Mathematical Commentary on Genesis 1: 27-28

Below I tried to use mathematics to explain the biblical viewpoint on gender issues. Men have used the Bible to place women as second fiddles. Much of this debate is not centered on just verses from the Bible but the use of the word 'man' which has been used to refer to 'humankind'. The position of most women is that such use of the word 'man' to refer to 'humankind' is a travesty of the fight for discrimination against women. As a result of this, these days it is appropriate for example to say 'chairperson' instead of 'chairman' or 'headship' instead of 'headmaster' etc. It is believed that such words as 'chairman' denotes the position as the preserve for men. My exposition here is to support the argument the word man means both male and female and both are equal in the eyes of God.

This is my absolute view and I am responsible for my own comments in this article.

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them. And God bless them and God said, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it...' Gen. 1: 27-28.

First of all what is established here is there is a relationship between God and man. For the sake of what I want to do I will explain what relation means in Mathematics.

A relation is an association between, or a condition satisfied by, ordered pairs of objects, numbers, etc such as ab=1, ........is greater than......or...... is the father of......or.......is the god of(mine).......(The Harper Collins Dictionary of Mathematics). An ordered pair is an ordered set of two elements; example {Mrs. Quansah, Adwoa} will be an ordered set for the relation 'is the mother of'. What it means is that this order cannot be changed to maintain the same relation. If the order is changed then we have what we called an inverse relation. In the example I have used {Mrs. Quansah, Adwoa}the ordered pair of the inverse relation 'is the duaghter of'' is {Adwoa, Mrs. Quansah}. So if the relation 'is the mother of' then the inverse relation 'is the daughter of'.

There are types of relations in Mathematics such as one-to-one relation, one-to-many relation, many-to-one relation and many-to-many relation. I do not want to go into the explanation and examples of these types of relations, but one-to-one and many-to-one relations are regarded as functions in mathematics. A function is denoted by using the letter f or g or h etc.

Since according to Genesis 1: 27-28, God created man in his own image we can define the relation 'the creator of' as the relation between God and man. So, man is the second element of an ordered set. The first member is God. The set is {God, man} and is defined by the rule 'the creator of'. This relation is one-to-one or injective and therefore a function. We can show if this is so. Let the first set of the ordered pair be denoted as G={g} where g=God and the second set be denoted M={m} where m=man. Let the function f denote 'the creator of' then we show that g₁, g₂  G with f(g₁) =f(g₂)=m, then g₁=g₂. So it is the same God. So this means there can only be one God.  

All we can say is that our function f is an injection of G into M. But let’s take the expression ‘of male and female’ in the verse quoted above. The question is, is the female also created in the image of God? Is the female a second fiddle of man? To look at these questions the members of our second set are now two, M={male, female}. Our ordered sets are now {g, m} and {g, f}. where male=m and female=f. g means the same as stated above.

The relation is no more one-to.one or injective. In mathematical terms it means there is more than one image of God because we can show that if g₁ , g₂  G then f(g₁) f(g₂) and hence g₁ g₂. This result would mean there might be more than one God for each to created male and female in their own image.

For the polytheist this is a good result but for the monotheist this result shakes the very foundations of his/her faith. For the monotheist female activists though happy with the inclusion of female in the proof will not appreciate the result. The monotheist male chauvinist is all the more happy. Mathematics has shown all along that he has been right in treating the woman as second fiddle but not as equal.

But the acceptance of the first proof in the line of thinking of the male chauvinist is a denial of the image of God in females. But this is a contradiction to the statement ‘male and female he created them’ and therefore his reasoning cannot be accepted. 

The implication is that God created male and female equal, that is {m} and {f} are equal sets. God named the set Man i.e. Man=male =female. The set {m, f} is not an ordered set (in this sense) since we can change the order and it will still remain the same. Whatever man can do women can do!

The proof of the invertibility of the function f :the creator of, leaves the question so what is the inverse relation (function) between God and man? If we invert the function then the ordered pair will reverse. But the first function is an important functio which places God at the center of man’s life. It is important for man to keep this relation.