Women (Part 1) - The Creation Accounts 7/29/08

Why a study about women? In many conservative Christian circles, the mere mention that we are undertaking a consideration of women in ministry may be met with disapproval. “The Bible is clear,” so they say. Even merely looking into the issue is considered by some to be teetering on the edge of heresy.

But surely this must be an overreaction, isn’t it? We are not discussing biblical inspiration, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the penal substitution, the resurrection—all vital doctrines for which denial would warrant a charge of heresy. We are discussing women in the context of biblical Christianity. And any issue discussed within that context, and holding fast to the vital doctrines (especially, in this case, to the inspiration and authority of the Word of God) should lead to a better understanding of Scripture and, therefore, a better relationship with our Lord.

Part of the nervousness in discussing an issue like this, I believe, is that it has been viewed one way by orthodox Christianity for so long. But there are differences in our world today. Many of the ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene church fathers bantered about ideas such as whether women were made in the image of God and some even whether they had souls. From that mindset it is rather easy to see why the five New Testament passages, seemingly limiting women’s roles in ministry, were accepted so readily on face value. There was a reason (e.g., women were not made in God’s image) leading to the conclusion deduced from the limiting passages that women were not fit to occupy roles of leadership in either the home or the church. As views changed over time, reformation leaders no longer doubted the souls or image of women, but still were convinced that women were inferior with regard to intellect. Therefore, the pattern held—a reason (i.e., gender-wide lack of intellect) led to the conclusion deduced from the limiting passages that women were not fit to occupy roles of leadership in either the home or the church. Again time passed and again views changed. In our current time, most Christians (scholars included) view women as equal to men not only in the possession of souls and the image of God but also in intellect. But this equality in “being” has altered the pattern previously relied on. No longer is there a reason of “being” that leads to the conclusion that the limiting passages regarding women prevent them from occupying roles of leadership in the home and the church. And that is why some conservative Christians want to revisit God’s revelation with regard to this issue.

Surely if the Bible dictates the limitation of the roles of women in church and home, biblical Christians must embrace such a view. But the impetus toward the study is the bewilderment of why God—most significantly a God of reason and purpose in all His undertakings—should make such an unlimited, unending decree without purposeful Godly reason directing His choice. In other words, is the traditional assumption of the limitation of women’s roles in actuality biblical? Could we have missed something? These are questions that should drive any true child of God back to the Bible, searching the Scriptures with vigor to know God certainly. And so we start this study.

Our study is not about radical, secular feminism. Women’s rights is not the motive force. Understanding God, knowing His Word, endeavoring to increase our love relationship with Him are the purposes for which we study. So, then, how do we get started in this discussion? Certainly, we know that the New Testament includes some passages directly related to the issue. First Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 have some pretty plain statements that women are to keep silent in church. First Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 tell us that husbands and/or men are heads of their wives and/or women. But then Galatians 3 argues that there is no more man and woman distinction in Christ. Our predispositions in approaching these verses often influence our first-sight understanding. So let’s take one more step back. What influences our predispositions? Culture? Tradition? Historical perspective? All of those are certainly true. We should look at culture—both ours and that of the biblical context. We must consider tradition, both inside and outside the church. Are the tensions between men and women that come to light in an analysis of history man-made creations or established by God? This, I think, is the core question with which to begin. If God, from creation, established specific roles in which the man and the woman should function, then we should probably see these as essential to maintain.

Three possibilities exist in which, if the scenario proved true, a hierarchical order in male-female relations could be perceived as ordered by God from creation. The first possibility for a hierarchical order would require that the creation accounts show that one gender has more intrinsic worth than the other. The second possibility for a hierarchical order would require the Scriptural text to state specifically or demonstrate God’s intent of the authority of one gender over the other. The third possibility in recognizing a God-ordained hierarchical order is if the order of creation implies order in authority.

Let’s look at the creation accounts. The first is in Genesis 1:26-31. From this passage we learn that God did indeed create humankind in His image—both males and females. The structure of the passage, in fact, indicates equality in image-bearing. Furthermore, the passage goes on to charge both the man and the woman together with dominance over the rest of creation.

The first creation account is chronological—intent on showing God’s power in creation. God is called Elohim in this account. Elohim means God of power. His name changes as we begin the second creation account in chapter 2 verse 4. Here God is called the Lord God (in English) or Jehovah Elohim (in Hebrew). This name means God of power and perfection. The difference in names, I believe, refers to the focus of the chapter 2 creation account. In this account, God is emphasizing the perfection or completion of His work in His image-bearers. Notice the reversal of emphasis. In chapter 1, vegetation and animals were created first. In chapter 2, the focus is on Man (capitalized here to refer to generic man or humankind) with the creation of vegetation and animals mentioned as purposed for Man. The reading of verse 5 almost sounds as if Adam was formed before vegetation. Likewise, verse 19 almost sounds as if Adam had been created before the animals. But the reason for this is focus, not chronology. The first section of the second creation account (vv.4-7) shows God’s particular perfecting power in Adam’s creation. Verses 8-17 detail God’s provision for Man within the rest of creation. Finally, verses 18-25 show God’s perfecting power in establishing the unity of Man in the image reflection.

This third section discussing the unity of man and woman is interesting in its progression. God doesn’t somehow notice that Adam appears lonely and, therefore, decide to give him a partner. God’s pre-creation plan is to complete Man through the male-female creation. Suddenly in the text, God brings the animals before Adam to name. Again, this is no mere curiosity by God concerning what Adam would do. God intentionally teaches Adam that the rest of creation—the creation that he will rule over—is not fit for the soul-entwining union He has planned for Adam with his partner. That being done, God forms the woman from Adam, and immediately Adam recognizes the oneness with her, crying out in soul-charged awe, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman (Hebrew – isha), because she was taken out of Man (ish).

Notice then the next two verses. God inserts in verse 24, not a description about this event—for Adam and Eve had no mother and father—but rather a principle established for all time. God tells us that the husband-wife relationship is the strongest human bond established—even stronger than parent-child. This principle sums up or concludes this section on the unity of the man and woman in creation. This principle is what we take from this section—not a hierarchy of authority, but rather both an emphasis and established principle on the unity in creation, image, and purpose that God has endowed.

Returning now to our three possibilities to demonstrate hierarchical authority, the first one relied on the creation accounts showing that one gender has more intrinsic worth than the other. Our review did not show this. In fact, the creation accounts demonstrate equality in being—both in the bearing of the image and the unity expressed during the woman’s creation.

The second possibility for a hierarchical order would require the Scriptural text to state specifically or demonstrate God’s intent of the authority of one gender over the other. Certainly the Scriptures do not specifically so state an order of authority. Furthermore, the joint charge to rule over the rest of creation argues against any demonstration of the authority of one over the other.

The third possibility for a God-ordained hierarchical order of authority is if the order of creation implies order in authority. Although Paul, in Romans 5, provides some reasoning for Adam to be a representative for all humanity based on being created first and all humanity (including Eve) issuing from him, nowhere do we see this as a rule for Adam to be an authority over Eve or any succeeding generations. The creation of one person before another does not imply authority. For another example, the Bible never refers to Noah as an authority over succeeding generations. But even if created order implied authority (which it does not), there is even less implication that this authority would relate to gender. Why would I, as a man, have authority transferred to me based on the mere fact that Adam was a man? There is no connection of order given to a class (such as gender) based on an individual’s creation prior to another’s. Animals, as a class, were created before humans, but we certainly don’t understand an implied authority based on that order of this class distinction. The implication of authority in gender just isn’t there.

Thus, the creation accounts show equality of being between man and woman in both creation and image and also unity or oneness in being. This does not give final conclusion on role relationships. Our next discussion will include more points (arguments) about the creation account that traditionalists (sometimes called complementarians, hierarchicalists, or patriachalists) offer. We will also begin our discussion of the Fall and the curse.