When I was running construction crews one thing that came up constantly was that a couples kid was sick, it was almost always the husband that got sick and had to stay home with the kid and most of the time, the woman who was also sick , ended up still being the one to go to work. There are not any women that work in the section I work at currently at my job, but we share a break room with another plant and they are about 50/50 men and women, and every week at least one guy is out and the women are almost never out and when they are, it’s because of a school calling about their kid. I don’t think the entire time I’ve been there a woman has called out for being sick. But we’ve had guys leave because they ate too much at lunch.
For what it is worth, when Jesus calls God Father the assumption seems to be that Heis referring to the patriarchal, authoritaria
n Father, but when Jesus calls out to His Father in the Garden the Hebrew word He uses, before it is translated into Greek, is Abba, which is closer to Dada or Daddy, that is the language of a baby, who only knows the love of new parents. Abba-Father is relational word of Love more than anything else and marks a break with the Jewish understanding of God as the Patriarch.
Mark 14:35-36 (NIV2011)
35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him.
36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
Or not.
2 Likes
The Stephen Young handout is pointing out misogyny in antiquity, not endorsing it. I just stumbled on something similar from Allison today:
These writings, nonetheless, do not annul the fact that what Josephus says about female testimony lines up with much in rabbinic sources, or that he can offer his disparaging stereotypes about women without apology, as though they are obvious. It is, furthermore, easy to collect similar disparaging remarks from Greek and Roman literature in general.244 Male society in the New Testament period strongly tended to view “women as inferior to men,” and “prejudice against women was widespread, and no record remains of any sustained protest against it.”245 The generalization includes Jewish and Christian circles.
And the footnote:
4 Note e.g. Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.8 (“Most women…cannot be induced by the force of reason alone to devote themselves to piety, virtue, and honesty; superstition must therefore be employed”); Plutarch, Mor. 113A (the feminine is “weak and ignoble”); Tacitus, Ann. 3.34 (“the weaker sex”); Gaius, Inst. 144 (“the ancients required women, even if they were of full age, to remain under guardianship on account of the levity of their disposition”), 190 (“common opinion” has it that women “because of their levity of disposition are easily deceived”); Juvenal, Sat. 6.508-591 (a passage about credulous women who revere soothsayers, astrologers, and so on); Diogenes Laertius 1.33 (Socrates was grateful that he was born a man instead of a woman); and Celsus in Origen, Cels. 3.44 ed. Marcovich, p. 186 (this associates women and children with the stupid and silly). Mona Tokarek LaFosse, “Women, Children, and House Churches,” in The Early Christian World, 2nd ed., ed. Philip F. Esler (London/New York: Routledge, 2017), 385, notes, regarding Celsus, that he reproduces “a generalization in the ancient Mediterranean that women and children were susceptible to superstition and easily duped.”
Much of the Bible sits quite well within this misogynistic framework and any positives of Jesus and Paul were quickly stamped out by the later misogyny written in the latter’s name.
Or maybe because you are a woman (if I may assume your gender) reading it in a modern society through a feminist lens a with a correct view on gender equality but an incorrect view of the inspiration of scripture so you have to force the Bible to say and teach things it doesn’t? The proper context for these passages are all the other similar passages in antiquity. That is proper exegesis. Interpreting it in a way that doesn’t allow it to say what modern society does’t want it to despite the plain sense of its words is eisegesis.
In what letter or church is false teaching not an issue? An author writing in Paul’s name says:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.
Why? The created order.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
How shall she be saved? Through repentance and the blood of Christ?
Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:12–15 (NT)
How on earth can you not get “women are inferior” to men out of this? The Bible says what it says here and the worst part is this text comes much later than real Paul. You can polish or spin it anyway you want. There is certainly some progressive material on women and things like slavery in the Bible but nothing besides a few passages moving in the right direction is there to radically challenge them just as Jesus racially challenged so many other things. We get disputes over plucking grain on the sabbath and rules about food, but no wholesale treatment or rejection of misogyny or slavery? Just regulation of it at best. The most radical passage on slavery is masters being told to treat their property nicely. A step in the right direction but I am not championing this as a bastion of morality. We have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to force a redemptive trajectory hermeneutic into the Bible on women as well. It works for some parts but doesn’t work for others. To claim the Bible consistently does this as you did is demonstrably false. This passage here is not progressive and it as bad as it gets. Its also one of the latest books to be written so there is certainly no linear or progressive revelation on this issue going on over time where God is slowly molding hearts. There is a complete about-face in this passage undermining a more egalitarian Jesus and Paul before it.
And if you want to be contentious about this, remember there is no other practice in the Church of God.
Vinnie
I think there are very plausible interpretations of such passages that don’t suggest an inherently inferior position of women.
I have heard exegesis of 1 Timothy 2 , i.e., “being saved through childbearing” explaining that the Greek does NOT say “being saved by childbearing” (does not imply a causal relationship). Rather the woman’s health and life will be preserved as she goes through the process of childbearing. (mortality of women during childbirth was a very common fear in those days).
And the reference to the Genesis passage (I personally don’t interpret Genesis as though there are a literal/historical 2 first people)…but the text narrative indicates that God first communicated his command about the tree directly to Adam, who (presumably) passed along this info to Eve second-hand. Thus, Eve may have been more “gullible” to deception by Satan in the story because she, unlike Adam, had not heard God’s word directly. In the similar sense, women in the 1st century had been denied the direct (or Rabbinic) training that men had received so may have been more gullible to false-teachers. As first generation believers they were still uneducated in theological matters. This passage in no way needs to be construed as a Pauline teaching that women have inherently lower IQs than men.
Personally, I think that Paul is telling those particular uneducated and vocal women of the first generation converts to “hold your horses and take time to learn the teachings well like a good student”. Note that Paul commands the women to learn which is something that would have been formerly denied to them in that culture. Whatever the meaning, it seems not to be a universal (“woodenly-interpreted”) prohibition of Paul against women speaking in public per se because in other passages in the NT, women are mentioned as also prophesying/teaching.
No doubt, however, that the early church seemed to have lost sight of such egalitarian theological seeds fairly quickly as history progressed into the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and as it adopted formal ecclesiastical structures and teachings that soon reflected the patriarchal cultures of the time.
3 Likes
Abba was not a childish term of the nursery comparable to “Daddy.” It was a polite and serious term, yet also colloquial and familiar, regularly used by adult sons and daughters when addressing their father. Ideas of simplicity, intimacy, security and affection attach to this household word of childlike trust and obedience. So to bring out the sense of warm and trusting intimacy that belongs to the word, we could appropriately paraphrase it as “dear father.”
Abba and Father have different connotations. Father is more formal and dignified. Marray Harris says that “Daddy” or “Dad” is not a good translation for Abba, but I would say that that is a matter of opinion. Still he is correct in saying that Abba indicates love and closeness that “Father” does not.
- Jesus always addressed God as Abba, loving Dad. In the time of Jesus, Abba was used by grown up as well as very young “children,” similar to Dad in my experience, although maybe you use a different word like “Poppa.”
3, Matthew 18:1-4 (NIV2011)
- At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus told His disciples that they must love Abba as a child to enter the Kingdom of God. Abba God is about a love relationship, not gender or power or authority.
How can Harris or anyone else tell us not to do what Jesus did and told us to do?
I need to improve the above as its a little bit misleading.
A baby’s sex is determined at the moment of fertilization. Out of the 46 chromosomes that make up a baby’s genetic material, only 2 — 1 from the sperm and 1 from the egg — determine the baby’s sex.Week 2 (for Parents) - Nemours KidsHealth
The fact is that our gender is 100% determined at fertilization… that must be remembered, we do not make some kind of evolutionary morph into one gender or the other after fertilization. It is the development of testies etc that takes place in the womb at a later point
The correct wording is as follows:
All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes. Sex Begins in the Womb - Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health - NCBI Bookshelf
1 Like
I don’t wish to create a scene here, but honestly, how on earth did a question asking about how God created gender end up a lowering itself to this level?
The lady who first posted asked a genuine question, few of the answers were spiritual ones and now it has descended to this.
I have intentionally refrained from any kind of YEC input on this question because i saw a Christian who is clearly in crisis post a very important question that needed the support of like minded faith.
I am really disappointed to see her topic corrupted by the kind of nonsense that is now front and centre here. I honestly think moderators should have removed posts that detract from the importance of her question. You should not be allowing the gender superiority debate here…I believe it is offtopic to this question. It is also a dangerous element to discuss when discussed inappropriately from a position of scripture. I have read a number of posts above that seem to come from a premise that God initiated inequality in women and men. That is 100% false and not at all what the bible says. I think it also very important to recognise, God did not physically write the bible, humanity wrote it. They were inspired to write, however, their own cultural influences are obviously included. We are not robots…even those who scribed the bible.
Who here has advocated gender superiority? For me personally, I simply pointed out what various scripture passages say and provided quotes from other ancient authors to provide context for them. Is quoting the Bible wrong?
The Bible most certainly has patriarchal themes and comes from this perspective and even teaches and/or assumes it in a quite a few places. In others there is a redemptive strand towards a more egalitarian outlook but in no sense does the Bible consistently teach modern gender equality. It certainly does attempt to argue for male-gender superiority in parts. I just disagree with the ancient authors behind those particular verses.
Vinnie
You did not really say anything different from what I stated. Nothing was said about people morphing from one sex to another. I mentioned that we are all essentially female morphologically until the Y chromosome activated. If it was never activated you would be born with anatomy most likely similar to what we view as female.
And none one was really advocating superiority. Just bringing up the way it’s connected to this discussion. Everyone here , at least the bulk of those who has been here for a few years, are very much aware that humanity was involved in the writing of the Bible.
In your claim, male and female could easily be viewed as a random evolutionary process…however, according to the biblical model, God created them male and female.
These are two very very different perspectives. If you are a Christian, you cannot possibly make the claim male and female came about as a result of a random evolutionary event. A Christian must take the view that God intentionally determined male and female. It was an act of intelligence, not random mutation. My bias is that if one heads down the pathway of random evolutionary process for this (male and female), one immediately also starts down the theologically impossible pathway of a God who is learning (which is antibiblical)
Ok. Now you’re getting into something that’s different.
Let’s begin with this. You are not a mouthpiece for god. You’re not a mouthpiece for Christianity. You’re probably not a biblical scholar, a theologian or a scientist. So you’re really in no position to tell me what I must believe. You’re a person with an opinion just like I’m a person with an opinion. So don’t confuse your musings for mine and definitely don’t confuse it for God.
So I am a Christian, and I’m a Christian who has been a Christian for over a decade and I’m a Christian who enjoys reading the Bible and enjoys reading
Biblical literature by scholars, theologians and pastors in a wide range of subjects. Anything I believe, I’m more than comfortable defending with scripture. I don’t just read books by those in my circle of belief, but I read books by authors I don’t care for about subjects where we greatly disagree. I was born in a family that was fairly conservative in most southern Bible Belt ways. For a large portion of my life my views were fairly conservative.
As for scripture.
The verses you are referring to are in genesis correct?
Genesis 1:27
New American Standard Bible
27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
So what does this mean? Is the point of the verse just two genders or just two sexes? Is it about what they look like? Does God have genitalia and if he made both sexed after him…. Then which does he has? Both? I imagine even you realize that’s probably not what it’s about.
Maybe another verse, being treated in the same way will help illustrate the point.
Genesis 1:20
New American Standard Bible
20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
So right there, just like it says he made men and women, it also says he made birds of the air? Does that mean the only birds are those that can fly in the air? Did Satan create the penguins and ostriches? They are birds of the water and birds of the ground? Is the point of that verse that the only birds god created are the birds that can fly and the non flying birds are what…. Byproducts of sin or something?
Another verse to consider.
Matthew 19:12
New American Standard Bible
12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
It lists three types of eunuchs.
-
Those who were made eunuchs.
-
Those who chose to make themselves eunuchs.
-
Those who were born eunuchs. So what’s this? Do you think this is probably intersex people? Were these also made in the image of God?
I will address each part of your response separately…i will start with the above paragraph here
“You are not a mouthpiece for god.” (God…god is not deity in the Bible)
“You’re not a mouthpiece for Christianity” why are you here exactly? Are you here for learned expositions of scripture or to discuss your views with individuals who also have views and perhaps obtain insights through such discussing that perhaps you had not thought of before? (i am here to investigate other beliefs that differ from my own and offer my differences. I learn a lot from being here because others challenge my beliefs…i don’t get angry about it, otherwise i wouldn’t be here would i?
“You’re probably not a biblical scholar, a theologian or a scientist.”
I studied a bachelor of Education Secondary degree at university in the 1990’s. My major field of study was Industrial Technology and my minor field of study Design. As part of that university training, i was required to undertake studies in education, religion and philosophy. The religion because it was a Seventh Day Adventist University and philosophy because we studied various other religions other than our own. Philosophy in Christian education because it is very important for Christian school teachers to understand and compare our way of teaching with non Christian counterparts (i would go so far as to say it also defines the differences in our world views).
Just to put a caveat out there on this point…does my bachelor degree make me any smarter than anyone else? Absolutely not. I have heard some of the stupidest reasons for refusing COVID vaccination come out of the mouths of very educated people and some of the best reasons for getting COVID vaccination come out of the mouths of very poorly educated people.
“So you’re really in no position to tell me what I must believe. You’re a person with an opinion just like I’m a person with an opinion. So don’t confuse your musings for mine and definitely don’t confuse it for God.”
is this in response to whether or not the Bible states that God did in fact create gender? Im not sure where you are going with this criticism? Anyway…no further comment required on this. I will move on to your other paragraphs in subsequent posts.
Actually…. If we want to play that kind of game, in the original language the words for god is not capitalized. That’s a byproduct of romanization. So in English , if you want, you can say God but it’s not any more correct than saying god as far as the Bible goes.
Secondly… you think god’s name is god? Like is Zeus says hey in the god Zeus you think god would say “ Hey I’m the God God?”
So like I said, you’re not a scientist, a theologian or a scholar. You’re just a guy, like me, sharing your opinion. No one here thinks s degree means anyone is better. But when you have certain degrees we can presume you most likely are more knowledgeable in your field of study than just someone who googled stuff.
“So I am a Christian, and I’m a Christian who has been a Christian for over a decade and I’m a Christian who enjoys reading the Bible and enjoys reading Biblical literature by scholars, theologians and pastors in a wide range of subjects. Anything I believe, I’m more than comfortable defending with scripture. I don’t just read books by those in my circle of belief, but I read books by authors I don’t care for about subjects where we greatly disagree.”
wholeheartedly agree with the above and thank you for sharing it. If i were to follow some other religious models, i would not be allowed to even venture onto this forum or read non aligned denominational writings. Fortunately, in my religion, we are actively encouraged to read widely even if this requires accessing sources from outside our denomination.
I was born in a family that was fairly conservative in most southern Bible Belt ways. For a large portion of my life my views were fairly conservative.
I find this fascinating actually, it seems to me that a lot of the fundamentalists have driven individuals and even entire groups of individuals away from Christianity…and Im sorry to say, Southern Baptists (as one example) and their hell and hellfire methods of preaching/teaching are anything but good in this way. Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are another two groups i can think of who have earned a similar reputation unfortunately.
I think however, there is a big difference between conservative reading of scripture and hell and doom fundamentalists. How we deduce the differences is complicated for sure, but my method is to keep the authoritarian socialists within the ranks at arms length!
You talk about defending scripture…i am concerned that what you appear to be doing is attempting to use scripture to defend interpretations of Science…a world view that comes from the premise outlined by Stephen Hawking… “there is no god, science offers a better explanation”!
Nope. Not using scripture to defend science. I’m not even using science to defend scripture. I’m showing how using scripture to say man and woman means you must also say birds of the air only. Unless you give one more lead way than another.
I’m also showing how the Bible commenting on eunuchs born that way opens up the door to more than just straightforward male and female.
I will try to address all of the above together…
I have no interest in opening the “rabbit warren” of the transgender debate (sex and gender). As a conservative Christian (not a fundamentalist however), i categorically reject transgender. I am not interested in playing games with the question about a person born with female insides but male genitalia.
The reading of male and female in the bible is very specifically identifying the requirements of natural reproduction prior to the fall of mankind. Any corruption of this mechanism came after sin and is completely irrelevant to any current theology that conflicts with the original creation of man and women. We know what they are…i am not interested in debating that it will not end well and never does.
Eunuchs texts you quoted…this has nothing to do with pre-fall creation of man and women…its a mute argument and is irrelevant. Its a pointless excuse to even use to open the “rabbit warren” as the answer is a simple one…weeds and tares and more specifically, sin!
Having said the above, I am intrigued by the Eunuch references and your thoughts on them…
"It lists three types of eunuchs.
1. Those who were made eunuchs.
2. Those who chose to make themselves eunuchs.
3. Those who were born eunuchs. So what’s this? Do you think this is probably intersex people? Were these also made in the image of God?"
I had actually come across these before reading your post and after i finish my Sanctuary studies, i will delve into it.
I can say however, i have no concerns that it (eunuchs) will negatively influence my current theology and the reason why is simple…my current theology is not a mish mash of single texts strung together. My current theology starts from the bigger picture and works inwards from that perspective. If i am unsure, i cant return outwards closer to the big picture and start over because I know the big picture is 100% right
The big picture is exceedingly simple to understand…
- God created,
- Lucifer rebelled and corrupted,
- Adam and Eve were tempted, fell into sin and were cast out/cut off from their Creator
- God initiated a plan of Salvation to restore his creation back to Himself (usually also added is “the earth back to its former glory… because of the New Heavens and New Earth in Revelation 21”),
- Evil and sin will ultimately be defeated and destroyed.
I’ll be honest…. I am not sure how any of that is supposed to be a counter argument.
Then discussion is about gender…. You’re saying gender is just male and female because of the Bible. I stayed the Bible seems to not say that’s all there is and used the bird example and brought up its category of Eunuchs born that way and what does that mean because it seems to open up the doorway for transgender and intersex people in existence.
Your bigger picture is just that…… yours. I don’t get that as any form of biblical picture big or small.
Enjoy your studies/home work.
I got off work and went to watch Scream 6 ( which is one of my favorite franchises ) and movies 1, 5 and 6 have been my favorites so far. Though I liked 5 better. So after sitting in my house deciding on if I wanted to go back through the night of the living dead series because the commentary in the posthumously published George Romero book “ The Living Dead “ that is supposed to have filled in some blanks left me with a handful of questions which requires me to rewatch the films and look for interviews by Romero on it. But then i decided to instead go to the gym and force out at least half my leg routine. Leg day seems to typically take me 2 hours, sometimes 90 minutes if all goes well. But I wake up at 3-4 am and so I don’t feel like being up until 1030 doing it all and I have plans tomorrow and so I don’t want to spend 2 hours tomorrow either before hiking to do it.
thank you Skov…
ironic you should mention gym workouts…my son was trying to benchpress 85kg the night before last, he managed to push out one rep and couldn’t get the second one…(he had no spotter apparently) he tried to rack the bar and only managed one side before collapsing under its weight and the unracked side of the loaded bar fell about 30cm landing on the side of his face just below right eye…we were off getting xrays this morning!
oh before i go…a reference for you to study on Biblical Eunuchs (haven’t read it in depth but its a place to start)
"because this practice was the norm, the word eunuch became saddled with the connotation of castration. “But as some of these [eunuchs] rose to be confidential advisers of their royal master or mistresses, the word was occasionally employed to denote persons in such a position, without indicating anything of their proper manhood.”
I don’t think the thread of the conversation was really that hard to follow. We were discussing whether the fact that Paul called women the weaker vessel meant that the Bible was misogynist and I was disagreeing with him.