"And she brought forth a son, a male," Un.
12:5. Is this a redundant statement - "a son, a male" - or
is it necessary to state it that way? If I should say, "I saw
an animal, a tiger," everyone would know that I mean to convey the
thought that not al animals are tigers. Could it be that the above
expression of scripture is intended to give us the thought that not all
sons are males? It seems so to me.
Now, don't be too sure that this is
nonsensical. In ordinary generation all sons are males, but I find
that the word "son" is used in the scripture many times, as a
figure of speech. Literally, a son is a male offspring of human
parents, generated and born in the usual way. But what about being
sons of God? Are we His sons through the same kind of process that
makes literal sons? Certainly not!
There are creatures called sons of God, who became so
trough creation. These are the spirit beings mentioned in Ps.
82. Christ is His Son, both by creation, Col. 1:16, and by
generation in a woman, Luke 1:35. But we are no sons in either of
these senses. It is only in a figure of speech that we are called
sons. And in the employment of figure, our literal sex is not
taken into consideration. In the ecclesia or ecclesias to which
the Ephesian epistle was written, there were certainly females, as well
as males, for in chapter 5 Paul gives instructions to wives and
husbands. Yet, in chapter 1, they are called sons of God. The
figure does not even denote relationship to God, so much as it denotes
maturity and dignity. In Gal. 4:3-7, it is used in contrast with
minority and slavery. Paul says, "Thus also we, when we were
minors, were enslaved under the elements of the world. Now when
the full time came, God delegates His Son, come of a woman, come under
law. that He should be reclaiming those under law, that we may be
getting the place of a son. Now, being that you are sons, God
delegates the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba!
Father! So that you are no longer a slave, but a son. Now if
a son, an enjoyer also of God's allotment through Christ."
Are we sons in the same sense that Christ is? No; He came of a
woman. We came into this position, not of a woman. It is
only in a figure that we are said to be sons. Literally we are yet
sons and daughters of our parents, while we are figuratively sons of
As products of this eon, we have one character; as
products of the resurrection we will have another. So in Luke
20:25-26, people who belong to this eon are called sons of this
eon. This is said of both men and women. It is said of those
who are marrying, and of those who are given in marriage. Men
marry; women are given in marriage. Figuratively, both are called
sons of this eon. So "son sometimes denotes character,
without distinguishing the sexes. In resurrection, those same
people will be called sons of God and sons of the resurrection.
Literally, they are not either. They are sons and daughters of
their human parents.
There were women in the Ecclesia at Thessalonica,
Acts 17:4. Yet Paul writes to the ecclesia later, and calls them
brethren, I Thess. 4:13. The term, "brethren" is used of
both sexes, in Paul's writing. Or is it a fact that he was writing
to the men, alone, when he have out the glorious news of the Lord
descending into the air, and their being snatched away to meet
Him? Chapter 1:1, says he was writing to the ecclesianot
merely to the males in it. In 2:1, the brethren are aware of
Paul's suffering and outrages. Are not the women aware of it
also? In 2:9, the brethren remember his toil and labor. Have
the women forgotten it? In 4:1, the brethren are asked to walk in
a way that is pleasing to God. Should not the women walk in that
way, also? I cannot escape the conclusion that, like sons,
brethren is used of both sexes, unless there is occasion to distinguish
them. And there is certainly no occasion, when saying the things
that Paul was saying in this epistle.
If "brethren" always means men, and if
"sons" always mean males, then what about Gal. 4:19, where Paul
says, "Little children mine, with whom I am travailing again, until
Christ be formed in you?" Had Paul turned out to be a
woman? Had he borne children? And was he doing the unheard
of thingtravailing again, to bear the same children a second
time? No; these "little children" were the brethren of
verse 28, the sons of 4: 5, 7. Literally, they had, at one time,
been little children of their human parents; they were now sons and
daughters of these same parents. But figuratively they were Paul's
little children; figuratively he was travailing with them again;
figuratively they were his brethren; figuratively they were sons of
In Christ there is "no male and female,"
Gal. 28. Why should there be? In heaven there will be no
need for sex, since propagation of the race belongs to earth.
Christ is a male, and, while on earth, had a body like other men.
But in glory His body has been transfigured. Not merely
transformed, mind you! If it had not been transfigured, there
would be no need to transfigure our body, to conform to His body
glorious, Phil. 3:21. Our body of humiliation is already like His body
of humiliation. Strictly speaking, this is true of men,
only. But He has a different figure now, and if men can be
transfigured to accord with His body glorious, there is no reason why
this should not be true of women, also. There is no position of glory
that a man may occupy in heaven, that may not also be occupied by
However, in the Lord, or in service on earth, the
sexes are distinguished. The man is the head of the woman, I Cor.
11:3. She is his glory, verse 7. This was the arrangement in
creation, and the order should be recognized in the ecclesia. For
this reason, Paul does not allow a woman to teach, or to domineer over a
man, I Tim. 2:12. That she is not debarred from teaching some
others, is evident from Titus 2:3. But it is a dishonor to the God
of creation, for a woman to reach and rule men. Wives are to be
subject to their own husbands. Husbands are to be loving their
wives, as their own bodies. When this is done by the husband, the
devout wife finds it a pleasure to carry out her part. It is not
In the days when speaking in different languages was
sometimes done in the ecclesia, the women were the hush, I Cor.
14. In the present time, women are the principal jabberers, when
the "unknown tongue" is spoken. The gift of tongues has
ceased, since maturity has come, I Cor. 13, but many women do not seem
to think so. Really, speaking in tongues in Paul's day, was
speaking in different languages of men; now, "the unknown
tongue" is the proper designation, for even the jabberers do not
know what it means.
None of the regulations concerning woman, as given by
God in His word, means that woman is inferior to man. Hers is
merely a different role.
She is a proper help for man. This is what is
meant by "help meet." She was created because of
man. She finds, not only her proper place, but her chief joy, in
serving man, or helping him. Those who want to domineer over man
are abnormal. The great majority of women are normal. They
want to stay in their place. And they do it, to a greater extent
than does man.
Man loves to be called the "lord of
creation." Yet he will let out a wail to the effect that if
there were no bad women he would be better. There was never a
"bad woman," but who went bad in close company with a
man. The only thing worse than a bad woman, is a bad man. He
is the aggressor, she, the passive actor. I have never believed
in, or condoned, the double standard of morals fro the
But, back to the original thought. In Christ,
there is no male or female. Both men and women are members of His
body. Neither shall be as they are now, when they are in the
glory. The body of the woman, no less than that of the man, shall
be TRANSFIGURED, to accord with the glorious body of Christ. And
when this is done, it is an earnest of what Christ will do for all, in
due time. The eons will come to a consummation, when propagation
of the race will have come to an end, and there will no longer be any
need for the different sexes.