The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda Pt. 5 (Conclusion)

5. The hint of the Messiah.

My hope with this conclusion is to help others to see just how and where chauvinism probably eventuated. Part of the reason I didn't write all five of these the same week was so that I could give the my thoughts time to germinate. Not that my thinking about something for a long time makes it right, but also I didn't want to answer hastily. There's barely any wisdom in my head as it is, and there is absolutely no wisdom in hastiness.

Before I get to my real point though, I want to point out something else. Feminists like to say that the word "mankind" is chauvinistic. Well. . .maybe it is and maybe it isn't--I think it depends on who says it--but...at least in the Bible, I think we can come to the conclusion that the word "mankind" means both men and women. This point is very clear in Genesis 1:26:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (NASV)

Notice the wording here. God says He will make "man" in His image, but then He says to let "them" rule. This leads me to believe that from the very beginning, "mankind" was just a term for all peoples: men and women.

Now...I am not a Hebrew scholar, but it's a good thing Hebrew scholars have put interlinear helps online for people like me. Hebrew and English are not the same and so when we look at the English translation, we have to realize that we can't just take the pronouns at face value b/c a lot of other languages don't use pronouns nearly as much as we do and/or they don't have the exact shade of meaning. I say all this to preface this point: in English the Bible says "let THEM rule over the [earth]. . .." But we can't just say "oh that means men and women" are included, b/c a few translations say, "let HIM rule." So the pronoun must have either been added when it was translated into English or the Hebrew word used means more than one thing. So we need more information.

First of all, the Hebrew word for "man" in that particular verse comes from the word that most often means "humans" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Well, that's a good start towards getting some understanding; however, if it could mean just the masculine humans, then we are going to need something stronger still. Fortunately for women, it's not a point of us forcing the wording, because the point is already made. Look at the following verse:

27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So that is how we know that the words "man" and "them" in verse 26 mean both men and women, b/c if it just meant men, then verse 27 wouldn't make any sense. If you have an interlinear Bible you can see for yourself that the first word for man in verse 27 is the same word in verse 26 for "mankind" or "humans" and the words "male" and "female" mean exactly that: "male" and "female." So "mankind" means both men and women equally. Plus, BOTH were supposed to rule over the earth. You know? It wasn't just the men to whom God gave this awesome task.

So . . . why has there always been this concept of male-domination throughout history? Well, I don't want to rehash everything that's been said to this point, but basically. . .I believe "male-dominance" as we know it today was not a Biblical concept, but rather a man-made one.

It couldn't have been from Adam b/c he saw Eve as "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh"--totally equal to him. It couldn't have been God, b/c He made them both as co-rulers of the earth. We don't know all God's reasons for doing things, but we can at least see why He made woman the way He did. The picture of Christ and the church. The companionship. The glory of man. However, before God we are not male and female, but rather simply beings in His image.

Something interesting to note before detailing the curses in Genesis 3:15-19 . These curses seem extreme, especially when we focus on the curses themselves and not why the curses had to happen in the first place. But notice that God simply punishes Adam and Eve. He promises far more to Satan:

Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

A blow to the head is far more detrimental than a blow to the heel. The concept here is that even though Christ would die for sin that Satan affected, Christ would eventually destroy him and all his evil.

God loved Adam and Eve and so He made provision for them, whereas Satan will be destroyed (for specifics, see Revelation). I suppose we could get into an argument about whether or not God loves/loved Satan...and that will make a very interesting future blog, but...it's too far off the topic for this one.

So let's look at the curses individually. The woman's is in verse 16:

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

Basically, the woman now has (1) pain in childbirth, (2) her desire will be for her husband, and (3) she will be under man's rule.

Now let's look at the mans' curse:

17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. (NIV)

So the man's curse is basically (1) that the entire earth is cursed b/c of him, (2) he will have pain when he works, (3) the amount of work he does will significantly outweigh his profit, and (4) he will do this till he dies.

If you look at these curses as what will happen to our accomplishments, you see that actually the man may arguably have it worse off than the woman. Women were to simply have pain in childbirth. Man was to have pain all his life. The counterargument being, "Yes, but women work nowadays, and we suffer just as much pain in the work place--if not more--as the men PLUS the child birth aspect." Well, think about it...who do we have to thank for that? Feminism. Feminism would actually multiply pain to women. Think on't.

In regards to the second part of the woman's curse "your desire will be for your husband (NIV)." If the word "desire" means "longing" or "craving" (which it does) then . . . that's not actually so bad either. I don't mean that women are codependent. But there is a sense of accomplishment for women when we can make a man happy. The verse doesn't mean that we are supposed to be dust mops. We are just told that we need to make men happy. Well . . . Shouldn't we? Isn't that something we should already do? I mean . . . can't we just try to make the world a better place to live in? Isn't being nice a far better answer than fighting for our "rights" that actually put us in a harder position than where we were originally? (I know it's hard. I'm not only writing this...I'm also a member.)

And the last part of the woman's curse: the fact that Adam would rule over Eve . . . that's kinda for Eve's benefit too. I mean, have you ever lead anything? It's not easy. You have to prepare. You have to think of others. I mean, women have to think of men in that they need to desire to meet men's needs. But men have to think of how to take care of women, so it's a give and take thing. The "male-dominance" is dominance--yes--but the reason we fight that word tooth and nail is b/c of what it's become today! Ruling is supposed to be like Christ. The way Christ rules over us is to give Himself for us. That's leadership for the good of the followers.

Okay, so over time, man has taken this curse as a blessing so he can domineer over women, but that's nothing new. We take curses as blessings all the time. Think of clothing. Clothing was actually a curse. We were supposed to be naked, but look at fashion today. We don't just take it as a blessing, we glory in it! Also, look at the pain of working. God told us that work would be hard from now on. Look what we do with that as well. Work is no more a means for sustenance and survival. It has become a way of advancing ourselves. A means of "keeping up with the Joneses"! Another way we glory in our infirmities--as my dad pointed out to me one day--look at the Grand Canyon. We "Oooh" and "Aaah" over it when it was because of the Flood. This world-wide deluge being the direct result of man reaching an alarmingly depraved state. I'm not saying fashionable clothes, bettering yourself, or natural treasures are evil, I'm just saying look what we make of them. We can't just see them for what they are, instead we take pride in them. No wonder we are so unhappy.

Anyways, the curses for men and women were actually quite equal in impact. I mean, yes . . . as a woman, I agree it sucks to have to be "under" someone, but . . . just imagine having the responsibility to be "over" someone when you yourself are a fallen selfish creature? That's tough. The curses were both horrible. But, both were punished according to the way each sinned. Eve's sin was buying into a lie, and so she was cursed with not having leadership. Adam's sin was being a pansy and listening to his wife when he knew she was wrong, and so he was cursed with leadership.

So now we come to the actual point. Why were men ever considered better or greater if the curses were equal? Personally, I think it's b/c of verse 15. Let's look at it again:

And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel. (NASV)

The prophecy says that the end of Satan would come through a "Him" who would be born of a woman. Basically, the coming Messiah would be male. And like everything, we humans get a prophecy like that and what do we do with it? We take it to an extreme, so that over time girl babies are counted as literally nothing more than factories with the potential of making more male babies, in hopes that one of them might be the Messiah. But that wasn't God's intent, b/c of verses like Genesis 1:27 all the way to verses like Galatians 3:28.

If we assume that God isn't lying when He says He created the world. If He tells us this in the Bible. If we then realize that all religions are based off this first religion, then of course male domination will become a world-wide concept. I mean are there any cultures that prize girl babies over boy babies? And furthermore, the farther from God humans get, the more sinful this extreme becomes, the more male-dominated it becomes. Conversely, the female-dominated concept arises out of a desire to counteract this first problem, thus creating a whole new set of problems, both of which are not God's original plan. If we would just work together . . .

The Messiah being male is the best answer for the origin of chauvinism, b/c while all the other Biblical arguments can be accounted for after using our brains, you can't get rid of this one. There is no promise of a female Saviour, so human minds sacrifice the common sense of equality between the sexes for the "safe" answer of men being somehow more important. Listen to what we did: we decided to draw conclusions on the importance of all males and non-importance of all females from a provision that God made to pay for our sin. Great job, human race!

But what about all the laws and regulations that seem so much heavier for women than men in the Torah? . . . Well, for one thing, that's all a matter of perspective, b/c you could easily argue that men had even tougher laws. God gave laws b/c people weren't getting it on their own. I mean . . . look how much time went by from the beginning till God started "ordering people around" --a couple thousand years at least, so I don't think you can say that God wasn't being fair. After time, people harden their hearts, turn from God, and lead themselves into destruction, so God wants to put a stop to it, so He starts spelling E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G out in order that we would see His holiness and follow Him. So if we are stupid, then God has to use stupid words to (hopefully) make us smarter.

Plus, do you expect a holy God to just forgo His holiness? I mean, we need that holy standard. Look what we do with the "goodness" that we have? Imagine if there was no concept of holiness whereby we could measure wrong. This world is bad enough, but I would NOT want to exist in a world where there was no concept of goodness.

Women would really get screwed over in a place like that.

The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda Pt. 3

3. Woman committed the first sin.

Once upon a time, Eve ate the fruit first and doomed woman-kind to inferiority for all time.

Now let's look at the Bible.

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (NIV)

Now, if the verse ended here, we'd actually have a basis for saying that the Bible claims female inferiority, but GUESS WHAT! It doesn't end here. This is the rest of the verse:

She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam was right there the whole time. Now...let's think about this, b/c I've heard men and women alike who use passages like I Tim. 2 to say that women are totally to blame. I will get to I Tim. 2 in a second, but before I do consider this:

Adam did not for one second think that Eve was inferior to him. Remember an earlier discussion that Adam was overjoyed at her creation? Well, he definitely didn't think of himself as superior when she offered him fruit! He joined right in! Many people say this is b/c Adam loved Eve, and they criticize God for disciplining this love: that Adam would choose his wife's desires over his own death. How romantic.

This is an example of human "surface logic." (Hint: "Surface logic" ALWAYS starts: "What kind of a God would....") As in: What kind of a God would reward Adam's love for Eve with death? Well, for one thing...he didn't do it out of love. This is plain in verse 12.

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (NIV)

Adam had a choice. If he really loved Eve so much, then why did he blame shift? A man who actually loved his wife more than God would have taken the blame for her. But I really like his wording, b/c it is just so...human. He is ultimately blaming God! He does it in a progression. First of all: blame God b/c if He hadn't given me this woman, I wouldn't have done it. This is a huge slap in God's face, b/c Eve was made SPECIFICALLY for Adam's needs. God says she is, and Adam admitted it in Genesis 2. Secondly, he blames Eve herself--which is such a pansy (and definitely not loving) way of handling it. Then, finally he admits that he ate it, but he does it in martyr fashion. "I'm a victim of my circumstances!" basically. So...what is the logical answer? Adam knew exactly what he was doing--he bought the lie and ate the fruit despite the consequences. I mean...also notice Gen 2:16-17! Who did God forbid to eat the tree? Eve? No! He directly told Adam. In fact, Eve doesn't even enter the picture until verse 21!

Now...I suppose you could guess that at some point God told Eve the same thing...however...that's not exactly stated in the Bible. The Bible only records Adam being told. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. We do know that she knew about the command b/c of what she told the snake in Genesis 3:2-3.

2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,^(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" (ESV)

I've heard that Eve adds "neither shall you touch it, lest you die" on purpose. I'm not sure that she did--especially in light of passages like I Tim. 2 that say she was deceived. Maybe this is evidence of the earlier thought that she wasn't directly informed by God. Who knows. However, before assuming anything, realize that the Bible says that she was deceived in I Tim 2, so she probably wasn't purposely adding to the law so much as trying to be "safe" (or else Adam relayed the message wrongly...but that's assuming a lot, so let's drop it). Her perspective may have been that it is better to abstain totally--don't even touch it--let alone eat it and die.

This is very interesting for two reasons. First of all, realize that there was only one sin to be committed in the Garden. That means everything else was fair game. Things that we consider sins now in our fallen world, either were not thought of as sin, or weren't thought of at all, since there was no sin but one. I find this very interesting b/c it seems that the first "sin" was when Satan fell. In this sense, there were two "falls." One for the angels and one for man. However, the only "fall" that warranted atonement was the fall of man. Obviously, we as men are very different spiritually and have a completely different import to God than angels. Anyway...at some point that first "fall" directly influenced the second...however, the second fall didn't happen until Adam and Eve decided it would happen. They heard the lie. Eve was deceived by it, even though she knew the command and ramifications. Adam was completely conscious of it. They both chose to fall, but the fall didn't happen until they ate. The lie being told to them was not their sin. Their choice was their sin.

Second of all, we as Christians and non-Christians like to add to God's law all the time. Christians do this, like Eve (possibly), to be "safe," and non-Christians do this so they don't have to obey a God they can classify as unreasonable. For instance, Christians will take verses like Romans 12:1-2 and James 4:4 and then say that any contact with the world is wrong--that only going into "Christian Ministry," only having contact with Christians, and hating the world and everything in it is right. That is taking those verses to a sinful extreme. God says, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." There is a difference between "don't love" and "hate." We are not to hate and think ourselves better than the people of the world. We are to hate the sin of the world and realize we are capable of those same sins. Also, the people of the world can ONLY come to Christ through God's Spirit working. The way God has chosen for the Spirit to work is through people who wrote down His Word in the past and through people reading and sharing that Word today. If we shut ourselves off from the world in order to be "safe," we are disobeying one of the greatest commandments we've been given (Mr. 16:15). One cannot take a doctrine to the extreme and nullification of another doctrine.

Non-Christians add to the Bible so that they don't have to believe it. They quote those "Crazy Deuteronomic" laws out of context and then explain that there is no reason to follow any of God's laws based on the "unreasonableness" of Deuteronomy. Non-believers also point out all the contradictions in Christians themselves, call that "Christianity," and then reject God. However...this is flawed thinking. If a child gets hit by a car, one cannot blame the parent who warned and furthermore put him or herself in harms way on behalf of the child.

There is another reason we can't credit Adam for "loving" Eve so much that he disobeyed God. This is directly related to the problem with the "brotherhood of man" mentality. From the beginning, God's chief end for us has always been to glorify Him, not to glorify each other. Besides, the only true way of loving each other is to love God first. Then we are free to love others without regret. This is not God being selfish. This only makes sense. You see, if you love someone or something over God, you have just made them an idol. Think of how you should love a Being who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. The only form of love for that Being should be selfless, adoring worship.

If we love someone or something more than God, we have put that fallible being in a place of worship. This is misplaced affection and can only cause a painful life. Imagine when that person dies! Who do we become embittered against the most? God, of course. That's painful. The One we should have trusted the most, we now see as our worst enemy, all because we didn't love the person in the context of God, but rather we loved God in the context of a person. We can't see God's plan, b/c we refused to see it the second we idolized that person. When we love people above God, we focus too much on this life and not on the next. It is building a house with the roof at the bottom and the foundation at the top--it's not what we are made to do. If Adam had truly loved his wife, he would have loved God first and obeyed Him. If he had truly loved his wife, he would have stopped her hand as she reached for the fruit.

Now let's look at that I Timothy 2 passage. This passage seems to say that sin entered the world because women were too stupid to know better and so the serpent lead them astray, but man wasn't lead astray, so to punish women we won't let them be pastors, and we're going to make women shut up and get me a beer and the remote while I watch the game.

Okay okay okay...However...isn't that the basic idea we are so often told when this passage comes up? I've read commentaries that say basically, "Perhaps Paul was a bit of a chauvinist by our standards; however, if you look at how women were treated as a whole back then, Christianity actually treated them much better." That's kind of a load of baloney since historically women were well-respected in secular Roman culture. Furthermore, I don't buy that Paul was chauvinist at all b/c of the adamance of Galatians 3:28!

I also have heard many many theologians say that the reason Paul tells women to study in silence is because, of a few mouthy, overbearing women he had to deal with at the time and so Paul was fed up and just told all women to be quiet. However...that doesn't sit well with me either, b/c (1) the Bible isn't a place for opinion and Paul of all people would have known that (even when Paul says, "this is what I think" it's still in the inspired Word, you know?), and (2) I've heard PLENTY of mouthy disrespectful men nowadays, and I know that Paul wouldn't like that either because of what he says in I Tim. 2:8--which we can and should apply nowadays. I don't think we can just write it off as an archaism. Therefore, there has got to be a better interpretation.

Before we delve, remember in a former discussion about men's and women's strengths? Men's inward strength is efficient, linear thinking. Men's outward strength is physical strength. Women's inward strength is multi-perspective, subtle thinking. Women's outward strength is physical beauty. Keep these God-given traits in mind as we go through these verses.

8I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

Notice that hands are something that men use physically. This verse clearly shows that men are not to use them to fight. Instead, they should be used to the glory of God. What about men's inward strength? Should he assume the worst and get angry without listening to all sides of an argument? No. He should exhibit wisdom and fortitude.

Now...that covers the men's verse. The next seven verses instruct the women. So...why only one verse for men and seven for women? Well, if someone thinks linearly, you only have to say, "don't do this" and that's enough for them to deal with. What if someone thinks in layers? You probably have to explain things a little more so that they will get a good understanding of what you mean and why you say it. Interesting, b/c that's exactly how most women think.

9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Basically Paul is telling women to make the outside match the inside. If you are going to say you are a Christian, then people should be able to see it.

There are two extremes we need to deal with here. First of all, the obvious one is not to dress like a sex object. But also, notice there is nothing in this verse about dressing plainly. Modestly, yes...but what are the exact words? "with what is proper for women who profess godliness." So, is godliness true inner beauty? Yes. Is godliness plain and boring? No! So why dress like it? There is nothing wrong with being pretty, as long as women are doing it within the realm of modesty. Everyone's definition of "beauty" may be different within that realm, and that's fine, but you are allowed to be beautiful, Ladies! Just don't take it to a sinful extreme. That's all. Besides, cults and male-dominated false religions follow weird oppressive codes of dress for their women. Don't you think we should be different?

11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

First of all, let's realize that verse 11 says that women are to learn. Other translations say "study." This is important, b/c a lot of women use this passage as leeway to turn their minds off and just blindly follow whatever the menfolk say rather than inductively reasoning out what God is trying to tell them. God commands women to study and learn about Him. This is huge, and we need to keep it in mind when we get to verse 15. I'll tell you why in a second.

For now, let's cover these verses. I found something interesting that I hadn't considered before. Notice the last word in verse 11: "submissiveness." Until now I had thought that that word meant submissiveness solely to the men in charge of the church...however, that's not necessarily what it's talking about. It's talking about submissiveness to God. Let me explain this...is she learning about the men in the church or about God when she is studying? She is learning about God. So when she is learning about God, is she answerable to the men of the church or to God Himself? To God Himself. This is why she is in submissiveness to God. Just like verses 8-10 tell everyone that they are supposed to be in obedience to God. Of course within the church a woman should submit to the church's authority...but if she is studying about God...then she is submissive to God.

(Of course the passage in I Cor 14 says that women are not to speak at all in the church. The context is talking about tongues, however. So...if you believe tongues and prophesy are dead, then you definitely can't use this as a basis for women not speaking at all in the church. Tongues are another discussion. This blog is too long already.)

Now verse 12 and following is where many Christians believe God doesn't want women as pastors. That since women sinned first, they are being punished by not being allowed to preach. I have heard others who say that women are allowed to preach nowadays, and that this verse is only to be taken in historical context of the women at that time. Well...let's look.

If we read this verse by itself, it seems to say that under no circumstance should a woman speak or give instruction to a man; however, we would be contradicting other verses as we do that. Miriam was a prophetess. Deborah was a judge. Anna was a teacher in the synagogue. Eve was created to help and complete Adam. Priscilla had direct influence in the new testament church. Etc. It is true that men generally do the teaching; however, if women were not supposed to instruct at all, the women I just mentioned would have been recorded as unrepentant sinners, not the godly women they were. Think of Rahab. She ended up being a godly women, but the Bible mentions that she was a harlot--not a good thing. Also, Mary Magdalene is said to have been a woman of ill-repute at one time. My point is that the Bible shows sin for what it is. If Deborah had been sinning for being a judge, the Bible would have said it. However, she is painted as a hero and courageous leader.

Let's look at verses 11 and 12. I looked up the words in the Greek and the word "Quiet" doesn't mean "shut up," it means "not meddling in the affairs of others." "Teach" means "to teach" but it also means "to discharge the office of a teacher and act as a teacher." The word "authority" means "one who acts on his own authority" an "absolute master" or "one who exercises dominion over another."

What I am suggesting, and what I believe to be a better interpretation is that this verse is simply saying that a woman is not to be an autocrat. Let's think about this, though...when is a man ever commanded to have dominion over women? We are told that man is to have dominion over the animals. However, men are commanded to love their wives. Who is to have dominion over men? God. Who is to have dominion over women? God. Who has God made to be the leader in the family and the church? Man. There is a difference between dominion and leadership. God has both positions over us; however, in the case of the family and the church, only one person can make final decisions and God has given that position to men. He keeps the dominion position, because only a perfect Being should have absolute dominion over fallible beings. Neither men nor women have absolute dominion--and definitely not women, since men at least have been given the leadership position.

But why is Paul giving this warning to women and not men? Well, for one thing, he does give it to men in passages like I Cor. 7 and Eph. 5. However, in this case he is specifically warning women about being overbearing and authoritarian. He gives his reasons in the following verses:

13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

We've already discussed this "birth order" controversy from verse 13 in a past blog, so let's move on to 14 and 15. Here we see the point that I discussed earlier about Eve being deceived. Obviously, being a woman I don't like to admit that women could ever possibly be deceived. I generally like to think of us as free-thinking, wise individuals. However...think about this. Think of how many women are in church as opposed to men. 44% of women versus 32% of men. Why is this? I am venturing a guess here...but I think it directly relates to this passage. Women are more susceptible to convincing arguments. This is good when it comes to believing in Christ. This is bad when it comes to believing Satan's lies.

But wait! Doesn't this point out that men are stubborn and generally hate being told what to do, many times to their own detriment? The fact that only 32% of men are in church certainly isn't to their credit. This is unfortunate and true. However...if men and women do what God tells them to do, it is much better to give the leadership to the one who generally doesn't back down from their position as much. Of course there are weak men and strong women...but I'm talking about the norm. A leader should be the one who is built to protect rather than nurture. If someone attacks the family, say a robber or a molester, who does the family hide behind? The one who nurtures or the one who protects? There must be a leader and it makes most sense for that to be the one who is built to be the protector.

As Paul says in verse 15, women will be saved in childbearing. This is a very interesting choice of words, b/c it means literally bearing a child, but it also has the ramifications of nurturing and instructing that child. It doesn't mean that woman can only go to heaven if they have children. People who interpret the verse that way are ignoring verse 11 and the command for women to study--there would be no point for a woman to study if she was simply a baby-factory. Women are to learn about God so that when they have children, they can raise them the right way. It means that even though Eve messed up through being deceived, she was given the promise that through childbirth would come the Messiah who would pay for her sin. Also, she was given the job of raising godly children who would grow in God's grace.

I want to make a direct application of this passage with my own life this past Sunday. This past Sunday a woman gave the teaching in my church. At first, I had a problem with this, b/c I was thinking about how only men are supposed to teach. Then I realized that I was allowing society's tradition to overcome correct Biblical thinking. The head of my church is a man. Men lead my church...however, this woman was introduced to us by a man who told us that she had some very good points on the particular passage to be covered that day. Would it be better for a man to plagerize her research or let her speak for herself? She is not placing herself in the leadership of the church if she expounds on the Truth that the whole congregation agrees with anyway. If a woman is running her mouth and keeping men down and publishing her own agenda, there is definitely a problem...but...be careful...ask yourself...is it really right for men to do that either? Men should lead because Christ leads the church. Women should not lead the church, b/c the church does not lead Christ. But neither men nor women are the absolute leader. That position is reserved for God alone.



P.S.

Sometimes you hear people say things like, "If Adam hadn't eaten the fruit, there is a good chance that God would have just destroyed Eve and made a new woman for Adam." I find this hard to believe on the basis that once Eve ate the fruit, mankind had fallen. There was no going back. God couldn't and wouldn't have gone back on one of His promises! He said that if anyone ate of the tree, death would come to them. Sin would enter the world by any one person's actions. In a morbidly sick sense, it's to women's advantage that Adam did eat the fruit after Eve offered it to him, b/c...just imagine if Adam HADN'T eaten the fruit! Feminists, you wanna talk about male oppression?? There'd be NO living with men if Adam had left the fruit alone! Okay...so...that was just for laughs...I'm done...

Next: 4. God is referred to as "He."

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!