“You are all sons of God through Jesus Christ, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ. 28There is neither Jew or Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” -Galatians 3:26-29
A few years ago I took a class in philosophy at a local community college. This class touched on such philosophical classifications as theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics, or how man organizes themselves in relation to one another. It was a fascinating class and I used the class somewhat to challenge my faith, and indeed I found it steadfast, though I will admit, somewhat shamefully, that obedience in this faith was not a direct result of my studies.
My professor was somewhat of a feminist and instead of a 4.0, I got a 3.9 due to one thing, that I referred to God as a “he.” This somehow offended her, and rather than make an issue out of it, I decided to, “choose my battles,” so to speak, and accepted the grade. I give this personal example as testimony to the fact that some believe the Christian God to display favoritism or be chauvinistic in some fashion. Yet, this is not only disproved in a philosophical context, but more importantly by the Scriptures.
There is no shortage of amazing women in the Bible and two books in the Bible are dedicated to such amazing women, the Books of Esther and Ruth. In addition, it’s worth mentioning that the last creation of God was woman, almost as if God were stamping His seal of approval onto His creation. As a man I have no issues with saying this and by me at least it is easily understood, and I say so without sin. Furthermore, in the life of Christ, or rather prior to, we are given the account of Jesus’s mother Mary who was beloved by God to such a degree she was chosen to bear the Messiah, which is no small blessing. Throughout Christ’s life, He both revered women and, in the case of Mary Magdalene, forgave her of her grievous sins. In fact, it was to her and a group of women that Christ first appeared after the resurrection.
In addition to women, the Bible is full of accounts of different nationalities, not only the Jews, but Gentiles from all regions, including all over the Middle East, Rome, Greece, Spain, Asia Minor, Africa, including specifically mentioned, Libya, mentioned in the table of nations, and Ethiopia, which represented the race or nationality of Africa. Even eunuchs are mentioned in Daniel and Paul is instrumental in the conversion of one such eunuch in the Book of Acts.
God is frequently cited for favoritism by the secular community, and to be honest, it is a little understandable when one approaches some of the verses located within the letters of Paul, where he warns against women being spiritual leaders. Yet, we tend to forget that these letters were written to a specific place at a specific time. When Paul’s ministry began, paganism was rampant throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. According to many of these false religions, fertility was one of the cornerstones of such paganism and was worshipped accordingly, in the bacchanalian fashion one might expect. It is no coincidence that the letters of Paul containing such verses are directed to churches in areas where such perverse temples of worship were located. This was nothing new, for the Old Testament speaks of ceremonies around so called Ashera poles which depicted an explicit phallic symbol. Its not confined to the days of old either, for such worship and even Ashera poles still exist in some countries.
These religious practices were in some locations presided over by an oracle, who was generally female. Due to the ancients worship of fertility, women were frequently the priestesses of such paganism. The worship of an earth mother still has its representation today in the public lexicon with the term, “mother nature.” In addition to their perverse acts of worship, they also made hand crafted idols, or so called, “Venus Figures,” like the famous Venus of Willendorf, which they worshipped. One of the most infamous examples of these female priestesses is the Oracle of Delphi, also referred to as the Pythoness, Pythia, or Sibyl, and who supposedly delivered messages and spoke from the god Apollo, son of Zeus, and, according to Greek mythology, god of knowledge, light, music, plague, poetry, and the sun. The Oracle of Delphi would seemingly speak from him after chewing many a laurel leaves, and being surrounded by “noxious fumes,” as writes one contemporary witness. The prophetess would then slip into a trance and begin speaking from the false deity.
Venus of Willendorf
Thus, because of women’s role as leaders in the paganism of the day, and the bacchanalian festivals, Ashera poles, or detestable acts of pagan worship, as well as the struggles of the male gender, the emerging Christian church was to be set apart from such practices and protected against such pagan influence, by having no semblance to the paganism of the day. As in the Old Testament, the bloodline through which Christ was to come needed be protected, so too did the new church need to come under this same protection. Paul’s commands to the churches were means of this protection and not condemnation of women. It has to deal with location, history, and the acts or beliefs of man, rather than the acts of God.
Oracle of Delphi
Yet, why do we refer to God as, “he?” Isn’t this rather chauvinistic of God? The truth is that God doesn’t have a gender, for God is beyond such physical classifications. If God had a gender, then, due to His perfect nature, it would have to serve some sort of purpose, for if there were any arbitrary, unaccountable, and erroneous details about God, then it would speak to imperfection, which cannot be, or else we would not be. The main purpose of gender is for procreation, and why would God need to procreate? Since He is a self-existent being and speaks everything into creation it serves no purpose. Rather, the personification of, “He,” is necessary and representational of our close relationship with the Lord, for this is what, above all, God desires. If we were to refer to God as, “it,” would this not diminish and disrespect that relationship? Certainly it would, for the term alone suggests distance and indifference.
When one examines the proper family structure that God put into place, we see God more fully than if we were to just apply the Lord to the male gender. The next couple paragraphs are going to concern this and I implore the reader to stick with me. In the political structure of man, that is how man organizes culturally, males are usually the authoritative figure. Yet, this is far from being absolute. This cultural trait is merely a consequence of Eve’s original sin, and doesn’t at all reflect how God relates, or reveres the female gender.
In the family, the Lord tells us that the wife is to be submissive to the husband and this is popularly refuted by feminists and those who consider God to be chauvinistic. Yet, what they fail to acknowledge is the other side of the coin, those commandments to the husband. The husband is to love the wife as himself and have great reverence for his significant other. Thus, this argument begins to fall apart, for the degree of the submissive role that is supposed on the woman by the feminist ideal, begins to lessen when one takes this extreme love and reverence into account. It is supposed that the wife need submit to ANY request from the husband, even if it belittles her or is against her wishes. Yet, this would not be the case in an obedient marriage as God has designed. For, a husband, out of his love and reverence, should not request, or desire, anything that belittles his wife, or that makes her do anything outside her being and nature, which drew him to her in the first place. This immediately negates and violates the Scriptures command. As Christ reveres those who come to Him, and we are, in fact, referred to as the bride of Christ, likewise we shall revere each other in a proper godly relationship. Thus, we find that the chauvinistic idea of God is not due to God, but due to a lack of understanding in the very Word of the Lord.
In today’s society, the rearing and motherly role of the wife has been greatly disrespected and diminished. In fact, many feminists regard “housewives” as an outdated and disrespectful position within the family. The “traditional” family, and anyone who belongs to it, are thus subject to ridicule from feminists. Despite their supposed declaration of equal rights and choice on the side of mothers, they mock and have a deep contempt for any woman who chooses to raise a family other than work, or be the, “primary bread winner.” Let it be known, that I by saying this, am not saying that women shouldn’t have an equal position along with men in the work place. Each should get equal reward for their efforts, as men and women get the equal reward of eternal life by their faith and relationship with the Lord.
The fact is that man likes to categorize their efforts or deeds, and assign levels of importance on them. The Scripture refutes this and says our roles are all equally important in the body and eyes of Christ. Feminists presuppose that to be a wife and mother is a less important role than that of the male, but in reality they are equal, as it is said, in marriage the two become one. Thus, feminism is more about insecurity rather than truth. These levels suggested by feminists, are of their own accord, and don’t reflect at all what the Scriptures tell us. The role of the mother in a family structure is highly blessed by God. In fact, it makes more sense to say that the man provides the means upon which the woman can rear the children, rather than anything else. Yet, the man has a vital role in child rearing as well. In addition, I feel another clarification is in order, I don’t feel that women shouldn’t work, so please do not conclude that. I am only addressing the emerging absolute in our culture against the traditional family structure. However, child rearing is a blessed institution and necessary as we see what happens to children when the antithesis is represented, though again, this is not an absolute.
Given all this we come to a clearer understanding of those gender attributed pronouns which refer to our Lord. God is our Father, not because He is disrespecting women, but that He provides for us. In addition, God is referred to as such, because the male was the role He was to take upon and in Jesus Christ. Yet, He has the characteristics of women too. His rearing of us in the faith, His compassion, and nurturing character all testify to this. So is it wrong to refer to God as a, “she?” Yes. Not because God has a gender per say, but rather because this is how He chose to reveal Himself to us, when both speaking through the prophets and in Christ Himself. So to refer to our Lord as, “she,” is an example of a needless, silly, willful rebellion, and thus disrespectful to God.
In Galatians 3:26-29, we find that Paul refers to all of us as sons. Why? Is this cultural or chauvinistic? Again, the answer is no. In fact, Paul is emphasizing the equality in and of righteousness we find when we put our faith upon Christ. We, by this faith, clothe ourselves in the Son of God, and thereby in the sight of the Father we share in His righteousness. Thus, as Jesus is the Son of God, we too become so under His blood. Thereby, in the Father’s eyes, our sin isn’t seen, only the righteousness of His Son, and because of this, those worldly distinctions of gender, race, social standing, or anything else become irrelevant.
The Jews are the chosen people of God, not because of favoritism or because they were the only ones offered salvation, but rather because it was through the Jews that God was to first reveal Himself and into which the Messiah was born. The salvation by and through Christ is offered to everyone and at any time. Thus, we find God not to have any favoritism, but rather are all equal in The Son, and this surpasses the equality of the world, where there are seemingly always distinctions and classifications, both just or not. As Christ and the Father are one, we become one with Christ by our faith and in this no favoritism exists, other than the favor bestowed upon The Son. In addition, in our faith, we are granted this same favor, and become sons of God, thanks to our Lord and Savior, who came not to condemn the world, but rather save the world by and through His blood. Amen.
One of the paradoxes frequently discussed amongst those in the Christian faith is the relationship between faith and obedience. We find the Bible does place importance on both faith and deeds, though it also tells us our deeds are meaningless, in that we cannot acquire salvation from them and of our own accord.
I had backslid quite a bit, from what I would consider the most pious time in my life. The scripture tells us of the sin that so easily entangles (
Brandon Devotional 
2 Corinthians 5:17, “On The Old Overtaken by What is New” (1st Revision)
This verse seems to imply that when we come to Christ and are found in Him, our old self dies and we are ‘born again’ as a new creation, a creation that will last for eternity once our body perishes from physicality. These are profound truths and this verse deserves, much like the other verses in the Bible, some proper reflection and a closer look. 2 Corinthians 5:17 further states what Christ accomplished when He died upon the cross in regards to who we are in Him. The death of the old self is one of the fundamental truths behind the Christian faith. When we believe upon Jesus Christ the old self dies and we are “born again” as a new creation. This new creation lives in us now, but will be transfigured upon our death and resurrection. This new creation, not only lives in this reality, but now lives in the surpassing reality, that is eternity. Our deeds and actions now affect both, producing current fruits, and presently unknown riches inside that reality which lies beyond our current Euclidean understanding.
The verse starts out with the word, “Therefore,” in the NIV and HCSB, among others. “Therefore” is a word that implies a direct conclusion. In this and other examples where the word “therefore” is included, that which follows the word “therefore,” is the stated induced or deduced conclusion arrived at from the pre-stated premises or arguments which precede the word, “therefore.” Thus, we need to ask ourselves the question, “To which statements within 2 Corinthians or elsewhere is Paul referring?” I believe the answer lies a few verses prior in 2 Corinthians 5.
There are several premises and statements here which Paul uses to draw his conclusion, stated in the remainder of 2 Corinthians 5:17. These are as follows:
“If” is a word that implies a hypothetical, stating that conditions must be met for the consequent to be evidenced. “If” introduces the condition that one must be in Christ for the consequent, stated in the conclusion of the verse, to be made plain. Just what does it mean to be in Christ? Ephesians 1 gives us the answer.
David K. Lowery tells us the Agent by which this transformation occurs:
The Life Application Study Bible concurs with Lowery:
So, to be in Christ is to have believed the word of truth, that is the gospel of salvation revealed by Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which one receives when believing this glorious gospel. Included in this is a faith and a obedience to the commandments of the Lord, Whom we love and worship, and who we place in His rightful place, an exalted position as the Lord over our lives.
Philip E. Hughes in the NIV Study Bible parrots this point.
A ‘new creation’ by necessity refers unto some old state, or state of being. The old state is referred to by the Scriptures to have ‘passed away,’ by and through the grace of the Father, the sacrifice of the Son, and the presence of the Great Counselor, the Holy Spirit. ‘Passed away,’ seems to reference the death of something, and indeed Paul tells us we share in the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, upon whom our old nature was placed and condemned to death, so that when Jesus was raised by the manifest glory of the Father, we too were raised where we may put on this new nature as an advanced, state-of-the-art garment, clean without stain or blemish. Galatians tells us:
In addition, Romans chapter 6 declares:
Paul is attempting to use reason to show that this old self has truly died and has been replaced by something new and far more glorious. Paul was a masterful apologeticist and offered many proofs throughout the Scriptures to us, and also to those present with Paul in times past, those he was witnessing to and even to the apostles themselves. Case in point:
How is Paul’s argument constructed? Paul’s argument is constructed by the premises stated in 2 Corinthians 5:14-16. These statements represent the ‘new creation.’ Being the case, then, they are referenced as axioms which should be represented within the body of believers. Thereby, through their negation we should see, or get a description, of the old nature, or non-believers, those not in Christ. Let us refresh our memory by stating these axioms once more.
Now, if we take these axioms and negate them, the old nature should become apparent. I have numbered these for easy reference, thus 1 in the following list will correspond to the negation of 1 in the former.
This sounds quite familiar doesn’t it? These necessary negations may have been evident in our lives at one time, or with the examination of the world, we see that it is very much applicable to the secular community at large. Furthermore, it follows the philosophical doctrines of materialism, post-modernism and existentialism so prevalent in the world today. However, some may find that at least a couple may apply to their lives right now.
It is important that if any of these aforementioned statements apply, still, to our lives, that we spend much time in prayer and examining the self and the state of nature as it applies to our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. I assure you, friends, that this is convicting for me for I have failed in following the statutes of our Lord Jesus Christ to an extreme degree. So if one is feeling convicted by these words, I join him or her in company that desperately needs the power of the Lord made manifest in our lives. May it be so both by the Lord’s discipline and grace.
John Gill echoes this message by stating the necessity of “newness” within professed Christians.
Paul, himself, by the grace of our Lord, was in a unique position to be able to juxtapose the old nature with the new creation. As David K. Lowery states:
We can definitively see a vast opposition between the old nature and this new creation. The degree of this ‘newness’ through and by the Spirit cannot be overemphasized. Usually when we consider something to be new, it is not to a full extent, that is lingering vestiges of the old may remain, which become simply “covered up” by the new, but in Christ the old is referenced as being completely destroyed in order to make room for the full revelation of what is new, so that it may become apparent in us. The Life Application Study Bible has some profound things to add concerning this.
This insight provided by the Life Application Study Bible is echoed by the literal translations of the Scripture, such as the LITV concerning 2 Corinthians 5:17.
John Gill, too, points out that there is a vital extraordinary distinction to this “newness,” or being of a new creation, which trumps our normal conceptions of what we may consider to be new.
Due to the fact that we are a new creation, and have a place within the new creation, let us, therefore, strive to have absolutely no association with the old self, for the new creation is diametrically opposed to the old self. The old is contradictory to the new creation, as the new creation stands in opposition with our old nature. Let us, therefore, put on the nature of Christ and do away with the old garments of Adam. As Christ tells us in the book of Matthew:
Share this: