Created Male and Female

By Terrance Randall Wardlaw Jr. and David M. Howard Jr.

In a culture where gender neutrality is the ideal, why is it significant that we were created differently as male and female? As the ethical consequences of the gender debate in the last generation manifest themselves, this book explores biblical teaching in order to work toward a Christian perspective. This discussion traces the theme of creation as male and female through the canon from the Pentateuch to the epistles and demonstrates how Pauline interpretation flows from Genesis 1-3. The grounding of the distinction between male and female in Genesis 1 as the climax of creation suggests the ethics associated with creation as male and female abide universally and for all time. This book intends to present a comprehensive, yet reasonably concise, presentation of biblical teaching on creation as male and female without bogging down in the detailed disputes between complementarian and egalitarian writers. This discussion considers each passage within its literary context, and patristic writers from the first few centuries of the church function as a control on interpretation.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jan 19, 2021
• ISBN: 9781725284654

Terrance Randall Wardlaw Jr.

Terrance Randall Wardlaw Jr. is a linguist and consultant with SIL International. He is the author of Conceptualizing Words for “God” within the Pentateuch (2008) and Elohim within the Psalms (2015).

Book preview

Chapter 1

Ethics and the Climax of Creation

Many immediately tumble to the topic of ecology when considering the ethical implications of creation in Genesis 1. Conceived more broadly, the category of creation ethics does indeed encompass the issue of human dominion over all living things and care for the earth, and yet it also includes differentiation as male and female, filling the earth with offspring, and the sanctification of the seventh day (Gen 1:26—2:3).¹ In particular, the present study will focus upon ethics associated with the creation of and the distinction between man and woman. Since the creation of humanity on day six occurs within the literary climax of the introductory materials to the canon of Scripture, the neglect of the church catholic to recognize and prophetically declare the ethics of sexual differentiation in contemporary society seems puzzling. Indeed, we shall observe that St. Paul recognized the significance of day six in Genesis 1:26–31, as well as the narrative of Genesis 2, and grounded his understanding of the identity and roles of men and women precisely in these texts.² Therefore, the institutional church’s neglect and, at times, contradiction of created sexual differentiation overturns one of the main emphases of creation as God revealed it and as the early church received it. As noted by Frame, creation ordinances form the basic law of human existence. Because they are grounded in creation rather than in the Mosaic covenant, it remains unlikely that God would overturn or significantly modify these ordinances in the course of history.³

But to the point. In reflecting upon the present day, it remains axiomatic for a church steeped in Western culture that men and women are created equal, and that patriarchy entered only with the fall. Therefore, egalitarians argue that in Christ no role distinction remains between the two, women should serve alongside men in leadership roles and teaching positions, and no hierarchy remains within marriage. Anything less is fallen, repressive, opposed to the Gospel, smacks of sexism, and leads to domestic abuse.⁴ Moreover, some egalitarians argue that if the New Testament requires wives to submit to their husbands, then it also legitimates slavery and requires government by kings.⁵ Therefore, so the argument goes, we cannot absolutize the culture in which the Bible was written.⁶

Traditionalists hardly help this perception. Appeals in previous generations to tradition and broad theological considerations, rather than to the contextual meaning of the very words of Scripture, were doomed to failure. For example, C. S. Lewis in the Anglican context argued against priestesses in the church. He argued chiefly from tradition, broad theological themes, and ad hoc observations which would not be granted today, and he never once appealed to 2 Timothy 2:8–15.⁷ The grounding of tradition upon the teaching of Scripture had been forgotten, the authority of holy writ eclipsed. Thus, the fields were prepared for sowing the claim that traditional views regarding the roles of men and women in the church were based on nothing more than cultural convention.⁸

However, following in the wake of other complementarian writers, the present discussion first intends to present Scripture itself in order to establish the cumulative argument that the coherent doctrine of New Testament complementarian teaching derives from the inspired and authoritative application of Old Testament exegesis rather than from the culture in which the Bible was written.⁹ Accordingly, New Testament teaching founded upon creation ordinances hermeneutically assumes universal validity and authority since inspired exegesis and application derives from God’s revelation rather than from cultural standards, the fall, or an abrogated Mosaic covenant. Second, during the course of discussion this study seeks to glean contextual insights from Scripture regarding the roles and responsibilities of elect men and women in marriage and society. Contemporary egalitarianism—or rather Christian feminism—speaks stridently in monovocal fashion across much of the institutional church, many Bible college faculties, seminaries, mission agencies, and Christian publishers, whereas Scripture teaches the opposite viewpoint most baldly in passages such as 2 Timothy 2:8–15.¹⁰ Accordingly, we shall begin by examining Genesis 1–3, key passages from the Historical Books, and key New Testament epistolary texts. The present discussion assumes the inspiration, authority, inerrancy, and clarity of Scripture in each of these passages, and recognizes that it is precisely the doctrine of Scripture which is at stake when evangelical Christians discuss created roles.¹¹ For if the plain sense of Scripture may be twisted to fit a feminist agenda, then all sense of objective meaning has been lost and Scripture may be co-opted in support of anything. Third, this investigation seeks to discover the patristic interpretation of key biblical texts. Since some writers and bloggers refer to patristic literature and intimate the fathers agreed with or taught egalitarianism, the actual statements of patristic writers will be summarized and quoted for key passages in order for readers to see for themselves the beliefs taught by the church fathers. These orthodox teachers remain perhaps one of the most misquoted sources in the attempt of postmoderns to rewrite church history in their own image on issues ranging from creation and the historicity of Adam, to the nature of marriage. This appeal to patristic literature is not toward the end of an argument from tradition, but rather seeks to discover how the early church understood and applied Scripture. Reception history functions as a corrective for the historical, cultural, and linguistic distance of modernity and postmodernity. Otherwise, the temptation looms large to assume this generation’s common sense has been maintained in all times and places as self-evidently true.¹²

From the outset, the present author acknowledges that more must be said regarding the biblical responsibilities of redeemed men in treating women with dignity and respect. However, the present work limits its scope to defining the nature and contextual meaning of the anthropological theme of man and woman in Scripture in response to the increasing influence of evangelical feminism and the questionable exegetical practices wielded in its support. The implications of the present approach lead to a call for men to grow in Christlikeness. This call, in conjunction with a serious and rigorous application of passages such as 1 Corinthians 13, Ephesians 5:21–33, and Philippians 2:3–4, entails the inculcation of a culture within the church which does not tolerate demeaning statements toward women, domestic abuse, the use of pornography, or any behavior which supports the industry of sex trafficking. Ironically, as evangelical feminists attempt to better the plight of women, the ensuing feminization of the institutional church marginalizes men, many of whom want nothing to do with neutered godliness. Men vote with their feet, and the church exhibits a diminishing influence on male culture with each passing year. Men behave badly and throw off all constraint rather than submitting to the Word and the Spirit subsequent to regeneration. Inwardly craving significance and respect, men misguidedly attempt to satisfy their lusts with work, recreation, and illicit sexual gratification. Many women long to be loved faithfully and cherished, and instead our culture lifts high a male agenda and male characteristics as the ultimate for female achievement. The Bible speaks to this situation.

Moreover, the erasure of characteristic male and female identity within the church silences the church’s prophetic declaration to the nations regarding created and blessed sexual differences. The outworking of secular feminism within Western culture has resulted in the rise of the LGBTQ movement and its universal advocacy in the pulpit of mainstream media.¹³ The ideologically driven egalitarian movement hamstrings the church and prevents it from presenting a well reasoned and articulate response with a unified voice in the hope of influencing Western culture for the good.

Finally, the present discussion is not intended as a comprehensive defense of complementarianism, which maintains adherence to a straightforward and contextual reading of 2 Timothy 2:8–15 and other passages, nor is it intended as a refutation of every nuance or novel argument presented by contemporary egalitarians, who argue no biblical mandate exists for the distinction in roles between men and women. Rather, this discussion aims toward the more modest goal of presenting a straightforward and sequential reading of passages from Scripture relevant to creation as male and female. Although many detailed treatments exist of aspects of this debate, no comprehensive and reasonably succinct summary presentation of scriptural teaching on created differentiation remains readily available for the educated layman, pastor, or seminary