Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Who Are Man and Woman? (RJS)

Who Are Man and Woman? (RJS)

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:27 pm by RJS

Who Are Man and Woman? (RJS) 2015-03-13T22:27:38-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The next chapter of Iain Provan’s book Seriously Dangerous Religion looks at the nature of humanity in the Old Testament and particularly at the relationship of male and female comprising humanity. His focus is on Genesis 1-2, but expands to consider the entire OT as well. Genesis 1 and 2 are concerned with proper functions and relationships in God’s good creation, not with a scientific, historical report of the sequence of creation. The different orders of creation present in Genesis 1 and 2 provide a first clue to this purpose of the texts , but there are others as well. Central to this is the proper role and function of human kind in God’s creation.

The first important point is that the biblical view of humanity stands in stark contrast to the surrounding ancient Near Eastern cultures. The Mesopotamian cultures portrayed humanity as created to work for the gods, as slave labor to provide their needs and free them from drudgery. We dug into a lot of this in the recent series on Richard Middleton’s book The Liberating Image, particularly the post Humans Created to Serve the gods?, so I won’t repeat it here.

The Necessary Gardener. In contrast to the ancient Mesopotamian view, humans represent the high point of creation in the OT view.

One of the ways in which Genesis indicates this is precisely to move them out of the role of being caretakers of the divine image in a temple and into the role of being divine images in a temple themselves. (p. 80)

Clearly this starts in Genesis 1 and 2, but Psalm 8 may summarize the biblical view the best.

You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
    you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds,
    and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky,
    and the fish in the sea,
    all that swim the paths of the seas.

Provan sees the divine image as a property of humanity as a whole – all human beings together are called to rule creation. This is a democratized and community based function. This is reflected in Psalm 8 where the psalmist “recognizes the extraordinary nature of the situation, and he praises God for it, for each and every has been raised to the status of divinity and royalty from the status of only a slave.” (p. 84)

The significance of humans created in the image of God in Genesis 1 is given additional emphasis in Genesis 2 where “creation does not function, biblically, without the human beings who are placed in it to rule over it.”

Genesis 1 describes the world as a place designed by God in which life can flourish; Genesis 2 describes it as a place whose human population is essential to its flourishing. All things wait in Genesis 2, therefore, for a human being (’adam) to work the ground (’adamah). All things wait for the necessary gardener. (p. 86)

The Initial Earthling Was Split. The initial human created in Genesis 2 was neither male or female, it was an earth-being. If science fiction had not appropriated the term, Provan would prefer to translate ’adam in most of Genesis 2 as “earthling,” a human created from the earth. Sexual differentiation comes about in the story because it is not good for the human to be alone. “It seems that human vocation in the cosmos can be fulfilled only in community, not individually.” (p. 87) The human names the creatures God creates, joining with God in creation by naming, but none is a suitable partner.

The special place of human beings in the cosmos is in this way underscored. Only another image bearer will suffice as a partner for ’adam…. And so the earthling is divided and becomes male and female. … God closes up the gap in the earthling’s body through which the material has been extracted that becomes the woman. The body is returned to an attractive state, now male. Two human beings now exist where previously there was one, and they exist in the closest possible relationship. She is, as the male affirms, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (2:23). … In Genesis 2 the language has an even more intimate significance, for the male and the female are destined to become again “one flesh” in marriage (Genesis 2:24)—to “return,” as it were, to their original condition as the inhabitants of one body. The intimacy of this relationship is also indicated in the similar names given to the male and the female in Genesis 2:23. One is “man” (Heb. ’ish) and the other is “woman” (Heb. ’ishah). … Human beings, Genesis tells us, are intrinsically both male and female—that is the communal reality thatis “good.” Only in community can humanity fulfill the human vocation.

The exalted position that women hold in the biblical story is by this point very clear. It is precisely the same high and exalted position that is occupied by men. Both men and women are made in the very image of God, and both are placed in the garden of God jointly to rule over it. They do this together as ’adam, “humankind.” They do it separately as ’ish and ’ishah—“man” and “woman.” These latter names themselves indicate commonality as much as separation, however, and cooperation as much as individual action. (p. 89-90)

Male and female were created complementary without hierarchy. Now, Provan’s reading runs counter to that suggested by many in our church, with female the submissive helper for the male created first and placed in authority. But in his reading woman was not created to be a helper for man, rather the human was split into man and woman. Marriage is a rejoining of the human. The woman when confronted by the snake in the garden was not beholden to instruction from the man to know God’s command – she, as part of the original human, had heard it for herself. There is no authority or hierarchy until Genesis 3:16 – and here it is a reflection of fallen humanity, not a God ordained “good.” The hierarchical, patriarchal structure of much of OT society follows the entry of moral evil into the world. Perhaps, hierarchy was permitted because their hearts were hard, much as Jesus taught concerning divorce “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” (Mt 19:8) Provan sums up:

No reading of Genesis 2 about the creation of male and female can be accepted as correct, I suggest, that does not take seriously the claim of Genesis 1 that ’adam, male and female, is created in the image of God and given joint dominion over creation. (p. 92)

Human Society. The first two chapters of Genesis, then, tell us much about the ideal nature of human society in God’s creation. Humans, as God’s image, are to rule over and look after creation on God’s behalf … all humans, not just a king, not just men. Marriage is an important part of God’s creation, a relationship that should take precedence over all others. Beyond this, there is a humanistic emphasis, no human sacrifice, no murder, and even slaves have rights. The ideal isn’t reached in the OT laws, but there is a theme. There is also a democratic, egalitarian emphasis. A king was granted, but not God’s preference. God alone should be the king. There are human leaders, but this is a response to God’s calling for a task, not a divine right of one person over others. The leader is merely one among “brothers.” All humans, male and female, are called as the divine image to rule in the temple-cosmos.

Does Provan’s reading of a genderless human split into male and female make sense?

What are the strengths or weakness of this reading?

What does Genesis 1 and 2 tell us about the structure of God’s good purpose for human society?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Creation

Previous Post

October 14, 2014

Prayer as Word-based Conversation

Next Post

October 14, 2014 The Vid for Kingdom Conspiracy

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was Cornelius' profession?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Shepherd Fisherman Carpenter Roman centurion