Biblical Womanhood: Part 2

Several weeks ago, I wrote about biblical womanhood. Afterward a theologian posed some good questions for clarification. So I’m using that conversation as a Q/A here to help further explain what it means to be a woman as God designed her. His statements are bold; my explanations follow: 

You say of woman that, “She is an image-bearer,” but then argue that because “she” is an image-bearer the female bears that image completely in and of herself. The underlying assumption is that an individual human being, whether male or female, carries the whole divine image.  

Woman is indeed an image bearer, completely in and of herself. But that does not mean she expresses the full range of image-bearing. Our humanity is a good parallel example. Are women human? Fully and completely in and of themselves? Absolutely. But do they bear the full range of humanity? No. We need man and woman together to demonstrate the full range of humanity. Nevertheless, women are fully human without the presence of men. In the same way, women fully bear the image of God. They don’t need the presence of men in order to bear that image. Yet the full range of image-bearing requires men and women together. 

The two image-bearers complete the divine image together only in their mutuality, by animating their natures in a complementary way, which is most fully actualized in and through procreation (Gen. 1:26–27).  This interpretation is borne out in the blessing and mandate of verse 28, “God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it…” It is literally by their extensive reach into the created world through procreation that this first couple subdues and has dominion over it. 

I agree about the first couple.

Yet later, when Noah emerged from his voyage with the animals, God does repeat the original imperative to be “fruitful and multiply” (9:1). In both the Garden and after the Flood, God give people instructions to fill the earth. It is worth noting, however, that both pronouncements come at critical junctures when those hearing God’s words are earth’s only human inhabitants. Back in the Garden, ish and issah had been charged with increasing from two to many. Following the flood, Noah, his wife, and six family members, face a similar task. If either our first parents or Noah and his family had failed to procreate, the entire human race could have vanished.     

Yet after the Flood, the commands to “multiply and rule” are never repeated. And while some consider “be fruitful and multiply” a timeless command to reproduce biologically, Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul—to name a few—were unmarried. And as mentioned, the New Testament writers never repeat the mandate to biologically multiply. In fact, the New Testament “seems to turn from a Jewish perspective of marriage to valuing celibacy for the kingdom of God.” All talk of multiplying at the time of the earliest Christians turns to focus on multiplying disciples—reproducing spiritually to fill the earth with worshipers.  

It would be simplistic, though, to conclude that the Old Testament emphasizes physical reproduction, while the New Testament emphasizes spiritual reproduction. While biological families do receive emphasis in the Old Testament, the Hebrew portion of the Bible still provides hints that human flourishing goes beyond having children. Isaiah mentions that leaving an eternal legacy will be even better than children for believing eunuchs (56:4–5). So while the Old Testament speaks primarily about biological reproduction and family units, readers still find in its pages subtle references to a different kind of reproduction. Nevertheless, such references are infrequent before Jesus appears.    

With the coming of Christ, however, the emphasis overtly shifts from physical to spiritual reproduction. “Family” is introduced as a metaphor for the spiritual community. Calling non-relatives “brother” and “sister” develops as a new habit, as Jesus says that those who do his will are his mother and sister and brothers. Additionally, single people are more often included among those depicted as righteous in New Testament times. John the Baptist never marries. Nor does Jesus. Anna is a godly woman who never has children (Luke 2:36). And Jesus teaches about a subset of the unmarried saying, “For there are some . . . who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12). Later, the Lord paints a picture of the future in which there will be no marriage nor being given in marriage (Matt. 22:30). This suggests celibacy foreshadows the eternal state in which there is no need to multiply (because there is no death?). 

If Paul was married—and many scholars believe he was widowed—he never mentions it. And his married co-workers, Aquila and Priscilla don’t appear to have had children. In the elder John’s writings, he uses family relationships—spiritual children, youth, and fathers—as metaphors for spiritual maturity (1 John 2). And as mentioned, in Ephesians 5, Paul reveals that an essential purpose in God’s joining of bride and groom is to provide an earthly picture of the heavenly union of Christ and the church. Whether married or single, then, fruitfulness in God’s people is bringing him glory on the earth—working to fill the earth with worshipers. 

This is the task and calling of male and female alike. 

Is God More Male Than Female? Why Was Messiah a Male?

Is God more male than female?Of course not. Nor is he more female than male. God is spirit (John 4:24), so God has no sex. Father and Son are metaphors, not sexual identities.The early church never depicted the Father as a male human. But later...well...consider the Sistine Chapel’s “The Creation of Adam.” Michelangelo painted the Father as an old man with white hair and a long beard. But in earlier centuries, it was considered heretical to portray the Father in human form at all. Only Jesus could be depicted in art, because he did indeed come in human flesh. Matt Milliner, assistant professor of art history at Wheaton College spoke about this at Gordon College in 2013 in his presentation, ”Visual Heresy: Imaging God the Father in the History of Art.”In earlier Christian art, the Father’s presence might be depicted by gold that covers the entire interior of the ceiling (e.g., St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice), or by an empty throne or a hand. People thus thought of God the Father as spirit—invisible—rather than as male.About the time we began depicting the Father as a male human, we removed the Virgin Mary from our art. Many Protestants think Mary appeared all over pre-Protestant art because Roman Catholics worshiped Mary. But that is inaccurate. Pictures of the Madonna and Child were pre-literate (think “flannelgraph”) ways of representing the incarnation. This is why often the face of Christ in Madonna-and-Child images is not the face of a newborn, but of a more mature male. And often Mary was and is depicted as gesturing toward her Son, pointing to her redeemer.Mary had to be physically larger because she was an adult woman when the Spirit overshadowed her. But bigger is not necessarily meant to represent “preeminent.”All this is to say that we tend to imagine God as we have seen him in visual art. So once the Protestant church lost the Mary-and Jesus visual reminders of the incarnation, and we also incorporated male human images of the Father, we ended up imagining God as more male than female.Something similar happened when our knowledge of women in Church history disappeared. The Church in pre-Protestant times also set aside days for remembering the holy men and women from ages past. We still know and even celebrate a few of these…St. Valentine’s Day on February 14; St. Patrick’s Day on March 17; the feast of Stephen on which Good King Wenceslas looked out on December 26…. But in the past, people knew about Felicity and Perpetua and Catherine of Siena and Catherine of Alexandra and many other holy women, whom they remembered every year on their “days.” With the loss of these annual reminders, as Protestants emphasized that all Christians are “saints,” we lost even more of the female images in the Church.In Scripture, God is depicted as both male and female. Through metaphor and simile we get ideas about what the invisible God is like. “He” is a pronoun of personhood, not of sex identification—which is why we do not refer to God as “it,” even though he is spirit and not male human.In the pages of the Word, then, we see “him” depicted as a weaning mother (Ps. 131:2); as a woman looking for a lost coin (Luke 15:8ff); and as one who gives birth from above (John 3:3). Even as early as Genesis 1:2, we have the reference to the Spirit “hovering” over creation in Genesis 1:2—metaphorical language that calls to mind a mother bird incubating and nurturing her creation. In Exodus, God speaks of bearing his children on eagles’ wings (19:4). In Isaiah, he hovers like a bird on a nest (31:5). And both Matthew and Luke record Jesus telling Jerusalem he wanted to gather the city to himself like a mother hen.Why did the Messiah have to be a man?The text does not say. But think about it…. The Scriptures tell us Jesus was conceived by virgin birth through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18). So genetically, he had a human mother but not a human father. If the offspring of the divine/human union had been a female, the redeemer of all humanity would have been a female with only a human mother. Where would that have left men? Unrepresented! The virgin birth that resulted in a male Messiah involves the perfect participation of male and female in the redemption of all males and females. All humanity. Brilliant!

My Chapel Message: Following the Son of Man(ly)

God's wisdom elevates complementary male and female partnerships in ministry.