A Principle We Hate

Scripture is clear ... from the start. In the Garden, God made Adam and then made Eve. He made Eve from Adam (Gen 2:21-22). And, He made her as "a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18). Thus, men are "the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" (1 Cor 11:7-9). And instantly we're at war, aren't we? "That's sexist!" "That demeans women!" "That is totally unacceptable." And, of course, "That's not what it means!"

Setting aside the cultural, modern, emotional response, is that what it means? Or are some narrow-minded ancient men simply lording it over women and this was never intended? It is unavoidable that Genesis says God made Adam first, then Eve. It is unavoidable that she was described as a "helper fit for him." It is unavoidable that the rest of Scripture continues to hold to this hierarchy despite all our wishes to the contrary. So "The head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3). Not ambiguous; not unclear. "God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says" (1 Cor 14:33-34). There was no stutter, no question, no room to maneuver.

So is Scripture inherently misogynistic? Nothing could be further from the truth. While Genesis 2 indicates that Adam and Eve were made for different roles, Genesis 1 is abundantly clear that both were created in God's own image (Gen 1:27) giving both the same inherent value. It is foolish to argue that differing roles offers differing values. God refers to Eve as a "helper," but Jesus refers to the Spirit in the same way (John 15:26). That doesn't imply that the Spirit is less important, less valuable, or less ... in any way. Indeed, Jesus Himself came to serve (Mark 10:45), so serving is not the definition of "less." Beyond this, in Isaiah God compares Himself to a mother (Isa 66:12) and in 1 Thessalonians Paul compares himself to a mother (1 Thess 2:7). If the Bible was inherently misogynistic, this would be ridiculous. Indeed, Paul specifies that in Christ there is "neither male nor female" (Gal 3:28), indicating that the relationship between Christ and men or women is the same. Peter warned husbands to treat their wives well as "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). To fail to do so would hinder their prayers. So, biblically, God planned for men to have particular roles and women to have particular roles, but both (both men and women and both sets of roles) were of equal value and equal use.

Why all the furor, then? Why can't we just "get along"? I suspect it is rooted in the Garden. I suspect it is rooted in sin. The Scriptures say that Eve was deceived and not Adam (1 Tim 2:14). The Scriptures say that Eve "took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). What we have here is a failure of Eve to follow God's instructions and a failure of Adam to guard his wife. As a result, God told Eve, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you" (Gen 3:16). That desire toward her husband was to rule her husband as a consequence of sin (cp Gen 4:7). Thus, from the beginning of sin, this struggle of women to rule over their husbands has been ongoing. It's wrong, but it's real.

So, what's the problem? Why don't we believers just bow and say, "Yes, Lord"? Why do we fight this line of thinking? From all appearances it appears to be entirely cultural. As far as I can see God's Word stands in direct contradiction to today's perspectives and, therefore, must be wrong. So Christians are explaining why it is that 2000 years of Christian understanding on the topic was wrong and we've figured it out. Christians are telling us that Paul was mistaken or our understanding of Paul was mistaken. They even tell us that Jesus was mistaken in His treatment of His mother because of this issue. Brothers and sisters, how can these things be? We seem unwilling to stand on God's Word as sufficient or authoritative and are, happily, relieved to find that culture can trump Scripture when culture is more comfortable. We Christians are opting to side with a world that hates God because, after all, they know better. And those who stand on God's Word as accurate and sufficient are considered haters and sexist ... which, by definition, would include God if carried to its logical conclusion. So which side are you on?