Male and Female Relationship

Here is another paper that I am working through for that Systematics class at Fuller. (The same class that I posted earlier this month for...) This paper is about the male and female relationship. Again, the first section is the assignment that I had to work within, the second portion is the paper, and the third section is the endnotes... Sorry that the numbers don't show up for the endnotes. Would love feedback and creative thoughts regarding the writing...




An adult Sunday School class of a church in your city is beginning a series entitled “Relationships of Men and Women in the Bible,” and they have asked you to be a guest speaker for the first session. Of course, they want you to talk about Adam and Eve! Your next-door neighbor began attending that church a year ago, and you have noticed some problems developing in their relationship. The wife has become more passive and even depressed, while the husband seems to be caught up with the challenge to be the “godly leader” of “his home.” They have shown interest in this series and you expect that they will attend. In considering the needs of this group, you realize that your first talk could have major implications for their evaluation of subsequent sessions. Taking this opportunity seriously, you decide to write out your view of male/female relationships based upon the biblical account of creation, also relevant texts from the New Testament. Don’t worry that reading your paper to the class may only consume six or seven minutes... you know that the nature of its content will generate lively discussion!






We all come with different ideas regarding the male and female relationship. We all have had different experiences. Our different experiences have included families that have taught us differently, friends that have handled relationships differently, people who have taught us with different approaches to the male/female relationship, and life experiences that have given us different pieces of wisdom. Not all of our ideas are right, and not all of our ideas within the processing of our experiences are wrong. All of our experiences are simply what they are; experiences that are in need of process. With this in mind, we must approach the subject of the male/female relationship with great humility as we process through the Bible with one another.
Beginning the subject of the male/female relationship within the Bible, it seems to be fitting that we begin in the twenty sixth and twenty seventh verses in the first chapter of Genesis. Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God created them male and female in his likeness and in his image. While being made in the likeness of God can also be translated as being made in the similitude of God, we may find it more interesting to look at the deeper implications of what it means to be made in the image of God. To be made in his image also literally means to be cut out of God. As we are cut out of God we receive God’s ontic imprint on our lives, which many believe manifests itself within the human character and the human soul. So when it comes to both males and females being made in the image of God, it will be helpful to remember that both males and females are “cut out” of God and this “cutting out” is represented in who we are called to be as humans.
So who are we called to be as humans? As we continue in the first chapter of Genesis we can see that God has made male and female in his image, and that in between the two statements of being made in his image, we read that we are called to rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, the wild animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground. This seems to be the author’s way of emphasizing that we are called to rule over God’s created order. We must be careful when we intertwine being made in God’s image with ruling over creation. We must remember how God rules and refuse the temptation of ruling as the world views the action of ruling. Jesus says in Matthew 20:28 that he did not come to be served (passive), but rather came to serve (active) and to give his life as a ransom for many. The Greek word for ransom is lutron and means to be an instrument by which deliverance is made possible. Jesus is both the male and female example of what it means to rule, and thus we too are called to rule, or serve, or be a lutron by which deliverance is made possible for creation.
Within the idea of male and female being “cut out” of God, and both male and female being called to rule over the earth, we also have to address the reality of differentiation within our personhood. As humans, we have been differentiated as male and female. Sexually this differentiation is intrinsic to the polarity of the human within the framework of the image of God. It also seems that as individual humans are born, grow and function within a culture, differentiation seems to happen within the level of personality. It seems that God has found it fitting that this differentiation is necessary in order for males and females to rule over the earth. Thus, the “cut out” of the male and the female are different and yet equally important for this ruling over the earth. Within this differentiation of gender and personality , we must seek unity in ruling the created order not as male and female, but as humanity.
Unity within differentiation may sound like a positive idea, but this idealistic unity becomes more difficult as we begin to work our way through the third chapter of Genesis. He (the serpent) said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gensis 3:1b-5) Essentially, the woman was coerced by the serpent into thinking that she should be God, not the she will be like God. God has already told her that she is like God. In this moment, Eve chose to work at becoming God, and the natural result was a division between humanity and God. Similarly, when sin enters the constructs of differentiation, one person views reality as an individual with an autonomous ego, rather than as a united corporate body, “cut out” of God to rule over the created order with God.
While marriage was instituted before this division happened between humanity and God, it seems that the marriage covenant has been helpful in maximizing the unity of the corporate body of husband and wife as a secondary order of God. Since differentiation is the primary order of God and precedes the order of marriage, we must keep our priorities straight in remembering that marriage is secondary and that marriage is made possible by the primary order of differentiation. Thus, in keeping our priorities in proper order, we must be mindful that marriage serves to achieve unity within differentiation. Thus, marriage seems helpful in aiding within the context of the primary order of differentiation. This responsibility, however, ultimately belongs to the primary order of human beings as differentiated, called to rule with one another in a unified fashion.
In bringing this conversation full circle, we must look at the eschatological dimensions of male and female. Mark shares the words of Jesus in the twenty fifth verse of the twelve chapter of his Gospel. “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” This verse seems to imply that as we move deeper into the reality of eternity, we will no longer be male or female. Thus the marriage relationship that we responsibly maintain as a secondary order will no longer apply as heaven and earth converge on one another. The way that these differentiated relationships are handled within the secondary order are temporal and will fade into the new order of the deepest levels of reality as God’s reign fully comes.
This topic is mysterious and must be handled with humility within the context of all of our different experiences. We are created, or “cut out” of God’s image, and a portion of what it means to be created in God’s image is that we are called to rule with God over creation. This ruling, or serving, is to be done in unity within the primary order of the differentiation of male and female. Unity within the ruling is difficult, especially within the construct of a humanity that has chosen to divide itself from God. Marriage is a secondary order that is helpful in pursuing unity within differentiation for supporting the call of humanity in ruling over the created order. While positive relationships within a differentiated humanity is important, these relationships will be temporal as the eschatological implications of eternity seem to point towards a future with no differentiation between male and female as the Kingdom is fully ushered in.


ENDNOTES

I think that the TNIV version of Genesis 1:26,27 is better suited in the English language than a version such as the King James. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (KJV) One can easily grasp how women have been subject to such disrespect by men in the church through scriptures such as these. TNIV brings about a better understanding of reality through its translation.

Mlx can also mean “something cut out”. This is a vivid picture to in teaching this text to give a picture of what it means to be made in the image of God. In a world where cut and paste are so prominent, the idea of being cut out of God will be very tangible for those who are involved in the 21st century. Accordance Bible Software Version 7.1. Copyright 2006, Oaktree Software Incorporated. www.accordancebible.com.

Anderson gives the three key texts for the imago Dei. He includes Genesis 1:26 and 27, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 9:6. On page 217 he then goes on to explain Genesis 1:26 and 27 by distinguishing from image and likeness. Anderson writes that the image of God represents the ontic imprint of God on the human character, typically reason or conscience. Likeness, he then contends, is the original state of God likeness that was lost in the fall. Thus Adam could not lose the image of God, but only the likeness. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 216, 217.)

Baker Commentary 12, this is not much of a jump. The Baker Commentary notes that “man is animal, but is more than animal. Man is godlike, but he is less than God.” The commentary then continues to say than man is to rule over the remainder of the created order. The commentary also notes than this is not a “license to rape” and destroy everything in the environment. “Even here he who would be lord of all must be servant of all.” While I don’t like Hamilton’s comment on being animal but being more than animal, I feel that he finished strong with his comments on servant ruling. Commentary on the Bible: Based on the NIV (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1989 p. 12.)

Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 both touch on the importance of Jesus as the God who came to serve. The natural end of his serving was a reality of ransom. Louw and Nida define ransom as “the means or instrument by which release or deliverance is made possible”. I love the thought that we are to be instruments by which release or deliverance is made possible for creation! Accordance Bible Software Version 7.1. Copyright 2006, Oaktree Software Incorporated. www.accordancebible.com.

This differentiation can be more easily seen as we view both males and females being “cut out” of the image of God. Personally, it is almost a geographical picture of males being cut out of this portion of God and females being cut out of that portion of God. While the theological implications may not be perfect in this instance, I think that this picture will help the learners of the study to get a bigger and better picture of differentiation and imago Dei. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 105.)

Barth would disagree. For instance, Anderson quotes Barth, “For humans, sexual determination as male and female is the only differentiation.” Through the rest of this essay, one will encounter that I feel as if differentiation goes beyond the sexual On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p.53.)

Anderson does a lovely job of explaining the effect of sin on the differentiation of humanity. He writes that the result of sin is to pursue the individual ego, rather than the corporate ego. This individual ego also seems to encompass the individual sex, rather than the balanced uniting of both sexes to purse a servant ruling of creation. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 108.)

While this idea may seem to be too academic for this setting, I think that it is a necessary conclusion to the argument that I am making. This point is the glue that holds this whole argument together. Also, the title of this series that I am introducing is called Relationships of Men and Women in the Bible. People are probably going to be attending that want to hear more about the marriage relationship. Most importantly, my neighbors need to be thinking more about the male and female relationship in light of their current struggles. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 52.)

Anderson writes that the relationships of husband and wife and of mother and father as we know them are temporal and provisional in light of the eschatological order. Thus, while being responsible in these relationships, we must be mindful that a deeper level of reality is on its way. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 118.)