- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/1)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/2)
The Extraordinary Value of Women (I)
- 03/01/07
- 29
A few days ago I received an interesting email from a reader of this site. She had read an older article of mine in which I affirmed the Bible’s position about the extraordinary value of women. While she was grateful that I had written such an article, she shared some of her struggles with distinguishing between differing roles and differing value. She wrote “No matter how I push my body to its limits, and no matter how much endurance I have to exhibit, God will always consider me a ‘weaker vessel.’ Galatians 3:21 seems to indicate that men and women are of equal value, but it’s very difficult to distinguish between a lower ROLE and a lower VALUE. It’s an uphill battle for me. God told me to embrace what I cannot change.”
I thought I would try to address her misgivings and struggles over the next couple of days. Today I will post an article based on the one I first posted a couple of years ago. Tomorrow I’ll discuss her questions more specifically.
I think it is important to affirm that there is no system of religion that exalts women higher than biblical Christianity. That is quite a claim, I realize, but one that can be easily proven by examining Scripture and comparing what Scripture says about women to the way they are treated by other religions or by those who adhere to no religion. Those who think the Bible is unfair to women and somehow feel they need to raise the status of women always end up damaging women. The result of decades of feminism testifies to this truth for womanhood has suffered terribly in our society. More on this soon.
Some time ago a person sent a question to the Reformed Baptist mailing list, of which I am a member. He recounted that he was teaching eighth graders and one young lady asked a question about Adam and Eve. This girl noted that after Adam named all of the animals and saw how they were paired, he realized that there was no counterpart to him. And so God created Eve as a helper to Adam. It seems, suggested the girl, that God created Eve only to serve as a partner to Adam in allowing him to procreate. It is almost as if women were an afterthought in God’s mind. So why didn’t God create man and woman together as He had done with the animals? Why did He introduce Eve in such a way that she seems primarily to serve her man?
Turning to Genesis 1:27 we see that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” The next verse reads, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living things that moves on the earth.” It must be noted that God created both male and female in His image, and that He did so before He actually called either into being. In reality, then, men and women were created concurrently for they are inseparable in their God-given role of multiplying and subduing the earth. God could hardly create only a man and command him to be fruitful and multiply!
One astute member of the mailing list replied that this girl has probably created in her mind a romanticized version of the events leading to the creation of Eve. In Genesis 2:20 we read that “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.” Previously, in verse 18, God has already said, “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper fit for him.” It makes a nice story to believe that Adam named all of the animals and then, noting that there was no helper suitable for him, felt loneliness. The Bible, though, does not state this. Scripture tells us that it was God, not Adam, who noted “that it was not good that the man should be alone.” We have no basis to assume that Adam was in any way lonely or that he felt any insufficiency. Adam lived in a perfect world and had perfect communion with God. Surely he did not feel any sense of loneliness. The person concluded, as I have, that Adam did not need Eve to fill some deep-rooted emptiness in his life, but that he needed a wife to fulfill his God-given mandate. Thus woman was not created to fill a social or sexual need in Adam, but to complete the Lord’s purpose for humans. Eve was not needed to complete Adam, but to complete God’s command to Adam.
So let’s return to my claim that the Bible regards women in a way that is higher than other religions. The reason for this is obvious: the God who created us male and female, also prescribes our roles. As our Creator, He knows the reason He made us and knows how we can best live our lives. Only the Bible outlines the Creator’s instruction to His creatures. We must understand that while God affirms equal worth, He speaks of differing roles. For example, women have the unique role and privilege of bearing children. Because they are physically weaker than men they have a need for support and protection, and this is a need God has commanded husbands to fill. God also establishes proper order in the family by assigning to men the job of headship in home and church.
One of the best (and most succinct) summaries of Scripture’s position on women comes from the introduction to John MacArthur’s book, Twelve Extraordinary Women
Special Honor - While recognizing role distinctions, the Bible sets women apart for special honor. A husband is commanded to live sacrificially and to value his wife’s life higher than his own. Women are highly valued by God and are to receive this same value from men.
Due Distinction - The biblical accounts of the great men of the Old Testament consistently give distinction to their wives. Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel are only a few examples of women who play prominent roles in Scripture. Other women who are integral to the Bible are Eve, Miriam, Deborah and Ruth. We even find Wisdom personified as woman and the church being called the bride of Christ. God does not shy away from giving credit to women of faith and to using metaphors that require female imagery.
Religious Equality - Women were never excluded from the social and religious life in either the Old or New Testaments. Women participated in feasts and times of public worship. They were not required to be silent or to be hidden from sight behind veils. Jesus’ group of disciples included several women, a practice almost unknown at the time. In my repeated readings of Acts I have seen time and again that women are given constant mention among the first converts and among those who played integral roles in the early church. One could almost argue that God goes out of His way to point to the importance of women in these situations.
The biblical teaching on the value of women stands in stark contrast to that of other religions, and especially religions of that day. Women in pagan societies were often treated with little more dignity than animals. Many systems of religion and philosophy taught that women were inherently inferior to men, a claim that is clearly revoked in Scripture. Pagan religion, while it may have paid homage to female deities, devalued women by creating elaborate rituals which required sacred prostitutes. These religions, while supposedly honoring women, in reality debased them, much as feminism does in our day.
MacArthur concludes (read this carefully for it is of utmost importance!) that “Wherever the gospel has spread, the social, legal and spiritual status of women has, as a rule, been elevated. When the gospel has been eclipsed (whether by repression, false religion, secularism, humanistic philosophy, or spiritual decay within the church), the status of women has declined accordingly.” Secular efforts to increase the status of women have largely failed, as we have seen with the feminist movement of the twentieth century. This movement sought to elevate the status of women, but did so at the cost of their femininity, seeking to rob women of what makes them so distinctive. The whole message of the feminist agenda is that there is nothing all that extraordinary about women, for they are just like men. The Bible, though, tells a different story. MacArthur states that “[W]henever the Bible expressly talks about the marks of an excellent women, the stress is always on feminine virtue. The most significant women in Scripture were influential not because of their careers, but because of their character. The message these women collectively give is not about “gender equality”; it is about true feminine excellence. And this is always exemplified in moral and spiritual qualities rather than by social standing, wealth or physical appearance.”
The Bible continually affirms that women are extraordinary. Women have value and worth that is in every way equal to men. Women are no mere afterthought, but are an integral and equal part of God’s design for human beings. The Bible is unique in that it honors women as women, exalting them for their femininity, and encouraging them to seek honor in a uniquely feminine and God-glorifying way.
I’ll continue this tomorrow.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (29)
This is an excellent post! I love John Mac’s book that you mentioned, too and I think it helps to just go to scripture and seeing what God has revealed as His plans and purposes! Thanks for this insight!
kim
I would disagree with you regarding the loneliness of Adam. As you point out, God said in 2:18, “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper fit for him.” Why then does God not next just make the helper He has purposed to make? Why put this task between God’s purpose to make the helper and the actual making of her? Because God wants Adam to experience the pain of loneliness. What will Adam notice about the animals? That they are paired up. When verse 20 says “…But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him”, it is legitimate to ask “Who was looking?” Who is trying to find a helper fit for him? Not God. God has already said what He is going to do. No helper was found, as Adam looked. Part of the purpose for bringing the animals to Adam was to create in him a sense of loneliness. God has already said that in perfect Paradise something is not good. This is a striking contrast to all the other statements that “God saw that it was good.”
Adam needs to know that something in Paradise is not good. He needs to feel it. “To call out this want, God brought the larger quadrupeds and birds to the man” (Keil and Delitzsch). We see an indication of this when Adam says “This is now bone of my bone…” “This is now” can be accurately translated “at last”. Matthew Henry puts it this way “Now I have what I wanted, and which all the creatures could not furnish me with, an help for me”. Calvin says “Adam indicates that something had been wanting to him; as if he had said, Now, at length I have obtained a suitable companion…”
Seeing God providing for Adam’s loneliness is not just a nice story without biblical support.
Thanks for the encouragement to buy that book. I’ve noted it several times but have never done so. (I plan on reading it with my wife.)
Josh”…the word of God is not bound.”—2 Timothy 2:9
Tim,I am relatively new to your site and really like and appreciate what you have to say concerning the value of women. I highly regard women, even when they do not highly value themselves. I, in particular, am tremendously blessed with a wise and Godly wife to support me and help equip my 9 arrows to be shot into the world for God’s glory.
I am a little confused trying to align what you said in the following statement with 1 Corinthians 14:35. “They were not required to be silent or to be hidden from sight behind veils.” 1 Cor. 14:35 “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” I am not trying to trap you but would like to understand your interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:35. I do not think that a woman has to hide behind a veil, but on the other end of the spectrum I do not agree with a woman functioning as a Pastor. I do not take every verse in Scripture as literal, or else my wife would wear a head covering other than her beautiful hair.
It is not my intent to belittle women, especially Christian families that sacrifice greatly so that the wife/mother can be a keeper at home. If you could shed some light on this I would appreciate it.
I am reminded of the number of feminine metaphors to describe God’s care of His people. A woman can understand the references to childbirth and nursing more fully than a man. Moreover, I believe God’s use of these vehicles to describe Himself indicate His value of the woman.
My favorite:Isaiah 49:15-16Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.
There’s a distinct difference between my response to my baby crying to be fed, and my husband’s response to the noise.
Ken said:Part of the purpose for bringing the animals to Adam was to create in him a sense of loneliness. God has already said that in perfect Paradise something is not good.
I don’t think anyone would argue with you that God was demonstrating to Adam that he was not like the animals, and that he did not have a mate among them. Adam may have experienced loneliness in the sense that he realized he was the only human. But this all happened in one day. When Tim talks about a romanticized version of the story, he means that Adam wasn’t alone for weeks, waking up alone and sighing disconsolately, wishing that God had made things differently.
At least that’s what I think Tim meant.
Great post! My husband and I agree completely on God’s intention for men and women to have different roles, in terms of leadership in the Church and in the home. There is no doubt that the man was created to be the head of the household and the Church. The problem we usually run into in our family is what exactly the word “head” means. There is no doubt that my husband is the leader in our home. I and my 3 kids yield to him in everything we do. I am home with my children now while they are young (3 kids ages 3 and under) and while my husband finishes out his commitment with the military. He thinks it best that we send our children to the local public school when they are old enough. At that time, he has thought about quitting work to stay at home to tend to the house and go to school part-time. Not only is he incredibly gifted in organization and cooking/cleaning ability, but he has wanted to get his master’s degree for awhile now. If he decides this is best, I would be going to work full-time. I loved the working world before I had children. The kids will always be with us or at school—no extra childcare will be necessary. This is not some feminist or financial “agenda” for us. I completely and totally trust my husband’s leadership, whether he thinks it best for us to move out to the country and me homeschool the kids, or whether he thinks it best for me to work and him to stay home. My husband is the head of our home while he’s folding towels and mopping the floor just as much as he is when he’s the commander of a military squadron, like he is now. He has sought wisdom from other Godly men and, of course, Scripture, on this issue. From his study, he has concluded that God’s overall intention regarding men’s and women’s roles would not be altered here because many references to women keeping the home, etc… are to be considered according to the culture (women didn’t have many other options in Biblical times, right?) and the needs of each individual family. The bottom line is that the husband is the spiritual head of the home and women are to yield to his leadership. We would be very interested in your thoughts on this situation and others that might be similar. Thanks so much for posting on this topic. It’s something that can be very controversial and hard to approach for both men and women. God bless you!
Why were women considered unclean for a longer period of time after having a female child? (See Leviticus 12)Thoughts?
Here’s proof from Carolyn McCulley that women of other religions are treated FAR worse:
http://www.solofemininity.blogs.com/
Good post Tim - “Surely he did not feel any sense of loneliness . . ” is right. Adam was in a perfect relationship with God. Loneliness is a result of the curse of sin - and the Hebrew word for it (which does not appear until later in the O.T.) means isolation, withdrawl, separation, solitary or desolate, etc. It is used this way in Lev. 13:46 for example. Only after the Fall was loneliness experienced by man - between him and the Creator, between Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel. Real loneliness is essentially relational - and can be experienced even when in physical proximity to others. It is perhaps interesting that no Hebrew word meaning “alone” is even used in the key passage of Genesis 2:18 (it is supplied in translations). Literally - it is not good “for the man to be” - that is, unaccompanied in meeting his mandate. And so the comment is right on when you write: “Eve was not needed to complete Adam, but to complete God’s command to Adam.”
To Kate in comment #7,I really enjoyed reading about your beliefs and practice. It’s great to hear about families that consider God’s order worthwhile. And to Tim,Thanks for writing about this topic. I look forward to the rest of the series.
Good post Tim. Nice thoughts. Although there are a few areas that I’m not sure on, I can’t say you’re wrong.
To Tim (comment 4) - You said, “I do not take every verse in Scripture as literal, or else my wife would wear a head covering other than her beautiful hair.”
Firstly, what do you mean by literal? Does that mean you pick and choose what you think is right? Or does that mean (for example) you don’t think it’s a literal chain that the devil is bound with in Rev 20?
Secondly, your wife should be wearing a head covering in the house of God as it is revealed in scripture.
Armen (Post #14),
I exhort you to investigate the topic further: http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bbmw.pdf
Blessings.
I don’t need to brother, I already have. Here is a brief exposition by myself. Read in conjunction with a literal translation such as the A.V. The verses missed out are not because I don’t understand them or anything, but because I feel their message is clear without me saying any more.
1 Cor 11 is obviously where it’s dealt with -
v3 - the head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is the man
v4 - if a man has his head covered he dishonours Christ
v5 - but if a woman has her head uncovered, she dishonours her husband
v6 - if a woman isn’t going to cover her head, then shave off her hair. But if that is not appropriate (for whatever reason; choice, culture) then her head must be covered. In Bible times a shaven head was a sign of a harlot.
v7 - man is the image and glory of God (God is to get ALL glory in public worship). But the woman is the glory of the man (so she must be covered because man isn’t to get any glory).
v10 - (this verse causes some problems) basically, the woman is to have “a sign of the husband’s authority over his wife” (this is what “power” means here - quote is taken from strongs concordance) because the angels of God are watching (possibly to see whether God is being glorified in the worship).
v14 - nature even shows that long hair ought not to be found upon a man (sign of rebellion and evil, Read Rev 9:7,8 to confirm this if you like)
v15 - the hair of a woman is a special physical attribute that God has given to her. It is the highlight of her physical appearance and therefore is her “glory” given to her as a covering (or veil).
So if we particularly compare v6,7 and 15 we see firstly why it say a woman should shave her head if she’s not going to wear a covering; because it is her “glory” and none ought to glory in the presence of God.
Secondly, the woman is the “glory” of the man (better half??) and therefore, again the man’s glory ought to be covered.
Thirdly, in v8,9 we see that woman was taken from the man and is in subjection to him (or ought to be) and therefore, this covering indicates the womans willingness to obey God in being subject to the man. Read 1 Peter 3:5,6 to further support the biblical view of womans subjection to the man.I have just scanned the verses and tried to paraphrase them for easier understanding.
May God make us ALL subject to his word, and not to the pressures of society.
God bless.
Why were women considered unclean for a longer period of time after having a female child? (See Leviticus 12)Thoughts?——————————————-I have read that it might be not that the period was longer for women bearing children that were female, but by urgency of circumcision, cut short for males. It doesn’t actually say “And yea the normal period is the boy period and girls are out of lucketh for a longer time…”
One *could* make the argument that it’s even more necessary to get males under covenant protection because *they* are the weaker sex!
The point is, noone can really say definitively why this law was laid down as it was, and we must be careful of reading things that are not there into the text based on our modern presuppositions (ie, that all women in (ancient) religion are oppressed).
Why were women considered unclean for a longer period of time after having a female child? (See Leviticus 12)Thoughts?I’m thinking that “unclean” would be a great thing. No cooking! No house guests! What a great thing, to have a longer break from responsibilities. I think that God provided for those women to have some time off, but the male babies had to be circumcised, so the mom had to get it together faster. Sue
Women may well be treated better in Christian countries than elsewhere. In fact, much of what is now called feminism came out of the Christian community and is now rejected by parts of that same community. Consider the Salvation Army, the Elizabeth Fry society and the Quakers in terms of social reform. They are all egalitarian Christian organizations.
Feminism has meant that it is no longer legal to beat your wife. In fact, the law in our country requiring the crown to prosecute an abusive spouse, instead of the victim being responsible to prosecute, has brought about an important major shift in justice and is directly due to feminist activism. As is the equal right to education, the workplace, remuneration, banking and titles, voting and so on. Excatly which of these rights is the so-called biblical womanhood movement ready to give up to make the point that women don’t need feminism. Or do they want to have it both ways.
Why not recognize that feminism is a healthy outgrowth of Christianity in many of its forms.
“God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
It must be noted that God created both male and female in His image,
Tim, could you explain how such a thing must be noted from this verse? If I’m reading it correctly, it actually seems to say the opposite — namely, that only the man was created in God’s image. (1 Cor 11:7 seems to support this, too.)
Please understand, I’m not trying to stir up controversy! It’s just that I can’t figure out whether this is a bad translation job or a bad interpretation job. They can’t both be right, though: either woman wasn’t created in the image of God, or Genesis 1:27 ought to say, “In the image of God he created them.”
Armen - I think it would be useful to exhibit a bit of discretion in addressing a topic that is so disputed among Christians. The attitude of “I’ve got it figured out and you’re wrong” does little to convict anyone. I’d recommend framing your arguments in humility with an attitude of “While I know this is a difficult subject, my studies have led me to believe…”
“Tim, could you explain how such a thing must be noted from this verse?”
I don’t know that I can explain it further. It seems clear to me from the verse…
“Eve was not needed to complete Adam, but to complete God’s command to Adam.” Complete what command? The command to be “fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” was given after God had made man male and female, after Eve was made, according to Genesis 1:18. There is no evidence that this command was given before Eve was made. He was commanded to work and keep the garden and commanded not to eat the fruit (2:15f), but that is all we are told. To say that loneliness is because of the fall is to impose what we know of it onto Adam. It strikes me as a utilitarian to say that Eve was only created to help fulfil a mandate. Human companionship was part of the original intention of God for humanity and the account in Genesis 2 shows Adam’s need for it and God’s provision of it. This in no way slights the relationship Adam had with God. Adam was created with real human emotions and God made him feel the absence of fellowship with another human. And then He supplied it, in answer to that need. What a God and what a glorious account!
Good piece, Tim.
“I don’t know that I can explain it further. It seems clear to me from the verse…”
Okay, what I mean is that the verse states “in the image of God he created him” (that is, Adam) and does not have a corollary to the effect of “in the image of God he created her, too.”
Travis,
It may help to think of ‘man’ here as a federal term, that is, Adam as representative of the race of mankind, with ‘him’ merely being a nice grammatical means to refer to back to the noun. Often Hebrew will use a masculine pronoun if the group of people being referred to contains men and women.
In essence, what I read is that God created Man (Adam in Hebrew) corporately, federally, in seed form - in his own image but as individuals he created us males and females.
Nice posts, Tim. I hope that they are of some help to the woman who sent the email. I have a few thoughts that I hope she will read.
Feminism could never have existed were it not for the freedom Christianity gave to women. You don’t see too many feminists arising out of cultures that degrade women. Feminism is a perversion of a good thing.
Still, feminism has major impact on our view of ourselves as women since it is so deeply embedded in our culture. Ask yourself, how much of your view of your self as a woman is shaped by our ultra-feminist culture? It is important to examine what shapes your ideas that a woman’s role is “lower” and that God views women as “weaker.” Our culture thinks that being a wife and mother are insignificant roles. But Scripture would tell us otherwise (as Tim demonstrated in his 2 posts). Which do I choose to believe? The world, or God’s word?
A man from my church likes to explain the “weaker vessel” verse this way:Consider the difference between a coffee mug and a fine china tea cup, or a beautiful crystal goblet. Is the weaker vessel less significant? Not at all! It must be treated with greater respect and care - it may be used for different purposes and on different occasions than the plain old mug….See the analogy? I think it’s a good one.
It took me some years to truly embrace that God created me a woman. I thought that I might have received more praise from my father if I was a boy. I am grateful that God has opened my eyes to His design for me as a woman. We are the pinnacle of creation! As Matthew Henry puts it,”If man is the head, she is the crown, a crown to her husband, the crown of the visible creation. The man was dust refined, but the woman was dust double-refined…” I would encourage you to ask God to see you as He does, and be willing to accept His love for you fully.
Finally, in response to #8, I remember back in the days when I felt angry about passages like the Lev. commands for purity. I said something to my mother about the discrimination that I felt was inherent in the longer period of “uncleanness” after having had a girl. She just smiled and said, “I think there’s a reason for that.” When speaking with other mothers I’ve heard that their discharge after having a girl lasted much longer than after having a boy. (I only have boys) I’m not a scientist - but maybe it has something to do with the hormones….?
Tim Challies (19) - I am saddened that you think that of me. I in know way wrote my reply to give that sort of perception. Mark addressed me giving me the impression that he assumed I had not studied the subject - I felt then I should not only say that I had looked at it, but also give a little exposition on my findings for the benefit of anyone interested. Much as I would love to know that what I wrote was profitable to someone, my main reason was to uphold the teaching of the Word.
If you don’t appreciate it, I’ll refrain in the future.
God be with you!
David,
I see what you mean, but this particular word is only used elsewhere in the Pentateuch to refer specifically to males (for instance, as the subjects of circumcision or animal sacrifices). Since Gen 1:27 would be the only Mosaic usage of this word as “humankind,” the “federal head” interpretation doesn’t look like it fits in this case.
I think that one very serious way in which the feminist revolution has greatly harmed the value of woman in our society is that woman have lost and continue to lose their domestic skills. As public school consumes so much of a girls time and almost solely promotes academics over life skills girls are taught to believe that success is found in a good career. To get married and start a family young would be selling short her potential so woman get careers. When she finally does get married and have kids she will probably feel less useful at home then she did at work because that is where all her skills and experiences lies. This means that she is less valuable in the home then she was 100 years ago. Instead she may feel like she needs to work. If she had frugal domestic skills like food preservation, gardening, sewing, etc. her value in the home would probably be more appreciated and she would feel less need to work.
I would like to clarify - I am not angry or upset about Lev 12. I just wonder what it means.
Is this John MacArthur the same John MacArthur who writes that “Man, in a sense, shines with thedirect light of God, while women shines with the derived light from man” ? Do you comfort you daughter, when she wakes at night with the thought that you are wonderful not quite as wonderful as her brother but that you. her father loves her. Do you hold you wife and whisper into her ear that she is glorious but not quite as glorious as you. In the dark when the wind howls they would find these cold comforts I’m sure and I doubt you offer them.John MacArthur’s praise is hollow and patronizing if in the other hand he holds the tarnished star of eternal subordination.