Tenet 2

The Image of God and Gender Roles

Tenet 2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption. The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man. (Gen. 1:27-28; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; Eph. 5:28; 1 Pet. 3:7)

Gen 1:27-28 – So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

I Cor. 11:3 – But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Man is the head, but not all Greek scholars agree on the meaning of head here. 1 Cor. was first written in Greek, and their word here is kephale. Like the English head, kephale has the first meaning of the body part above the neck. After that, it has some symbolic meanings. Is "authority figure" one of them? Some Greek scholars say this word never mean authority figure. Even scholars who very much like to see male authority in the Bible, claim head mean "origin" more often than "authority."

(If you read authority into head here, you would read the authority figure of every man – atheistic man, male murderer, male Hindu priest, or drug abuser in the gutter- is Christ. “Is Christ.” Not “ought to be Christ.” Is He indeed their authority figure?)

1 Cor. 11:7 – For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

This text is rather baffling, as the woman was already called the image of God in Gen. 1, and God crowns us with glory according to Ps. 8:5 (man in :4 is not a gender specific word in the Hebrew),and we (male and female) change into the image of God’s glory (2Co 3:18).

Eph. 5:28 – So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

Eph. 5:28 is a very good truth, but seems to have no relevance to the tenet.

I Pet. 3:7 – Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
 

Being heirs together of the grace of life probably mean that they share equal worth in redemption. Whatever is meant by "as to the weaker vessel", this does not deminish the equal worth of women before God. Women should not be dishonored.
 

2a) Both man and woman are made in God’s image

Yes. That is Biblical.

b) (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character)

If that explanation of what "made in God's image" mean is in the Bible, they should give a Bible reference for it. It’s easy to believe, but these are called Biblical tenets, and this one is not backed up from the Bible.

c) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth.

Yes. (Note that earth does not include people. Humans should exercise domininion over animals and planet, but Gen. 1:27-28 cannot be used to defend taking dominion over other humans. After all, they have the same dominion mandate.)

d) They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption.

Yes. Men and women were created equal, and God saves them completely and equally from whatever was marred by sin. As such, even if sin marred the equality, then saved men and women would be again equal in God's sight, or "equal in redemption." It could have had a verse to back it up, but it is Biblical. In fact, equality seemingly goes further: In the church, by Gal. 3:28, it does not matter if someone is male or female, as (s)he has Christ inside.

TBP show lip service to equality here, but in practice, where do we see them applying this truth? In what ways are men and women treated as equals within Vision Forum’s teachings and actions? (Also see the words “functional equals" in tenet 14.)

e) The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man.

The text certainly does not say that man is the image and glory "in terms of authority." Authority is not in the text. By Ps. 8:5 and 2Co 3:18, we know "woman is the glory of man" is only a part of the truth, as she is, like man, also the glory of God.
 

Other ways Christians understand this:

I already touched on the opinion difference over head in Greek. Also notice that "the head of woman is man" is singular, and may refer to Adam being the head (source, beginning) of Eve. If women are the glory of man, men should be proud of them.
Many Christians believe that 1 Cor 11, the passage from which they get woman as the glory of man, is a place where Paul mentions a lot of contradictory ideas the Corinthians had about head coverings. "Woman is the glory of man" and perhaps even "Christ is the head of the man, the man of the woman" are quotes from those contradictory ideas. Paul answers the arguing factions with: "Everyone can decide for her(him)self, rather than to argue (with the choice of anyone else)."
Some think that it is dishonoring towards women to suggest men - not women - have a type of authority which scripture does not mention, and that it therefore contradict the command to show honor to wives.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically

      This is not Biblically defended

2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption.
The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man.

Tenet 3

Tenet 3. God ordained distinct gender roles for man and woman as part of the created order. Adam’s headship over Eve was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world. (Gen. 2:18ff.; 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; 1 Tim. 2:12-13)

Gen 2:18 – And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
Who is referred to as "man" here? Some would say all males of all eras, and all women are made to be helpers. But that is not in the text. What it safely and certainly mean, is that God made Adam a helper/ helpmeet, and that helper was female. Beyond that, we try to read things into scripture which is not in there. Some read helping as a defined women’s role, but nothing in there say all females are made to be helpers and no men are.

What is more, nothing in there imply inferiority of the helper, or authority of the helped. The Hebrew word translated as helper is usually used for God. (As in Ps. 121:2 My help cometh from the Lord.) The weak cannot help as that word imply. (Isa 30:5)

Gen. 3:9 – Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

The idea that Patriarchs have here is that God called Adam because he and Eve had different roles, and different roles make for different responsibilities. But the text doesn’t spell out God's motive. "Other ways Christians understand this" will expand on the point.

I Cor. 11:3, 7 – But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. … For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

These verses were commented on in tenet 2.

I Tim. 2:12-13 – And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

When Paul say "I do not permit" he means that Paul does not permit, not that God does not permit. (See 1 Cor. 7:10 and :12 for how he distinguish between his advice and God’s.) Notice also, for example, that Priscilla is a co-worker of him (Rom 16:3), who taught Apollos, a man “mighty in the scriptures.” (Acts 18:24,26)

3a) God ordained distinct gender roles for man and woman

"Helper" is not directly proven, from the Bible, to be a role of any human beside Eve herself. No role is spelled out in Gen. 3:9. 1 Cor. 11:3 calls either Adam or all men "head" in some way that may or may not have to do with authority. If it is all men, it is a sort of gender role, regardless of what head mean. If it refers only to Adam, no gender role is spelled out there. In 1 Tim 2:12-13, Paul is speaking for himself. When Paul speaks for himself, we cannot conclude God's views from it.

b) as part of the created order.

If man being head is a gender role, 1 Cor. 11:3 doesn’t spell out this role is part of the created order. 1 Tim. 2 mention the creation order, but links it to Paul’s opinion and not God’s will.

c) Adam’s headship over Eve

He was head in some way, but we have not established what head meant in the Greek the Bible was written in. So we are not sure if this means he was the origin from which she came, or her authority figure.

d) was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world.

It depends on what "head" mean. If head mean authority: God do not say, in anything quoted here, that Adam had it at the beginning. If head mean origin/ source: Adam was that from the beginning, obviously.

Other ways Christians understand this:

Gen 2:18 can be interpreted in several ways:

• Man may refer only to Adam, and it may say that God made a helper for lonely Adam. Not for all men, just Adam.
• Or it may say God made helpers for needy men. It does not spell out that all women are helpers, only that God made helpers, and that Eve were the first of them.
• Or it may say that God made a helper for the first human, and still make helpers (of whatever gender) to lonely or needy humans (of whatever gender.)
• Or it may say that men need women, and women were created to be helpers.

What it does not say, is that this help is assistance and obedience. Nothing imply that this kind of help mean lifting a finger. It could be that by her mere essence, she helped the lonely Adam. 

As for God calling Adam after they sinned in Gen. 3, it may be that he called both the man and the woman when calling Adam. Gen 5:2 say: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Or he could have called the man first, because the man was guiltier. Kay Bonikowsky gives this answer:

"Adam willfully broke God’s covenant. He believed eating the fruit was wrong, yet he ate anyway.

• Adam broke God’s covenant. (Hosea 6:7)
• Adam knowingly disobeyed, and because of this he was held responsible. (Romans 5:14)

Eve was deceived by the serpent into eating. To be deceived means to believe something false. Eve believed eating was good, not wrong.

• Eve was thoroughly deceived when she ate the fruit. (1 Tim 2:14)
• She was led astray by the serpent’s cunning. (2 Cor.11:3)
• She said herself, “The serpent deceived me and I ate.” (Gen. 3:6)

God looks at the heart, the motives. (1 Sam 16:7)"

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      It can be Biblically defended, but so can another view

      This is not Biblically defended

3. God ordained (a) distinct gender roles for man and woman as part of the created order. Adam’s headship over Eve was established at the beginning, before sin entered the world.

Tenet 4

4. Although sin has distorted their relationship, God’s order of authority for husbands and wives has not changed, and redemption enables them to make substantial progress in achieving God’s ideal for their relationship. (Gen. 3:16; Eph. 5:22ff.)

Gen 3:16 – To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.

“He shall rule” is not a command, but a statement of what will happen. It does not say if this is God’s will. Unless, of course, you see “thou shalt bruise his heel” (:15) as a command to Satan that God want him to harm humans.

Eph. 5:22, 25 – Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. … Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it …etc. (Look up the rest of the passage)

Eph 5:22 starts in the middle of a sentence in the Greek it was written in. The "wives, [submit to] your own husbands” has no verb in the Greek. It borrows a verb from :21, “Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of God.”
One Greek scholar suggest a good translation of :21-22 will be "... mutually submitting in the fear of Messiah; wives (mutually submitting) to your husbands as to the Lord.” As husbands are part of “one another”, the order to submit is given to husbands in :21. In 1st century society, men and women had very unequal positions, and following these teachings would actually have brought them closer to equality.

4a) Although sin has distorted their relationship,

Yes.

b) God’s order of authority for husbands and wives has not changed,

To Biblically prove that his order of authority stayed the same, you would have to prove that there was authority pre-fall, and then that he will rule (Gen. 3:16) mentions God's will, and not just a prophetic statement of how things will be.

c) and redemption enables them to make substantial progress in achieving God’s ideal for their relationship.

Yes, that is Biblical. But we have not Biblically established that authority was His ideal either pre-fall or post-fall.

Other ways Christians understand this:

While the authors of TBP believe that distinction was made between men and women in Eph. 5 because God gave them different gender roles, some others believe it was made because Ephesian society put them in different roles. Applying the same Christian principles for the very varied positions of men and women called for different applications.

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:

      This is adequately Biblically defended

      This is not Biblically defended

4. Although sin has distorted their relationship, God’s order of authority for husbands and wives has not changed, and redemption enables them to make substantial progress in achieving God’s ideal for their relationship.

Tenet 17: Are fathers sovereign over training their children?

17. Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6ff.; Ps. 78:3-8; Prov. 1:8; Eph. 6:4; )

Deut. 4:9 – Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren,

This is a command to Israel to teach the things they saw. This is not a command to Christians to teach reading, writing, the civil war, or the resurrection of Christ, none of which we saw. And is this a general command to Israel to teach Israel’s children and grandchildren? Or is this command to each parent and set of grandparents to teach their own children and grandchildren? The former interpretation is, on face value, as easy as the latter. And Hebrew parents did give sons the opportunity to learn from a rabbi if they could. They did not feel that religious instruction belong at home.

Deut. 6:6-9 – And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Here, God commands Israel to teach the commands of Deuteronomy to their children, and to tie the commands of Deuteronomy between their eyes. It is not a command to teach your children to add, multiply and subtract, or to know the New Testament. I have never met a Christian parent who really follows this verse, tying Deuteronomy as frontlet between their eyes. Nor one teaching, by example, to do a genealogy search on anyone who wants to join the congregation, to ensure that his grandfather’s grandmother’s great-grandparents were not conceiving any of his forefathers (or foremothers) from illicit intercourse. (Deut. 23:2)

Ps. 78:3-8 – Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children; That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children, That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments; And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

Notice that this is not a command. It is a statement of resolve. The resolve is: “We will not hide them from their children.” Not: “We will not hide them from our children.” This is apparently a resolve to teach other people’s children!

Why do they want to teach these children? Several great reasons are mentioned why these people want to teach other people’s children. The most intriguing one is: That they may not be like their fathers. One of the reasons in the Bible for teaching children, is to ensure they do not become like their fathers!

Prov. 1:8 – My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother;

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

Yes.

17a)Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children

Deut. 4:9 is a command to teach children and grandchildren. As such, fathers are not sovereign there, but have to share it with grandparents (and probably his wife, depending on whether you think this was only written to men or to everyone.)

Deut. 6:6-9 seemingly gives a training mandate to Israelite parents - mothers and fathers. This is no reason to find fathers sovereign either.

Ps. 78:3-8 talks of others teaching children, so they don’t become like their fathers. This contradicts his sovereignty.

Prov. 1:8, whereby a son is told to listen to both parents, also contradicts it.

I already covered Eph 6:4, which could refer to both parents as the same Greek Bible word is elsewhere translated with “parents.”

b) and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers.

Nothing in the verses say who is “chief teachers.” The texts do mention parents and others teaching the Word, but not who should teach them to make a living, or other practical skills.

c) Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children.

I believe parents should walk beside and train their children. But of all these verses, only Eph 6:4 command Christian parents to do so. (The Deuteronomy passages were commandments to a pre-Christian group to teach things we no longer teach, and neither the Psalms nor the Proverbs passages are commands.) Do you think that Eph. 6:4 refer only to fathers, as is implied in earlier tenets on authority? If that was so, then mothers are not commanded to train children at all, but only fathers are commanded to walk beside and train children.

d) Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children.

“Primary teachers” was not defended from any real Bible teachings to Christians, and I’d say Ps 78 contradicts it. I recommend facilitating the role of parents for practical reasons, but no verse commands it.

Other ways Christians understand this:

(No extra notes this time)

Summing it up

How reliable is this tenet? I will use a color code:

      The color code:      This is not Biblically defended

      This is defended biblically, but another view could also be defended biblically

      Scripture say the opposite

Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children, and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command to personally walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children.

(Note: 17a) and 17c) are mutually exclusive, as they use two interpretations of the same verse. Accepting 17c is also mutually exclusive with some earlier tenets.)