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. 4

1. God is referred to as "He."

Sounds logical, doesn't it? He is God the Father. There is no God the Mother...So God must hate women. Are women being slighted? No, this is not God trying to keep women under His very holy thumb.

This is something that I had to think about when I started listening to music by artists like Tori Amos. From her earliest albums, she has proclaimed this "Anti-Male-God of the Bible" stance. Look up the lyrics to her song "God" from "Under the Pink." This is a song from a very imbittered, searching-yet-rejecting young woman. I wish that she and people who think like her would just realize once and for all that it's the concept of a "male" God that they have a problem with, and that the Biblical God is not actually like that at all. Unfortunately, people confuse the Real God with this "made-up" god, and therefore reject the Real One. There is a reason God is referred to in masculine terms, and it's not b/c He hates women. I hope to point it out in this blog.

First of all, we need to keep in mind one important point. It may make sense that even though animals and people on this planet are male and female, God must be male or female or both. However, God is not any of those. The Bible refers to God as "He"; however, God is not actually a "He." The Bible says that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). ....However, this verse goes on further to explain God as "He"...so am I making a contradictory point? I hope not. Please let me explain.

First of all let me point out one even greater point: God CREATED male and female. (Gen. 1:27, Mt. 19:4) This means that He's not actually either one. He's not both. He's not a yin or a yang. He's just God. God is God. "I Am." WE were created with genders, b/c:
1.) Marriage is a picture of Christ and the church (first verses of Rev. 19).
2.) He wants us to reproduce (Gen 1:28).
3.) For companionship (Gen 2:18).

God does not have a gender. He is complete as He is...And even saying "complete" is not probably accurate. God has no needs, and if He had, He has already met them. So...why do we call God a "Him?" This is b/c He is our Father...and as a general rule, fathers are "he's," right?

"But isn't that circular reasoning?" you ask, "To call God our Father, you would also have to already assume that He is a 'He.' Besides that, why can't God be our Mother? Or...why not avoid gender at all and be an 'It'?"

First things first. Why is God not "The Supreme 'It'"? Simply this: God seeks to have a personal relationship with us the way a father has with his children. Think about it. Do you feel a particular personal closeness to electricity? What about gravity? Do you sit and chat with inertia? Um...No. If God were an "It" we would probably think of Him as a force of nature rather than Someone we can know on a personal level and furthermore talk to. That's the way we humans think. I mean...we have a hard enough time understanding the Holy Spirit as a "He." In our minds, a being is never an "it" unless you are talking about Science Fiction.

(Sub point: It wouldn't work if He switched genders (i.e. Zeus), b/c He must be constant--Someone we can trust at all times. Zeus was not trustworthy. People were warned against trusting him, in fact.)

So now we come to the ever nagging question: Why not "She?" Now, there may be many reasons. One that I've heard is that women sinned first and since God is all-knowing, He knew women would do it, so as punishment, He picked man. I hope that you can see by now that this is not backed up by Scripture, and if you can back it up with Scripture please do. Maybe I haven't read it all very well.

Another reason I've heard is that women are weak. In some ways, yes I would totally agree. However, in other ways, women are far stronger than men. That's not enough proof.

Another reason I've heard is that men are more logical and reasoning............yeah...........I will refrain for the purpose of, as a friend of mine puts it, "preserving the peace."

And the list goes on. Let me tell you the main reason I believe that a God--who is NOT actually a "He"--has revealed Himself as "He."

Okay...remember when I discussed the differences between the strengths of men and women? (see: http://andnarrowistheway.blogspot.com/2008/04/bible-chauvenist-propoganda-pt-1.html ) We are going to have to go back in time now to a few months ago, b/c . . . I've been dragging my feet with this "series" and so if you forget what I'm talking about, it's my fault for taking so long. Sorry for the delay.

Basically, I pointed out that men tend to be more straightforward and physically strong. Women tend to be more subtle and aesthetically beautiful. Both of these can be for good. Both of them can be for evil. However, they are for good in completely different ways and evil in completely different ways. So, with the understanding of men's and women's strengths, let's figure back into the equation why God would present Himself as a Father and not a Mother.

I find the answer simple. We can see why He didn't choose "She" already. Think of every goddess you know...Think of any of them that don't have to do with sex in some way. This is because when venerated to divine status, women become all-powerful sex-objects. In order to be close to a goddess, some sort of sexual rite or aspect must be performed or explored. Now, is God simply not "Mother" b/c He hates sex? Absolutely not. He created it, remember? But He wants a personal relationship with us, not a sexual one. He wants "Agape" not "Eros." Therefore He chooses to describe Himself as the gender that most fits that desire.

Let me explain. This is what Paul is referring to when he says that man was created in the image of God but woman was created in the glory of man. Men are easier for humans to venerate to positions of strength and authority--our little minds can wrap around a "Great Protector" as someone who wants our trust, that's the desire of God. Women are created in the glory of man, which means she is the desire of man. Sex isn't a ritual God wants from us. He doesn't require sex, b/c He created it specifically for a husband and wife. It's a special gift to us. (Incidentally, look what we do with it. Like everything nice we get from God, we abuse it in every way possible.)

This doesn't mean that women are more base or more sinners or whatever. It just means that in order to reproduce, God wanted us to be attracted to each other. This is probably why men are more attracted to what they see--b/c women are aesthetically beautiful and graceful, and women are attracted to what they hear--sweet words from a strong confident man (Oooohh...chills just now....but I digress...).

Now let's bring up the counter argument. First off, what about great rulers in the past who were women? Think of Elizabeth I. She was an exemplary national leader, right? Yes. She was also nicknamed "The Virgin Queen."....Think about it.

Also, Cleopatra was an Egyptian queen famous for her political dealings with Rome. . .and even more famous for her affairs with the leaders of Rome.

Secondly, What about Mary the mother of God? To some (not all) Roman Catholics Mary is "Co-Redemptrix" and almost equal with God the Father. Some would rather pray to her than to the Father or to Jesus, b/c she is "less threatening" and "more gentle." And, I suppose you could argue that to ALL Roman Catholics, Mary is not an object of lust . . . However, how did Mary even become important in the first place? Her reproductive system. I don't mean to be disrespectful. She was a very honorable person, but her importance in history comes from her distinctly female ability to reproduce.

There is some talk of Mary Magdalene as venerated (which really only happens in gnostic circles), but also with her: she receives this status b/c of having some supposed kind of "more than disciple, a la Da Vinci Code" relationship with Christ. Surely no one intelligent is still using the Da Vinci Code to discount the Bible anymore, are they?

Thirdly,...I know I know...there's some obscure goddess out there that you read about in college that wasn't sensual. Whatever. She was obscure. God doesn't want to be obscure either. God wants to be huge in our lives.

Of course, women can make good leaders and not have sex involved. Look at Judges 4 with the story of Deborah. Here was a married woman who was leading a very sinful nation of Israel. She was a prophetess and was instructed by God to tell Barak to go into battle against Sisera. Barak would only go if she went with him and as a result, Deborah prophesied that God would not deliver Sisera into Barak's hands, but into the hands of a woman. That woman was Jael who invited a tired, battle-weary Sisera into her tent and after he'd fallen asleep, drove a tent peg through his head....Something interesting to note: Would Sisera have fallen for the trap if the invite had been from a man? I guess we will never know. . .however, even if it wasn't a sexual invite (which there is no reason to think it was), it seems to make sense that a woman's invitation would be significantly less threatening, and therefore the the ONLY reason the ploy worked was because of Jael's feminity.

Even nowadays, sex isn't necessarily associated with female leaders. Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, etc.--Even if you don't agree with them politically, you must at least give them credit for being strong leaders. However, I'm not just talking about strong female leaders, I'm mostly talking about venerated women. When women are queen of a world leading empire or higher (as in goddess) their sexuality is always an issue. God is even more than that, hopefully we can begin to see why He chooses to represent Himself in masculine terms?

This doesn't mean that male gods aren't perceived as sexual, though. Many cults and sects and mythologies out there believe such (i.e. Zeus and Shiva...however they both changed genders whenever they felt like it...). It's just that, for female deities, sex is a major--if not main power. Think of the greatest human love you can experience...This is typically observed as the love between a man and a woman (if it's not, then why is Hollywood making so much money off it?). That closeness is great and wonderful, but that's not how we are to view God. If He made sex for us, He requires something else for Him, and so that means picking a relationship we can most define as: "not sex related." Father has much more the connotations to describe His character and how we are to view Him and honor Him.
Something important to notice: as God portrays Himself in masculine terms, He also portrays Himself in "un-masculine" terms as well. For instance, He is called "Wonderful Counsellor;" also, His protection is like that of a mother hen's; He sometimes talks in a still, small voice; He clothes the lilies; His eye is on the sparrow; "Prince of Peace"; "Lamb of God"; and the list goes on. He is not "being feminine" with these attributes, but likewise He is not a "male" Father. He just is. And we are to understand that we are to have a deep relationship, devoid of sex, with Him.

That's basically what it comes down to. Man was created in the glory of God. God's love for mankind is agape. Woman was created in the glory of man. The love between a man and a woman is eros. God doesn't want eros with us. He wants agape.



Okay, I want to clear up a seeming contradiction before I go on. It seems I am saying two different things. First, I'm saying that the Bible is not chauvinist--but at the same time, I'm admitting that women were viewed as second class citizens by early humanity. I'm actually not contradicting. The fact that humans messed it up since the beginning of time, just happens to be recorded in the Bible--but that wasn't God's plan. That is exactly what I'm trying to figure out...WHERE did society get the idea that men were better than women? ...Read on.

Last installment: 5. The hint of the prophesied Messiah.

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. 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?...