Biblical Femininity

I was recently challenged to put together a few points of instruction that I would give to my daughter on how she should act in the world. I don’t have any daughters, but I’ll give it my best shot, nonetheless.

First, I would want my daughter to understand that she is created in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The concept of being created in the image of God is so important to any human being, male or female, because it sets us apart from the animals both in our dignity and our value. There have been those throughout history that have argued that women are less valuable than men in the same way that they have argued for the inferiority of different races of human beings. This cannot be argued from scripture. Both man and woman were created in the image of God. Because of this fact, I would want my daughter to understand that she is valued in God’s eyes every bit as much as her brothers are. This is foundational for accepting the rest of scripture's teaching on how women are to interact within a Christian society.

The second thing I would want my daughter to know also comes from Genesis. Genesis 2:18 says "Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” The text goes on to show that no helper could be found for Adam amongst the entirety of the animal kingdom, so God caused Adam to fall asleep before taking one of his ribs and forming it into a woman. The interesting thing about the text is that God gives Adam a job to do well before he creates Eve. Adam is to work the garden and to keep it. He also names all the animals. Eve is then created as a helper for Adam. The job belongs to Adam, but Eve is tasked with helping him to accomplish it. I would want my daughter to find a husband who she would be willing to help. The greater responsibility in a biblical home falls to the husband and father just as the greater responsibility for tending the Garden of Eden fell on Adam. I would hope that my daughter would be willing and able to come alongside her husband as an encouragement and a helper for him.

The third thing I would want my daughter to understand is that she is to be submissive to her husband. This is demonstrated in a number of biblical texts, the first of which is in Genesis 2:23 where we read "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." How exactly does this demonstrate wifely submission? Adam is told to name all the animals. This is an act of dominion. He names every creature he is to be in charge of under the terms of the cultural mandate found at the end of Genesis one. His act of naming Eve is a demonstration of his authority over her. Furthermore, we read in Ephesians 5:22-23, "Wives, a submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is  himself its Savior." That being said, I would want my daughter to know that this does not mean that every woman is to submit to every man. Every woman is to submit to her husband as the king of his household. However, I would want my daughter to know that it is her responsibility to choose her king. There are those who would take issue with the word "king" being used to describe a man within the context of the household. I think the terminology is acceptable because Adam was the first king and his relationship with Eve is paradigmatic for marriage. Also, 1 Peter 3:6 says that Sarah called Abraham lord. I seems to me that there are parallels between the word "king" and the word "lord" when applied to men in Scripture. I think the terminology is useful because it demonstrates the importance of a man's job within the household and reiterates the fact that responsibility for success and failure rest on his shoulders. However, I'm content with the terminology of "head of household" which we see in Ephesians 5. Of course, I would also want my daughter to understand what kind of a man would make a good king. That is a subject for another article.

Fourthly, I would want my daughter to know that it is a wonderfully Godly thing for her to be a mother. In Genesis chapter two, Adam calls is wife woman because she was taken out of man. In Genesis chapter three verse twenty, he calls her Eve because she is the mother of all living. The Bible describes children as a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3-5). I would want my daughter to understand that the role of a wife and mother far exceeds any job she might be told that she should seek out in the workforce. This would not exclude a money-making cottage industry if the Lord would bless her with the time and the talent to start a home business. The Proverbs thirty-one woman was described as both watching the affairs of her household as well as participating in money-making enterprises. In the world we live in, women are often looked down on for not partaking of the “bounty” that feminism has laid before them. I would want my daughter to understand that her first responsibility is to her husband and his household and that in fulfilling this responsibility, she can find true joy and fulfillment.

Finally, I would want my daughter to understand that church leadership has been given to the men just as household headship has. First Timothy 2:12-14 says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve;  and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Now, we can argue about what exactly is meant by the phrase she is to remain silent. However, that is not the focus of this paragraph. I think the main thrust of the text is that women are not to be the teachers and authoritative figures in a church body. Arguments for cultural hangups fall flat here because Paul grounds his commands in creation. He says that Adam was formed first and bolters his point by bringing up the fall. He points out that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn’t. I wouldn’t want my daughter to give up the joy of serving God in the position he has given her because she is pining for authority within the church body. I think applications from this text can be further made within the home. The family is the fundamental political establishment. If men are to be the spiritual leaders within the church, they are also to be the spiritual leader within the home. 

There are a couple final points I want to make. First, we live in a fallen world. In an unfallen world, there would be no tension between husband and wife, or parent and child. Every man would be the perfect benevolent king over his little kingdom and would live a self-sacrificial life which would garner the respect and admiration of his wife and children. Every woman would be perfectly submissive to her husband and would never desire to usurp his authority within the home. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an unfallen world. No man will be perfect in his leadership and no women will be perfect in her submission as his helpmate. Genesis 3:16 tells us that a woman’s desire will be contrary to her husband but that he shall rule over her. I think this verse predicts issues on both sides of the relationship. Not only will a wife desire to control her husband, but her husband will lord his authority over her in an unbiblical way. I would want my daughter to be prepared for the issues she would face living in a fallen world. However, even in a fallen world, the original design still stands. When asked about divorce in Matthew 19, we read Jesus’ response.  “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,' and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Even in a fallen world, God’s standard still stands.

Second, I recognize that this article assumes that my hypothetical daughter would get married. I think that is the norm especially within Christianity. I recognize however that some women are called to be single. This does not devalue her in society. It will be harder in some ways to exercise biblical femininity but, she can still or if I got outside of the context of marriage and motherhood. I would recommended to my daughter that she seek out a career that will benefit from the maternal instincts that God has ingrained in her. This would make the medical field or childhood education very easy choices as these jobs mesh very well with the maternal instincts to care for the sick and wounded and to teach the young. I'm not saying that these are the only two careers that I would want my daughter do pursue outside of marriage and motherhood. It's hard to be comprehensive when discussing a purely hypothetical situation. There are careers that I would strongly recommend my daughter avoid but I think that is a discussion for another time.

Ultimately, it's important for us to remember that God created US male and female and he made us different from each other. There are specific roles that men were designed to fill and specific roles that women were designed to fill. You can theoretically use a garbage truck to pick up kids and drop them off at school and a school bus to haul trash but it's better if you use each vehicle for the purpose it was designed to fulfill. The complimentary nature of the male/female dynamic is a demonstration of God's wisdom and his love for us.

Caring for the Poor and Needy

 There is a long tradition amongst Christians to give of their incomes to the church. This is biblically mandated by God in the Old Testament as a way of providing for the Levites. The Levites were the tribe of Israel that was in charge of the temple of God and did not own property as the other eleven tribes did. One might be tempted to think that tithing is no longer necessary as we no longer live under Old Testament law. However, Jesus specifically said in Mathew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. For this reason, we still bring our tithes (ten percent of our income) to the church.

However, the Bible talks not only of tithes, but of offerings. Offerings are monetary gifts given to God through various means that go above and beyond ten percent of one’s income. It is often through tithes that Christians take care of the costs of keeping a church open. It is through offerings that they reach out to those in need in their communities and in their lives.

Offerings can be given directly to the church and distributed through a church’s benevolence funds. This is a perfectly acceptable way to offer of one’s resources to the Lord. However, there are many people in the world in need of help who may never darken the doors of a church. That is where believers have the opportunity and responsibility to give of their resources on their own.

There are many good reasons for a believer to give above and beyond his required ten percent. Caring for those who can’t adequately care for themselves is something that has always been important to God. Deuteronomy 15:11 says “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore, I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy.” God acknowledges the poor in the land and explains his system to care for them. Ephesians 4:28 says “Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.” We are encouraged to work with our hands so that we have the resources to care for those I need.  In Galatians 6:2 we are commanded to “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the law of Christ.” It’s not just a suggestion that we carry each other’s burdens. It’s the law.  Hebrews 13:16 admonishes us “Do not forget to do good and share with others, for with such sacrifices, God is pleased.” It pleases God when his children care for each other.

However, we’re not just told to care for the poor and needy just because it’s important to God, although this would be reason enough. Hebrews 6:10 tells us that “God is not unjust, he will not forget your work and the love you have shown Him as you have helped His people and continue to help them.” Showing kindness to others is a tangible way of serving God. He draws a direct parallel between our service to Him and our service to others. Matthew 5:16 says “In the same way, let your light shine before others that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.” This verse tells us that the people we serve will draw this same parallel. They will look at our good deeds and glorify God as a direct result. Matthew 25:35-40 really brings this home. “’For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes an clothe you? when did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The king will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” In the following five verses, we see the other side of this equation for those who did not help with verses 44 and 45 saying “they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me.’”

There is a third aspect of giving which Randy Alcorn explains quite effectively in his book The Treasure Principle.  Luke 12:33-34 tells us to “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail. Where no thief comes near and no moth destroys for where your treasure is there your heart will be also.” You can’t take your treasure with you, but you can send it on ahead. Luke 6:38 says “Give and it will be given unto you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” We are to give generously of what we have been given and God will reward our faith. Proverbs 19:17 corroborates this point by saying “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He will reward them for what they have done.” Proverbs 22:9 continues this point with “The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor.”

However, in Philippians 2:3-4 we are warned “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests, but each of you to the interests of others.” Our motivation matters. If we are giving out of a desire to be rewarded, our motivation is wrong. James 1:17 reminds us that “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like the shifting shadows.” Nothing that we have belongs to us. It is only in our possession thanks to the generous nature of God. It is important for us to remember that we are but stewards of God’s resources. Give credit where credit is due.

James 2:14-17 really ties all this together well. “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed.’ But does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” Our giving is a direct indication of our faith. We only hold tightly to what we have if we don’t trust god to give us what we need. We have the massive blessing of being the executers of God’s estate. We get to be the channels through which God blesses those around us. We get to give freely from God’s storehouse and watch Him change lives.

So, the natural response to such a realization is to consider how the present-day church is doing in regards to the poor and needy. How are we caring for the widows and orphans? I am sure that there are many churches that are working very hard in this area. A 2017 article on Christianitytoday.com titled How Many Churches Does America Have? More Than Expected cited a 2012 National Congregations Study that stated that the U.S. had 384,000 congregations. I doubt very much that all of these churches are taking the Poor and Needy mandate seriously. My primary evidence for this statement is the United States Welfare System.

I firmly believe that the safety net system we have in our country would be completely irrelevant and altogether unnecessary if Christians in America were fulfilling their responsibility to their fellowman. I specify Christians here, not the church in general. The church can and should participate in caring for the less fortunate in her respective communities, but God’s plan for caring for widows and orphans starts with the family unit. Every family is responsible to care for their own. First Timothy 5:8 says, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” In circumstances where there is no family infrastructure to care for someone in need, it is certainly appropriate for the church to step in. However, the church’s primary responsibility is to facilitate spiritual growth for believers.

There is also something to be said about the priorities for giving. I think the Bible indicates that we should care for fellow believers before we care for strangers. John 13:34-35 says “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. ³⁵ By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” If we don’t care for each other, we send a mixed message to the people to whom we are witnessing. While our existence is certainly more than our physical needs, it is not less than our physical needs.

So, “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:4) “Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to act.” Proverbs 3:27) “Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.” (Romans 12:13). And “…Anyone who has two shirts should share with one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” (Luke 3:11)

One final thought, often we wonder how much of our resources we should give to those in need. C.S. Lewis addresses this point in his book Mere Christianity and I don’t think I can express it any better than he. “I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditures on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc., is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are far too small.”

Do Different Interpretations of Genesis One Matter?

 We’re going through the book of Genesis in our adult Sunday school class at church. There are a lot of different issues that come up in a verse-by-verse study of Genesis. The first hurdle we have to clear is how to interpret chapter one.

There are a few different interpretations in circulation at the moment. The first is the Young Earth interpretation. This interpretation holds that the earth is somewhere between six thousand and ten thousand years old depending on whether we take the genealogies in Genesis to be open genealogies or closed genealogies. Open genealogies have gaps between the individuals listed. Closed genealogies do not. Some genealogies should be taken as open, and some should be taken as closed. The other identifying characteristic of this interpretational matrix is that the universe was created in six literal 24-hour days as is indicated by the text. This view holds that in Genesis 1:1, God created all the matter in the universe and that he formed and organized it in the following verses.

The second interpretation is called the Gap Theory. The gap theory shares the interpretation of the days of creation with the previous view but does not hold to the idea of a young earth. Gap Theory suggests that there is a gap in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 of about 4.7 billion years. The idea is that Genesis 1:1 tells the story of an initial creation of the entire universe and Genesis 1:2 begins the account of a second creation. Why is there a need for a second creation? Good question. According to Gap Theory, the rebellion of Lucifer takes place in between the first and second verses of the chapter and all life on earth was destroyed. Genesis 1:2 is when God starts his creation for the second time to restore the earth to its former glory. This interpretation attempts to explain why the earth appears to be old.

The third interpretation is Deistic Evolutionary Theory. This theory was held by none other than Charles Darwin. It suggests that God created the earth and the primordial goo from which all creatures evolved. Under this interpretation, the six days of creation are symbolic lengths of time that represent different stages of evolution. The Day Age view is consistent with this interpretation. There is an additional theory called Progressive Creationism. I have not given it its own category because I struggle to distinguish it from Deistic Evolutionary Theory.

Finally, we come to the Big Bang Theory and secular evolution. This theory doesn’t take Genesis into account at all, so I will not be spending any time discussing it except to distinguish it from Deistic Evolutionary Theory. I will say that the Big Bang Theory, apart from the evolutionary aspects, is consistent with Genesis in that all matter was created in an extremely short amount of time. However, the Biblical perspective is that God spoke everything into existence whereas the secular position is that the big bang was spontaneous or self-caused.

I hold to the first position. I think it’s the most straight forward interpretation of the text. Gap Theory requires us to insert something into the text that has no independent collaboration outside of the theory itself. Deistic evolution seems to be an attempt to accommodate the scriptural teaching to the scientific theories of the day. The one thing a Young Earth Creationist must answer is how to explain the apparent age of the earth. There are a few responses. First, God is capable of creating the earth with apparent age. He created Adam fully formed. Creating the world with the appearance of age does not make him deceptive because he told us in scripture how he created the universe. Second, much of the earth’s apparent age can be explained by the catastrophic effects of the great flood. The fossil record in particular can be explained by this. The arguments about the scope or historicity of the great flood will have to wait to be addressed in a future article.

So, the question is, does this really matter? There are otherwise faithful Christians who hold to any of the first three interpretations of Genesis 1. I listen to teaching from people who hold all three of the deistic positions. They have a lot of good things to say, and I find their work to be very valuable. It’s clear from history and personal experience that God can draw straight lines with crooked stick and we’re all crooked sticks. I have been asked if I would require a pastoral candidate to hold to a young earth position. This is a good point. I would say that it depends on the alternative position. Each one of these interpretations requires a different hermeneutical standard. (Hermeneutics is simply the interpretation of language and is used mostly in regards to scripture.) The Young Earth position basically takes the scriptural account in the most straight forward manner. The Gap theory requires inserting a very large event into the text. Deistic evolution effects a person's view of man.

So, I would prefer to sit under the teaching of a Young Earth creationist. I would not disqualify a Gap Theorist. However, I do think I would vote against a pastoral candidate who holds to deistic evolution. Here’s why, the theological ramifications of any evolutionary theory are too great. Scripture teaches that man is created in God’s image. How do we account for that if man is simply a more highly evolved animal? There is a clear differentiation in scripture between animals and humans. That’s why we can eat animals, but murder of humans is punishable by death (Genesis 9:3-6). Furthermore, the cultural mandate was given to man not to animals (Genisis 1:28-30). To believe in evolution is to call into question God’s special creation of man and man’s special status as God’s image bearers and vice regents on earth.

Another issue with any interpretation that includes evolution relates to federal headship. The Bible teaches that all mankind is fallen in Adam. This means that we inherit our sinful nature from Adam. This not only explains why every person, with one exception, is sinful, it also explains why salvation can be procured through the death and resurrection of one man (Romans 5:12-21). If Adam represents the group of people who finally evolved from Neanderthals to homo-sapiens, we are not all fallen in one man. If we are not all fallen in one man, we cannot be redeemed in one man.

If a man is willing to accept these theological contradictions to scripture, I don’t want him to be my pastor. I would be willing to partner with him on other issues. I wouldn’t necessarily question his salvation based on his interpretation of Genesis alone. However, I would be concerned with how he interprets other scriptures that do relate directly to salvation issues. To be fair, I would be concerned that a Gap Theorist might be inclined to insert things into the text that are not necessary or appropriate. We should recognize that Young Earth creationists might miss some of the poetic passages in scripture and interpret them as the wrong genre.

The fact of the matter is, the Holy Scripture is God-breathed and we’re human beings. We’re going to struggle from time to time, but not all mistakes are equally dangerous. In my opinion, a Young Earth interpretation of Genesis will set the reader up for the most consistent understanding of the Bible as a whole. If you get the foundation straight, the rest of the house is more likely to look like the blueprints intend.