We are told that the Lord created mankind male and female (Genesis 1:27) and named his creation: Adam (Genesis 5:2). Since the woman wasn’t made until later (Genesis 2:21-22), it is implied that the Lord God created Adam (mankind) male and female (Genesis 1:27) in one body, that is to say, mankind wasn’t separated into a man and a woman until later. Nevertheless, we need to ask why God did that. After all, when he created mankind and looked back on all he had done on the sixth day, he declared his labor was very good (Genesis 1:31). In other words, he was pleased with all he had done. So, if what God had originally created was very good, why does the text say: “It is not good for man to be alone…” (Genesis 2:18; emphasis mine)? What changed? Did God make a mistake and had to correct it later, or does the text offer us something else to consider?
Once we understand that the woman wasn’t made on the sixth day,[1] we are able to say that the Lord’s original creation, Adam, was living for some time before the Lord said, it wasn’t good for him to be alone. It seems apparent, at least to me that, perhaps by design, Adam was living out only one part of his being, reflecting only one side of the image of God. After a period of time, Adam became comfortable expressing himself as male, so it was no longer good for him to be alone (Genesis 2:18; cp. 1:31).
Therefore, if the above is logical and true, then making the woman was done to complete the human species in the sense that Adam was forced to address his female humanity, despite his proclivity to address only male characteristics. It was not good for the male to be emphasized at the expense of the female. Both, together, express the image of God. Thus, the false doctrine of male leadership, or patriarchal authority, is exposed for what it is: an evil and a disobedient lifestyle that suppresses the image of God (cp Romans 1:18). The man and the woman are equals, not a chain of command with the male as head and the female under his feet. Humanity expresses its God-given nature, when both walk together as equals, not as competitors or an oppressive chain of command. There certainly are differences between the two, but they are complimentary differences that must be addressed together (Genesis 2:24), not in the form of a hierarchy or patriarchy, if the image of God is to be lived out by humanity, as planned by God (Genesis 1:27; cp. 1:31 and 2:18). Moreover, by ‘complimentary differences’ I do not mean complimentarianism, as that doctrine is understood in our modern evangelical movement.
The role of women has been suppressed by males from the very beginning. It is not good, according to the word of the Lord (Genesis 2:18). It is this very thing that brought about the rebellion we read about in Genesis 3, and it has continued virtually without a break until our modern day. The historical pause in this false tradition had come only during the time of Christ and the nascent Church. Jesus showed his disciples that women were equal to men, in that he appeared first to women after his resurrection (Matthew 28:5-10; Mark 16:9-10; Luke 24:10), and women, in the role of evangelists, were the first to proclaim the resurrection of Christ.[2] When the disciples didn’t believe the women, Jesus rebuked the males, when he finally appeared to his disciples later that same day (Mark 16:14). Women are equal to men, as witnesses to the truth. This was something new in the cultural tradition of that day. The disciples eventually embraced the truth, but universal tradition eventually entered the Church and was embraced by our leaders.
Think about it. That which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is of the spirit is spiritual (John 3:12). One of the most natural things a man can do is consider his masculinity superior to the woman’s femininity. One may travel all over the globe and find that practically all societies consider males superior to females. Some societies suppress the female to such a degree that it might be better understood as persecution. If Christianity is to change these societies through example and preaching the Gospel, what is there to change, if for all intents and purposes, the Christian woman is still under the authority of the Christian man? Had all ungodly societies been faithful to God in the area of male supremacy only, or is this, too, disobedience to the prime directive to image the Creator (cp. Genesis 2:18)? If male supremacy is natural to all nations, then it is fleshy to embrace a patriarchal chain of command. The spiritual labor would be male and female working together as equals for common goals, the one complimenting the other and embracing one another’s differences, bringing all things together in unity.
_________________________________________________________________
[1] See my previous study: Created in the Image of God.
[2] In the beginning it was the male who was entrusted with the truth, but he suppressed it (Adam lied to Eve; cp. Genesis 3:3 and 2:16-17). In the new creation, it is the women who were entrusted with the truth, but, just as in the beginning, the male of the species sought to suppress the truth, whether through ignorance and false doctrine (the disciples) or by knowledge and tradition (the Jewish authorities).
Smoodock's Blog 