Since God created Man first, and then decided it was not good for man to be alone, is Woman just an afterthought? Is our whole female purpose to just be a companion for man? Of course, in Genesis 1:27, it says "God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them . . ."
But Genesis 2:18-21 says, "Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." It then goes on to say that God created animals, but none of them would fit the bill for Man. Isn't that a bit insulting? The footnotes in my Bible say, regarding 2:18-21, "To be fully human one needs to be in relation to others who correspond to oneself. Helper, not in a relationship of subordination but of mutuality and interdependence. Creation from the man's rib shows an affinity between man and woman such as is not possible between humans and animals."
Also, isn't it odd that God said it is not good for Man to be alone, only for Paul to write in 1 Corinthians 7,
"1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.. . . . 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. "
How can he say that, based on Genesis? Paul seems to say that the only reason to get married is to prevent immorality. Due to our lack of control . . . . ???? That's rather insulting. And if woman was created FOR man, in a sense, FOR marriage, how can Paul contradict that?
Of course, I do believe that all people were created with gifts and worth. I struggle with these Biblical pictures of woman being created FOR man, as subservient. . . .
Perhaps Paul is trying to give women worth on their own? If it's better for us NOT to marry, then does that mean that Paul sees a greater purpose in women than just to be attached to man?
Must think about this.
I can't express how much I appreciate this post and your thoughts. I am newly married to a wonderful Christian man and we decided a long time ago to have an egalitarian marriage. If there is a big decision we come to an agreement. We both work, we both do housework, and we both do the manual labor (such as shoveling) outside. He does not feel that he is my only channel to God, nor does he feel that I should be subservient to him. This should all be enough for me because our marriage is working great, but many men (and some women) in the church criticize the way we work. It is offensive because I am strong and independent, and I don’t believe that God created women as an afterthought. I think you are on the right track concerning your thoughts about women’s roles. It is certainly more than entertainment or a servant for man.
ReplyDelete