The Mother of All Living Sermons

I would like to start with a prayer request. I’m not a fan of the unspoken prayer request, but I imagine the person involved in the prayer request would not appreciate strangers knowing about her business, so I will not name any names. Please pray for a friend from quizzing. When I first met her, she was a bright and bubbly Christian. In fact, she joined quizzing because she just wanted to get to know better her Lord and Savior, who she loved so much. The only problem, however, is that her Christian fellowship was a Christian fellowship that thought to hold to certain religious beliefs, you had to hold certain political beliefs, and no true Christian would hold to any political beliefs contrary to what this Christian fellowship believed, which was simply not true. She too did indeed know it was simply not true. Not only did see conflicts between their political beliefs and their religious beliefs, she saw how her differing political views actually correlated better with her religious views, but her Christian fellowship refused to listen. Nevertheless, she sought out a group of friends who would encourage and support her political stances. Unfortunately, this group of friends further verified that indeed her political stances did contradict her religious stances (again, not true), but her political views were correct, and her religious views were incorrect, so she had to abandon her religion to hold stronger to politics. At worst, I worry she’s falling away from the faith, and at least, she’s stunting her spiritual growth. Please pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, that Jesus will keep her strong, that she may be a witness to both her Christian fellowship and her friends, and that I may know how to counsel her through this rough time.

So far, my witness to her is to converse with her on the lies the group of friends have fed her, and one sticks out as peculiar, which fits well into a Mother’s Day sermon. One of the lies told by her friends is that the Bible is misogynist. Merriam-Webster defines misogyny simply as “the hatred of women.” Therefore, a misogynist hates women. Thus, to call the Bible misogynist is to say the Bible hates women. Yes, this is what her friends have claimed about the Bible: The Bible hates women. According to them, at best, the Bible treats women like second-class citizens, at worst, the Bible treats women like slaves, property to be bought, sold, and traded, so why would any self-respecting woman read the Bible? It would not surprise if so many Christian, both brothers and sisters in Christ, have heard this argument. So, while the best thing to do is pray for my quizzing sister in Christ, the next best thing to do is talk about how you can combat this lie.

Of course, there are some easy, low-hanging fruits we can go to for easy retorts. Turn to the book of Judges, turn to the fourth chapter, and read about Deborah, a prophetess, or a female prophet, who takes reign of the army of Israel when Barak refuses to do so, and she leads Israel to victory of Canaan. Turn to the book of Esther and read how the Jewish girl Hadassah becomes Esther queen of Persia, and she uses whatever little power she has to save her people from genocide across the empire. These women are hardly second-class citizens or slaves. If this is too Old Testament for you, the New Testament has lesser known but more important examples. Turn to Romans 16:1 and read how Phoebe was a deaconess. Yes, I know that can translate into “servant,” but the Greek term διάκονος (diakonos) is literally where the English word “deacon” come from, so I will be brave to enough to say, I think English Bible translations who translate it into “servant” instead of “deacon” do so to avoid alienation from the churches who have a hard stance against women leadership in church. Turn to Colossians 4:15 and read how Nympha had a church meet in her house. Yes, while “church in her house” can simply just mean she hosted a church, a lot of scholars now agree a person hosted a church because that person led the church (cf. Acts 16:15&40). Both the Old Testament and the New Testament praise women in leadership, which highly contests the notion that the Bible makes women second-class citizens or slaves.

Of course, like I’ve said, that’s easy, low-hanging fruit. Graham doesn’t do easy, low-hanging fruit; Graham does hard, high-hanging fruit. What is the high-hanging fruit of this topic? Let’s a pick a woman from the Bible that opponents of the Bible would use to prove that the Bible is misogynist. What a better character than Eve! How fitting for Mother’s Day, for the name Eve means “mother of all living,” so she everybody’s mother. I have heard some wild accusations of the Bible about Eve, and maybe you’ve even heard crazy ones yourself. Some say, “Eve is created second, making her secondary to man!” Others will say, “Eve is created differently, making Eve a lesser human!” Still other will complain, “Eve is blamed for the fall of man, and Eve is punished unreasonably harshly.” Those who oppose the Bible with these comments truly have never read the Bible themselves, for those who have read the Bible should see that, not only are all these statements false, but the Bible goes out of its way to teach the opposite.

 

Without further ado, please turn to the book of Genesis. As you turn there (like it would take anyone a long time, unless your Bible has a massive introduction and/or preface), let me point out that, from the onset, since an account of woman’s creation even exists in the Bible, the Bible cannot be misogynist. Comparing the Bible with ancient creation myths around the world will reveal the Bible is in the minority just solely in the fact it records the how woman became living human. A majority of ancient creation myths do not record any story about the creation of the woman; only a minority of the ancient creation myths do. Some have tried to justify this by declaring that the creation of woman is assumed alongside the creation of man, but others rightfully state that the ancient creation myths without retelling the creation of women subtly hint that the world has no need for women.

 

The minority of ancient creation myths that do mention the creation of women have a habit of putting the creation of women in a negative light. For example, look no further than the famous Greek myth of Pandora’s Box. According to the Ancient Greeks, the myth takes place during the Golden Age, when there were just men (and no women), when technology rapidly advanced, when no man had any want or need because man shared all resources equally, and man had no enemies or foes…except Zeus. See, with the help of Prometheus, the Greek titan Zeus assigned to creating men, men had tricked Zeus into accepting offering of bones instead of the fat of the meats, and men had stolen fire, sacred to the gods. Now Zeus had already punished Prometheus by chaining him to a mountain and having an eagle eat his liver daily. As for man, however, Zeus thought man had it going too well, so he wanted unleash sorrow and suffering onto them. Fortunately, he had a jar (yes, you heard me right: jar. Apparently, Erasmus mistranslated it during medieval times, and nobody ever bothered to correct him. Since, however, everybody is used to calling it a box, I will continue to call it a box.) that held sorrows and suffering. Unfortunately, Zeus could not open it on man, or else the suffering and sorrows would come back on him. Furthermore, men were on edge because Prometheus warned them not to take anything from Zeus, so men could not easily be tricked. Therefore, Zeus decided to try creating a human himself, and this human would become the first women. Zeus got all the gods involved. For example. Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, to make her beautiful. As another example, Hermes, the messenger god, taught her an eloquent tongue to speak well. Hence, her name was Pandora, meaning “all endowed” or “all gifted.” Finally, Zeus gave her 2 gifts: the gift of curiosity and the gift of the box full of sorrows and suffering. Zeus told Pandora, “Don’t open the box, for no mortal should look on it,” conveniently leaving out what is in the box. Well, a box with unknown contents and a curious woman are a bad combination, and it is only a matter of time before Pandora opens the box and unleashes the curse of sorrows and suffering on man. The moral of the story seems to be, “Darn those women and their curiosity! If it wasn’t for woman’s curiosity, humanity would be cursed with suffering!” Now at this point, one may think, “Well, that may explain why women suffer, but it does not explain the suffering of men because a woman opened the box, not a man.” That’s right! What you heard was the more famous, rated G version of the story. There’s an alternative, rated R, version of the story in which Pandora says to men, “Hey, if you can open this jar for me (maybe this is where the stereotype of the woman not able to open the pickle jar comes from), I’ll do anything with you,” to which the men say, “Anything?” and Pandora replies, “Anything!” Yes, that’s exactly what you think it means. This is worse! At least with the former legend, curiosity just got the best of Pandora. In this myth, Pandora actively seduces man to bring curses upon humanity. The clear moral of this story is, “Beware of women! They will use the sexuality to seduce you and to curse you, which will always bring sorrow and suffering!” Now the reason for man’s suffering falls less on the contents of the box/jar and more on the woman herself. Why do men seek to become richer, so much so that they will make other men poor in the process? To impress women, of course! Why do men seek to become the most powerful kings and emperors, to the point of enslaving other men? So, they can marry any woman they want, of course! Now that’s a sexist and misogynist origin story! As stated earlier, and pointed out now, many ancient myths do not mention the creation of the woman, and those that do, a lot of them mention the creation of woman as a negative thing. The Bible, however, does mention the creation of the woman, and as will be drawn out soon, the Bible puts the creation of woman in a positive light.

Let’s dive into the actual text. The meat of the text will come from Genesis 2, but the trip to Genesis 2 requires a pitstop in Genesis. For those unfamiliar with the book of Genesis, Genesis has 2 creations accounts. Commentators have different explanations on why, with some more blasphemous or heretical others. Personally, I believe Genesis records 2 different creation narratives because it tells the same story from different perspectives. Genesis 1 talks about the creation from God’s point of view, as God lays out an organized plan to bring order to the chaos. Genesis 2 tells the creation story from the human’s point of view, as God creates the perfect habitat around man. Since Genesis 2 comes from the human’s point of view, most of the theology about woman will come from Genesis 2, but Genesis 1 does have an important fact worth noting.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ~Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

While so much can come out from this verse, pertinent to this study, three words need extra highlighting. The “man” in “So God created man in his own image” is the Hebrew term אָדָם (adam). Now the “man” here in אָדָם (adam) is short for “human,” which is short for “human being.” The last line of the verse states that God created them זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh). Most, if not all, Bibles translate the two Hebrew words as “male” and “female,” and rightfully so. Unfortunately, some people living in the 21^st century insist that that gender and sex are not interchangeable, and they also insist that gender is a social construct (which I actually understand to extent). Therefore, I must state this bluntly: a זָכָר (zāḵār) has a penis, and a נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh) has a vagina. For proof, look further than a few chapters later. In Genesis 6&7, the Lord commands Noah to bring animals in the ark, זָכָר (zāḵār) and נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh), with the clear intentions for them to multiply and fill the earth after the flood. There is no way around it and for good reason. In this one little verse in Genesis 1:27, God warns the reader, “Alright, when you go into the next chapter, you will discover that I created the woman after the man, and you will also find out that I created the woman in a different manner. This does not make her more or less in the image of God. The woman is equally made in the image of God.” Thus, the theology taught about the woman from Genesis 1:27 is that the woman was equally made in the image of God. Now let’s advance to meat of the creation story of the woman.

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. ~Genesis 2:19&20 (ESV)

Although the text does not paint the most vivid picture, it has enough description to imagine what happened here. (Disclaimer: what you read in the remainder of the paragraph consists of nothing original, as the rest of the paragraph contains bits and pieces I have picked up from pastors and comedians alike.) The Lord says to Adam, “Okay, here’s the deal, I’m going to bring these animals to you one by one, and whatever you want to name them, that’s its name. Seriously, the first thing that comes to your mind, that’s its name.” Adam responds, “Okay, no problem, I got this.” God brings in the first in the first animal, “Alright, Adam, I got this animal. It's one of the larger animals. It’s gray. It’s got a big jaw. It likes being in the water. What are we calling it?” Adam announces, “Hippopotamus!” Picture a stenographer angel off to the side, asking “How do you want me to spell that?” The Lord tells the angel, “Oh, just sound it out.” Then God turns to Adam and says, “Okay, I’m bringing in the next animal. This animal is also one of the large ones, and it’s gray, too. This one, however, has a horn. What’s its name?” Adam is now starting to get in the groove, and he declares, “Rhinoceros!” The poor stenographer angel is mumbling under his breath, “Wow, seriously, where did he get this guy?” Unfortunately, as time passes, and as the animals get smaller, Adam is getting tired, and not one creative idea is left. “Alright, Adam,” the Lord tells Adam, “Here’s the next one. What its name?” Adam replies, “Dog?” God is like, “Hey, that’s just my name backwards…never mind, whatever, here’s the next one, Adam. What’s its name?” Adam sighs and states its name, “Cat?” God is like, “Oh, hey, wait, I didn’t make one of those…” (Just joking! Just kidding! Just playing! I own a cat, and I love my cat!) If you think that’s bad, it got worse when it came time to name insects! The Lord asks Adam, “Hey Adam, what are we calling that insect hopping along the grass?” Adam takes a big sigh and announces, “Grasshopper.” God proceeds, “Okay…well, what are we naming that insect flying around that animal you named a horse?” Adam takes a deeper sigher and declares, “Horsefly.” At this point, the Lord probably told Adam, “Let’s take a break, before you name all the fishes swims…”

In all seriousness, though, something has to be going on here, for the naming of animals interrupts the creation of the woman. Imagine that the Lord is not merely brining Adam the animals to name one by one, but rather, picture God bring Adam the animals two by two. Not only does Adam name the animal species, but he also gives names to both the males and the females. (I apologize in advance, for I am neither a zoologist nor a farmer, so I will probably butcher this, but you should still understand the illustration.) Imagine Adam saying, “Alright, this animal species we shall call a horse, which the males we will call stallions, and the females we will call mares.” Picture Adam stating, “This animal we will name bovine, which we will name the males bulls and the females cows.” Imagine Adam announcing, “This animal species we shall call pig, which the males we will call boars, and the females sows.” Picture Adam declaring, “The animal we will name a chicken, which the males will be named roosters, and the females hens.” As Adam goes through the process, he comes to a realization. He must have realized, “I’m a אָדָם (adam), or a human being, and the זָכָר (zāḵār)/male human is a אִישׁ (ʾîš), then where is the נְקֵבָה (n^eqēḇāh)/female human being?”

All of a sudden, Adam becomes sad. All of a sudden, the reader (and maybe the original audience of the Israelites? And maybe the angels watching Yahweh create?) panics! In Genesis 1, with every day of creation, God announces the day’s creation was טוֹב (tov), or “good.” In fact, when the Lord overlooks everything that he created, he declares the creation ט֖וֹב מְאֹ֑ד (tov meod), or “very good.” For the first time in the Scriptures, located right in Genesis 2:18, the Lord has to state that something as לֹא־ט֛וֹב (lo-tov), or “not good,” and it’s the fact the man is alone. How can the very good creation, the perfect habitat for humanity, have something that is not good? Indeed, a good reason to panic! Before anyone can panic, God makes known that he has a plan.

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ~Genesis 2:18 (ESV)

In the Hebrew, Yahweh announces that he will make a עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr k^eněḡěḏo) for man. Depending on your English Bible translation, the עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (ʿēzěr k^eněḡěḏo)  will translate into “helper suitable for him” (NASB), “helper fit for him” (ESV & RSV), “help meet for him” (KJV), “helper comparable to him” (NKJV), “helper as his complement” (CSB), “helper as his partner” (NRSV), “helper suitable for him” (NIV, both 1984 and 2011 editions) or “helper who is just right for him” (NLT). The כְּנֶגְדֹּֽו (k^eněḡěḏo) part literally translate into “like what is in front of him.” Most commentators equate this to mean “corresponding to him” or “alongside him,” but I would even equate it to mean “equal to him” or “similar to him.” More interesting, however, is the עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). From the root עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) comes the name Ezra, but most often עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) does not refer to a human, but it refers to the Lord himself! In Exodus 18:4, when Moses recognizes how God freed the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery, Moses calls Yahweh an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr). David names the Lord an עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) whenever David escapes from his enemies or wins victoriously over his enemies (see Psalms 20:2, 70:5, 89:19, 121:1&2, 124:8 and 146:5). Between Moses and David, the common denominator lies within the fact that God has brought salvation or deliverance, thus making Yahweh a savior or deliver. This makes sense because the verb form of עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) is עָזַר (ʿāzar). The verb עָזַר (ʿāzar) means “to deliver from death” or “to save from danger.” Therefore, עֵ֖זֶר (ʿēzěr) could translate “savior.” Thus, the Lord declares here that he will make “a savior equal to him.”

My sisters in Christ, especially the wives and mothers out there, I am going to give you some fuel to the fire on this Mother’s Day. I imagine as the good Christian couples you are, you two don’t get into any fights, or arguments, or even debates 😉. You just sometimes get into some “intense discussions” 😉. Ladies, next time you find yourself in one of these “intense discussions” with your boyfriend, fiancé, or husband, if he starts getting a little mouthy with you, you snap back and say, “Hey! Remember I am your savior! There you were in your singleness! You were eating canned food and frozen meals because you couldn’t cook. Your living quarters were a pigsty! Your fashion sense so out of whack it was embarrassing to just stand around you! You had to get down on one knee and beg me to marry you, and you even had to bribe me with a diamond ring! You do not talk to your savior like that!” Now my brothers in Christ, I can imagine what you’re thinking. You are probably thinking to yourself, “Well, my girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God like my true savior is.” That’s true, you’re right, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife is not the perfectly sinless Son of God (sorry, ladies, you’re not getting away with that, even on Mother’s Day). I would also imagine, however, that Christ’s will for your life is not always how you wanted to go. I imagine you may have vented your frustration to Jesus. After all, if prayer is simply communicating with God, you may have prayed or communicated with God your frustrations. In venting your frustrations, however, you probably never used foul language, you probably never name called, you probably never used put downs or talked down, you probably never resorted to logical fallacies. In the same way, your girlfriend/fiancée/wife does not deserve foul language, name calling, put downs, belittling or logical fallacies in your “intense discussion.” If anybody gets anything out of this point, remember God created the woman to be your savior, so boyfriends and husbands, thank your girlfriend or wife for something that she saved you from, whether that be from loneliness, failure, lack, processed meals, a dirty home, or an out of whack fashion sense.

 

²¹ So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²² And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³ Then the man said, “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.” ²⁴ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ²⁵ And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. ~Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV)

According to Genesis 2:21 in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh created the woman by taking man’s צֵלָע (ṣēlāʿ), which better translates into “side.” Quite possibly, somewhere along the translation line, somebody saw that the Hebrew manuscript said “side,” looked at the human anatomy, wonder to himself, “Now what side organ could the Lord have used to create the woman?” and from that he somehow concluded “rib,” which tradition just stuck with, even until now. Personally, I like to think this is the first recorded kidney transplant. I know some Christians still refuse organ transplants, claiming an organ transplant runs contrary to the Christian faith, but such an argument falls flat when God himself performs an organ transplant. Ultimately, the argument over which organ Yahweh used has no importance, for the symbolism carries the significance of the Lord making the woman out of the man’s side. Now I am going to do something I don’t quite often do: quote Matthew Henry. See, Matthew Henry is like a Nintendo 64: it was really great in its date, but now, it’s incredibly out of date and looks bad. This quote from Matthew Henry, however, has aged quite gracefully. In his commentary on Genesis 2:21-25, Matthew Henry comments, “the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” Everybody can let out an “aww” right now. Cuteness aside, Matthew Henry hits on an important part. Even the body part the Lord chose to make the woman out of reflects the woman’s equal status to man.

 

Matthew Henry

Genesis 2:22 records that God brought the woman to the man, just like he did with the animals. The text invites the reader to imagine Yahweh approaching the just awoken Adam, saying in a sing-song voice, “Oh Adam, I have someone else for you to name…” and Adam begins, “Oh come on, Lord, I just woke up, can’t you give me just a bit more time, I just need…” but then Adam sees God’s newest creation and says, “Woah man!” Yes, I couldn’t resist, but there’s a point to that, which will become apparent soon.

At this point in Genesis 2:23, the narrative prose stops and poetry begins. The shift in writing style probably intended to highlight the creation of the woman. The first word to come out of Adam’s mouth is הַפַּ֗עַם (hapǎǎm), or “at last” or “finally,” pointing back to conflict of Adam not finding his equivalent when naming the animals. Adam’s first comments observe how the woman has the bone and flesh and he does. On the surface level, by doing so, Adam observes that Yahweh has made the woman out of the same stuff as him, which already makes her his equal. This is why I included Genesis 2:25 as part of the Scripture. Because both are naked, Adam can clearly see different body parts, yet he states she is made of the same stuff. In Hebrew poetry, however, bones typically symbolize strength, and flesh typically symbolize weakness. Therefore, Adam’s comments observe how the woman shares in the same strengths and weaknesses as he does, further emphasizing the equality. Even more to the point, the ancient Hebrews used the phrase “my own flesh and bones” like modern English-speakers say, “my own flesh and blood.” The saying emphasizes a relationship, even more further highlighting equality.

To cap everything off, Adam names the Lord’s newest creation “woman,” or in the Hebrew text אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). The Hebrew term for “man” (as in male human) is אִישׁ (ʾīš), and now the Hebrew word for “woman” (as in female human) is אִשָּׁה (ʾiššā). Even without knowing the Hebrew language, anybody can see the terms are remarkably similar, almost the exact same word, with the exception of the extra letter in the end. In fact, this will become a pattern in the Hebrew language, for most, if not all, of the female animal names will simply be the male animal names with a hey at the end. For example, for horses, the male stallion Hebrew is סוּס (sûs), and the female mare is סוּסָה (sûsāh). Even in the naming of the woman reflects the similarity of the woman to the man, almost the same, which displays her equality.

 

¹⁴ The Lord God said to the serpent,

       “Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

       on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

¹⁵    I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

       he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.”

¹⁶ To the woman he said,

       “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children.

       Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,

but he shall rule over you.”

¹⁷ And to Adam he said,

       “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree

       of which I commanded you,

‘You shall not eat of it,’

       cursed is the ground because of you;

in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

¹⁸    thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

¹⁹    By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

       till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

       for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return.”

~Genesis 3:14-19 (ESV)

 

While I want to focus in on Yahweh conversing with the woman, I put the Lord’s whole dialogue here, in the hopes of seeing a pattern and a lack thereof. Note how God never explicitly curses the woman. Literally, the term “curse,” or אָרַר (ʾārǎr) in the Hebrew text only applies to the serpent (3:14) and the ground (3;17). Notice how Yahweh’s speech the serpent and to Adam begins with “because you…” but the Lord omits this beginning when talking to the woman. Between these two observations, it would seem that what God tells the woman falls more under descriptive than prescriptive. In order words, Yahweh does not actively penalize the woman here, but rather, the Lord passively reminds the woman that sin has its consequences, God makes her fully aware of those consequences. In all fairness to the woman, the serpent deceived the woman, whereas the serpent and the men deliberately rebelled in their sin, as evident by their punishment starting with “because you…”

A lot could be said about Yahweh announcing a multiplication of the woman’s pain in childbearing, but more pertinent to our point about the misogyny entering the world as a result of the fall, Genesis 3:16b deserves more examination. The key words in Genesis 3:16b are תְּשׁוּקָה (t^ešûqāh) and מָשַׁל (māšǎl). Now תְּשׁוּקָה (t^ešûqāh) is an exceedingly rare word in the Hebrew Old Testament, only appearing three times. The first one appears here in Genesis 3:16b. The last one happens in Song of Solomon 7:10, in which, ironically, the man desires the woman, as opposed to Genesis 3:16b, in which the woman desires the man. The middle instance occurs in Genesis 4:7, and this instance also pairs with מָשַׁל (māšǎl). In Genesis 4:7, the Lord informs Cain of what sin wants to do to him. Just as mankind and sin find themselves in a constant struggle of control, as evident by Genesis 4:7, so the man and the woman will find themselves in constant struggle of dominating and submitting, as evident by Genesis 3:16b. What Yahweh intended to become an equal relationship, sin would make a power struggle of dominance and submission. What the Lord intended to become “to love and to cherish” became “to dominate and to submit.” What God intended for reciprocal love would turn into marital stress and strain. Some have used their verse to explain why, even in the most patriarchal societies, despite a woman’s craving for independence, she would still succumb to a marriage. Other have even gone as far as using this verse to explain why some women will still stay with the most abusive husbands. Either way, even if these points are true, the truth remains that sexism, misogyny and patriarchy are the result of evil sin infiltrating Yahweh’s good creation.

The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living ~Genesis 3:20 (ESV).

 Scholars could and have said much about the name of Eve. Without diving too much in the Hebrew language, a few things deserve pointing out for the name Eve. First, note that the Hebrew name for Eve, חַוָּ֑ה (havvah), looks nothing like the Hebrew term for humans, אָדָם (adam), or the Hebrew word for man, אִישׁ (ʾîš). Already, the sinful nature has begun taking over Adam, and he has already begun distancing himself from Eve. Second, notice how Eve’s name means “mother of all living.” No longer is the woman “a savior equal to him,” but rather, Adam sees Eve as just “the mother of his children.” Ouch! Again, the sinful nature in Adam desires to distance himself from Eve. Together they reveal that, when Adam names the woman Eve, he treats her no differently than when he named the animals, asserting his dominance over the woman, demanding her submissiveness. Once again, the sexism, misogyny and patriarchy came about as a product of humanity’s fall into sin.

Not only does Genesis 3 not direct the primary blame for the Fall upon the woman Eve, the whole Bible does not direct the primary blame for the Fall, especially including the New Testament. Take a look at a couple New Testament verses-

¹² Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. ~Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)

²¹ For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. ²² For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. ~1 Corinthians 15:22&23 (ESV)

Note how both Scriptures don’t say “the woman” or “Eve.” Notice how both passages don’t even say “the man and the woman” or “Adam and Eve.” Both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 merely put the blame of sin and death on the man, on Adam. The idea of woman solely bringing sin, death, sorrows and suffering into the world would make sense to either the Old Testament Jew or the New Testament Christian.

Before closing, let me briefly touch on some objections some may have, but please note that these 2 exceptions I will bring up deserve a close and thorough examination, each on their own.

³ But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God…⁷ For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; ¹² for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. ~1 Corinthians 11:3,7-12 (ESV)

Please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. In 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Greek term κεφαλή (kephalē) literally means “head,” but figurately it means “authority” or “source.” I prefer the latter because then 1 Corinthians 11:3 points back to Genesis 2:21&22. 1 Corinthians 10:7 reminds the reader that Paul wants to address why he believes men should prayer and prophesy with heads uncovered, while women should pray and prophesy with their heads covered. A cult in Corinth allowed women to pray with their heads uncovered, which would sometimes come off as sexual. Paul did not want the new and budding church in Corinth to get mixed with the cult. Paul’s command here for women to cover their heads intended to distance the church from the cult, and also quite possibly prevent women from becoming a sexual distraction in the Christian church. The idea of woman becoming the glory of man does not put her is a submissive or servient role. To the contrary, the woman received glory by giving glory to her husband. If anything, Paul presents giving glory to the husband as another opportunity women could give glory to God. Paul recollects the creation of the woman in Genesis 2 to remind the Christian women in Corinth how God created the women to turn something not good to something good in the very good creation, and likewise, Paul calls on the women to serve God in the same exact way.

¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. ~1 Timothy 2:12-15 (ESV)

Again, please recall that the epistles are highly contextualized. Paul writes to a certain people at a certain place at a certain time, to address occasions that may arise out of that historical, geographical and cultural. When Timothy takes over the church in Ephesus, a heresy known as Gnosticism became quite popular. Gnosticism loved combining Greek and Roman philosophy with Jewish, and sometimes Christian, religion. Mixed in with all the heresy, Gnosticism at this time proclaimed a liberation and empowering of women. Paul did not necessarily oppose the liberation and empowering of women. Rather, he feared that message would lure in good Christian women, who would buy into the heresy just to get a taste of the liberation and empowerment, and then these women would proclaim the heresies back at the church. In other words, Paul feared that Gnosticism would deceive the good Christian women of Ephesus, hence why Paul emphasizes how Eve got deceived. At the current time, as the best advice Paul could think up, he advised Timothy to put hiatus on women teaching, until the church could determine the women remain uninfluenced by any heresy. Likewise, a church should only hold back on a woman preaching or teaching if they fear she will preach or teach heresy from the pulpit. Otherwise, let her preach and teach!

To conclude, anybody who claims the Bible is misogynist lies. First, while so many creation myth lack a creation of woman story, and for those that do, a lot of them put the creation of the woman in a negative light. To the contrary, the Bible does have a creation of woman story, and it does put it in a positive light. Second, the Bible clearly announces the man and the woman equally made in the image of God. Third, the Lord makes the woman with the intention that woman will become “ a savior equal” to man. Fourth, by calling her “woman,” man identifies his sameness and equality to her. Fifth, because of the lack of “because you” or “cursed” in the woman’s penalty, Yahweh deflect putting all the blame on the woman for the fall. Sixth, not until after the Fall of humanity into sin does Adam assert his dominance by naming her Eve. On this Mother’s Day, women thank the Lord for creating you the way he did, and men, thank God for putting the women, whether mother, aunts, sisters, cousins, wives, sisters or friends, into your life to serve as your “savior.”

The Early Church's Testimony on the Doctrine of Creation

Introduction
Recently in the long span of church history, the traditional view of the Creation, as recorded in Genesis 1, has come into question. Starting the in the nineteenth century, science became more and more secular. This secularization peaked in the middle of century, when Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his book The Origin of the Species. At the time, the divide between Creation and evolution was simply a divide between Christians and non-Christians. The divide continued that way until the early twentieth century. The famous Monkey Scopes trial made Christians look foolish for believing in Creation. Now some Christians, fearing looking foolish and ignorant to science, sought to make their faith compatible with evolution, producing groups like theistic evolutionists. Now Creation Christians not only had to combat atheist evolutionists, but also theistic evolutionists.

A growing debate between Creation theists and evolution theist is their origin. Both sides appeal to early church history. The Creation Christians will claim the church always believed in the Creation story as Genesis 1 records it. They claim that believing anything different will be acting against the orthodox doctrine the church has supported all of its history. The theistic evolutionists claim that the early church never read Genesis 1 literally, which opens the door for science, not the Bible, to explain how the universe came into existence. This paper will look at ten of the early church fathers and how they interpreted the first chapter of Genesis.

The Opposition

Before looking at the early church fathers, the opposition to the early church fathers must first be observed. Most of the early church fathers’ writings came in response to popular false teachings that began to penetrate the church. While the early church fathers did not have evolutionists pushing evolution upon the church, they did have philosophers whose philosophies entertained the minds of Christians. Some of these philosophies do even sound like evolution. The philosopher Epicurus taught the universe began when small particles began banging together in empty space. Hippolytus expanded on Epicurus’s idea, even teaching that God Himself came about from these particle colliding. The particles of matter did not have an origin. They simply existed for all eternity, past, present and future. Other philosophers taught about a demiurge. Platonic philosophers, like Plotinus, believed that the spirit was good and that matter was evil. Therefore, the Supreme God, a spirit, could not make anything out of matter, for he would be evil. So these philosophers created a demiurge, a creator god, who was evil because he worked with matter.  While some Christians naturally knew these philosophies did not work with orthodox Christianity, many Christians did try to make their religion and these philosophies compatible. Because of these Christian compromising their faith, the early church fathers knew they needed to speak out against these false philosophies.

Justin Martyr

 

Justin Martyr referenced the creation story in many of his writings. Like many of his day, Justin Martyr recognized the origin of life and the earth to come from the divine God. In his Second Apology, Justin states that the reason Christians call God the Creator derives from the fact that God “created and arranged all things.” Justin takes the belief a step further and recognizes God the Son, Jesus, as the Creator. In another writing, Justin takes the belief another step further and specific recognizes God as the creator of human life. In one of his writings, Justin defends the doctrine of the resurrection. Justin believes that God has the power to give life to any human again because God gave life to humans in the first place, which, to Justin, demonstrates his omniscience. Furthermore, in the same sentence, Justin goes on to say that this first instance of human life came about when God inserted his power into the earth to make the man. This quote demonstrates Justin believed the life of man came about as Genesis 1 recorded.  Same lies true for Justin when it comes to Eve. Eve, coming from Adam’s rib, proved to Justin God’s role as the Almighty Maker of everything he saw. Once again, Justin’s quote verifies that Justin saw Eve as real. To him, Eve was as real as Elizabeth or John the Baptist who only lived a century earlier than he did.  Without a doubt, Justin Martyr believed in the creation story literally, especially when it came to believing in a literal Adam and Eve.

Irenaeus of Lyons

 

Just like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus felt the need to defend God as the Creator of all things. Irenaeus explains that God formed the heaven, earth and seas, as well as all their contents, with his Wisdom and his Word. Like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus takes the doctrine a step further. Unlike Justin Martyr, who focuses on the Son as Creator, Irenaeus specifies the Holy Spirit as active with the Father and the Son at the Creation. The language Irenaeus uses in his defense, such as “formed man” and “planted paradise” proves that Irenaeus believed in a divine God that created the world, as described in Genesis 1. Irenaeus also went further by defending the creation as ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Appealing to Luke 18:27, which says that everything is possible with God, Irenaeus boldly declared God as the first substance, thus requiring all other substances to flow from him. When God created the world, he created the first elements for the first time. Irenaeus also defending creation having over six days of twenty-four hours. Although Irenaeus uses it to erroneously predict the end of the world, it shows Irenaeus took the days literally.

Clement of Alexandria

 

Young earth creationists or any Christian who interprets Genesis 1 literally would not want to quote Clement of Alexandria. Clement interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically, similar to how the Gnostics would have interpreted Scripture. For Clement, Genesis 1:1-5 describes the creation of a spiritual world, not the planet earth. The numbers for the days in Genesis 1 do not serve as ordinal numbers, according to Clement, but rather the value of their importance.  While this interpretation might seem unorthodox, or even heretical, to the literalist, Clement of Alexandria did contribute the orthodox doctrine of ex nihilo. As a matter of fact, Clement of Alexandria clearly states on three different occasions that God created the world out of nothing. On one of those instances, Clement credits the utter use of God’s will as the sole source of everything’s existence. In another instance, Clement explains that everything must come from out of nothing except God’s will alone. If humans came from a previously existing matter, then then humans might worship that matter, but if humans came from God’s will alone, then they must worship God alone.  While literalist Christians might want to shun Clement of Alexandria for his Gnostic-like interpretation of Genesis 1, they can learn from him and appreciate his practical reasoning on the importance of the ex nihilo doctrine.

Hermas

 

Hermas would have Irenaeus and Clement on the importance of the doctrine of ex nihilo. Hermas is most famous for his book The Shepherd of Hermas. His book begins with five vision. During the first vision, Hermas depicts God creating the world with his wisdom and by his strong, imperceptible power. After receiving five visions from the Good Shepherd in his book The Shepherds of Hermas, first mandates his readers to worship God as the creator who gives existence to everything non-existent and set them in motion. Not only does Hermas affirm God as the divine Creator, but he also affirms that the divine Creation formed the earth and everything in it out of nothing.

Tatian

 

Tatian might not seem like a candidate with whom young earth creationists or Christian literalists would want to side. Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Origen all deemed Tatian a heretic. Looking back at this point of history, historians believe some of the Early Church Fathers gave Tatian the title heretic because of his willingness to use Gnostic language in his writings. Looking at the remains of his writings, while using Gnostic language at some parts, Tatian holds to an orthodox belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christians today can learn from Tatian, especially concerning the creation of the world. For Tatian, the creation begins with the eternal God. Nothing existed before, not even reason, even reason God had to begat. From God comes everything, from reason to matter. Tatian’s proves that not only did the early Christians support ex nihilo, but they strongly opposed Greek philosophers like Plato who declared matter to be eternal. To the early Christians, only God alone is eternal.

Theophilus of Antioch

 

Theophilus of Antioch knew what the Greek philosophers believed, and he did not fear challenging those beliefs. Theophilus knew that the Greek philosophers believed matter and nature existed eternally, just like God did. Using logic and reason alone, Theophilus refuted them all. If matter and nature exists eternally like God, Theophilus, then God cannot be the creator of all things. Furthermore, Theophilus states, if matter and nature exists eternally alongside God, then matter and nature stand equal to God. If the first two statements stand, God’s role as creator is limited, for just like man, he can only create with the resources he has. On the contrary, if God is the source of all things, then he cannot be limited. The logic and reasoning of Theophilus demonstrates the early church concerned itself the importance of believing in creation ex nihilo. Christians today should also display that same concern Theophilus had.

Tertullian

 

Tertullian constructs most of his doctrine on the creation in Against Hermogenes. Hermogenes, a Platonic philosopher, believed that matter existed eternally, that everything in existence came from that eternal matter, and that all things made of matter are evil because matter itself is evil. At first, Tertullian has to confess that Scriptures never explicitly say creation came out of nothing. He confesses that Christians believe in creation out of nothing as a presupposition. Yet Tertullian also tells Hermogenes that creation out of nothing only makes logical sense. First, if matter existed eternally, like God exists eternally, then matter is equal to God. Second, if matter is co-eternal with God and equal to God, then God is not omnipotent. Third, God also would not be omnipotent because part of God’s power is that he can create something out of nothing. If God needs matter to create, he ceases to be omnipotent. Fourth, when God does make something from something else, the Scriptures always mention it. For example, Genesis 1 explicitly mentions the sky produced birds and fish springing forth from the season. Therefore, one can conclude that when the Bible does not mention God making something from another thing, it must come from out of nothing. All in all, Tertullian could logically conclude that God made created the world out of nothing, making God the source of everything. Furthermore, Tertullian’s reasoning came from reading and understanding Genesis 1 literally. While Tertullian understood Genesis to be an incomplete account, he still believed it was a trustworthy account.

Basil the Great

 

Basil the Great wrote a sermon series on the opening chapter of Genesis, called The Hexaemeron. From reading these six sermons, the reader can tell Basil the Great took Genesis 1 very literally, as literally as possible. From his sermons, the reader can tell Basil wrote his own theology of the creation. He believed the source of the creation lies within the divine God. He believed the days in Genesis 1 as six periods of time twenty-four hours long, refuting anyone who disagreed, even Augustine! He also refuted Augustine on his allegorical approach to the Scriptures. In his Hexaemeron, he does not only refute Augustine, but also the Platonic philosophers. He disagrees with the philosophers who claim that matter is evil by pointing out how God made everything good. He even calls out the philosophers who claim their ancestors were animals, possibly the first building blocks of evolution. Basil the Great holds to an orthodox view of the creation because he reads and interprets Genesis 1 literally.

Origen

 

Unlike the early church fathers discussed so far, Origen refused to read the first chapter of Genesis literally. For him, believing in a literal reading of Genesis 1 meant thinking contrary to logic, reasoning and history. For example, he could not comprehend how the first three days had a morning and an evening when God had not yet created neither the sun nor the moon. Origen traded in a literal translation of Genesis for a spiritual interpretation. Origen believed for God to be truly omnipotent, a creation always had to exist to demonstrate his omnipotence. Using that logic, Origen concluded that God had already created a spiritual world prior to the events in Genesis 1. This spiritual world contained rational creatures that God could demonstrate his omnipotence to. According to Origen, Moses records this world’s creation in Genesis 1, not the planet Earth. God created the planet earth when a Fall happened in the spiritual world.

While theistic evolutionists might want to rejoice at a church father that did not believe in a literal interpretation, they might want to hold back on using him as an example. Origen applied his spiritual hermeneutic all over the Bible, causing him to doubt many historical events. For example, Origen did not believe that the Devil came and tempted Jesus.  Also, Origen stood alone in his hermeneutic and exegesis of Genesis 1. No bishop, pastor or church leader ever supported his stance.  Therefore, anyone could easily say Origen’s view on the creation was unorthodox.

Augustine of Hippo

 

Like Origen, Augustine did not interpret Genesis 1 literally, but unlike Origen, he took a different route. Whereas Origen read Genesis with a spiritual hermeneutic, Augustine read Genesis with an allegorical hermeneutic. According to Augustine, the “lights” created on the first day were the angels. Instead of the six days meaning six time periods twenty-four hours long, the six days represented six stages of increasing knowledge and wisdom of the earth. For example, on the second day, the angels had knowledge of the sky, and on the third day, the angels gained knowledge of solid land and its vegetation. The Bible has creation happening over six days in order that a day seven, which is the number for completion, could happen. That “seventh day” represents completion of knowledge and rest. Despite his allegorical hermeneutics leading to unorthodox exegesis, Augustine did side with many orthodox doctrines. He defended the earth’s origins coming from the divine God. He sided with his counterparts on the importance of believing the creation came out of nothing. Surprisingly, Augustine also strongly believed in a youth, so much so that he would attack anyone who proposed an old earth. While a theistic evolutionist might appreciate Augustine for not reading Genesis 1 literally, they might want to hesitate siding with him, for Augustine still sided with an orthodox understanding of the creation, especially when it came to a young earth

Conclusion

This article has looked at the preaching and the writings of ten early church fathers. From looking at the consistency of the writings, an orthodox doctrine of the creation comes out of it. The early church believed that all things, living and non-living, come from God. The church firmly held to the creation coming out of nothing, opposing all who thought matter existed eternally, like God did. Most of them held to a literal six-day creation. Those who didn’t, like Origen and Augustine, read the Bible in an extreme spiritual or allegorical way, so extreme, it would make any orthodox Christian uncomfortable. For a theistic evolutionist to pull out Origen or Augustine to claim the early church did not take Genesis 1 literally would be misrepresenting the early church. Still, even these men held to a divine God, creating a young earth, out of nothing. The early church fathers created this orthodox doctrine to defend against non-Christians who questioned and attacked their faith. Christians today can use these defenses of the early church fathers in order to also defend their orthodox, traditional faith.