From Dust to Duo…on a Spectrum

The theme of this article is not to delve into how males and females are physically different and to debunk the logical fallacies used to support that physical strengths/weaknesses divinely prescribe immutable roles and status. It’s about progressive revelation and the unfolding of truths that are consistent with God’s process of ordering progress.

» TOC »

• In the beginning…
  • What was Adam?
  • Apologies
• Understanding “helper”
• How “helpmate” is corrupted
• The problem with metaphors and humans
• Divine learning
• As far as we know
  • The nature of Nature
  • What’s written in Nature
  • Biological determinism?
• The unfolding truth of help mate
• When you know better, do better

In the beginning…

Genesis 1:27
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This is often taken as a divine prescription for binary gender identities and the basis for anti-homosexual pairings and resistance to the transgendered.

But there’s nuance to be had. God started off with just Adam. And at that point in time, Adam was in God’s Image. Without Eve. Then…

• (NIV): “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper (‘ezer kenegdo) suitable for him.’”
• King James Version (KJV): “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”
• New American Standard Bible (NASB): “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him’”
• New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’”

What was Adam?

Let’s back up a bit. “Adam” was not the name of a male person. There was no Eve, or female, so ‘male’ was irrelevant. In Genesis, Adam is created from the dust of the ground (which can be translated as ‘red clay’), and the name “Adam” is etymologically related to “adamah,” meaning ground or earth. The use of “Adam” to mean mankind or human is consistent with the idea that, initially, Adam represented humanity as a whole rather than a specifically male individual…and created in God’s image.

Next, the question arises, logically: The text doesn’t explicitly say the clay man was sexless. But if Adam had male genitalia before there was even a female, wouldn’t that be weird? And the text makes it sound like Eve was an afterthought upon noticing the status of a solitary clay figure.

Apologies

Some Christian apologists I have spoken to have said: God didn’t really take 6 (Earth) days to create creation — it’s metaphor. Since the Bible is not a science textbook, we aren’t meant to take these stories literally. The more literalist apologists defend the query with: But why couldn’t we believe that Adam did have genitalia as a first step in the anticipation by an all-knowing God of a future female?

That’s very “evolution” in nature. What I’m hinting at here is that the narrative is pretty loosely held together. It is painting with very broad strokes, leaving a lot open to interpretation and later refinement (or rationalization).

While many interpret the creation of Eve after Adam as indicative of a divine, hierarchical order of gender roles, this interpretation overlooks the potential for metaphorical significance in other ways. Instead of assuming that, because one came first and the other came second, men should be leaders (“headship”) and women should follow (submissive), the story might be structured to emphasize the importance of companionship and partnership, where harmony is the actual target for fulfillment.

Let’s start with that; and let’s assume the creation story in Genesis is done via metaphor, which requires interpretation. And let’s take it apart a bit, starting with the idea of “day.”

The concept of “days” described in the creation story is an example of a metaphor that invites an array of interpretations.

• Day 1: light and darkness
• Day 2: sky and waters
• Day 3: dry land, seas, vegetation
• Day 4: sun, moon, and stars
• Day 5: sea creatures and birds
• Day 6: land animals and humankind
• Day 7: the sabbath of rest (‘rest your case’ means you’ve wrapped things up. It’s not really “resting”.)

Within our solar system, celestial bodies revolve around the sun (where ‘sol’ = ‘sun’), marking days and years. However, from a theological perspective, God’s “days” of creation aren’t measured by spins of our little speck of dust around a fairly small star. One of God’s “days” most likely has a different measure, one corresponding to His vastness and to the vastness and complexity of the universe. One can interpret this metaphor of the sequence of creation days as symbolizing phases of a grand, divine plan unfolding over a larger period, like revelation, rather than literal 24-hour periods.

Those Christians who do not discount evolutionary phases and the idea that land creatures came from the primordial swamp (or sea) see support for their nod to evolution by the fact that sea creatures and birds (Day 5) came before land creatures (Day 6), which also came before humans. Genesis 2:19: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.” The idea is that we are made of the same ground in the same way as the animals. Physicality is not what makes us in the “image of God.”

And so “evolution” isn’t really so antithetical to Christianity based initially on the Creation story because it can be understood as part of the gradual unfolding of divine truth. The narrative of Genesis, with its ordered progression from chaos to cosmos, light to life, mirrors the evolutionary process of simple to complex, suggesting that God’s creative work can be seen as an ongoing, dynamic process. The high-level “sequence” metaphor should rationally challenge the reliability of using sequence to justify rigid anything really, including and especially gender hierarchies and roles.

Moreover, the phrase “male and female he created them” in Genesis 1:27 can be seen as a summary statement that encapsulates the complete act of creation, including both man and woman, rather than a precise chronological account. Then, Genesis 2 provides more depth in a sequence of narratives.

God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being

…after He created animals. Once created, the image-of-God Adam had responsibilities and duties, including the task of naming animals ― lots and lots of animals ― before Eve’s absence was noticed. Naming animals takes time and familiarity with the creatures being named.

Genesis 2:19-20: Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

That last sentence might seem, on the surface, to be non-sequitur. It requires some serious interpretation to make sense of:

• Authority and Stewardship: Naming in ancient cultures often implied authority and understanding, signifying Adam’s role in ordering and managing the world around him. By naming the animals, Adam exercises authority and stewardship, reflecting his role (dominion) in God’s creation. However, this task also makes it evident that the animals, while part of creation, do not fulfill Adam’s need for companionship. Yet, one wonders: are we super-imposing the modern concept of “need” onto this story? At what point did Adam’s uniqueness make it apparent that, to be not-so-unique, he required an ingredient to make him more like the other creation?
• Recognition of Needs: The process of naming each animal likely involved observation and interaction, through which Adam recognized the distinct nature of each creature and ultimately the absence of a being that corresponded to him.
  For one thing, the other animals had mates ^{(Gen 1:21-22)}. That would certainly set Adam apart.
• Foreshadowing Eve: The statement sets up the necessity for Eve’s creation, highlighting that true companionship and partnership could only be found in another image-of-God being. It prepares the reader for the next part of the story, where God creates Eve from Adam’s rib, fulfilling the need for a “helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18), ground according to humankind‘s kind (Genesis 1:24-25).

So why was Adam created last, after all the animals? Why wouldn’t that sequence have as much significance as Eve coming after Adam, or sky & water following light & dark? I repeat: Adam came last, not first.

God needed a steward, and that steward needed an environment set up to survive. The steward needed to be superior to all other animals with unique cognitive abilities. Stewardship over the entire planet’s worth of animals couldn’t be done by a solitary clay figure, so propagation was added “ground according to its kind.”

This interpretation aligns with the concept of progressive revelation, but not that sequence bestows rank. It allows for a harmonious relationship between progressive scientific understanding and the theological narrative of creation. By viewing things like evolution and scientific discovery as methods through which God’s creative will is revealed, we recognize the compatibility between faith & science and appreciate the depth & breadth of God’s continuous creative activity.

Understanding “helper”

“But for Adam, no suitable helper was found.” Enter Eve. Understanding “helper” or “help mate” or “help meet” is fundamental to understanding how it set, or should have set, the standards for a help mate.

“Helper” is translated from the Hebrew ‘ezer kenegdo and literally means “helper corresponding to him” or “a strength corresponding to him.”

1. ‘Ezer: The Hebrew word ‘ezer is derived from the root that means “to help” or “to aid.” The word appears several times across the Old Testament, often in contexts describing a form of assistance or support. Notably, it is used to describe God’s relationship to Israel, where God is often referred to as an ‘ezer, a helper or protector. The sequence of creation is irrelevant.
2. Kenegdo: This word combines “ke” (as, like, according to) and “neged” (in front of, opposite, counterpart). The term suggests a form of help that is corresponding to, suitable for, or matching the one being helped. It also begs the question: helped how?

The phrase ‘ezer kenegdo suggests a helper who is a match for Adam — neither subordinate nor superior but a corresponding partner. One could understand the phrase as meaning: the helper that complements one’s needs and strengths. It emphasizes compatibility rather than hierarchy or merely support. Eve being created as an ‘ezer kenegdo indicates that her role was not as a subordinate aide but as an essential partner matching Adam in status and function to carry on the tasks set before humankind in a model of relational harmony and mutual respect.

The concept alone also does not implicitly emphasize the complementarity of sexual organs or other physical differences. God did not say, “I’m going to make him a female to propagate with.” The Complementarian perspective bases Eve’s role on babies and household chores ― a significantly narrowed-down focus.

Sex has a single biological purpose: to support the “go forth” and “take dominion” over the planet, not to make individuals complete or to establish roles. It is, indeed, a type of relation, but not the all-defining relation. The “image of God” didn’t get fractured when genders arrived, casting shade on a lesser of God’s Image, but remains whole without needing male-female pairing. The need to breed is not a necessity to be in God’s Image nor even to approach the Throne.

The Apostle Paul advocates for celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, suggesting that individuals are complete without pairing off. Similarly, Jesus acknowledges those who live celibate lives for the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 19:10-12, and Isaiah 56:3-5 assures eunuchs of their honored place in God’s temple, demonstrating that procreation is not required for spiritual fulfillment or establishing “biblical manhood or womanhood.” Further, Galatians 3:28 emphasizes equality in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

There is so much more to an individual’s “needs and strengths” than sex and division of labor based on “man strong; female weak” ^{(said in a caveman voice)}. Yet, even non-procreating individuals need companionship “corresponding to him/her” based on the entire rest of the human spectrum.

The sequential creation of Eve signifies the expansion of human companionship and relationality, without specifying societal structure and hierarchical status. Galatians 3:28 calls for a radical rethinking of traditional gender roles and highlights the inherent equality of all people in Christ (re: “redeemed”).

Some scholars argue that apostles’ other, restrictive statements on gender roles were context-specific, addressing particular issues in early Christian communities, rather than being universal mandates. This revelation, with its seeming contradiction about the more restrictive roles for women outlined in some of the apostolic letters, should prompt ongoing theological reflection and discussion with the intention to mature.

Factoring in progressive revelation and re-evaluating “helper” challenge the simplistic binary interpretation and underscores that the image of God encompasses the full spectrum of humanness, not confined to specific gender pairings.

How “helpmate” is corrupted

This discussion does not present “hermeneutical oddities* devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of Biblical texts” as the Danvers Statement, which summarizes the need for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), would claim. In fact, Complementarian rationalizations based on anachronistic prescriptions by the apostles are themselves “hermeneutical oddities” designed to impose and reinforce Mosaic Law, which was deeply embedded in the patriarchal society of ancient Israel.

* » Principles and Techniques in Hermeneutics »

Hermeneutics involves several principles and techniques to interpret and explain the meaning of texts, especially biblical and philosophical writings. Here are some key principles and techniques used in hermeneutics:

Principles of Hermeneutics

• Historical Context:
  • Understanding the Time and Place: Consider the historical, cultural, and social context in which the text was written. This helps in understanding the circumstances and issues addressed by the text.
  • Authorial Intent: Attempt to discern the author’s purpose and intended meaning by considering the historical situation and audience.
• Literary Context:
  • Genre Analysis: Recognize the genre of the text (e.g., poetry, narrative, prophecy) as different genres follow different rules and conventions.
  • Contextual Reading: Read verses or passages in the context of the surrounding text to avoid misinterpretation by isolating phrases.
• Canonical Context:
  • Scripture Interprets Scripture: Use clearer parts of the text to interpret more obscure parts, assuming a coherence in the canonical context (for religious texts like the Bible).
  • Harmony of Texts: Seek consistency with the overall message and theology of the entire scripture.
• Linguistic and Grammatical Analysis:
  • Original Languages: Study the original language of the text (e.g., Hebrew, Greek) to grasp nuances lost in translation.
  • Grammar and Syntax: Pay attention to the grammatical structure and syntax, which can affect meaning.
• Theological Context:
  • Doctrinal Consistency: Interpret texts in a way that is consistent with established doctrines and theological principles.
  • Spiritual Insight: Consider the spiritual or moral lessons conveyed by the text, especially in religious hermeneutics.
• Philosophical and Logical Coherence:
  • Rational Analysis: Ensure interpretations are logically coherent and do not contradict themselves.
  • Philosophical Context: Recognize the philosophical underpinnings that might influence the text and its interpretation.

Techniques in Hermeneutics

• Exegesis:
  • Detailed Analysis: Conduct a thorough analysis of the text, breaking it down into its constituent parts to understand its meaning and significance.
  • Verse-by-Verse Study: Examine each verse in detail, considering its immediate and broader context.
• Hermeneutical Circle:
  • Part-Whole Relationship: Interpret the parts of the text in light of the whole and vice versa. This iterative process helps in understanding the text more fully.
• Textual Criticism:
  • Manuscript Comparison: Compare different manuscripts and versions of the text to identify and understand variations and their implications for interpretation.
• Sociological and Anthropological Insights:
  • Cultural Analysis: Use insights from sociology and anthropology to understand the cultural practices and social structures referenced in the text.
• Interdisciplinary Approach:
  • Integration of Disciplines: Combine insights from various disciplines such as history, linguistics, theology, and philosophy to enrich the understanding of the text.
• Reader-Response Criticism:
  • Role of the Reader: Consider how the reader’s own context, experiences, and perspective influence their interpretation of the text.

Application to the Paragraph on “Hermeneutical Oddities“

In the paragraph above, the principles of historical context, literary context, and theological context are particularly relevant:

• Historical Context: Understanding the cultural and social norms of ancient Israel and the Greco-Roman world helps in recognizing why certain gender roles were prescribed.
• Literary Context: Analyzing the texts within the broader narrative of the Bible helps to see if gender roles are consistent with the overall message of scripture.
• Theological Context: Examining the doctrines and theological principles that have emerged over time can reveal whether certain interpretations are aligned with or deviate from the core teachings of the faith.

By applying these principles, one can critique the Complementarian interpretations and assess whether they genuinely reflect the intent and spirit of the biblical texts or if they are “hermeneutical oddities” designed to uphold outdated societal norms.

From the Complementarian perspective, distinct gender roles and hierarchy supply the primary mechanism for “companionship and partnership” and are imposed to create a forced “harmony”. In fact, many modern scholars argue that these texts reflect the cultural and social contexts of the time rather than immutable divine mandates. They suggest that the New Testament’s teachings on gender roles should be understood as culturally conditioned rather than prescriptive for all times and places.

For example, in the Greco-Roman context in which the New Testament was written patriarchal structures were deeply entrenched. Men held primary authority in public and private spheres, and women were generally expected to fulfill supportive roles within the family and community. The same contextual considerations that influenced New Testament teachings on gender roles also explain why slavery was not outright condemned but rather regulated with exhortations to treat slaves with respect (Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1; Philemon).

Further, ancient marriage laws treated women as the property of their fathers or husbands. For instance, the laws about dowries (Exodus 22:16-17) and bride prices (Genesis 34:12) illustrate this transactional view of women in marriage. Polygamy was permitted, and laws about concubines and multiple wives (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) reflect the secondary status of women in family structures.

In other words, New Testament pronouncements on gender roles were capitulations to previous interpretations and traditions, which became increasingly more pronounced in their corruption of “equal.” By the time we get to the Apostles, it had been ingrained into them that the “physis,” or established order of things, saw women as support vessels. The modern idea of “equality” of women, with abilities in leadership and being the “head” of anything was not present in the structure and biases of ancient societies.

Just like with other progressive Divine actions, the beginning is also not the end. We can see that harmony does not depend on hierarchical, class structures; and that “companion and partner” mean more than what traditional interpretations have made them out to be.

That leaves partnerships based on other-compatibility types and mutual support rather than strictly defined gender roles. The theological concept of being “made in the image of God” (Imago Dei) emphasizes spiritual and relational qualities over physical characteristics. This perspective supports the idea that relationships fulfilling the qualities of mutual support and intimacy reflect divine intent, regardless of gender. So in fact, “help mate” transcends complementary physical plumbing.

To understand how these distortions have taken root, we must delve into the broader issue of metaphors and their powerful influence on human perception.

The problem with metaphors and humans

There’s a problem with resting on the idea that stories like these in the Bible are just “metaphors” to imply they are not meant to be exact and prescriptive. It turns out that metaphor also establishes the boundaries and basis for later decisions and perspectives.

A few years after the writing of Genesis (it’s hard to know if it was hundreds or thousands), we see in the New Testament, mostly in the writings of the Apostle Paul, several passages that lay out distinct roles for men and women. Women are to cover their heads in church and submit to their husbands; men are to lead their families and love their wives. Complementarians view the order and manner of creation not only as cultural guidelines but as timeless directives that reflect God’s “perfect design” for gender-specific roles, arguing that such distinctions are rooted in the created order and necessary for maintaining divinely implied social and familial harmony.

Consequently, Genesis and later ancient, patriarchal writings have profoundly shaped the family structures, career paths, and spiritual lives of billions of people around the world. Besides the struggle against women as second-class beings, we get “traditional marriage” as the only form of divinely approved “help mate” institutions. We get “sex assigned at birth” based on genitalia visible to the naked eye (ignoring science). And children are meant to carry on tradition, not “find themselves.”

We also get heterosexual sex activity as the only “natural” (based on complementary plumbing) divinely sanctioned form. What is, therefore, is a should. (The Naturalistic Fallacy: the erroneous conclusion that just because something is a certain way (what is), it ought to be that way (what should be) — also known as the Fourth Term Fallacy.)

When we look closely, it’s clear that using metaphors and symbols in the Bible to strictly define sex and gender roles isn’t a reliable approach. For example, the story of Adam originally represented all of humanity, not just a male figure.  And when the Bible talks about humans being made in the “Image of God,” it’s meant to show our special place in creation with divine characteristics as a species that other animals do not possess, not to provide exact, Science-Textbook-ish pronouncements about our physical forms or gender identities.

Being “made in God’s image” (Imago Dei) is what makes humans spiritual creatures first, physical creatures second. Both humans and animals were created on the Sixth Day, suggesting a shared physicality or material origin. Knowledge of things like species, physicality, and material makeup, moreover, is knowledge of nature.

Divine learning

God seems to like pattern-making with sequences: pattern of the week, pattern in progressive creation. And, the sequence that seems invisible to us is the pattern in the gradual unfolding of truth. In fact, one could argue that, since education never ends, we are still in some phase of some sequence.

This metaphorical reading is supported by the principle of progressive revelation, which posits that divine truth unfolds gradually over time. By “reading backwards,” theologians and believers can interpret early biblical texts through the lens of later revelations, deepening their understanding and connecting ancient narratives with contemporary insights. This approach highlights the continuity and development within the scriptures, suggesting that the initial creation story in Genesis sets the stage for evolving interpretations of human relationships and roles.

» Reading backwards and progressive revelation »

“Reading backwards” is a hermeneutical approach where later texts or understandings are used to interpret earlier texts. This method can be particularly insightful in theological contexts, where the progressive revelation of religious truths unfolds over time. Here’s how reading backwards can support the notion of progressive revelation and enhance clarity and learning:

1. Deepening Understanding of Earlier Texts

• Contextualization: Reading earlier texts with the knowledge of later developments can provide new insights and deepen understanding. For example, Christians often read the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) through the lens of New Testament revelations, seeing types, shadows, and prophecies about Jesus Christ that might not be apparent from a purely historical reading of these texts.
• Narrative Continuity: This approach can highlight continuity in the overarching narrative or theological themes of the scriptures, illustrating how early events or teachings develop and find fulfillment in later ones.

2. Progressive Revelation

• Gradual Unfolding of Truth: The concept of progressive revelation holds that divine truth is not given all at once but is gradually revealed over time. Reading backwards allows interpreters to see how foundational ideas evolve and become more fully explained or realized in later texts. This is seen in how the New Testament writers interpret Old Testament laws and prophecies in light of Christ’s teachings and the establishment of the early Church.
• Clarity and Culmination: Later texts often provide clarity and resolution to themes or questions introduced in earlier writings. For instance, the sacrificial system in the Old Testament is understood in the New Testament as prefiguring Christ’s ultimate sacrifice, providing a theological explanation that clarifies earlier practices.

3. Integration of Theological Concepts

• Holistic View: By reading earlier scriptures with an awareness of later developments, readers can integrate theological concepts across the texts, creating a more coherent and unified understanding of their faith’s teachings.
• Theological Maturation: This approach reflects a maturation in theological thinking, where later insights illuminate earlier ones, helping believers to grow in their understanding and interpretation of their sacred texts.

4. Addressing Apparent Contradictions

• Reconciliation of Texts: Apparent contradictions or difficult passages in earlier texts can often be addressed or reconciled through themes or revelations presented in later texts. This can help maintain the integrity of the scriptural canon and support a more harmonious theological framework.
• Enhanced Moral and Ethical Understanding: Ethical teachings that evolve over the course of the scriptural narrative (e.g., views on justice, the role of women, or the nature of salvation) can be understood in a progressive ethical framework that mirrors human moral development.

5. Challenges and Limitations

• Risk of Anachronism: While reading backwards can provide valuable insights, there’s a risk of imposing later ideas onto earlier texts in ways that they were never originally meant to support. This can lead to misinterpretations or anachronistic readings.
• Balancing Historical and Theological Interpretations: It’s important to balance this method with historical-critical approaches that consider the original context and intended audience of the texts to avoid reading solely through the lens of later developments.

Reading backwards, when used judiciously, can significantly enhance the understanding of religious texts by placing them within a fuller narrative of progressive revelation. This approach supports a dynamic engagement with scriptures, encouraging believers to see their sacred texts as living documents that offer ongoing revelation and deeper insights into divine truths as their understanding and historical contexts evolve.

Let’s hit that last point a bit harder.

Genesis means “the beginning”. And what “beginnings” do you know that lock you into a state of being and establish hard and fast rules forever? The nature of a “beginning” suggests an initial stage of a process that is open to development and change. Beginnings are foundational but not fixed; they set the stage for evolution and elaboration over time. Here are a few real-world, simple examples of how we learn, starting from rudimentary knowledge and maturing over time:

1. Learning a Musical Instrument: When someone begins learning an instrument, they start with basic notes and simple scales. Over time, as they practice, they learn more complex pieces, understand music theory, and can improvise or create their own music. The initial simplicity isn’t a limitation but a necessary foundation for building skills.
2. Academic Education: In education, children start by learning the alphabet, which is the beginning of literacy. As they grow, they progress to words, sentences, paragraphs, and eventually complex texts. This development in understanding and skill is not predetermined by their initial lessons but expands as they gain more exposure and knowledge.
3. Cooking Skills: A beginner cook might start with simple recipes that involve few ingredients and basic cooking techniques. As they gain confidence and experience, they start experimenting with more diverse and sophisticated recipes, combining flavors, and using advanced techniques. The initial basics serve as stepping stones, not permanent boundaries.

In each of these examples, the beginning stages are crucial for grounding and guiding further development, but they are not confining. Individuals learn and adapt beyond their first impressions or basic skills, reflecting the dynamic nature of growth and understanding. This is akin to how theological and scriptural interpretations can evolve, reflecting deeper and more nuanced understandings over time. (Like seeing more details of the Throne as you near it.)

Earlier, I said, “By ‘reading backwards,’ theologians and believers can interpret early biblical texts through the lens of later revelations, deepening their understanding and connecting ancient narratives with contemporary insights.” But the risk of reading the Genesis account too prescriptively includes imposing later cultural norms back onto ancient texts, potentially leading to misinterpretations or anachronistic readings.

Instead, recognizing the narrative as metaphorical, not prescriptive, allows for a more nuanced understanding of the texts, emphasizing ethical principles and relational dynamics over prescriptive gender roles. It encourages viewing biblical metaphors, not immutable blueprints for subjugating females as “help mates” but as part of a broader, evolving dialogue about human nature and divine intentions.

It’s pretty clear that learning does not stop because there is no end to the depth below the surface of what we think we know now. What there is to know is like Matryoshka dolls, where when you open one, it reveals another one inside. Revelation does not stop. Understanding our relationship to the rest of creation does not stop. Understanding ourselves does not stop.

It is dogma, not knowledge, when revelation stops in Genesis and the New Testament to support what a help mate should be. So, while it might seem from the Genesis 1:27 translations that Eve was an afterthought, the broader theological narrative suggests a different interpretation of the help-mate creation sequence.

As far as we know

Consider that there are three forms of Revelation: The Word, Nature, and what is written on the hearts of humans. Singling out Nature here, we know nature via science. If you ignore what Nature reveals (as a revelation), you are deliberately kicking away one leg of a 3-legged stool.

Support for the three forms of Revelation »»

The statement that there are three forms of revelation—The Word, Nature, and what is written on the hearts of humans—finds support in various biblical texts. These texts highlight different ways in which God communicates with humanity and reveals His character and will. Here is how each form of revelation is supported biblically:

1. The Word (Scripture)

The concept of the Bible as a form of divine revelation is central to Christian theology. The Bible is considered God’s written Word, communicated through human authors under divine inspiration.

• 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
• 2 Peter 1:20-21: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

These passages indicate that the scriptures are not merely human words but are inspired by God and serve as a primary method of divine communication.

2. Nature (Creation)

The idea that nature or creation reveals God’s attributes is expressed in the Psalms and the letters of Paul, suggesting that the natural world reflects the creator’s power and divinity.

• Psalm 19:1-4: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.”
• Romans 1:20: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

These verses suggest that nature itself is a form of God’s revelation, displaying His power and divinity so that people can perceive His existence and attributes through the observation of the world around them.

3. What is Written on the Hearts of Humans

The concept of God’s law or moral truths being inscribed on human hearts appears in both the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing an innate knowledge of God’s moral expectations.

• Romans 2:14-15: “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”
• Jeremiah 31:33: “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

These passages support the idea that God has imparted a sense of moral law or truth directly into the human heart, enabling individuals to discern right from wrong even without explicit instruction from external sources.

Referring to Nature is always a hot topic. But one thing is for sure: our lives and society depend on Nature. And when the ancient texts were written, not as much was known about it as we know today. Yet, knowledge of “nature” (the physical-world sort, the “established order” sort, and the “that’s the way God made him” sort) ― as far as the ancients’ knowledge extended ― was the basis for the perspectives they wrote about.

The “immaculate conception” is an interesting example. At the time of the early Christian church and even before, during the writing of various biblical texts, the understanding of human reproduction was limited and heavily influenced by philosophical theories and the absence and detailed biological knowledge like about eggs, sperm, and DNA. Theories were generally speculative and not grounded in what we would now consider scientific evidence. The religious beliefs surrounding Mary’s conception of Jesus and her own Immaculate Conception were thus framed within a context that accepted divine action and mystery in human events, independent of the biological understanding of reproduction.

Knowledge of the world and how we fit into it is knowledge of Nature, no matter how rudimentary or modern. With this knowledge, we understand relationships and deeper meaning between relationships.

The nature of Nature

One argument often used by complementarians is the appeal to “nature” to justify specific gender roles and hierarchies. But what do we really mean by “nature”? The ancient Greeks had a concept that can help us explore this idea: physis.

Physis, often translated as “nature,” refers to the inherent qualities or the essence of a thing — its natural state. The related verb, physein, means “to be by nature.” These terms encompass the idea of an inborn constitution, including fundamental characteristics and tendencies. This Greek philosophical context is essential for understanding how ancient and modern interpretations of “nature” can diverge.

Historian John Boswell argued that physis could refer to one’s inherent constitution, including sexuality. In ancient Greek thought, this extended to the idea that some individuals were naturally inclined towards same-sex relationships, which was considered their “nature.” Even God has a physis. This contrasts with behaviors that were culturally or ritually prescribed but not inherent to one’s constitution.

When we turn to Paul’s writings in the New Testament, particularly in Romans, the focus shifts to behavior rather than inherent nature. Paul’s condemnation of certain sexual practices, often cited by complementarians, needs to be understood in its historical context. Some scholars argue that Paul was addressing specific actions linked to idolatrous rituals and temple prostitution, rather than condemning innate same-sex attraction or help-mate relationships.

This distinction is crucial:

• Physis/Physein emphasizes innate qualities. Even God is referred to as having these.
• Behavioral Condemnation in Paul’s context focuses on actions that violate societal and religious norms.

» Some mentions of physis in the Bible »

The term “physis” (Greek: φύσις), meaning “nature” or “the inherent characteristics of something,” appears in various contexts in the New Testament, often referring to God’s nature or human nature. Here are some biblical passages that refer to the concept of nature or “physis”:

• Romans 1:20:
  • “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
  • This passage highlights that God’s nature (physis) is evident in creation, revealing His eternal power and divine characteristics.

• 2 Peter 1:4:
  • “Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.”
  • This verse speaks about believers partaking in the divine nature (physis) through God’s promises, indicating a transformation and sharing in God’s attributes.

• Ephesians 2:3:
  • “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.”
  • Here, “by nature” (physis) refers to the inherent sinful state of humanity before transformation through Christ.

• Galatians 2:15:
  • “We who are Jews by nature and not sinful Gentiles…”
  • This passage uses “by nature” (physis) to distinguish between Jews and Gentiles, referring to their natural, inherent identities.

• Romans 2:14:
  • “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.”
  • This verse refers to the inherent ability (physis) of Gentiles to follow God’s law, suggesting an intrinsic moral understanding.

These passages illustrate how the concept of nature or “physis” is used in the New Testament to describe both divine and human characteristics. The divine nature refers to God’s inherent qualities, while human nature often refers to the inherent moral and ethical tendencies within people. The use of “physis” underscores the inherent qualities that define both God and humanity in their respective contexts.

In the Hebrew context, the idea of nature or essence was less philosophically nuanced but still present. The term “teva” (טבע) captures the essence of the natural order, the intrinsic qualities of beings and objects. In Genesis, the verb “bara” (ברא), meaning “to create,” suggests bringing forth something with a specific nature or essence. These Hebrew concepts were foundational to the biblical understanding of creation and existence.

As we navigate these ideas, it’s essential to recognize that the early Christian church, with its Greek-speaking writers, often used Greek philosophical terms to articulate Jewish theological concepts. This blending of thought forms the backbone of much of Christian theology today. Further faithful interpretation of scripture requires us to respect what is revealed in the next level down of the matryoshka dolls.

Understanding nuances helps us see that ancient texts were engaging with the complexities of human behavior and inherent nature in ways that might differ from modern interpretations with more information. As we interpret these scriptures today, it’s essential to consider how evolving knowledge about human nature and behavior fits into our understanding of divine intent and moral guidance.

What’s written in Nature

It’s important to keep in mind that the argument for a divine prescription for helpmate based on physiological complementarity is an argument from Nature. So let’s address the perception of “nature” to begin an exploration what Nature is and what it tells us as we uncover more of it.

First, it is important to note that the ancient Hebrews were well aware of Nature and incorporated it into their lives and beliefs. Besides Wisdom literature, such as the Book of Proverbs reflecting observations about human nature and the natural world, they got into astronomy, medicine, sustainable agricultural practices, etc. For example, the regular cycles of nature were seen as evidence of God’s order and faithfulness. The Psalms frequently celebrate God’s creation, depicting nature as a testament to His power and wisdom (e.g., Psalm 19:1-4; Psalm 104).

Knowledge of animal behavior and breeding was crucial. The Bible contains numerous references to livestock, which were essential to their economy and daily life. For example, Jacob’s breeding practices in Genesis 30:37-43 demonstrate an understanding of selective breeding and animal husbandry techniques.

Ancient societies not only observed but also interpreted animal behaviors to draw parallels and contrasts with human behavior, often using these observations to justify societal norms and moral teachings. For example, they praised the diligence of ants and the bravery of lions, while condemning bestiality and deceitful predatory behaviors like those of wolves. These observations and interpretations helped shape moral and ethical frameworks that influenced cultural and religious practices.

But knowledge progresses, with the expectation that our moral and ethical frameworks might mature.

More recently, current research estimates that over 1,500 animal species exhibit same-sex sexual behavior, a significant increase from earlier counts​ (National Wildlife Federation)​. This increase is partly due to a greater acceptance and interest in studying such behaviors within the scientific community, as well as advancements in observing and documenting animal behavior more accurately​ (Mongabay)​.

The natural diversity of animal behaviors challenges the prescription of binary gender roles and suggests a broader spectrum of natural, helpmate relationships. This broader understanding indicates that such behaviors may have various functions, including social bonding, conflict resolution, and even population control, demonstrating the complex and multifaceted nature of creature social interactions. The diversity in nature itself — part of God’s creation — incorporates a wide spectrum of relationships and interactions, prompting a reevaluation of how strictly binary models are applied in theological contexts if complementarity were an ordained divine order.

Remember: physicality is not what makes us in the Image of God. We were made from the dust of the earth like every other animal on this planet. If complementarity really was a valid criterion for the divine prescription for help mates based on gender, what explains the double standard besides the Bible making a point of calling out our creation in particular?

Biological determinism?

To the Complementarian, Nature tells them that women are the “weaker” companion, which must mean that the stronger partner is automatically the “head” and “leader”. It’s an “apparently plain” natural fact.

Really? More realistically ― based on human nature ― the presumption of “leader” from “strength” is a stereotype to support a system of male superiority.

In nature, there are numerous examples in the animal kingdom where females are stronger and more dominant than their male counterparts: Hyenas, anglerfish, raptors, black widows, elephants, bonobos, deep-sea octopuses, to name a few. So “female” alone does not equate to the “weaker sex.” While it is not always apt to make direct equivalent animal-to-human comparisons, the “female as weaker sex” is questionable.

What we know is that the concept of strength varies widely. As I mentioned, in nature, female animals like lions and hyenas are often stronger and more dominant. Similarly, human females, while not possessing the raw strength of males, are excelling in various fields, including sports, science, leadership, and more, showcasing their strengths and capabilities beyond traditional measures of raw physical strength. They also have a higher tolerance for pain and a better resistance to certain diseases.

Equating physical strength with leadership is oversimplified and fallacious thinking. Effective leadership requires a balance of various attributes, many of which have nothing to do with physical capabilities. The naturalistic fallacy, appeal to physical strength, appeal to tradition, and false cause fallacies lead to a distorted understanding of what makes a good leader, failing to consider the full range of human qualities that contribute to effective governance and influence.

» The fallacies involved … »

When we assume that raw physical strength equates to “headship” and “leadership,” we are committing multiple fallacies:

False Cause: This occurs when one assumes that because two things occur together, one must cause the other. Someone might be strong and also a good leader, but that does not mean their strength caused their leadership ability. Correlation does not imply causation.

Appeal to Nature (Naturalistic Fallacy): This occurs when one argues that because something is a certain way in nature, it ought to be that way in human society. The assumption that males, being physically stronger, should naturally assume leadership roles falls into this category. It overlooks the complexity of human societies and the multifaceted qualities required for effective leadership, such as emotional intelligence, empathy, wisdom, and collaboration.

Appeal to Physical Strength (Argumentum ad Baculum): This fallacy assumes that because someone has a certain physical attribute, like strength, they are automatically qualified for a leadership position. However, effective leaders need a variety of skills including communication, decision-making, strategic thinking, and the ability to inspire and motivate others. Physical strength might be helpful in some situations, but it is not the most important quality. Moreover, what constitutes “strength” can vary depending on the context, making it a subjective measure.

Appeal to Tradition: This fallacy occurs when one argues that something should continue to be done a certain way simply because it has been done that way in the past. Just because physically strong individuals have historically held leadership positions does not mean this approach is the best or most effective today. Society evolves, and so do our understanding and expectations of leadership qualities.

We know all these things, yet traditional gender roles and stereotypes obscure that for the sake of “faithfulness” to religion and maintaining a measure of social order and cohesion.

And Nature teaches us even more about roles and human gender: The idea of a singular “maternal instinct” is being challenged by recent science. Here’s what we know:

• Brain chemistry changes in all caregivers: Studies show that hormones like oxytocin, serotonin, and dopamine increase in both mothers and fathers during the transition to parenthood, regardless of birth parent status. This suggests these hormonal changes are linked to caregiving behaviors, not just childbirth.
• Men can be just as skilled at responding to infant cues: Research indicates fathers are equally adept at identifying their babies’ cries.
• Focus on bonding and experience: The activation of these brain chemicals seems to be triggered by bonding experiences with the child, not solely by biological sex.

So, while there might be biological predispositions to nurturing behavior, it’s not exclusive to females.  Overall, the concept of a pre-programmed “maternal instinct” is being replaced by the understanding that caregiving behaviors are influenced by a complex interplay of biology, experience, and social factors.

So, we’re looking under the surface and seeing nuance in Nature; pulling off another matryoshka doll and seeing finer detail within.

The unfolding truth of help mate

Today, we use scientific knowledge to create “heartbeat” laws and to decide when a human is a human. But we cherry-pick knowledge to support philosophical theories and religious beliefs, like in the ancient days. This selective use of modern scientific understanding to enforce or challenge moral and legal norms illustrates a complex interaction between evolving scientific knowledge and enduring religious and ethical frameworks. In such debates, science and religion often find themselves intertwined in ways that challenge the purity of both in making unbiased decisions about human life and rights.

By way of example, modern science (knowledge of “nature”) recognizes gender and sexuality as spectrums rather than strictly binary categories. Things aren’t merely black & white, male & female. Genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors all contribute to the development of a person’s cognitive wiring, gender identity, and sexual orientation, supporting the idea that these traits are complex, varied, and fundamental to our personal “natures” (how we’re made up, or the “configuration” as I refer to it).

Ignoring this information ― this writing in Nature ― is a type of willful blindness. Why would you shun God’s truth as He crafted it for us to learn? Why would you deliberately ignore it to align with tribal creeds and religious dogma? This is the evil in cherry-picking.

When you know better, do better

Still, the black/white perspective is a natural place to start…until we know better. Adjusting our positions is a sign of maturity: as we learn more about creation through the Word, our hearts, and scientific discoveries, we gain a more complete understanding. It’s a literal triangulation on truth.

In religious thought, particularly in Christianity, the concept of progressive revelation suggests that God reveals truth gradually over time. This can be through scripture, the life of Jesus, ongoing personal and communal discernment, and science. This concept supports the idea that understanding and development are ongoing processes…like the 6 consecutive days of creation.

Embracing scientific discoveries about human nature can be seen as part of understanding divine revelation through nature. The diversity in biological and psychological human configurations indicates that spiritual identity and the capacity for religious experience are not limited to specific black-and-white prescriptions. This broader perspective enriches traditional interpretations and supports a more nuanced understanding of what it means to be human and made in God’s image.

The concept of help-mates being on a spectrum aligns with this idea of diversity and progression in our biological makeup. Just as creation wasn’t limited to a single form or type, human relationships and identities also exhibit a range of configurations, reflecting the complexity and richness of God’s design. Your help-mate is your “helper corresponding to” you.

“God created them male and female” is a critical relationship for the propagation of the species, but beyond this mechanical framework, there are many variations. Quantum physics teaches us that nothing is simply black and white; there is always something under the surface of what we know at this moment. Revelation is progressive; knowledge and understanding are progressive.

Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.
~ Maya Angelou

• Linguistics
• Philosophy
• Religiosity