In my last post, I addressed the ubiquitous assumption that the scripture declares all people equal, mainly from the proof-text of Galatians 3:28. Here, I will address the root of the doctrine of equality; that all people of all kinds are fundamentally equal as a consequence of the image of God, particularly men and women. Though popularly accepted even by almost all complementarians, I will demonstrate how even when invoking the Image of God, men and women are not equal. Be sure to read the first part here if you haven't already
I - The What of God?
A discussion on the Image of God means nothing if one does not establish a meaning on what the "Image" is. It would be like me saying to a 60 year old truck driver "Wow, the Nvidia RTX 2080TI is the best graphics card on the planet. It'll crush any game you throw at it!". Naturally, the truck driver would respond "What's an Nvidia RTX 2080TI?"
Yet this kind of non-self-aware discussion is the norm around the Image of God. At risk of belabouring the point, how often have you read an article or book making claims concerning the Image of God, yet never defining the concept? This is an error I will be avoiding here.
So, what is the image? Plain and simply, it is our reflection of the attributes of God.
In greater detail, here is John Walton explaining the concept according to its Ancient Near-Eastern origins:
An understanding of what it means for people to be in the image of god in the ancient world can be enhanced by exploring other uses of "image" as well. For instance, in both Egypt and Mesopotamia an idol contained the image of the deity. This allowed the image to possess the attributes of the deity, function as mediator of worship to the deity, and serve as indicator of the presence of the deity. ...
Across the ancient world, the image of God did the work of God on the earth. In the Israelite context as portrayed in the Hebrew Bible, people (corporately) are in the image of God in that they embody his qualities and do his work; the image defines the human identity. They are symbols of his presence and act on his behalf as his representatives as they are in relationship with him. [1]Note how Walton specifically highlights the corporate nature of the image. Although chiefly held by Adam, the entire race would inherit the image as a whole, not one-at-a-time as atomized individuals. But more pertinently to the present subject, we will see how the image, being a reflection of God's attributes, expresses itself differently in the sexes.
II - Inequality in the Image of God
All sides are in agreement here; men and women are both made in the image of God. Unfortunately, egalitarians, complementarians, and undecideds/laymen (basically 99% of western believers) take this to mean they are "fundamentally equal". As per the Danver's statement, the founding document of the complementarian movement:
Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18). [2]
Notice how the Danvers statement claims, first, that men and women are equal as persons, and then second, distinct in their manhood and womanhood. It implicitly drives a wedge between personhood and sex, that we are first and foremost some androgynous "human" essence, and that our sexes are distinct but second-order qualities. Maybe this isn't what the statement intends, but it is a necessary implication.
Regardless, the idea of genderless "human" essence is not Biblical. "Equality before God" is not a meaningful category when speaking of men and women.
When God imbued man and woman with his image, he did not cut a cake in half and give them each an equal piece. Rather, God bestowed Adam with his full image and glory directly. Eve then inherited the image through Adam in a subordinate posture, being created after and from Adam (Gen. 2:22 - 23, 1 Tim. 2:13), and with the purpose of being his helper (Gen. 2:18, 1 Cor. 11:9). She also became Adam's glory, while Adam was God's glory (1 Cor. 11:7).
Adam was the chief image bearer, representing the image and mankind in himself, while Eve was the subordinate image bearer. Adam took on God's primary nature as Father-King, evident by the mere fact that he was father of mankind (more on why this is significant soon), whilst Eve was made for Adam's benefit, bearing God's helping nature. And this gels seamlessly with the ancient concept of bearing a deity's image, his qualities, because the very stated purpose of Eve was to be a helper - an ezer (עֵזֶר) - to Adam (Gen. 2:18), just as God is our ezer (Psalm 33:20) [3].
So what does this mean for us? It means that through God's image, man and woman are equally valued, equally condemned (after sin), and equally redeemed, but they are not equal in their ontology, their personhood. Manhood and womanhood, being fundamental to our reflection of the Image of God, are unequal. Man and woman, male and female, are not equal. They are different on an ontological level. They bear the Image of God differently.
But even with value, condemnation, and redemption, I do not like to use the word 'equal', because it introduces a concept of quantitative sameness foreign to the scriptures, not to mention that it is the vocabulary of the heterodoxy I am attacking. So, I prefer saying we are all valued, condemned, and redeemed. No adverbs required.
God's fatherhood matters because the scriptures consistently conflate this fatherhood with God's power and authority (e.g. Deut. 32:6, Psalm,103:13, Is. 64:8, Jer. 3:19, and many more), making them one in the same. I doubt even egalitarian scholars would deny this; the patriarchal flavour of Israel's scriptures is ubiquitous knowledge. But the implications of this fact are enormous. In making Adam man, or male, God made him a father. And in being made father, Adam was made with an authority analogous (but far inferior) to God the Father.
Regardless, the idea of genderless "human" essence is not Biblical. "Equality before God" is not a meaningful category when speaking of men and women.
When God imbued man and woman with his image, he did not cut a cake in half and give them each an equal piece. Rather, God bestowed Adam with his full image and glory directly. Eve then inherited the image through Adam in a subordinate posture, being created after and from Adam (Gen. 2:22 - 23, 1 Tim. 2:13), and with the purpose of being his helper (Gen. 2:18, 1 Cor. 11:9). She also became Adam's glory, while Adam was God's glory (1 Cor. 11:7).
Adam was the chief image bearer, representing the image and mankind in himself, while Eve was the subordinate image bearer. Adam took on God's primary nature as Father-King, evident by the mere fact that he was father of mankind (more on why this is significant soon), whilst Eve was made for Adam's benefit, bearing God's helping nature. And this gels seamlessly with the ancient concept of bearing a deity's image, his qualities, because the very stated purpose of Eve was to be a helper - an ezer (עֵזֶר) - to Adam (Gen. 2:18), just as God is our ezer (Psalm 33:20) [3].
So what does this mean for us? It means that through God's image, man and woman are equally valued, equally condemned (after sin), and equally redeemed, but they are not equal in their ontology, their personhood. Manhood and womanhood, being fundamental to our reflection of the Image of God, are unequal. Man and woman, male and female, are not equal. They are different on an ontological level. They bear the Image of God differently.
But even with value, condemnation, and redemption, I do not like to use the word 'equal', because it introduces a concept of quantitative sameness foreign to the scriptures, not to mention that it is the vocabulary of the heterodoxy I am attacking. So, I prefer saying we are all valued, condemned, and redeemed. No adverbs required.
III - God's Preferred Pronouns
Now why, you might ask, does Adam being "father" matter? How does that demonstrate superior rank on his part over Eve? The answer: it is demonstrated by God himself.
First, God is gendered; not a half-masculine half-feminine mix, but first and foremost he, the Father. Indeed, he bears feminine attributes such as the comforter (Is. 66:13), a contingent quality that he bestowed upon women. But as the scriptures make clear, he is first and foremost the father who rules and leads his people, not the mother. This is why when presenting the ideal prayer, Christ began with "Πάτερ ἡμῶν" (Our Father), and hence also why the Holy Trinity consists of Πατήρ, υἱός, Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον; Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thus, when God made man, he made a mortal representative of himself, making him him, and in turn father-king.
This role of authority would pass into the male sex itself through kings, priests, pastors, and literal fathers.
And there is an important implication from this. God was always sovereign, he was always father, he was always masculine. He was always he. Femininity, however, came into being at creation for the sake of Adam. Attributes like carer and nurturer are necessarily a function of the created order, and do no precede it. The masculine is eternal, while the feminine is contingent. This point is explained even more by Fr. Bill Mouser in The Story of Sex in Scripture, which I highly recommend on this topic.
This role of authority would pass into the male sex itself through kings, priests, pastors, and literal fathers.
And there is an important implication from this. God was always sovereign, he was always father, he was always masculine. He was always he. Femininity, however, came into being at creation for the sake of Adam. Attributes like carer and nurturer are necessarily a function of the created order, and do no precede it. The masculine is eternal, while the feminine is contingent. This point is explained even more by Fr. Bill Mouser in The Story of Sex in Scripture, which I highly recommend on this topic.
IV - God, Fatherhood, & Authority
God's fatherhood matters because the scriptures consistently conflate this fatherhood with God's power and authority (e.g. Deut. 32:6, Psalm,103:13, Is. 64:8, Jer. 3:19, and many more), making them one in the same. I doubt even egalitarian scholars would deny this; the patriarchal flavour of Israel's scriptures is ubiquitous knowledge. But the implications of this fact are enormous. In making Adam man, or male, God made him a father. And in being made father, Adam was made with an authority analogous (but far inferior) to God the Father.
And all of this shows how God was not merely likened to a father in an analogy demanded by some despotic androcentrist society (which, may I add, is a ridiculous and patronising perspective, as if our ancestors were uniformly more stupid and morally confused than we are). By being created in God's image, man and woman were given qualities eternally held by God. In making Adam, God made a being in his highest image; a father and a king. This was the very definition of man at creation. And in making Eve, he expressed his subordinate, contingent qualities of helper and comforter. This was the very definition of woman at creation.
Maleness in particular was not a human concept stamped back onto God, but a core part of God's nature that was imbued in man. "he" came from He.
Maleness in particular was not a human concept stamped back onto God, but a core part of God's nature that was imbued in man. "he" came from He.
V - Conclusion
As I have demonstrated through the patterns of scripture, even with respect to the image of God men and women are not equal; equality is simply not an applicable or helpful concept. The image is a reflection of the attributes of God, and men and women bear different attributes of higher and lower status respectively. That statement shouldn't make a Christian uncomfortable (though it will today), because it says nothing about the love God has for his people, except that it is infinite, because we each bear a part of God in us, even if but a drop of the divine pool. That God’s love is not contingent on ontological status does not mean these categories and gradations don’t exist; God’s love is described as unconditional precisely because they do.
My next and likely final post for this series will look at the reality of patriarchy in Israelite society and in the New Testament church. Thank you for reading, and I hope you have been edified. Please do share this with your brothers and sisters in Christ (along with the first article here). My service is for the understanding of the church.
~~~
[1] - John Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 2nd edition, 2018.
[2] - The Danver's Statement: https://cbmw.org/2007/06/26/the-danvers-statement/
[3] - Ironically for me, Egalitarian scholars actually use the fact that God is ezer to prove that Eve is not a subordinate to Adam, since this word, being used for her, was also used of God. For example, see here:
https://margmowczko.com/a-suitable-helper/
[3] - Ironically for me, Egalitarian scholars actually use the fact that God is ezer to prove that Eve is not a subordinate to Adam, since this word, being used for her, was also used of God. For example, see here:
https://margmowczko.com/a-suitable-helper/
But as I show, it proves just the opposite. God is described as our ezer helper on occasion, but it is not his defining purpose. With Eve, she was made for the very purpose of being Adam's ezer.
No comments:
Post a Comment