Before I start writing my post about Genesis, I want to copy an essay in the Bible commentary book I'm reading so that you can read it too. The book is called Zondervan Handbook To The Bible, and the essay is written by Claire Powell.
"The 20th century saw great changes world-wide in attitudes to the status and role of women. Education of women was one of the keys to opening new spheres of opportunity in the workplace, and in giving greater respect to work traditionally done by women.
A change of perspective on the Bible was also needed, not because women relate to God or see the Bible differently from men, or that all women think the same way, but because, until recently, almost all Biblical interpretation has been by men.
In secular culture and in the church, masculinity had become the norm of what it means to be human, and it was an easy step to marginalize, however unconsciously, the contribution and significance of women. Theologians had focused mainly on God's dealings with men, including as of most importance in theology and Christian history the things which men do, while women, their roles, faith, experience and interests took a back seat. Both women and men grew used to learning about faith from Biblical examples of men like Peter, while examples of women like Mary were subconsciously labeled 'for women only.'
It therefore benefits the whole church, women and men, to value the experience of faith through women in scripture, to recover the forgotten importance of women in the history of the church's mission, and to redress an imbalance where women and the feminine have tended in the past to be marginalized in translations of the Bible, in theology and in the church.
Genesis begins with the fact that men and women are created equal in the sight of God and each other. The creation of both is pronounced 'very good' (Genesis 1:31). Woman is created out of man, not to show subordination,, but to show that she is like him rather than like the other created beings, and to show the interdependence which Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 says is forever characteristic of the human race: 'In our life in the Lord, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman.'
Trouble between man and woman does not begin until disobedience brings about humanity's 'fall' in Genesis 3. Then, instead of the mutuality and complementarity of Eden, rivalry and competition begins. From Genesis 4 onwards, it is played out in fulfillment of the prediction that the man would rule over the woman (Genesis 3:16). This was not God's ideal, but part of the inevitable consequences of the fall.
If Genesis sets the scene, the drama is played out in the story of salvation in the rest of the Bible. there is no unequivocal command in the Old testament about the position of women, yet men are seend to prevail, assume power even in religious life, and the women seen rarely to be seen or heard. what is recorded is most often in the form of descriptive narrative. the question posed by this is whether the narrative asserts God's will for the roles and status of men and women in every culture for evermore, or simply describes what was happening at the time (in the same way as, for example, polygamy or slavery), which is for us to learn from , by emulating what was good, but correcting what was not. Scripture records many things that it does not advocate!
Is the Bible itself more biased toward men than women? And is patriarchy (in its widest sense, the system of men in power) justified by the very text itself? Is God treating women this way? Much more likely, what we find described is how women's status, function and experience fall short of God's ideal of equality. there are sufficient indications in the text itself that this is so.
Although much of the history focuses on the activities of men, even so, the women are there and play important parts. Leadership is not restricted to men. Both Deborah the judge (Judges 4) and Huldah the prophet (2 Kings 22) take responsible roles of leadership which are not commented on in the text as exceptional in any way. Instead they are respected.
The fact that most leaders were men represents the developed patriarchal culture of the time. there is no divine mandate for it. Women were excluded from the Old testament priesthood, but so were many of the men! And the New Testament presents us with a priesthood of all believers, male and female.
In the Old Testament, circumcision was the sign of belonging to God's covenant people - a sign physically performed exclusively on men. But with the birth of the church came a new sign of belonging. Baptism was physically inclusive of men and women, Jew and Gentile.
In the New testament Letters there is every indication that any restrictions on women apply within a specific culture and context. Where the particular details of a 1st century situation differ from ours, it is the principle behind the teaching which is properly binding for the all time. Thus, when Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2 that women should not teach or have authority over men, he is addressing a particular problem of false teaching and wrongful authority in Ephesus. In such a context the women were to stop what they were doing.
the abiding principle for today is that women are forbidden to teach what is wrong, but therefore not forbidden to teach what is right! In this they may function as an object lessen for men, too, just as examples of men are usually understood as applicable to women.
We know from Acts and the Letters that women were prominent among the leaders in almost all the earliest house-church groups. Lydia was a leader in Philippi; Phoebe was a deacon in Cenchrea (Romans 16:1); Junia (the majority manuscript evidence points to Junia as a woman) was an apostle (Romans 16:7).
Believers are told by Paul to teach one another (eg. Colossians 3:16) and no caveat here bars women from teaching men. Priscilla is on record as teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26).
The New Testament lists of giftings (eg. Romans 12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4) do not specify gender at all. Given the patriarchal culture of the time, it is not surprising that men in leadership outnumbered women, but this is a description, not a blueprint.
One indication of this may be seen in 1 Timothy 3:2, where someone must be the 'husband of one wife' to qualify as a bishop. This could point to a necessity of being married, to a monogamous marriage or, most probably, to purity and faithfulness within marriage. Where the likelihood is that most leaders would have been men, and almost certainly married, this functions as a regulation for the known situation in Ephesus,, not a future prohibition for all women or single men! 1 Timothy 3:12 uses exactly the same stipulation about deacons, yet cannot mean that all deacons are to be men, since Paul calls Phoebe a deacon in Romans 16:1. Biblical leadership and responsibilities in the church are to be based on character, calling and Christian commitment, not gender.
Many people hold a mental image of God as male, or at least somehow more male than female. this is largely due to the images of God in early art, and to the description of God as 'He' and 'Father'.
Deuteronomy 4:15-16 reminds Israel that God is without form. they were not to make graven images (or presumably to form mental images) of God as either male or female. Male and female are biological differences in created humanity. Both sexes equally reflect an image of the Creator.
In languages which do not have an inclusive pronoun, either masculine or feminine must be used to reflect the fact that God's nature is personal, not impersonal. 'It' will not do. The use of 'He' for God points to god as a person. It is nothing to do with sex (that which is biologically determined) or gender (that which is socially described).
In recent years the female images of God in Scripture (such as birthing, or providing food) have been rediscovered. So too has the use of feminine terms for God, eg. the holy Spirit and wisdom in the Old Testament. Both masculine and feminine grammatical labels are used, but do not necessarily thereby convey being or essence.
There has also been progress in recognizing the social masculine bias inherent in many languages and the consequent marginalization of women - pushing them to the side, ignoring them, or regarding them as atypical of human experience. This is not the Biblical view. In the past, where God was seen as male, the fallacy lay in seeing male as more like God.
Jesus brought in no revolutionary movement to overturn the male dominated Jewish culture of his time. Yet he clearly broke with the norms of his day. He taught women; discussed theology with them; accepted worship from them; elevated their position in debates on divorce; and touches ritually 'unclean' women. these are not major by today's standards, but they were noticeable then, and they pushed out the boundaries of what was acceptable. This paved the way for his followers to do the same.
In the past, the fact that Jesus was born as a man was seen as giving greater status to men. If the point of the incarnation is 'God made male', then redemption of women is in doubt, or at least secondary, and jesus is better represented in the priesthood by men than by women.
But the Bible nowhere makes the maleness of Jesus a point of comparison,, only his humanity, which is common to both women and men. And the New Testament clearly teaches a priesthood of all believers; all believers; all are able to approach Jesus and all are able to represent him on earth.
In the incarnation Jesus represents a model of humanity, not of masculinity. Women, as much as men, may find their pattern in Him and follow His example in every respect."
No comments:
Post a Comment