance, remembrance, belonging, responsibility, understanding, familial seniority, personality, familiarity, etc. Animals do not name things, even though they can understand their own name. Think of when a king or queen bestows a title or a knighthood upon someone. The person being knighted may deserve the position, but they will never receive it without the authority of the king or queen.)

So why did God pretend that Adam was going to find a helper among the animals? Think of how Adam must have felt to see all these animals with male and female companions, and yet...here he is on the planet...all by himself. That's kind of a sick game of God to play on Adam, isn't it?

This might make more sense if you think of being a kid on your birthday. You know it's coming, you hope you are going to get lots and lots of presents. You wait and wait and wait for the day to come. You invite all your friends, b/c friends bring presents. You talk about it and make sure no one forgets about it. Then finally, the day comes and you wake up expecting to be showered with gifts the moment you wake up. But you aren't. You go downstairs for breakfast, expecting presents to be on the table. They aren't. You go to school and no one gives you presents. No one even talks about your birthday. After school, your mom picks you up to take you home and no presents. Just as you are about to give up hope of ever getting presents ever again, you walk through the door and "Surprise!" All your friends are there and there is a table full of presents.

Now that is a silly analogy and I'm sure none of us were that self-absorbed as children, right? Anyway, this is my point: If you had gotten the presents when you were first expecting them, would you have appreciated them more or less than when you had to wait for them? It is a fact of human nature that the longer we are deprived of something, the more we desire and the more likely we are to appreciate the fulfillment of said desire. People who get whatever they want whenever they want are called "spoiled." They have no appreciation for what they receive.

So Adam learns patience and appreciation. God could have said, "Adam. You need a woman. Here she is." But He didn't. Instead, he allowed Adam to recognize his need and yearn for it.

In verse 21 God performs the first surgery and removes one of Adam's ribs. Notice that Adam is asleep during this procedure. He wasn't awake to give God input or somehow help in this creative process. Woman was made from the elements of Adam by the same Creator that made him. God knew what Adam needed and He created her by Himself.

So then in verse 22 God makes Eve and brings her to Adam. Then in verse 23 Adam says, "Yay! A slave! An inferior!" Ha! No. Rather he is overjoyed and grateful. He uses the words "At last!" or "Finally!" which shows that he had to be patient. Then, he says something interesting, "She is part of my own flesh and bone!"

Ah-Ha! Now we see why Adam was first and woman was second! God needed to show us just what a special act of creation humans are. We are not entirely separate acts of creation. We are physically and symbolically part of each other. We are one flesh. This didn't happen with the animals. The male and female parts of the animals were separate acts of creation. We are the only part of creation set apart to display a picture between God and man.

(I suppose you could well argue that while Eve was part of Adam, Adam was not part of Eve. This is true; however, Adam is the only man who can make that claim. The rest of us are made from a male sperm and a female egg (this is explained in I Cor. 11:11-12). Even though Adam could have used this as fuel for lording over Eve, he didn't. He was appreciate of her and saw her as the perfect fulfillment of his longing. Still, the act of creating Eve from Adam lays the groundwork for our being God's "special creation.")

Verse 24 adds a new point to this discussion. A man is to leave the comfort and nurturing of his parents and find ultimate human comfort and nurture from his wife. Notice that the picture of Christ and the church is not between parents and their children, but between a husband and wife.

Notice something else interesting. Apart from the sex, companionship, and help, woman fulfills another need. A woman is capable of giving birth to MORE people. A man has a father and mother to leave b/c there were women who gave birth to them. Do you have only one friend or relative? No! You have many. Many people get this yin/yang concept about men and women, and it's just not that simplistic. Without women there would be no fellowship--no families, no friends, no acquaintances. I am not saying (like the feminists do) that men have nothing to do with childbirth--obviously women can't do it on their own, but...if God had formed another man, (leaving the homosexual debate for another time) the world would still only have had two people living on it. Another man would not fulfill the need for Adam's fellowship (plural)--only a meager companionship (singular).

God breathed part of Himself into mankind. Part of man was used to make woman. There is a beautiful picture there. However, let's not get sentimental. Let's think practically: If man and woman had been separate acts of creation we would have more of a sense of equality, right? Perhaps, but think of how love would suffer. The very foundation of unconditional love--God loving us as His bride and giving Himself for us--would be completely lost on us. Nothing in the story of the Cross would compel us. That otherworldly sense of longing for and completion in a human relationship would not exist. That supernatural sense of filling the "God-shaped Hole" would not exist b/c without a human idea of love, we'd never fathom a spiritual one! Love wouldn't make sense. We would just procreate like animals. Our version of love at best would be the loyalty and "pack mentality" of animals. That's as far as love would go. Love is far more important than being exactly the same. This is something evolution cannot explain. Love is the tie that binds the universe, and we as humans have been given the equal opportunity to share in the very picture and purpose of love.

That is the reason there was an order to the creation of Adam and Eve.

Next blog: 3. But...women were the FIRST sinners!

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda? Pt. 1

God loves men and women equally.

Not everyone believes this. Feminists say that the Bible is chauvinist propaganda. Chauvinists treat the Bible as fuel for their arguments. "True Christians" are always claiming that God loves women equally, but they don't always give very convincing arguments. And you know what's really sad? When people say they believe the Bible and yet disagree with the above statement.

So...what is right? What does the Bible actually say? Is the Bible to blame for the Battle of the Sexes or not? Well...we can't deny that most of the Bible characters were men. We can't deny--try as we might--that there are a lot of laws (especially in the Old Testament) that seem much harsher on women than men. We Christians don't like to debate with feminists about these kinds of things. Why? Because...on the surface and out of historical context...it really seems like they have a point.

Why do I think I should say anything on this subject? Well...plain and simple, the Bible is not chauvinist. Frankly, that needs to be explained, b/c there is feminist and atheist agenda all over the web and college campuses that quotes famous supposed male-dominated verses from the Bible out of context. These people are searching for truth, and yet they reject the Source of Truth? Why? Because they were "bitten by an ignorant Christian" at some point in their lives. That should not happen (see Lisa's blog "You Give Christians a Bad Name"). There are definite answers in the Bible and when it comes to explaining this matter to non-Christians, the majority of Christians do a pretty poor (and usually counterproductive) job of explaining. Christians write-off the "flaming liberals" instead of letting Truth speak for itself in Love. It's actually pretty simple. You don't need to "hem and haw." You don't need to get angry. Just state the facts.

Why do I think I CAN say anything on this subject? Because I am a woman, and I am not married. I'm not even currently dating. So, I don't have any outside male influences telling me what to say. The facts need pointing out--not b/c people need to be proved wrong--but, b/c searching people need to know the truth.

Now...before I can commence with my argument, I want to start somewhere at the beginning of the whole thing. Initially, I think where the idea of "male domination" came from needs addressing and correct application to current times. The Bible CANNOT be in favor of male domination if it supports women being equal. One is wrong. One is right. If you are interested, keep reading...and stay tuned for more installments. Keep in mind that I am trying to be exhaustive in my reasoning...but I may not cover everything. If that bothers you, please feel free to 1.) research 2.) comment.

I think the best place to start would be to begin by taking apart each popular feminist criticism and measuring it against the Bible. In later blogs, I will get into more about women's roles in the church and home and society in general.

1. Woman was created in man's image, which means woman is inferior to man.

This argument always falls apart when the Christian being confronted hasn't studied. This statement sounds so utterly chauvinist, that most non-Christians STAY non-Christians because they can always use it as fuel to back a Christian into a corner, and then leave the debate even angrier and more callused than when they started. Likewise, the angry Christian leaves the debate feeling good about himself, b/c he just "fought the good fight." Bal-o-ney!!!!

What does this statement mean? First let's look at the verses this concept comes from. The famous passages are: Genesis, I Tim 2:11-15, and I Cor. 11:1-15. The verses in Genesis say that God created Adam in His image and says that Eve was created from Adam's rib. I Cor. 11:7 goes so far as to say that man is in God's image and woman is in man's image! Or does it....? Well, I've had many people explain it to me that way. But...how can men and women be EQUAL if they aren't? That doesn't make any sense. Likewise, I have met people who readily agree on the equality of men and women, and yet proceed to live their lives contradicting that stance. (Incidentally...if you feel you HAVE to say "I don't think of women as second-class"...yes...you do.) People can see right through this contradiction and immediately doubt the validity of your faith. And...honestly...well they should.

So...what do the verses mean when they say that woman was created from man and in man's image while man was created in God's image?

Well, for one thing...let's interpret the verses correctly. (Look in I Cor. 11 to follow along. No Bible handy? Open an online one in your tabs.) The verse in question is talking about head coverings and why a woman should cover her head when worshipping and why a man shouldn't. There are various interpretations as to what head coverings mean and if they have relevance currently...however, my purpose for this verse is to see what is meant by man being in God's image and woman being in man's image. Head coverings are a future blog.

I Cor. 11:7 (ESV)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

Hm....when we actually look at the verse...we see something interesting. Notice that there is absolutely nothing stating that woman is in man's image...It clearly says that man was created in the image and glory of God but...wait...woman is the GLORY of man. It says nothing about woman being in man's IMAGE. The ESV is not alone in this translation. Every translation I have seen translates the words into "image" and "glory" and they are not interchangeable. "Image" means "likeness" and glory means "splendor, majesty, and exalted."

On the surface, I suppose it is all right to say that God glorifies man and is glorified through man. Likewise women glorify their husbands and are glorified through their husbands. After all, there is that whole "picture of Christ and the church" thing...but...I don't know about you. I've never been able to leave it there. I think there is more to think about than that.

Let's think about men and women for a second. Are we equal? You would seriously have to put yourself at tremendous mental and societal risk by saying no. Of course we are equal. Are we different? Y-Y-Y-E-E-E-S-S-S. So let's focus on these differences--specifically, let's think about the stereotypical strengths of men and women and how they differ.

There are internal strengths. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but as a general rule, men tend to be straightforward/linear thinkers and women tend to be subtle/multi-tasking thinkers. Scientific studies have shown conclusive evidence to these theories. Basically, men sacrifice perspective for the sake of efficiency and women do the reverse. Can you see how when these two work together, great decisions can be made? Perspective and efficiency working together. However, usually we just end up fighting b/c we don't feel the other one is listening...how typical of humans.

Then there are the physical/outward strengths. A man is physically stronger than a woman and a woman is physically more attractive. A man automatically wants to protect a pretty lady. A beautiful woman doesn't necessarily automatically want protection. Usually, she just wants attention. Perhaps their love will grow over time to be more than this surface infatuation, but...this initial desire to protect the beautiful--this is human glory. The man receives a certain amount of glory from the woman he desires whether or not she desires him for protection or just attention, b/c she is pretty.

Let's get back to the God's glory vs. man's glory thing now. When you think of the word "glory" what comes to your mind? I get a visual picture of glory. Do you? Do you get a picture of light shining or a choir singing, "Ahhhh!!!" or a beautiful face or angels? This is because you are human. You think in human terms, and in order to understand something, you create a picture in your mind. To humans, the word "glory" creates an aesthetic image. This is partly owing to all the references of God's glory being shiny and light-filled--but that is still so simplistic from what God's glory must actually be. I mean, remember when God let Moses "look" at Him? Moses only saw His back and it made Moses' face to shine so that it scared the people of Israel. The disciples were awe-struck from Jesus and Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration b/c of what they saw. We picture "glory" as a physical tangible thing.

Now think of how God receives glory. Is God scared to look at Himself? No. What glorifies God? When we obey Him. It has nothing to do with seeing or hearing something. It has to do with our hearts. Now...before I leave it there, also realize that God doesn't need us to give Him glory. He can glorify Himself quite nicely by Himself--much better than we can, in fact! But...the point is He desires love from our souls, and that is not something you can see. Man looks on the outward appearance and God looks on the heart, remember?

Now let's put these bits and pieces of reasoning together. If God desires and receives glory from our hearts, then...creating a being who has a freewill to glorify God with his heart is the most logical thing to do. This was man. Man is the glory of God.

Since man is created in a three dimensional (plus time) world and can only think within the confines of his observation and language and reasoning, creating a being of aesthetic beauty is the most logical thing to do. This was woman. Woman is the glory of man.

Now...just to clarify, I'm not saying that men are not attractive!!! But notice something. You know pictures of attractive men...have you ever noticed that their eyes, nose, brow line, and lips tend to be rather feminine looking? Not that they look like women, but...think of it this way, testosterone is what makes a person have bigger ears, nose, pores, neck, body hair, baldness....When a man has these traits he simply looks like a man. If a woman has these, she "looks like a man"....and that's an insult to her. When a man looks like a woman, he has the option of growing a beard. :o)

Think of it this way as well. Angels are always pictured as either women or blond-haired blue-eyed dainty featured men. They are never described like that in the Bible.

Think of this too! Jesus is always pictured as a male model from Calvin Klein only with long hair and a beard, when in fact the prophet Isaiah tells us in Is. 53:2 that:

He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. (NIV)

Jesus wasn't attractive, guys. Yet, in order to picture Him as a divine being, we automatically picture some gorgeous Mediterranean male model.

Think of this as well: God created man b/c he desired a being to want a relationship with him. Agape. Does this involve sex? No. (although...think of how many religions do!) Sex is for people. Eros. However, sex (I'm talking about actual sex and not a deviation) is only possible between men and women. So...it's a no-brainer that woman needed to be created in order for this human "glory" and desire to be fulfilled.

Not that human glory is always found through sex or physical beauty. People find the most fulfilling human glory in simple human life-long companionship. It is this companionship that is the foundation of marriage--not just the sex.

Or you could simply look at Donald Trump. Ugly man...but with every new young wife he looks way more successful. (Or maybe more desperate. Yes...desparate...anyway...in his mind, he is getting glory from her.)

I actually have more to say about this glory issue, but...I need to move on. I'll explain more in future blogs.

Does this mean that God doesn't receive glory through women? Of course not. Gender doesn't matter with God (Gal. 3:28). It doesn't matter what gender you are to God, He still sees you as one with Him. Plus, every other verse in the Bible instructing us to glorify God is to BOTH men and women equally. He also explains that man and woman are both in His image in Genesis 1:27

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (NIV)"

He created the creature "man" to inhabit the earth and be in His image. This creature was in God's image, yet in the practicality of the rest of creation: male and female. So...why does Paul say things like this in the verses that follow I Cor. 11:7?

8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. (NIV)


Is woman the property of man? The answer is in the following verses:


11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. (NIV)


Verse 11 gives us the spiritual view to the physical view in verses 8-9. 8-9 are simply explaining the order of creation. This is important, b/c God uses this order as a picture of Himself and the church in other verses in the Bible.

Then Paul very wisely says the words "In the Lord." In other words, no matter who was created FIRST--in the Lord--neither one is independent from the other. Woman was initially created from man. However, women have given birth to men ever since then. This is a huge "equalizing" verse.

Notice how verse 12 ends. "[E]verything comes from God." In other words, "In the event of a gender battle, remember this: Neither of these anomalies would even be POSSIBLE without God's sovereign hand, so...don't fight. You guys are the same."

Next:

2. Men were created first, women second. Order of importance?...