10-1-4. The Creation Of Man And Woman
The Bible repeatedly teaches that God is a real personal being; not a puff of Spirit somewhere in space (6). As a personal being, God has gender. We are left in no doubt as to what this is: “God the Father” can hardly mean He is anything other than male. The Angels are always described as male; and they are one of the most common forms of God manifestation. It could fairly be asked: ‘If God wishes us to see Him as anything other than male, why do we only read of male Angels?’. Jesus, the Son of God, was “the express image” of God’s person (Heb. 1:3)- and Jesus was male. Alluding to “the man” Adam, Jesus is often called “the man” (Zech. 6:12; 13:7; Mt. 26:72,74; Lk. 23:6; Jn. 19:5; 1 Tim .2:5), but never a woman; and never is there the implication that we are to see Jesus as sex-less or somehow both male and female (7). It is easily observable that feminist Christians are forced to reject the vital doctrine of God’s personality in order to escape from the conclusion that God is male. Further discussion of the maleness of God will be found in the consideration of ‘objections’ at the end of this study. God created Adam, the first man, in his image and likeness (Gen. 1:26) (further proof that God is male). The woman was taken out of the man, rather than both of them being created at the same moment (as the male and female animals were). This pointed forward to how Christ would be “before all things”, i.e. the rest of the church (Col. 1:17), in the sense that he was the firstfruits of the new creation. Christ is “before all things, and by (Gk. ‘out of’) him all things consist (as Eve was taken out of Adam, consisting of his rib)...who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that among all things (cp. Adam among all the animals) he might have the pre-eminence” (Col. 1:17,18 A.V. mg.). Because the “all things” of the new creation are made out of Christ, he has pre-eminence amongst us. Note that Adam named Eve, in the same way as he named the animals. This naming of someone or something usually reflects the authority of the name over what is named.
God has designed our experiences of daily life to be a constant reminder to us of these principles. “The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body...husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself” for its salvation (Eph. 5:23,25). Therefore, in some sense, the man has “pre-eminence” over the woman. The fact that “Adam was first formed, then Eve” is cited as reason for the woman learning “in silence with all subjection” to the man (1 Tim. 2:11,13). It is true, of course, that often a woman is a better spiritual influence on the husband than he is on her (cp. 1 Pet. 3:1,7, which concerns believing partners). But the point is that husbands and wives are expected to fulfil specific typical roles- the man as Christ, and the woman as the submissive church (Eph.5:32). Because of this, the woman does not teach the man: the influence she has upon him is through her example, “of a meek and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4). The Greek word for “quiet” is that used concerning women being “silent” in 1 Tim. 2:11. Thus the husbands “may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives” (1 Pet. 3:1)-i.e. it is not for wives to expound Scripture to the husbands, but to use the even more powerful tool of a way of life which is in accord with the word. What better definition could we want of ‘the sound of silence’?
1 Cor. 11:3 outlines a descending hierarchy: God, Christ, man, woman. “The head of the woman is the man” in the same way as “the head of Christ is God”. Whilst in some ways God and Christ have certain elements of equality, the Son is still ultimately “subject” to God (1 Cor. 15:28)- as the woman is “subject” to the man. The relationship between Christ and the church, and between God and Christ, is therefore the basis for that between man and woman (note that the same Greek words are translated ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as are rendered ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, as in 1 Tim. 2:9; 3:11). This idea of hierarchy (anathema to feminists!) is also found in the description of women as “under obedience”- ‘under in the arrangement’, as Strong defines hupotasso. The hupo prefix implies an inferior position. Thus the woman must wear a head covering in church meetings; she must have “power on her head” (1 Cor. 11:10). Strong’s Concordance defines the Greek for “power” as meaning ‘A thing subject to authority or rule...a sign of being under authority’. Christian feminists who argue for total equality between male and female have a hard time here. The “head” of the woman is the man, implying that the man has headship over the woman. The Greek root ‘kapto’ translated ‘head’ is not difficult to define, seeing it is found in a number of English words:
Tough Typology
In modern society, many women will be tempted to object to having to be “subject” to a man for the sake of living out typology. But men have a similar sense of unease at fulfilling their part of the typology: to imitate the love of God for His Son, and the love of Christ for the believers. It is probably true that few men appreciate the seriousness of what the typology expects of them, on account of their male gender: to manifest the love of the holy, peerless Son of God towards their sisters in Christ. Likewise, women too will find it hard to grasp the extent of submission which they should show to their brothers in Christ- again, on account of their female gender. Their difficulty is because human nature fails to fully realize exactly how responsive and submissive we should be to God and Christ; this is why women will understandably fall short of the extent of submission to men which the typology requires. Yet both men and women should strive together to fulfil the types. A woman formally teaching a man is surely a conscious denial of all the typology; no effort at all is being made to fulfil it, but rather the reverse.
So both men and women need to be more consciously aware that they are living out defined typologies. It should be noted that humanism, especially through the education system, mocks the idea of the sexes having different role-models. This is an outcome of believing that there is no relationship between a superior power and mankind; such atheism has led to the rejection of the idea that male and female relate to each other after the pattern of man’s relationship with God. The command for women to be silent is not just designed as a test of their submission to God’s word. Obedience to it flows naturally and easily from an appreciation of the typological reasons for it. These reasons are explicable by the many allusions back to the events of Eden. Thus 1 Tim. 2:11-14 says that the woman’s silence is because (“for”) it was Eve’s teaching of Adam which led him to sin. If a woman now teaches a man, it is as if that woman is committing the disaster of Eden all over again. similarly, “it is a shame for women to speak in the church”- the Greek for “shame” implying morally filthy. This alludes back to the man and woman walking in shame, as a result of Eve’s teaching of Adam. He was in the wrong for letting her teach him, the typology indicating that it is just as wrong for men to allow women to teach them, as it is wrong for the women who do the teaching.
Typology Teaches
God intensely values typology; it is what Scripture is largely comprised of. It is therefore intended as a teaching medium, to be taken as seriously as explicit commandments. We need to be aware that feminism ridicules this idea of living out typology according to gender roles.
A number of vital principles are taught to us by typology:
-
Gehenna as a place of destruction (rather than orthodox hell fire)
-
that Christ offered for both himself and us (based on the typology of the High Priest)
-
many of the Bible texts which teach us about the coming Kingdom of God on earth speak of situations which were typical of the future Kingdom (e.g. the time of the restoration, Solomon’s Kingdom, or Hezekiah’s latter reign).
-
the whole concept of redemption is typified by Israel’s redemption from Egypt
-
our understanding of the atonement is rooted in the typological teaching of the Mosaic Law (the whole letter to the Hebrews is proof of this).
Indeed, the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth is hard to explicitly prove from the Old Testament, without recourse to typology. Even Isaiah 53 initially describes the sufferings of Hezekiah, who was typical of Jesus. Thus Stephen’s defence of his belief in the Messiahship of Jesus rests largely on typology- e.g. the fact that Joseph/ Jesus was rejected by his brethren at first (Acts 7:13). However, our attitude to the silence of women does not just rest on typology- although that argument alone is conclusive. There are at least three lines of argument:
-
Explicit New Testament commands concerning the silence of women
-
Old Testament precedent. The priests- who were the ecclesial teachers under the Old Covenant- were male. The Law treated a wife as the personal property of her husband rather than hinting at total equality. There is no evidence that the New Covenant fundamentally changed the status of women.
-
Typology.
Notes
(6) For more detailed proof and discussion of this vital issue, see Bible Basics Chapter 1.
(7) It is significant that many of the men who typified Jesus are also frequently called “the man”, as if to point back to Adam, another type of Jesus, and forward to “the man Christ Jesus”. For example, Moses is called “the man” at least 5 times: Ex.11:3; 32:1,23; Num.12:3; Josh,14:6; and we know he was a type of Jesus (Dt.18:18). Likewise Joseph is called “the man” at least 10 times (Gen.42:30,33; 43:3,5,6,7,11,13,14,17).
