|
Women are Not the
In my view, this is preposterous, but it's also my view that this is exactly what the Bible teaches. |
|
Woman is Made from Man, for Man The LORD God
formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward
in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.... And the LORD God
said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help
meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD
God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought
them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air,
and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help
meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead
thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman,
and brought her unto the man. And
Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be
called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:7-23) God created man first, and gave man life by
breathing God's own breath into man's nostrils. Woman's life was not
initiated from something from God, as was man's. Her life began not with God,
as was man's, but with man--his rib. Why did God not breath life into her,
too, so that the both lives could have begun with God's breath? The answer
would seem to be (the writer thought), God thought more of man, so he gave him
life by giving something of himself—his breath. Woman was apparently almost
an afterthought, and received life from something of the man, not the god. God Made the Woman Defer to the Man God brought the woman to the man in the exact same
manner as he brought the animals to man; man wasn't taken to the animals; neither
was man taken to woman; it was the other way around. Clearly, God regarded
woman as subservient to man as were the animals, otherwise the Bible writer
would have described bringing the two persons together; that's not what he
said, though; the woman was taken to the man, in the manner of introducing an
inferior to its superior...the slave to its master...the subject to its
king. Those who fervently believe or hope that the Bible
does not teach that man is superior to women insist that God paraded the
woman before Adam just as he'd paraded the animals before him to highlight
woman, to make the contrast between the animals all the more stark to Adam.
In other words, "Just stay right where you are, Adam; you haven't
seen nothing yet." This "explanation" is just far too
imaginative; the god most Christians believe in is not a ringmaster who has
to worry about pleasing the crowd, nor is he like a used-car salesman
who first shows the customers the cars with all the dings before
he shows them the one he really wants them to buy. What is far
more plausible is the explanation just provided: God's writers were communicating to the reader that
the woman was taken to the man just as were the animals because she, like
the animals, is inferior to the man and subservient to man. This message wasn't lost on the evangelist Paul,
who, hundreds of years after the creation stories were written, told
church members to remember that woman was made for man, not
the other way around (1 Corinthians 11:2-9), and
that woman must never teach men because it was the woman who was tricked by
the serpent (1 Timothy 2:11-12) and
then, in an attempt to lead man--to teach him--led him to a state of
sin. Never again must a woman be allowed to teach a man, is what Paul
was teaching. Adam Named the
Animals, and He Named the Woman God brought animals to man to see what he would
call them, and after Adam decided what to call them, that was their name,
period; thus, Adam named the animals. The word "call" (Hebrew:
qara, "kaw-raw') in this verse unambiguously means
"naming." In the same manner, God also brought woman to man, and
man said she should be "called" woman; this is the past tense of
the same verb ("call") which is used in the immediately preceding
verse where it was used to mean "name"; thus, it clearly means
"named" in reference to the woman. Thus, the context shows that the
words "she shall be called woman" show that Adam was NAMING her, as
is the prerogative of he who is superior. Furthermore, the qara' shem naming
pattern is not used in the naming of Ichabod: "She named [qara' ]
the boy Ichabod" (1 Samuel 4:21); why must we assume that the use of
qara' in reference to Eve does not represent a naming?
Evans seemingly ignores the evidence that points to the plain reading
of the text, which is that Adam was naming Eve, not--as some have
suggested--merely making an exclamation,"Look! A woman!". Evans further argues that "woman" is not
the proper name which the woman would eventually be given, so Adam is not
really "naming" this being in the formal sense, but this ignores
the most straightforward interpretation provided above, that Adam assumed for
himself the right to give this being the descriptive title which she would
carry with her forever, even if he didn't actually call her Eve...yet.
But I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ
is God.....For the
man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man
created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11:2-9) What wonderful symmetry this represents; the
message of inequality remains intact for thousands of years, from God in
Genesis who tells us that woman was made for man, not vice-versa, to the
evangelist Paul, who repeats the message: man is the head of the woman.
One couldn't ask for anything clearer than this; if there's anything certain
in the Bible, it's this: Woman is not the equal of man, and she's to
remain in a subservient position, in part because of her role in
causing the fall of man. God wanted his Bible writers
to echo in their writings this message from the garden, and
they did not disappoint him.
Some prefer to believe that when Paul says that
Christ is the "head" [kephale] of every man, and man is the
"head" [kephale]" of the woman, he doesn't really mean that
man is the boss of women, but is instead the "source" of women, in
the sense that the "source" of Eve was Adam's rib. But, no
matter whether Paul meant for us to think of man as the head of woman, or the
source of her spiritual growth--just as God is the source of the man's
spiritual growth, the result is the same: Woman is dependent on man. We take
a close look below at all of the instances of the use of the word kephale.
Instead, speaking the truth in
love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head [kephale],
that is, Christ. (Ephesians 4:15)...And
he is the head [kephale] of the body, the church; he is the beginning
and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have
the supremacy (Colossians 1:18)...and
you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head [kephale] over
every power and authority (Colossians 2:10)....He
has lost connection with the Head [kephale], from whom the whole body,
supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes
it to grow. (Colossians 2:19) The word kephale could mean either
head, or source, or both, in these four verses. Jesus, as the son
of God, is of course a source in the sense that he is a spiritual
provider--he provides the guidance by which spiritual growth can occur; this
is obvious. However, the feminists cannot have it both ways: Paul said that
"woman is not the kephale of the man. If they want us to
accept that Paul meant that the man is now the source of spiritual
growth for women in the same sense that Jesus is the source of spiritual
growth for mankind, they must explain why they don't think Paul would
therefore--by their reasoning--be teaching that woman does not have the
ability to be a source of spiritual growth for the man. Thus, no matter how one looks at it--even if one
allows kephale to mean "source", not "head,"
the feminists still lose: They have Paul teaching that women are
dependent and therefore inferior--they are unable to do for man that which
man can do for woman: be a source of spiritual growth. Once again,
then, the message is that man is superior to woman. Woman Was Created to be a Better
Helper to Man Than the Animals We also need to note that the animals were
described as potential helpers for man, not equals, but Adam found not one of
them to be satisfactory. Then God makes the woman, and the clear message is
that this creation would be a satisfactory helper for man; thus, woman is a
"helper"--an assistant human, so to speak, not an equal. Note that in constructing a helper for man,
God doesn't take part of any of Adam's life-providing essential organs--such
as heart, or lungs--to build Eve; he takes only a simple rib--a bone.
The symbolism here is clear: woman is not as valuable as man.
Next, the woman is delivered or paraded in front of Adam just as the
animals were, and Adam gave her a name. The obvious message from the writer
of this story is that woman is inferior to man. Bruce Waltke, in his article, The Role of Women in Worship in the Old Testament, notes [If God had] intended democracy
he could just as easily have formed Eve and Adam at the same time and have
said, "it is not good for the man or woman to be alone, I will make them
to be helpers suitable to each other." If he wanted a matriarchy, he
would have formed Eve first and created the husband to be a suitable helper
to his wife. However, he created a patriarchy in which the husband has
authority. Thus, if equality were the message, one would
expect some kind of reciprocal statement by God about Man being the suitable
helper for Woman, something like, "man is the helpmeet of the
woman". God is all-knowing, so he would have known that we would argue
about this, so if he had wanted his writers to communicate to us that woman
was the equal to man, reasonable persons would conclude that he would have
made sure to tell his writers to write the reciprocating, parallel statement.
God didn't do that, and the straight-forward, most reasonable
conclusion--when the rest of the evidence is counted--is that the Bible
writers wanted us to know that woman was the servant of man. The Word "Helpmeet"
Doesn't Mean Eve Has Divine-Like Helping Skills Some feminists insist that the Bible writer wanted
us to know that woman was equal to man because the word the writers use for
"help" (Hebrew: ezer) is used in several places to show what
God does for mankind, so God was telling us, they say, that woman was an ezer
to man in the same way that God was. However, this is just an unmet
hope: the word "ezer" (Strong's Number 5828) doesn't always
mean help in a near-divine like sense; it has a quite ordinary meaning in the
following verses:
Other hopeful Christians have argued that woman
being created last makes her God's crowning creation, but that's silly
because if the order of creation mattered, the second creation story tells us
that animals were a more important creation than man, since they were created
after man. Man is Like a God to Woman St. Paul says "the head of the woman is the
man," meaning that the women are to be subordinate to men. He orders
wives to submit themselves to their husbands "in every thing" as
though they were gods. Once again, we see that women are expected to
defer to men. To make perfectly sure that we would know that he's
describing a hierarchy, Paul tells us (below) not to forget that the woman
was made for the man, not vice-versa. The woman is told to submit to her
husband in the same way she does to the Lord. There's no reciprocal
statement about man submitting to his wife as he does to the Lord.
Why not? The answer, given all of the evidence already presented, is obvious:
Man is superior to the woman; man and the Lord are each to be revered by
the woman. No message in the Bible is clearer than this one. Now I praise you, brethren, that
ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to
you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the
head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.....For the
man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man
created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (1 Corinthians 11:2-9) Wives, submit yourselves unto
your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For 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. (Ephesians 5:22-24) Woman Isn't the Glory of
God--Man Is For a man indeed ought not to cover
his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the
glory of the man (1 Corinthians 11:2-9) Paul states that man is the glory of God, but
pointedly fails to say that woman is the glory of God also. Why not? If
Paul wanted readers to know that
equality and reciprocity existed between man and woman,
he surely was smart enough to know he should provide
a reciprocating statement such as, "SHE is the image and glory
of god, too," but nowhere is such a statement to be found.
Why not? Because no Bible writer--and that includes Paul--thought
women were the glory of God, that's why. Is it any wonder that many
people believe the Bible teaches that the woman must defer to the man,
that she is not the equal of man as far as God's concerned? If God
wanted the Bible readers to know that woman is honored by God as much as
man is, he would have said so. The many examples in the Bible which show the
writers believed woman was inferior confirm emphatically that the message in
Genesis from God was heard loud and clear by all of the church fathers. Women are to Keep Silent and Learn from Men Women are commanded (below) by Paul to be
silent in church and to be obedient to men, and if they want to learn
anything, they're to ask their husbands; after all, Paul implies, the woman
made the really big mistake--not man...she was the one who was deceived, not
Adam. One thing's for certain, says Paul: the woman who tried to
control Adam--to lead him--is responsible for the state of sin we're
all living in; she tried to assume the leadership role then, when she
had him taste that fruit, and just look at the trouble we're in
now. I absolutely forbid women to ever lead man again; women must not
be allowed to teach man. Blaming women for the fall of man, and assuming
that women are not bright enough to make informed decisions, is just what one
would expect from men--and gods--who believe that women are inferior to men;
it's also what one would expect from anyone who accepts the teachings in
Genesis, where we find God's writers telling us that the woman was
created from man to be just a helper to man. It sort of reminds you of
the modern-day cloning of body parts to be used as replacements. In
Adam's case, part of him was cloned and to create a being which would make it
possible for him to reproduce himself. Let your women keep silence in
the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will
learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for
women to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)...Let
the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam
was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived was in the transgression. (Timothy 2:11-12) Women are Stereotyped as Tattlers and
Busybodies If a widow has no one to take care of her and is
under the age of 60 years, the people shall not take care of her because it's
to be expected that she will marry again. Furthermore, such women can
be expected to be busybodies and gossipers, because (or so the Bible writers
apparently believed), that's just the way young widows are. Thus, Paul,
alleged to be the founder of Christianity, is seen stereotyping women negatively.
Is this the attitude of a man who believes that women are his equal? Now she that is a widow indeed,
and desolate....Let [her not] be taken [care of] under threescore years
old..... [these] younger widows... will marry...And withal they learn to be
idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers
also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. (1 Timothy 5:5-13) No Righteous Women? The Bible says that moral and
righteous (upright) men are hard to find, but it's even harder to find 000
down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round,
both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto
Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night?
bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door
unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do
not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man
[4] ; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is
good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing...(Genesis 19:4-8) Moses and the Virgin Girls Moses, as described in the Old Testament, was a
Hebrew prophet and lawgiver who led the Israelites out of Egypt. Not so well
known, however, is the fact that after his army conquered its enemy, Moses
ordered the captive male "little ones" killed, as well as all of
the women who weren't virgin; the virgin "women children" were to
be kept by his men as a prize of war. And they warred against the
Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males....And
the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their
little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks,
and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and
all their goodly castles, with fire. And they took all the spoil, and all the
prey, both of men and of beasts. And they brought the captives, and the prey,
and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation
of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by
Jordan near Jericho....And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women
alive?...Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that
have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31:7-18) If Moses was indeed a "servant of god",
as the Bible says, then this story shows that God's servant approved of
collecting virgin girls as spoils of war for use by his soldiers; this is not
the attitude of one who respects womanhood, or of a god who values women as
much as men. Beautiful Women are War Booty
Moses doesn't say in this particular passage what's
to be done with the women who aren't found to be "beautiful", but
it was made clear above (Numbers 31:7-18) that
it's permissible to kill the ones who weren't virgin. If the passage
below are truly the words of a man inspired by God to write these words, a
man who the Bible says is a "servant of god", then it's clear that
God viewed women as not much better than objects. There are other
places in the Old Testament where the writers make it clear that God
didn't approve of the actions of certain people, so if the omnipotent God
didn't approve of what Moses did, surely he would have known that we would
wonder why he didn't tell his Bible writer to tell us that he
disapproved; the Bible writer doesn't say this, so the conclusion we must
reach is that God approved of Moses' actions. When thou goest forth to war
against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine
hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a
beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to
thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave
her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity
from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother
a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband,
and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her,
then thou shalt let her go. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) Woman Needs Husband's Permission for Contracts In the passage below we see that the Old Testament
writer--some believe it was Moses--makes it clear that agreements entered
into by the wife can be cancelled if the husband disapproves; once again, we
see that Moses, a "servant of god" (Revelation 15:3), places
women in a subservient position, presumably with God's permission. Once
again, man is the master of the women; the woman has little control over her
life. "If a woman living with her
husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath and her
husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then
all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand.
But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none
of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has
nullified them, and the LORD will release her. (Numbers 30:10-12) All Are One in Christ Jesus
|
