The CBE Scroll

Comment by Charis

May 7, 2009 @ 6:58 am

I wonder if God’s prophetic utterances of the gender distinct consequences of the Fall predict a tendency of female idolatry to occur in the context of relationships (particularly intimate relationships with males) and male idolatry to occur in the context of their “work”?

I also wonder if the male and female changed physically upon eating the forbidden fruit? They would now die as would their offspring, so increased fertility would be necessary. I wonder if the “desire” of Gen 3:16 has a sexual component? It is mentioned in the immediate context of two references to pregnancy/childbirth: “increased conception” and “pain in childbirth”.

“Unto the woman HE [God]said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow [painful toil] and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.”
Gen 3:16

Comment by joanne

May 7, 2009 @ 7:51 am

I look at the consequences of the fall in a very comprehensive way. Both men and women because of sin find themselves in the struggle for life. Life in the garden was peaceful, they were provided for by God and had access to himself, to all of the fruit in the garden and a oneflesh union with one another. After the fall, the first couple experienced a broken relationship with God, a broken relationship with one another (described by blaming one another, power struggles, idolatry, etc), and struggle for food to eat and the birth of children needed to farm the soil and care for parents in their old age.

By looking at the story the author of Genesis is telling, we observe that before the act of disobedience, the first couple were in harmony with God and one another and the land yielded fruit. After the act of disobedience, the land produced fruit with struggle, childbirth came with struggle and the relationships among humans came with struggle.

Moses was telling this story in the context of moving into the new land and exhorting Israel to follow the ways of God and reminding them of the struggle for life and the need to trust in God.

I think that the fall presents a picture of how sin infects the world and creates anxiety and fear that leads to ethnic strife and the power to “get” the resources needed to survive. This includes how men and women interact with immense anxiety. (the root of the need for heirarchy in a sin-sick world).

I really believe that in the redemption, Christ began the process of restoring humans to their divinely intended vocations to govern and fill the earth and care for the land. Jesus and Paul said you are saved through faith in Christ… it is not from yourself… a gift of God. We are invited to return to trusting in God instead of struggling for life, resorting to power and conquering and blaming.

The potential is present for men and women to, in trust, learn to relate without the anxiety about power and roles and struggle. The need for children to work the land and the need to have many children–because so many might die in the life struggle is lessened. (at least in more prosperous nations.) The potential exists for the new community formed in Christ to be generous to those in need instead of holding on to power because we are placing trust in God.

I think this is a big part of the biblical story and we need to see the power struggles between men and women and for life in light of that big story.

So I don’t see prescribed roles. I see WHY

Comment by joanne

May 7, 2009 @ 7:52 am

Oops… I see why we struggle in relation with one another in marriage, in society, in our economic world etc. It’s not about pulling weeds or submitting to husbands. We miss the story when we focus on that.

Comment by Matt

May 7, 2009 @ 8:08 am

I read this blog regularly and appreciate the work that you do. But, I have a concern with this post that I feel I need to voice: be careful of the backing for your arguments. Indicating that the minority of women refuse pain relief during labor does not make it the right thing to do, and therefore does not make a good backing for this argument. I am not saying this because I believe that women should experience pain in birth. It is in fact the contrary. The fact is, birth sensations are a natural, important component in nature. They aid a healthy birthing process. Pain is most acutely felt in a hospital environment, but often is replaced by other sensations when birth is done in a supportive environment. Numbing all sensations is one reason why the U.S. has some of the poorest birth outcomes in the developed world. Other countries, Christian and non, have better outcomes than us without medical pain relief. These are the facts, and they do not support what you are trying to say. God and nature are obviously directly connected, and therefore the natural process of birth is a Godly thing. If by pain relief, you meant a supportive, healthy environment without medical interventions, where women can comfortably give birth (which all women do deserve), then this is all moot. But, I do not think this what you are indicating, and if you were, I do not think it was clear. A similar argument can be said for men working the earth. By moving to a more desk-oriented society, you are just replacing the physical discomfort of physical work with the mental and emotional discomfort of mental work. I would personally take the physical. Again, you cannot say that taking away physical work solves anything. I respect what you are trying to get across, but in all arguments, you must be careful of the Hippocratic oath: “First, do no harm.” I believe this may be the essence of what Christ was trying to get across. Please contact me if you would like to continue this dialogue. Best regards.

Comment by Liz

May 7, 2009 @ 8:58 am

Hi Matt, and if this is the first time you have written a comment…welcome.

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in what I wrote about pain in childbirth and working the land. Both statements from God to Eve and Adam were consequences of their sin and therefore not good.

We don’t know what childbirth would have been like before sin, we only have the description of after sin…. increased pain, which suggests to me that before it would have been a natural experience. I take your point that many women do experience ‘natural’ childbirth and that bears out my point……if the statement to Eve was prescriptive of God’s original intention, then any attempts to minimise pain (with or without drugs or hospital intervention) would be going against God’s will.

As far as working the land is concerned, the same applies. It would seem that God’s original intention was that getting food would not be hard, frustrating work. God would supply their every need. Jesus spoke to this when he said that we should not worry about food and drink and clothing but trust in God. The consequence of sin is that without trusting God, getting a living is hard and full of pain.

My point is that if these two things were God’s original design then any attempts to lesson the pain of childbirth or the getting of sustenance would be disobedience. Some people teach this directly, others teach it indirectly and in a more subtle form.

None of this minimises the huge percentage of the world’s population who don’t have a choice of safe childbirth or ‘easy’ work. Because of the general nature of living in a sinful world (greed, powermongers, inequality etc.) countless people suffer.

Comment by anne

May 7, 2009 @ 9:18 am

really interesting post. i’m new here, and i think i’ll be back.

another aspect is that in our developed nation, where we can choose to ignore half the curse (labor for food and birth pains), we have new curses.

When women choose to avoid pain in childbirth, they miss out on the chemical connections that happen between baby and mom, as matt alluded to. When farmers choose to use pesticide, export and import, etc, we hurt ourselves and the land with chemicals, and we create economic disparities and greed.

So trying to avoid the curse brings more curses. But what about the flipside? The other half of the curse?

Comment by joanne

May 7, 2009 @ 9:18 am

Hey Matt, I agree. I did natural childbirth and felt that it was not a curse. I think the pain the bible refers to is more than physical but involves the whole experience of raising children in a fallen world. the hebrew word means labor… like the word used for the man. It is difficult in a world tainted by sin and involves a labor as opposed to the rest found in Christ. “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.”

Again, Jesus is the redeemer.

Comment by leigh

May 7, 2009 @ 10:59 am

Yes, Joanne (89203)–I also don’t know that pain during childbirth is what is meant by the untranslated text. I can’t recall where I first read this idea, but the author mentioned that perhaps the translation of what was said to the woman in Gen. 3:16 is more accurately rendered in the KJV than in a number of other versions:

“16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Whoever wrote what I read suggested that rather than the pain involved in labor, the scripture was referring to the sorrow and difficulties involved in bringing children who have been touched by sin into a world touched by sin. Just as you said.

Comment by Nick

May 7, 2009 @ 11:42 am

I have to find it amusing that you chose as the graphic for your site a habit wearing nun, whereas I think most habit wearing nuns would find your opinions of birth control, your disrespect for the union of intercourse and childbirth, and the mere _idea_ that a woman shouldn’t be desirous of her husband (what is she supposed to prefer the milkman?) bizarre and un-Christian in the extreme.

And for heavens sake confusing, “the strict adherence to one part of God’s judgment on the sin of Eve & Adam,” and a part of the order of God as reiterated in the epistles is mind boggling.

Comment by Kamilla

May 7, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

Yeah, Nick!

Quite a few folks have been thinking those very things.

Kamilla

Comment by Liz

May 7, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

Hi Nick……welcome!

I am sorry you have misunderstood my post but please do not quote as ‘my ideas’ things which I didn’t mention such as ‘birth control’ and ‘disrespect for the union of intercourse’

Your reference to the ‘habit wearing nun’ is interesting as I hadn’t even noticed the picture but on looking at it there is nothing to suggest that the person is a nun. I’m sure that the picture is there to display how women from long ago preached the good news. Maybe I can find out who the person is…..you’ve got me thinking!

As regards a woman’s ‘desire’ I would reiterate that something about that desire changed after sin and it was not a good thing. However……desire for one’s spouse can be restored to God’s original good intention as we get back in relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Comment by Liz

May 7, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

Hi Kamilla……welcome to you too!

As you would have seen, I wrote a comment on your blog so I will copy it here for the scroll readers to see.

Firstly, I was careful to not use the word ‘curse’ because only 2 things were cursed, the ground and the serpent.

My point was that the statements of God to Adam & Eve after their sin were ones of consequences – bad things which would happen because of their sin which included having to leave the garden.

Whatever we imagine ‘desire’ to be or ‘work hard’ to mean, it was not going to be as good as in the beginning.

However life was from creation, it was good as God said after he had finished the work of creation. Sin messed it up and it continues to be messed up until the day when God says ‘enough’ and there is an end to all sin and damage.

Meanwhile we can live in the redemption bought for us by Christ as much as our sinful self and world allows. This redemption includes a wonderful relationship between wives and husbands and a wonderful relationship with the earth.

Comment by Kamilla

May 7, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

“However life was from creation . . .”

Indeed.

Kamilla

Comment by Nick

May 7, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

You continue to conflate a curse with an established order.

Especially odd is your commentary on, “Maybe there is something inherent in the sin nature that tends toward hierarchy and gender roles.” Funny, I thought there were those who grasped equality with God. Perhaps instead there is something inherent to the nature of the universe that is hierarchical and that God decreed it to be so. You are, in effect, looking from the wrong end of the glass.

Comment by Charis

May 7, 2009 @ 8:16 pm

Going strictly by the passage, it doesn’t say that the man and woman are “cursed”. Only the ground and the serpent are “cursed”.

The DESIRE of Genesis 3:16 is not said to be good or bad.

It is a consequence of the Fall and CAN bring a woman much pain in her life. However there are redemptive aspects- even of the pain. As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if her DESIRE sometimes turns into idolatry? Where her husband controls and rules her instead of Jesus? In that case, her DESIRE will bring pain and suffering which may drive her to forsake her idolatry and seek the real God. (Likewise when a man makes an idol of his work/career)

Comment by truthngrace

May 7, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

New to the blog as well and I tend to resonate with Nicks comments that gender roles weren’t consequences of the fall but rather part of the created order – if we look at Genesis 1-2 and compare that with some of the images we have from scripture about heaven there is order. I do not like the word hierarchy because it carries with it the baggage of its abuses and hurt. But there is hierarchy in God’s economy – Christ is the head of the church above all powers rulers and authorities and names. And in final judgment we are also shown that (building on the foundation of Jesus Christ) some will just as it were make it in while others will be rulers of cities – and this after the parousia.

Comment by Donald Guffey

May 7, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Nick While I appreciate your participation in this blog and for sharing your differing opinion I am however quite put off by your accusatory tone. It seems to me that instead of simply stating your disagreements in a professional manner you turn to sarcasm. This is at least the feel I get from your post. Now It is mind boggling to me that you don’t seem to get this article. What I hear Liz saying is that because of Christ we as his followers have returned to a pre fallen state IE God’s original intent for our lives. Which after careful study of the text in its original language and historical context you will find is not a pre destined universal law of hierarchy within a marriage. Now as to what you said about Liz being disrespectful to the union of intercourse and Childbirth, where did you get that from! She makes no mention of intercourse and childbirth she isn’t saying shouldn’t be done naturally if a woman so chooses to do that ( and on a side note MATT as much as I appreciate your comment as well I really don’t think one should comment on what child birth feels like until they have themselves given birth Love ya bro) Anyway what Liz is getting at nick is that Painful Child birth doesn’t have to happen just like she isn’t saying that their is anything wrong with a man being a farmer if he chooses but he doesn’t have to till the ground if he chooses not to and further more she does not even remotely imply that a woman shouldn’t be desirous of her husband What she was saying is that people tend to focus on part of the curse and not all IE they won’t tell a woman that she can’t have an epidural and they won’t tell a man he can’t have an office job but they will hone in on that a woman should be desirous and that her husband will rule over her Get IT ! Now to sum this up Christ’s sacrifice set us free from the curse of sin right? so that being the case the curse which was placed on adam and eve has been destroyed as well so now, God intended men and women to be equal thus the reason the bible said that he created man in his image male and female he created them and in the new testament he said there is neither jew nor greek neither bond nor free, neither male nor female for you are all one in Christ Jesus. So in conclusion Nick ,please continue to participate in our blog but just please remember to play nice okay.

Comment by truthngrace

May 7, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

Donald – that’s really the crux of the matter – were gender roles something which was a part of the created order or a result of the fall? I agree that men and women are equal but different and different doesn’t mean unequal. It simply means different and if gender roles for men and women are different that also doesn’t mean unequal. I have a certain role in the church of which I am a member and our pastor has a role but I don’t take that to mean I’m unequal in value, worth, diginity or importance.

I also believe the Galatians passage to be refering to the boundary breaking power of the gospel that was not just reserved for a special nation, special social class, or special gender. Certainly there are still jews and greeks, employers and employees and men and women. The gospel however is for anyone who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. This passage can’t be used to support the eradicatation of gender roles nor the support of gender roles – that’s not the intent of the passage in the context of Galatians.

Comment by truthngrace

May 7, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

I guess I’d sum it up by saying that gender roles don’t display sin nature but rather the divine nature men and women were created with as being created in the image of God

Comment by leigh

May 7, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

That’s true. “Different” does not equate to “more than and less than”, although certainly humans have a difficult time grasping that. It is a good thing that you do not consider yourself to be “unequal in value, worth, dignity or importance” than your pastor. You should not feel less in any way simply because your pastor holds an official title that you do not.

I believe that the Galatians passage to which you refer, Gal. 3:28, yes? does indeed refer to that very concept. People being different AND being equal.

And yes, the gospel is for anyone who believes on the Lord Jesus Christ–I like how you phrased that, so here’s where I’m getting this–post 89216. Absolutely.

If we look back at Paul’s audience, what we see is a group of people who already know that all the groups mentioned can indeed be saved: That would not be news to them. But there were rules governing the participation in the observances of their faith that each named group could have. If I recall correctly,there were various places within the temple where women, slaves, and converts to Judaism (Greek people, perhaps) were not permitted to go.

I’m no more Jewish than I am male, and I thankfully am a free person. Yet I am “in Christ” right now. That’s not something that happens to me after I die, which is one of the reasons I always questioned the salvation-only understanding of the passage.

I believe it is important to not rely on our own 2009, North American/Australian/British/(sorry for anyone who participates here that I’ve missed ;-) ) understanding of translated scripture (I do have some appreciation here of the requirement that converts to Islam study Arabic!). Why? Because God has been, is, and always will be the same. He is the great I AM.

Are we understanding God to be saying the same things to us today that the Galatians understood Him to be saying to them? We should make every effort to do so.

If you would care to study the matter in the depth it deserves, the free articles available here are a good starting point:
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/free_articles.shtml

I am under the impression that many of the participants on this blog have studied these issues from a complementarian perspective or two, as well as from an egalitarian perspective.

Peace, and seek truth.

Comment by Nick

May 8, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

By denying the proper role of the desire for a husband and attempting to establish a complete lack of hierarchy (just because such systems can be abused we shouldn’t make it a bad word) you both assault the institution of the family and its natural ends. Hence, the additional claims.

Hierarchies exist in the natural order. We are greater than the animals. A little less than the angels. The angels have offices that from what we are given in scripture never change, there is no, “working your way up the ladder.” They are all evidently happy with the situation.

I will go so far as to say that there are those that are closer to God than I and always will be. I’m fine with that. That I have any position at all is a gift.
I understand that I have a place in the order. Why should I want more? This is the rather important lesson in the children’s story of Narnia. All of the Children of Men where Kings and Queens, but there was only one High King, and among them only one first set of four.

This whole article to me is insulting to God. It insists that as humans we are more than what we are. It attempts to usurp a gift. It seems almost purposefully to conflate a curse with an established order. That is, it calls what is Good, by strong implication, Bad. That is not a small thing.

And the above is clearly a nun. Specifically, it appears to be the habit of the Poor Clare. I should note here that I’m not even Roman Catholic and can pick that out. I know this because I view habited nuns, that is those that announce their position in the hierarchy with neither pride nor shame, as one of the most beautiful spectacles the world has ever seen. It is a bit of the Glory of Christ slipping through into our world.

Comment by em

May 8, 2009 @ 12:26 pm

Egalitarians hold that the bible does not prescribe fixed- gender based roles for men and women. Evidence to this fact is the word’s ‘role’ and function is never used to speak of sexual differentiation in biblical commentaries before the 1970’s. maintains Kevin Giles in Post 1970s Evangelical Responses to the Emancipation of Women Priscilla Papers. Vol. 20. No 4 autumn 2006). Yet as most biblical feminists insist “denial of gender-based role differentiation does not entail the denial of gender differentiation itself.” N.T Wright agrees for such would denigrate into Gnosticism. That man and women have a common goal and therefore are of one mind and will to fill and subdue the created world and while sin accentuates divisions between men and women in their respective duties, that God created two sexually distinct beings is important to see insist many Egalitarians. “The creation of humanity as male and female is not and incidental fact or thought, but the apex of God’s creation, so to deny the distinction of the two sexes is to deny what is integral to God’s final creative act” insists Linda Belleville. The fact that Adam needed a complement and Adam and Eve together were destined to generate a race of human beings seems to indicate that Adam did not in himself embody the fullness of humanity. Each sex is insufficient by itself, nor does either a man or a woman completely represent the image of God- the image includes both male and female.
Unfortunately, many ministers have not been helped to understand women’s experience and basic psychology as taught in seminaries does not facilitate comprehension of the themes intrinsic to female development and male organized theological reflection and understandings miss concerns that are existentially important to women states Maxine Glaz. Glaz further states “Pastoral care suffers when a minister is too easily swayed by an outdated or male oriented psychology, rather, women’s relational identity is a positive feature of feminine personality and as a value to be understood, upheld or even emulated within a male ordered culture.”
The church however, despite a reading of Genesis 3 which reveals neither sex is a preferred or privileged reflection of Gods nature, tend to promote privilege of the male, this is increasingly so when theological introspection, teaching and preaching is primarily done by males. Coincidentally, if the church ascribes maleness to God, one can expect the church to prioritize male attributes over female and to privilege male over female and to privilege men over women; the church will not be able to help itself, for humans (as Thomas Aquinas had), instinctively attach greater honor to those things that are believed to be the closest to the way God is. Additionally, Brue C. Birch argues for the chastening of biblical metaphors in regard to marriage and maintains if “God is like the husband, then husbands can be thought of to be like God.””Nothing could be more natural for the fallen mind that to create a god in its own image (Roman 1:20-23) maintains R.K. Mc Gregor Mc Knight.”
Unlike ones culture, there is no concept of ‘pink and blue’ in the New Testament. Additionally, deferring back to the creation order might not be wholly credible cautions N.T. Wright. Beside the fact that Jesus lived in a patriarchal culture and acted in ways that spoke and defied that culture, N.T Wright states “that gender is not only specific to humans but to be male and female is something the whole creation is called to do and be. Not that sexual differentiation is unimportant but that Christians cannot use the argument that being male and female is somehow what bearing God’s image means.” Complementarians who read inequality into the Trinity, should limit their differentiation of female and male are supporting Arius Christas heteroousios from the Father.
For Wright, the creation order is quite irrelevant, he states “although Paul quotes Gen 1:27 in the Galatians teaching, the presenting issue of Galatians is male circumcision, a practice which distinguished Jews from gentile and thus distinguished Jews as privileged males. By contrast the initiation rite into God’s family is now baptism and is an identical rite for Jew, gentile, slave and free, male and female. Rather than circumcision, those baptizedin to Christ are the true family of Abraham.” Thatha Wiley maintains, the letter of Galatians is of great significance and importance to the female. Unlike circumcision which applies only to male converts, baptism is gender neutral for women and men who underwent the same ritual. This indifference to gender promoted the social integration of women into an otherwise patriarchal community. Glen Scorgie maintains “To discern worldly accretions- it is important for the church to further examine Gender, Psychology and socialization “for all too often the socialization processes within the evangelical community which have often been perpetuated by the church.”

Comment by Larry S

May 8, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

Nick – re your post #89220

In the past slaves were supposed to be happy in their ‘roles’ and their position in the ‘established order’ also.

And in times past, kings loved where they saw themselves in ‘the established order’ and saw it as God ordained also.

Comment by Sue

May 8, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

Nick,

Hierarchy is an assault on the family. There is nothing about hierarchy that holds a family together. The statistics are clear. In spite of depriving a woman of all rights, income and decision-making abililty, conservative Christianity has not reduced the rate of violence or the rate of divorce.

Comment by em

May 8, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

Leigh is correct to address the problems and flaws of subordinationist theology is that one who is equal in essence but not function is not only as Rebecca Goothius maintains is“nonsensical and contradictory, but I feel it also fosters an experience of disunity. For Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle the mind and body where two metaphysical principles ‘form and matter’ making up the human essence that exists as one substance. According to Aquinas, the soul is in a sense immaterial and can exist apart from the body. Margaret Farley maintains “the trouble with theories and beliefs that emphasize a distinction between soul and body is that dualisms breed hierarchies hence in western intellectual history; the soul has been persistently valued over the body, the intellect over emotions, the will over the body.” Likewise I think that hierarchies also breed dualisms. If one is told they are functionally inferior- it is not a far from logic that they are also ontologically inferior. Farley maintains there are often paradigmic experiences of human suffering in which mind and spirit and body seem to be wrenched apart. Ben Witherington maintains “ although there are attempts in medicine to view the person as a psychosomatic whole- modern westerners and Christians alike still remain deeply influenced by the Cartesian ways of thinking that would have been alien to the ancients for them matter and spirit would not have been seen as ontological opposites.” Farley maintains “People feel what they think and their emotions are the complete sum of their thoughts.” Therefore dualisms are deceptive and misleading. This is the sort of pain which Simon Weil named “affliction” which is differentiated from “suffering” as in the ordinary sense. At its heart however, the affliction is always both spiritual and physical it is never only in the body (like a toothache that eventually disappears). A person suffers as a unified whole (which is also the Hebraic and biblical understanding). Farley maintains “there is no competition between the miseries of the body and miseries of the soul. Affliction when it is of the spirit also afflicts, leaves wounds in, the body, and when it is in the bodily, if it goes on long enough, it always afflicts the spirit.” Spiritual issues rooted in religious beliefs can be as punitive as beatings.” Jesus revealed that there is no such dichotomy in an individual’s personhood and addressed the personal and communal aspects of people’s experiences.
Subordinationist theology maintains that one who is equal in essence but not function not only leads to dualisms of which, but also leads to the objectification of the individual. Farley maintains:
“Objectification is the failure to apprehend and respect a person in his or her whole reality. This can happen for one is valued for ones… mental or physical. It can happen when one is reduced by the eye of the beholder to ones physical beauty, or racial difference. It can happen when an individual is looked upon as a source of another’s pleasure. Objectification of another is especially onerous when it is accompanied by efforts to make the other what he or she is judged to be, constrained to others in role or actions that are judged for her as appropriate, subjected to the others.

Valeris Demarinis maintains “The theoretical construct of subordinationism often proposes that a healthy women’s development is dependent on the fulfillment of the biological, emotional, and theological need to bear and nurture a child. This construct is clear and precise, therefore it is logical that any woman who does not have or choose this or unable to fulfill this need is in psychological terms pathological”. Winfrey finds subordinationism as problematic as it re-baptizes secular socio-cultural and radically bio-deterministic theories of gender power into Christian theology hierarchy.” Procreation is not the message of biblical texts. This is not to day that there is something wrong with devoting time to ones marriage and family- however in NT times singleness was thought to be advantageous over marriage- advantageous in regard to ministry and the Lord’s affairs and not with intrinsic worth. 1 Cor 7. An unmarried wife is to be as focused on the Lord’s business as an unmarried man (1 Cor 7:32-34) Sex is not even connected with the procreation of the species. This is rather phenomenal considering that Judaism viewed the continuation of the family the upmost importance and the highest obligation (Gen 38:8, Deut 25:5-6)
In the first words of Ephesians 5:18-6:9, husband and wives are understood to be dependent on their being filled with the Spirit and conformed to the image of Christ” The Holy Spirit’ distributes gifts just as he determines’ (1 Cor. 12:11) and is not according to gender. Kevin Giles concurs “the term ‘role’ is a modern sociological and refers to a part a person plays and belongs to the world of theater and humanistic sociology, it is a mask one wears and not biblical in contrast to sex which is about being and not a role one plays and cannot be changed. “Women however can choose a life of chastity and religious devotion just as much as she can choose motherhood and both religious devotion see also proverbs 31. To live a life of authenticity, one is called to a vocation that best suits that individuals essence for as well as one having an essence each person is also allowed personal distinctiveness”. How one picks values and how one behave toward them, how one enjoys life, how one grieves, how one suffers depends on the quality of the soul or essence of that individual, even grace is received by each soul in its own particular way.(Elizabeth Schulmacher) Additionally creational evidence points to sexuality being based on biology rather than in spirituality (Mc Gregor Wright).
It also presupposes an ontological barrier between a person and discipleship. Thomas Finger maintains “Inward faith receives Christ and intrinsically produces outward work. Justification in the Spirit affects all spheres of life while profound and personal, spreads far beyond that.” If a person is different ontologically than that of her sphere of reality then anxiety will exist- one will in fact govern the whole and the dominant will form the telos. It is not difficult to imagine how this can in-fact turn to an extrinsic religiosity, trying to regain righteousness thorough human merit, rules and regulations.
I object to the fact that there are churches insisting on role theology to its members] and it is argued that any variation in this human expression must be logically labeled a problem and there is no room for flexibility on the matter.

Comment by Rachel

May 8, 2009 @ 2:50 pm

Thank you for this. The subordinationists are really taking away from the work of Jesus and what he accomplished on the cross by perpetuating the case. Cyril of Jerusalem helpfully explains how: (sec 18 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xvii.html) ‘Adam received the sentence, Cursed is the ground in thy labours; thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. For this cause Jesus assumes the thorns, that He may cancel the sentence; for this cause also was He buried in the earth, that the earth which had been cursed might receive the blessing instead of a curse.’ Surely also the cross canceled the sentence of the disharmony between men and women so that in Christ we are mutually submissive. Sin still reigns where women are subordinated to men and oh how we wish it were Christ.

Comment by em

May 8, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

Nick your argument sounds quite ‘Aristotelian’ and like Thomas Aquinas who utilized an Aristotelian hierarchal social and political ethic which justified social hierarchies for each social role in secular society in accordance with its divinely appointed end. He believed also in the subordination of women based on account of “their defective reasoning.”(Philip J. Wogaman). This is quite different from Early Christianity which from its initiation in the Christian and Jewish communities dialogued regarding doctrinal and practical issues regarding the circumcision of gentiles and how the Old Testament should be interpreted. Neither Paul nor the churches created moral guidelines and judgments ex nihilo; rather they utilized existing traditions (of the church, synagogue, and Greek schools and culture). Yet, Paul a Hebrew amongst Hebrews was not a Greek thinker-(Ben Witherington) and neither are we to be. Raised as a strict Pharisee, he excelled in Judaism and Paul would have had a passionate concern for such categories of order, hierarchy and boundaries in matters of purity. However, true to his Hebrew heritage the apostle thinks of man as a unity, a psychosomatic whole.(Witherington). Paul was perhaps not an egalitarian in the modern sense, since most ancients did not believe all persons were created equal or essentially the same. Paul still manifested a dyadic personality, and even though converted still retained his collectivist Jewish mentality, although like Jesus, he espoused fictive kinship, rather than natural kinship as the primary identity unity, he had not suddenly become a late twentieth century westerner.(Witherington).
Most remarkable therefore is the Galatians teaching since religious class and gender distinctions meant everything to the ancient world. Additionally, the letter to the Galatians was written shortly prior to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 which had provided a visible and psychological rallying point for people whose political and religious autonomy was uncertain as well as a monumental reminder of God’s elect people as they had access to him through sacrificial ritual. The design spoke volumes about the “in-groups” and “out-groups” which were issues that preoccupied Second Temple Judaism. The Holy of Holies contained the ark of the covenant which during the second Temple period sat empty. The Court of Israel surrounded the Holy Place and the Jewish religious leaders permitted only Jewish male access. Another area separated Levite men. Outside the court of Israel was the court of women and further removed, the court of Gentiles whom were allowed to purchase lamb to be offered by a priest. Additionally the monumental destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. provides a further judgment on Jewish temple practices. If we wanted to keep our hierarchies we might therefore maintain Jewish women have a higher authority than men.
In contrast to temple psychology the Galatians teaching (Gal 3:23) would have been seen not only as radical, but also as countercultural. Gordon Fee finds, “the most radical thing was that Jew, Gentile slave and free men and women shared a common meal together which celebrated the Lord’s death until he was to come again. Gordon Fee states “No wounder the early Christians were called the ‘haters of humanity’ because they so broke the structures by making them irrelevant.”
Ben Witherington maintains “
the hierarchical arrangement of the individual’s body is reflected in the body of Christ (not the emperor who is the head, with all believers as valuable parts of the body. No one group or class of ordinary human members (such as males) is singled out to be the head of his body. Rather, all members are under the rule that comes from heaven in the person of Christ, and they are all citizens of a common wealth (Phil 3:20) In other words, while Paul uses the notion of a hierarchal body to talk about hierarchy in human society, he does not like some, use such thinking to justify a male- female hierarchy within the church. Neither did Paul advocate a non- hierarchal vision of church leadership, rather the basis of his hierarchy was not gender, social status but rather one’s call and gifts. As a result Paul argued long and passionately for women and their roles as co-workers for Christ in his churches. Even though Jesus may not have urged a social revolution in his time, his message had radical revolutionary implications. In particular, we should not forget that Jesus urged his followers to begin to implement the ideals of the Kingdom in the present in anticipation of the coming Son of Man. For this reason, there may indeed have been some form of equality practiced among the men and women who accompanied Jesus on his itinerant preaching ministry — not as the first step toward reforming society from the grass roots, but as a preparation for the new world that was soon to come, when the present age would be brought to its climactic end with the arrival of the Kingdom. “

Unfortunately , sometimes there is a tendency to ‘ Platonize’ salvation- as if salvation is an exercise of the mind, however the judgments made in Galatians’ or in any text were not timeless truths or abstractions in the style of the philosopher, but timely applications of the gospel to specific problems in particular contexts.(Alan Vehey). For women, Hans Dieter Betz maintains “ possession of Spirit filled prophecy and wisdom which was the expectation of Jewish restoration theology (Acts 2:17-18) enhanced their social status and was not merely a theological notion. These women regarded themselves free from this evil world with its repressive social religious and cultural laws and convention. They had left behind such cultured social distinctions between Jews and non Jews, the social systems of slavery and the subordination of women.”(Hans Dieter Betz).
Yet the loosening of boundaries did not mean that Paul was setting up a new sort of authority which placed women over men as men had previously been over women. Mimi Haddad shows that using the term authentein, Paul shows that the women in Ephesus assumed an authority over men in ways that were inappropriate, even domineering. This type of misappropriation of authority is one Paul seeks to limit. The issue is not gender, as many assume, but the inappropriate use of authority that Paul prohibits.
The early Christian churches were less likely to marginalize women than in the communities of the Greco Roman world. Ben Witherington notes the correlation between the church’s acceptance of Hellenistic ideology and the marginalization of women. He maintains “As Christianity gained acceptability in the Empire and moved toward becoming the dominant religion, increasing numbers of (Hellenistic) men joined the faith and the favorable position for women declined, thus roles for women became more limited.”

Comment by Sonnet

May 8, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

Some people associate the word “desire” with one of its synonyms “lust.” I have heard others teach that it does not refer to sexual desire (this is often taught by those who believe that men have a much greater desire for sex than women), but instead to a desire for power and control. According to this interpretation of Gen. 3:16, husbands will seek to rule their wives and wives will seek to control or manipulate their husbands.

The original word translated to mean desire is found in three verses in the Old Testament.
1. Genesis 3:16
2. Genesis 4:7
3. Song of Solomon 7:10
To say that the word DESIRE means a wish to CONTROL does not make sense in the 3rd occurrence in scripture. To say that it means LUST does not make any sense in the 2nd occurrence.

According to Katharine Bushnell’s research, the Hebrew word “TESHUQA” had been translated in all three verses to mean TURNING in ancient manuscripts. This was later changed through rabbinical influences to become translated as LUST, and then centuries later translated to say DESIRE. Given the three choices (turning, lust, desire for control), the one that makes the most sense in all three verses is the earlier thought that it meant turning. http://www.godswordtowomen.org/gwtw.htm See Lessons 14 – 19 (esp. Lesson 18).
Therefore, K. Bushnell believes that Genesis 3:16 should be translated as follows:
“Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee.”

So if we turn away from a whole-hearted devotion to God to follow after another, then that person (or money) will become our master or ruler. No one can serve two masters. The other person, money, etc. will become an idol to us. We will place another god before God. It is idolatry. Idols cannot satisfy our deepest spiritual longings and needs. We hurt ourselves by chasing after a false god, and we will be left feeling empty inside. God’s desire is to fill those longings and needs that He designed in us – to lead us to Him and to spare us the pain of trying to find someone or something else to fill them. The choice is ours to make – God gave us free will.

Comment by Sue

May 8, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

If you read this post on my blog, you can see a very literal translation of the Septuagint. This is the earliest interpretation of this passage.

(Forming the human)

2:7 And God formed the human,
dust from the earth
and breathed into his face
a breath of life
and the human became
a living being.

(Forming the woman)

2:21 And God cast a trance on Adam,
and he slept,
and he took one of his ribs
and filled up his flesh in its place

2:22And the rib that he had taken from Adam
the Lord God fashioned into a woman
and brought her to Adam.

2:23 And Adam said,

This is now bone of my bones,
and flesh of my flesh
this one shall be called woman
for out of man she was taken

(The Cause of pain and death for woman)

3:16 I will increasingly increase
your pains and your groaning
with pains you will bring forth children
and your return will be to the man
and he will dominate you.

(Cause of pain and death for man)

17b cursed is the earth in your labours
with pains you will eat it all the days of your life

19 By the sweat of your face
you will eat your bread
until you return to the earth
for you are earth
and to earth you will depart

20 And Adam called the name of the woman Life,
because she is the mother of all living.

*******

What is remarkable is that the very same word in used in the Greek for the return of Adam, the human, to the soil and the return of woman to man.

As adam (the human) is to adamah, (the soil); so is ishshah (the woman) to ish (the man.)

It is a complex and extended word play in Hebrew based on the woman returning to man, and man returning to the soil.

This makes sense of of the adam – adamah, and ish – ishshah pairs.

There is no hierarhy of rulership in this, but a categorical hierarchy of our mortality. All humans return to the soil. Woman, because she is of the same matter as man, also returns to the soil. This is the only natural dominance of man, that his mortality is shared with his wife.

Comment by Nick

May 8, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

While your analysis is long it is short on any grounding in a serious response to scripture. You are right that we should see Paul as a continuation of Jewish thought. However, even more important, we should reflect on the Divine Jesus and the choices He made. He seemed very uninterested in the type of equality you strive for. He didn’t introduce a quota system for the apostles. He arrived with a definitive sex. And, for all of his complaints about the Jewish system, he mentioned not one word that would appear to be a rejection of the traditional organization of the Jewish family, which was patriarchal.

Instead he goes so far as to draw on his right to Kingship from David (male inheritance) and refers to the birth rights of the people via the Jewish Fathers. Paul just picks up the Divinely set pieces.

The problem can be seen in Larry’s response. Yes, a slave, as much as possible, should be happy in the service of his master. His Christian duty is to serve his master as if Christ. Before the obvious retort is made, a Chrisitan society has a duty to oppose slavery as Paul makes clear in his letter to Philemon.

If hierarchy is at odds with the family then the family is at odds with Christianity. Paul, Peter, and Luke are perfectly comfortable with the concept of hierarchy. It is a hierarchy established in the person of Jesus as our High Priest. If all men have some perfect equality such a position is impossible. He would be instead a co-priest. The idea of “Christian Pillars”, not to mention Paul’s comment about how a presbyter must be competent in the administration of his household (which holds definite and distinct meaning to an ancient Christian audience) are unintelligible otherwise.

The whole discussion smacks of, “gee I’m important and people love me!” Christianity instead supposes the opposite. You are dead. We were unredeemed. God condescends to intervene on our behalf even though we have rejected him, per the Fathers; to redeem us even though we have chosen against him:
“If any then were to gainsay, they do the same as if a person who after committing great sins was unable to defend himself in court, but was condemned and going to be punished, and then being by the royal pardon forgiven, should have the affrontery after his forgiveness to boast and say that he had done no sin. ” – Chrysostom

Note his ease of use with a royal pardon. Our talk of a king. Christ’s title of Lord. The ministering angels. Obedient children. All of these metaphors are not required. They are the metaphors chosen by both Christ and His followers.

That the Christians didn’t marginalize women was a given. Women aren’t to be marginalized. They are created in the Imago Dei. However, it is totally unfounded in any scripture to go from treating women as garbage to viewing the will of God as some post-Enlightenment playground.

I’m going to leave this now. However I really suggest the Space Trilogy by Lewis to get a better understanding of this. If you strive for equality you are only striving for what the Devil strove for. Instead, we should cherish the gifts we have been given.

Comment by Frank

May 8, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

Just some observations in regard to the remarks made by Nick and Kamilla. First, the query regarding The Scroll “Logo.” Though I am not a Roman Catholic, I would have to say that on the basis of my knowledge of Church history and vestal garments, the Logo does appear to be a picture of an RC abbess or nun. I never thought too much about it, because I thought it was a picture of Julian of Norwich, a great abbess and mystic who was considered a “doctor of the church” by her contemporaries. But in light of the confusion the present logo appears to cause some, I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to replace it with a picture of Soujourner Truth or Jessie Penn Lewis, or even Dorothy Sayers, would be a better representative of the CBE position?

Secondly, I have read and enjoyed C.S. Lewis’s theological, apologetic, and fictional writings with great profit and pleasure. However, as any student of philosophy knows, Lewis was strongly influenced by the Neo-Platonism current in Cambridge and Oxford in the 1920’s to 1930’s, which is affected greatly by the pagan Greek concept of “the Chain of Being.” And so since he naturally assumed this hierarchy of being in his theology, it is going to come through in his writings. But simply because he believed it was true doesn’t make it true. It is not a clear teaching of the Scriptures; that is why we dispute it on the basis of Genesis 1-2, which does not teach any hierarchy of man over woman.

And as I have said elsewhere, whenever hierarchy is smuggled in to define the relationships between the 3 Persons of the Triune God, or between Adam and Eve, a foreign, pagan category of analysis is being mixed in with and corrupting the teaching of Scripture.

Comment by Leigh

May 8, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

C.S. Lewis?
I am not in a position to research this right now, but I have heard that Mr. Lewis’ views about proper “roles” for women changed at some point later in his life.

Comment by Lin

May 8, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

“Hierarchies exist in the natural order. We are greater than the animals. A little less than the angels. The angels have offices that from what we are given in scripture never change, there is no, “working your way up the ladder.” They are all evidently happy with the situation.”

Nick, You just contradicted your earlier comments where you imply created “order” proves hierarchies. Animals were created before Adam so that cannot be true. :o)

Comment by Lin

May 8, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

Matt, I simply refuse to feel guilty about begging for an epidural. As one of your brothers here advised: Best not to go where you physically cannot go.

BTW: I hear kidney stones can be as painful. Perhaps if you ever get one, you will see the pain as something you should bear and refuse all pain killers. :o)

(smile, I am teasing you)

Comment by jlp

May 9, 2009 @ 8:18 am

But….many believers teach that wives should show desire toward their husbands and that husbands should rule their wives (albeit lovingly) Why the strict adherance to one part of God’s judgment on the sin of Eve & Adam and the ignoring of the other statements?/i

It’s called selective literalism. We pay a lot of attention to some scriptures and ignore others that are equally valid.

Comment by jlp

May 9, 2009 @ 8:24 am

Here’s another take on Genesis 3:16:

Linda Belleville
Women Leaders in the Church, pg. 107

A plausible suggestion is to read the pronoun hu as it (neuter), rather than he (masculine). The wife’s desire will be for her husband, and it (the desire) will rule her. This fits nicely with the context. It is also quite close to the wording of Genesis 4:7, “Sin’s desiring [tesuqa, same noun] is for you but you will master it [masal, same verb]” (AT).

Comment by joanne

May 9, 2009 @ 11:19 am

JLP that is an interesting nuance. It explaines what I often see among women. They desire a spouse, boyfriend and often place him foremost in their lives–even before Christ and their own sense of identity. This may be a unique pitfall that women face in the context of their relation with God and their men.

In my own life there was a time when I gave my identity away to others enmeshing with them and denying the person God created me to be. I have seen that happen to women–also to men.

That’s why I do not embrace the one-way submission interpretation of scripture. I think it leads to that kind of enmeshment and loss of identity.

I embrace submit to one another because each person in a relationship must have identity and honesty to be in relationship. Each person has a vital and alive being.

It can happen to men and women both who will subsume themselves living only for the other person. I think that is idolatry because God is to be first in our lives not a spouse or boyfriend or girlfriend.

As Cloud and Townsend speak of… we must find healing in Christ and among healthy friends, becoming whole and forming healthy attachments instead of unhealthy ones.

Comment by Kamilla

May 9, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

Nice try, Lin, but don’t Egalitarians ever get tired of trotting out the tired old falsehood that “creation order” refers to the temporal sequence in which things were made? Check any number of orthodox resources and you’ll find it refers, instead, to the creational pattern or arrangement, in short, to God’s establishment of the Natural Law?

A good rule of thumb here – the Creation narrative is a story (and please don’t go around saying I called it fiction or a myth) and a story teller always chooses to tell his story in a particular way for a particular reason. But, I guess it is only our greatly enlightened contemporaries who like to call themselves Egalitarians that have understood why this story was told in this way. Never mind that the whole of church history – across two millennia and all three branches – starting with St. Paul have understood this to include a hierarchy.

Go figure.

Kamilla

Comment by Donald Guffey

May 9, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

Ok Nick and Kamilla, I would like to know what your purpose is in posting these blogs. Are you trying to express your opposition to our viewpoints or are you just looking to stir up trouble? The tone with which you respond makes me lean more to the latter! One can express disagreement without implying that we are ” Insulting to God” or that we are ” striving for what satan strove for” which by the way was not equality with his counterpart but to overthrow God and become better than the almighty. a far cry from pushing for the equality between men and women! And Kamilla I would thank you not to patronize a sister in the faith ” Nice try Lin” You two are not trying to debate you are being very mean spirited and I don’t appreciate it whatsoever. Again if you wish to convey a differing opinion (which by the way is all your talk is and not Gospel truth!) then do so with a Christ-like attitude or else stop trying to bully those who dare to disagree with you.

Comment by Donald Guffey

May 9, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

I would also add Nick and Kamilla you are showing no interest whatsoever in the stories of these men and women. I mean what they have been through and what caused them to have these beliefs. Many of them have come from backgrounds and viewpoints much as yours I’d imagine and many of them have seen the good the bad and the ugly of complementarianism. They have experienced its abuses, its demeaning, and its spiritual wounding. A wounded spirit is a sad thing indeed. I don’t think it’s the fact that you two disagree with us I can respect and handle that! But it’s the fact that you show no compassion or mercy to those with whom you disagree. Now I don’t know your stories nor do I know the things you’ve been through but I do know this that even though I disagree with you ( I apologize for being so harsh in previous posts.) I would do all I could to disagree without cutting away at your character. Now whether intentional or not that is what you have done. Perhaps you have overlooked the passages in the Bible that state that life and death are in the power of the tongue. As Christians, though we may disagree with one another there is a way of doing so without demeaning or cutting each other down. Now we may be egalitarians, but we believe in the same essentials of the faith as you ( The issue being discussed is not a heaven or hell issue) namely Jesus Christ and him crucified. We believe that He was born of a virgin, that he lived died and rose again on the third day and now sits on the Father’s right hand as our Lord and savior. We believe that salvation comes by faith and the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and savior and repentance of our sins. So please do not imply that we are of the devil as we aren’t; in fact we are your brothers and sisters in the faith and deserve to be treated as such just as you two deserve to be treated as such by us. God will show you and us where we are wrong and where we are right. I hope to continue this conversation but in a better manner.
God bless – I love you both.

Comment by David Rudel

May 10, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

I’m not sure how much it modifies anything you are saying here, but it is probably worth pointing out that the curse on the land was rescinded (without any sacrifice) after Noah [Genesis 8:21]. This is actually how Noah got his name [Genesis 5:29].

I personally think the case you make is a hard one when one considers the details. If Christ’s death lifted God’s curse, we would probably have read about a diminution of labor pains immediately after Christ’s death.

On the other hand, I’m not sure that there is even a case to be made here. I assume the thing you are reacting to is the misguided notion that we should actively conform or attempt to intensify the effects of that curse.

Even if we take the English translation as an acceptable one, the curse is “Your desire will be for your husband.” That is not a command. It is a curse. It does not mean women should feel compelled to show desire.

Similarly, when God said “he will dominate you,” (once again accepting our English translation), God was talking to Eve — not Adam. It was certainly not a license for Adam to mete out this curse.

These curses are not commands describing the structure humans should seek to establish. They are (to whatever extent they may or may not be in effect today) a description of God’s reaction to these sins, not an invitation to exalt that reaction and intensify it.

Nor does the curse “and he will dominate you” excuse that domination. It was prophesied that someone would betray Christ. Does that excuse it? No.

So, rather than attempt to show these curses are no longer in effect (which I think is hard to do), I would propose that we should engage them as what they are: curses. Not laws, not establishments of God’s desires, and not excuses for any institutionalized domination of women.

As one final note, I think those who would claim there is some God-ordained difference between women and men (I personally am on the fence) should get together and decide whether it was due to Adam being the first human or because of the curse on Eve. It really cannot be both. Indeed, you could make a case for the latter disproving the former: If Adam were already supposed to have domination over Eve, then it would hardly have been much of a curse.

[Of course, we must read Genesis more as a description of how things came to be...so the logic utilized above might not be fair to use.]

Comment by David Rudel

May 10, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

Just a quick note that I copied and pasted my replay from Rachel’s blog without seeing all the other replies here. Nick’s point is that gender hierarchy has nothing to do with the curse, so that the whole point is moot. I think that is a point that needs to be respected when engaging his position.

Indeed, the discussion of how Eve was not “cursed” appears actually to defend those who see a hierarchy in creation. If we do not see the pronouncement made to Eve as a curse, then it is harder to see them as an element in need of abrogation.

However, I would say even then a case could be made that no hierarchy appears prior to being kicked out the garden, and perhaps the hierarchy was God-ordained as a type of preparation for the life humanity would have in the post-garden world. In that case we have come full circle to the original article’s point that such “preparations” may no longer be of interest. Perhaps the hierarchies God ordained were expedients (like the Law of Moses) that are no longer needed in the age of Christ.

Comment by em

May 10, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

Nick- What I hear you saying is that you think women are inferior based on their order of creation. In your post (89220) which is quite platonistic- you seem to suggest something that no conservative complementarian will admit to. They maintain they depart from the Aristotelian view which held that the male is by nature superior and the female inferior. They insist “husbands and wives have equal value and equal authority: they are just differently expressed.” Both sides claim to affirm the equality in nature and essence of men and women. (Glen Scorgie) The problem is as Rebecca Merril Groothius maintains “whether or not Patriarchalists themselves view the female inferior or not, it is difficult for women in a patriarchal system not to see themselves as inferior. Agreeably, interpretations made by Complementarians are hardly value neutral views, for example in their interpretation of the Fall (Gen 3) the woman’s sin is described in terms of role reversal i.e, the women taking the lead when she should have deferred to her head.” I thank Donald Guffrey for pointing out how spirit crushing it is for women to be inferior because they came second in chronological order.” “Women may rather view themselves as ‘tainted,’ or even their spouses to come to such a conclusion and many do believe that women are inferior and more prone to error than men, a conclusion of which has no biblical or scientific validity but rather is reflective of the surrounding culture.”
Nick, do not incorrectly attribute and associate Egalitarians with the feminist movement of the 1980’s and the adaption to culture and even to the more negative aspects of the feminist movement such as pro- abortion and gay rights. Biblical Egalitarians differ significantly from the secularist approach, for while secular feminism centers on equal rights, and entitlement. (Gretchen Hull), Egalitarians center on the belief that “the bible requires all Christians to pursue relationships of mutual submission and of reciprocal servant-hood.”Gilbert Bilezikan) And not as you say “equality with God” This seems to be something Complementarians seem to be doing quite well on their own for they seem to indicate that men reflect the divine nature more than females.
Jesus also appreciated the intelligence and faith of women and considered men and women equal in their need to be helped and equal in their need to be pointed toward the new future kingdom. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus Christ came to redeem both men and women. Jesus Christ viewed all men and women equally as sinful, as evidenced by the fact that he addressed his summons to repentance and discipleship to all. Neither were the tragedies of human experience laid upon people in proportion to their sinfulness; but all must repent rather than perish (Lk. 13: 1-5).(W. G. Kummel). The issue of how one sinned, who sinned first as if Adam would not have sinned if it wasn’t for Eve is irrelevant- this was clearly depicted in the parable of the Prodigal for the point being was ‘Grace.’

Nick you seem to indicate some individuals have more worth than others. The sooner we realize we are all basically the same and have the same need for love- the less prejudiced this world will be.

Comment by Frank

May 10, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

David, as we all can testify, when we ask traditionalists what is the basis for prelapsarian, gender hierarchy, we usually get some variation on 1)God is male in some sense and so men, not women, are a more perfect imago dei, contrary to what Gen 1:26-27 clearly states; or 2)since Adam came first, then came Eve, he naturally has priority, which even John Calvin, who was no egalitarian, said was a lame idea; or 3) because Eve was provided as a “suitable helper,” that makes her inferior to Adam, when the Hebrew word used elsewhere has the meaning of “warrior-ally”. And then there is so much circular reasoning used. Sorry, we don’t buy the goods traditionalists are selling these days.

Comment by joanne

May 10, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

wow its getting pretty heated.

Comment by Jamie

May 11, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Excellent observations, Liz! : )

But….many believers teach that wives should show desire toward their husbands and that husbands should rule their wives (albeit lovingly) Why the strict adherance to one part of God’s judgment on the sin of Eve & Adam and the ignoring of the other statements ?

I will be blunt: many “believers” don’t know what they’re talking about.

A benevolent dictator is still a dictator. It’s not the way someone leads that is the problem but the whole setup itself where one person must always, eternally, be in subjection to another person.

And to say this comes from God? I don’t believe so. By any definition it’s slavery of (and to) the world.

A normal person wouldn’t even befriend someone who insisted on a relationship like this. Why would anyone expect it therefore to be part of the normal, natural relationship between a husband and wife? Child-parent, human and God, but not wife and husband.

I totally agree with you about what amounts to me as the pick-and-choose methodology of complementarian-hierarchists. Basically it comes down to a deep rooted understanding of the Bible on this topic which they evidently lack.

Charis said:

I also wonder if the male and female changed physically upon eating the forbidden fruit?

I believe it happened before then, when the woman (Eve) was taken out the man’s (ha-adam’s) side. He next sung poetic praise, then calling himself is and her issa. Obviously a physical change had happened with the two of them.

Matt said:

The fact is, birth sensations are a natural, important component in nature.

There is pain because the head is too big. There are of course other discomforts but again, the head is too big. But then again we have big brains.

If the head were even bigger, women couldn’t walk to accomodate the head, but we as human beings are smart — because of our big heads (brains).

No other mammal experiences pain in childbirth like women do — because yes, we have big heads.

Liz also said:

We don’t know what childbirth would have been like before sin, we only have the description of after sin…. increased pain, which suggests to me that before it would have been a natural experience.

It seems to me from the text that the woman/Eve would’ve experienced at least some pain in childbirth (even in earthly Eden) even if she hadn’t sinned. Yes, it seems also a natural experience to me too.

Not to drift too far afield but . . . why should this be?

I believe a larger message is contained here, about how the universe functions that God designed.

Anytime there is a birth — first there must be birth pangs, almost like a sacrifice must be made. Of course, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice so that we, all of creation, could live. My beliefs are along these lines. There’s a connection here. For what has been created, given life, someone or something must be at least on some level sacrificed.

Nick said:

Perhaps instead there is something inherent to the nature of the universe that is hierarchical and that God decreed it to be so. You are, in effect, looking from the wrong end of the glass.

Interesting you mention this, because if someone insisted that “there is something inherent to the nature of the universe that is hierachical and that God decreed it to be so” they would indeed be looking from the wrong end of the glass!

Why must it be hierarchical? The Trinity, for instance, are eternally co-equal!

Implying that those who disagree with you on this point somehow “grasped equality with God” is a new one, I’ll admit. Not that I am unaware of that terminology — just that for me it’s a new accusation leveled from a complementarian towards someone who disagrees with a hierarchy in marriage . . .

Truthngrace said:

- if we look at Genesis 1-2 and compare that with some of the images we have from scripture about heaven there is order.

But you’re mistaking “order” for “authoritarianism”.

Jesus instructed us in how we should conduct ourselves. We’re not to be of the world and lord it over others. (Matt. 20:25)

Does that sound like in favor of a hierarchy to you?

Even Peter, who is the rock upon which the church is built, who is given the keys to heaven — yet not even he is officially designated as some kind of “chief” or “head” over the other apostles or disciples.

And what Peter could do, you can do too in Christ.

There is no real “order” going on here. Not the kind you’re thinking of.

Truthngrace continued:

I agree that men and women are equal but different and different doesn’t mean unequal. It simply means different and if gender roles for men and women are different that also doesn’t mean unequal. I have a certain role in the church of which I am a member and our pastor has a role but I don’t take that to mean I’m unequal in value, worth, diginity or importance.

Men and women are “different”. No egalitarian in recorded history has ever denied this. We get that already. Enough!

The problem is complementarian-hierarchists use codewords like “different” and having proper “roles” to emphasize and exaggerate the differences men and women have in “order” to prevent women (for example) from fulfilling their God-given call to preach, and also in coercing them to submit alone to their husbands.

In other words, all of this is a verbal smokescreen.

The same thing was done about how “different” blacks were to whites in the southern US. And dire warnings if those rebellious slaves ever were freed from their ordained roles in this (somehow?) ideal hierarchy that God approved of . . .

Separate but equal is a nice thought, but it has no real base in reality.

In fact, NO relationship I can think of between two that are so “different” can be equal.

Not of parent to child, boss to employee, or God to human. When one side is designated as the “other” there is within it a difference being setup where one is inherently regarded as superior to the other (whether this is based on fact on not).

So, let’s put this complementarian “different” but equal argument finally to rest.

Truthngrace continued:

passage can’t be used to support the eradicatation of gender roles nor the support of gender roles – that’s not the intent of the passage in the context of Galatians.

Jesus looks on me and sees no “difference” between me and a male — or a slave, Jew, or Greek. We are all one.

Why is it the hierarchists want to restrict interpretation of this passage yet they’ll go into wild, unorthodox speculation about others (such as the Trinity, where Jesus is now eternally subordinated to the Father??)

Nowhere in the Bible is the word “roles” ever mentioned. It’s unBiblical.

Sue said:

There is no hierarhy of rulership in this, but a categorical hierarchy of our mortality. All humans return to the soil. Woman, because she is of the same matter as man, also returns to the soil. This is the only natural dominance of man, that his mortality is shared with his wife.

A woman solely came from the first Adam.

The Last Adam came solely from a woman.

There is a completeness and balance that we see throughout the Bible and in God’s work as the first man was the material from which woman was made — and man was made from the material of a woman alone (the first man defined as such afterwards when a woman was made from him).

Mutuality, it’s beautiful.

Frank said:

And as I have said elsewhere, whenever hierarchy is smuggled in to define the relationships between the 3 Persons of the Triune God, or between Adam and Eve, a foreign, pagan category of analysis is being mixed in with and corrupting the teaching of Scripture.

Another one is when they really think God is exclusively male. There’s no real understanding there of who the Israelite God Yahweh is. Talk about putting God in a box!

David Rudel said:

Even if we take the English translation as an acceptable one, the curse is “Your desire will be for your husband.” That is not a command. It is a curse. It does not mean women should feel compelled to show desire.

Gen. 3:16 clearly is not a blessing, no matter how one looks at it.

Now how the hierarchists can nuance that into the woman was ruled by her husband even pre-fall I have no idea, but I know the present arrangement (and their unique take on it) certainly isn’t a blessing.

Comment by jlp

May 11, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

A lot of Christian women who subscribed to and advocated the hierarchal view of marriage, are now leaving their marriages because they are so unhappy with the arrangement. Hierarchy in marriage has only brought them unhappiness.

Comment by Francine

May 12, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

Joanne you’re right it is getting heated. I am not sure what the argument is about. After a lot of studying the women in the Bible (12Yrs.) including Eve, I can only find the only leader in the garden was God himself. It wasn’t until the reltionship between God and the humans and their relationship between each other because Eve desired knowledge enough to disobey that hierarchy became the norm.

Comment by Lin

May 12, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

“Nice try, Lin, but don’t Egalitarians ever get tired of trotting out the tired old falsehood that “creation order” refers to the temporal sequence in which things were made? Check any number of orthodox resources and you’ll find it refers, instead, to the creational pattern or arrangement, in short, to God’s establishment of the Natural Law?”

But God does not tell us creation order means hierarchy. That is read into the Creation account. It is read into it by a badly misinterpreted proof text in the NT. If we read that proof text your way then women are saved by bearing children. And that cannot be true. That would be works.

Using your same logic, I could make the ridiculous case that being formed last means more important. After all, Adam could not accomplish much without Eve.

It is interesting that throughout the OT, God reverses the patriarchal thinking of ‘first born’ son

“A good rule of thumb here – the Creation narrative is a story (and please don’t go around saying I called it fiction or a myth) and a story teller always chooses to tell his story in a particular way for a particular reason. But, I guess it is only our greatly enlightened contemporaries who like to call themselves Egalitarians that have understood why this story was told in this way. Never mind that the whole of church history – across two millennia and all three branches – starting with St. Paul have understood this to include a hierarchy.”

Church history does not do much for us. It is a trail of blood and centuries of such doctrines as church/state, God war shield, slavery, transubstantiation, padeobaptism, etc. Discerning believers have to sift through the muck. Best to stick with the Word.

Following the Genesis narrative, we must include Gen 1 which does not do much for implied hierarchies in creation order.

Comment by Lin

May 12, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

“Gen. 3:16 clearly is not a blessing, no matter how one looks at it.”

No, and to teach it as a ‘role’ of redemption is insidious.

Comment by Frank

May 12, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

David, I was reviewing the comments and in 89249 I was responding to your summary of Nick’s position, not to you per se. I’m sorry if that caused anyone to think that I totally disagreed with all of your own comments; I was just outlining some of the problems that one usually encounters when discussing prelapsarian hierarchy between men and women as “God’s ordained ideal.” And I think John Jefferson Davis’ article in the Spring 2009 issue of the Priscilla Papers, “First Timothy 2:12, the Ordination of Women, and Paul’s Use of Creation Narratives,” further undermines the complementarian view that Paul assumed that Genesis 1-3 teaches a timeless, transcultural, prelapsarian hierarchical social structure in human relationships and societies. He discusses various aspects of the creation narratives that Paul applies not only to Adam and Eve, but also to the Jew/Gentile issue, and the clean foods vs unclean foods which was a practical manifestation of this problem. Here is a part of what he says:

This comparison of 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothty 2:12 shows that Paul does not have a “one size fits all” hermeneutic when reading and applying the Genesis narratives of creation and fall: “Eve” can be seen as a figure of women in Ephesus or as a figure for an entire church in Corinth–because local circumstances differ, though false teaching is a danger in both settings. Applications are drawn from Genesis in a church-specific and contextually sensitive way. (p.6)

And it is this failure to see this church-specific, circumstantial use of these narratives that is a failure of the traditionalist viewpoint.

Comment by joanne

May 12, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

Kamilla, why do you imply that egalitarian and mutualists do not believe that the creation story is true. When someone uses the term story, they are referring to Genre, not fiction. Story is a form, a Genre. God’s word was written in a story form so the oral culture could better remember it before we had widespread readers.

Have you ever had a course in biblical interpretation? If so, you would know that the bible contains many books and different genres. Narrative,(story), poetry, prophecy, letters, are different genres.

Comment by Robyn

May 13, 2009 @ 8:58 am

There are many, many orthodox Christians who believe that God’s design is for men and women to live in mutual respect and preach the gospel of Christ without so much focus on who is in charge of whom.

For truly, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.” Perhaps the insistence that “the man” should be in charge is an incorrect focus of energy. We should, rather, be concerned about serving our brothers and sisters in whatever fashion God has called us to do.

I simply long for the day when, in the kingdom of God, all our gender differences will be erased and each of us directed to fulfill our missions and use our gifts based on God’s will rather than the imperfect interpretations of “roles” currently used by humankind.

Comment by David Rudel

May 13, 2009 @ 9:05 am

Has there been a study on whether the “increase your pains in childbirth” might actually simply be referring to the necessity of childbirth after the fall?

Perhaps originally there was no need for progeny if Adam and Eve were to be stewards over creation. There were no births prior to the fall (as has been already pointed out), so it would seem odd to tell Eve she would have “increased pains” relative to that which she did not yet experience.

We are told that in the New Jerusalem people are neither married nor given in marriage. This would make it unlikely that there are births in the New Jerusalem. While Adam and Eve were certainly married in the Garden, perhaps there would not have been any need for births there either?

Comment by Francine

May 13, 2009 @ 9:05 am

We can argue whether hierarchy was before or after the fall until Christ comes back and finally settles the debate. Part of the problem is we don’t ask the right questions or even try to find a common ground. Most of the ones in this blog will agree that men and women are created in the image of God. What we might disagree with is part of the image each gender reflects. Actually, it is my opinon that both reflect all parts, together. Another thing we might agree with is that for centuries the church seemed to teach that only the man was created in God’s image. We now do not draw that conclusion. How come the early church fathers of the later centuries completely missed vs. 27 of Gen. 1? Could have been that they just just didn’t want to share God’s image with the women. I wonder when, were and by whom the man image only concept came from. Could it be that Satan wants us to stay separated so the world can not fully see the image of God as it was created?
In Gen. 1: 28 “God blessed them (both the woman and man), ‘be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’” Why is it that some of us will let the woman “help” in the increasing and filling part but not the subduing and ruling part? God did not say ‘Eve your job is to bear the children and Adam you are to rule.’ There is no hierarchy, yet. There seems to be an inconsistency between the first and second chapters. In the first the man and woman were created together and in the second, the man was first and the woman was created as a second thought to be the “helper”. Now we can do as some of the Jews did and come up with the first wife myth. They even gave her a name, Lilith. According to Jewish myth she was created equal to Adam, but things went wrong and God had to create a more submissive wife for Adam. You can check out the myth on the internet by typing in Lilith. Or we can think that God didn’t have Eve in mind until God realized that Adam needed his mate to help populate the earth as the animals were doing. God was not parading the animals in front of Adam to choose which one of them was suitable to mate with, but to show Adam that he needed his mate. I can assume we can agree on that point. I think that God waited for the right moment to form Eve. Adam had a job to do and he couldn’t do it alone. He needed help to fill the earth and to rule all those animals. He got his helper. We so often get confused about the word “helper”. There should not be the confusion. The word when used in the rest of the scriptures is usually used for God helping us. In other words the stronger helping the weaker. Before we can say that proves Eve was the stronger of the two the second part of the word means face to face. Now according to one well-known pastor, although the word is most often used for God doesn’t mean that Eve was not to submit to Adam. I personally cannot imagine God saying to us “let me help you by getting you a cup of coffee or cleaning the house to give you more free time while you rule the world”. Can you?
I’ve hear it said by some pastors that Adam was away communing with God when Eve was talking to the serpent and ate the fruit. In Verse 2:6 ” She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” Adam was right there listening to every word. He saw her pick the fruit and hold it in her hands and nothing happened. Notice the mistake right above in vs. 3 “or touch it”. Also notice that it was not equality with God she wanted, it was “also desirable for gaining wisdom”. We can equate Satan’s rebellion against God and Eve’s being deceived. Satan didn’t want just equality with God, he wanted to be God.
Also did anyone notice that their eyes were not opened until Adam took his bite? So far there is no hierarchy?
This is long already so I’ll finish up later.

Comment by joanne

May 13, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

Francine, wow… I can’t believe a pastor would say Adam was off communing with God while Eve was with the serpant when the text says Adam was with her. What a blatent re-write! I heard a pastor say Eve was looking for peaches to bake a pie while Adam was tending the garden and after her seduction, she went to find him and gave him the fruit. Incredible! And we trust such biblical authorities!

It seems to me that being easily deceived is not just a female quality but a male pastor one as well.

Comment by Francine

May 14, 2009 @ 9:47 am

another preacher (I was quite young at the time) preached that men have one less rib than women because God took it from him to make her. Any biology book will tell us that men and women have the same nunber of ribs. The problem with not checking to see if what you say is correct is that it can cause future repercussions. If he can’t get it right on the small things how can we trust him on the big things. Katherine Bushnell has it right when she states that God formed Eve from Adam’s side (not rib). There are so many ideas floating around out there about Adam having two faces, Eve being inside Adam, etc. We just don’t know for sure.
By the way, I have a question. In verse 2:15 it says in the TNIV that Adam was to work the ground and take care of it. The KJV says he was to keep the garden. The word for keep means to protect, attend to, beware, observe,etc. It is the same word used in 3:24 but it is translated guard, as the cherubim and flaming sword was to guard the way to the tree of life. The question is was Adam suppose to guard the garden from something (or someone) getting in. If so he didn’t do a very good job. Has anyone noticed the ease Eve had with talking to the serpent? Did all the animals talk then? Had she and Adam talked to the serpent before this?

Comment by joanne

May 14, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

Re Keep or guard. I would need to look it up.

I’ve done some research on the serpent. The serpent was an image for a wise one in the Ancient Near East. Moses was telling this story (and I don’t mean it’s fiction) to the children of Israel when they were on the way to the promised land. His intent was to show that they as a people must beware of being led astray by false god or by wise sounding false prophets. He was preparing them for entering the land–the promised land. The story about Adam and Eve was about two people, the first two, who fell when confronted by the false teacher and lost the land (the garden of Eden). The story’s intent was to remind Israel that in their Covenant with God, they too would lose the land if they did not remain true and loyal to God.

Sometimes I think we make the the text say too much and distort its meaning. It’s not really intended to be a discourse on roles. It’s meant to remind Israel to be faithful to God.

Comment by Dr.Shirley

May 14, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

Hmmm
I never saw the girl in the header as a nun. ??? It’s a girl with long dark hair and bangs across her forehead.

The two infinitives in Gen 2:15: avad = to work, to till, to labor; shamar = to keep, to attend to, to guard, to watch. This from Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon; Let’s don’t make more out of these words than they normally mean.

Comment by Francine

May 14, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

Joanne and Dr. Shirley
thanks for your help.

Comment by Amanda B

May 14, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

I agree with Joanne, I think we are supposed to see a link between Gen 1-3 and the rest of the pentateuch; particularly with Deuteronomy. There Israel is on the edge of the promised land. In one sense they are returning to Eden. They have been given commands to obey. Disobedience will bring expulsion from the land just as Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. They are told they must learn the Law well and teach it to their children. This is one emphasis in Deuteronomy. Also twice in Deuteronomy (beginning of Chpt 4 and end of Chpt 12) they are told not to subtract from or add to the law.

In Gen 3 the story shows Eve has not learnt the law (the command not to eat from the tree) well. She changes you singular in the original (chpt 2) to you plural. She doesn’t identify the tree by name but just that it was growing in the middle of the garden, but the tree of life was there as well. Worse still she adds to the law. God never said not to touch the tree.

I think Gen 3 is a warning to Israel of the importance of learning the law and not adding to it. I don’t think it is saying anything about the ability of women to learn. Otherwise you have to conclude that Eve was created defective in that area. In other words God made her such that she couldn’t learn properly and yet expected her to.

Comment by Liz

May 14, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Regarding the picture on the home page of the Scroll – we have someone trying to find out who put it there and hopefully who is depicted.

Comment by joanne

May 14, 2009 @ 8:41 pm

Amanda, I am intriqued by your thinking. I agree with you as well. Gen 1-3 is part of a narrative of Israel… The teaching of the Law.

Comment by Sue D.

May 14, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

How do we know Eve added to the word of God?

It’s true there is no record in Genesis of God telling Eve directly, but there is no record of Adam telling her either. God does not correct Eve for adding to His word. If she had lied about what He said or embellished it, wouldn’t God have had something to say about it to Eve?

I know tradition states that Adam told Eve what God told him and that Eve added to what Adam told her God said. But isn’t it just as possible that the unrecorded conversation Eve had was with God and not with Adam and that she was correctly restating what God had said to her?

I found myself wondering this because patriarchalists say that God speaking to Adam and giving Adam the responsibility of conveying His word to Eve is evidence of Adam’s headhsip before the fall. But when people say Adam told Eve, aren’t they guilty of adding to the word of God since the word of God does not say that? And isn’t that what they are accusing Eve of doing?

Comment by leigh

May 14, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

Interesting. There is no way for us to really know what happened, of course, but what *I* have heard proposed is that Adam told Eve what God had said to him. God did not speak directly to Eve about the tree.

Adam, in stressing to Eve the importance of not eating from the tree, added that God said they were not supposed to even *touch* the tree.

As to who said what, and what God would or would not do about additions to God’s word…The correction to the Pharisees did not come until the person of the Christ, did it?

Comment by Amanda B

May 14, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

Sue D. wrote:
‘But isn’t it just as possible that the unrecorded conversation Eve had was with God and not with Adam and that she was correctly restating what God had said to her?’

Anything is possible but how probable is it? I certainly don’t think that what you are suggesting is anywhere near as probable as assuming that Adam passed on the command to Eve. More importantly what did the writer expect the reader to understand? Remember this is a well crafted narrative. The writer isn’t just telling a story he is getting across a theological point. Other evidence for Adam passing it on is that God takes Adam to task over the command but doesn’t mention it when he speaks to Eve. Also when God says, when describing the command in 3:17, ‘You must not eat of it’, the ‘You’ is singular not plural. It is possible (reasonable probability since it stands out in the Hebrew and someone familiar with Hebrew narrative notices changes because unchanged repitition is the default setting) the writer expected us to notice the change back to you singular, reinforcing that Eve had changed it. One of the promblems with English: you plural looks pretty much like you singular. Maybe we should start using ‘yous’. ;)

Comment by Amanda B

May 14, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

Sue wrote:
‘I found myself wondering this because patriarchalists say that God speaking to Adam and giving Adam the responsibility of conveying His word to Eve is evidence of Adam’s headhsip before the fall. But when people say Adam told Eve, aren’t they guilty of adding to the word of God since the word of God does not say that? And isn’t that what they are accusing Eve of doing?’

They are only adding to the word of God if they are saying that that is what the text says. But it is reasonable to speculate about what happened between events A and B in a narrative if we are not told. (Provided we are using the text and looking for clues the writer gives – it needs to take seriously the author’s intent) The danger is when we start to think that our interpretations have the same authority as scripture. Eve added to the law – the law being a specific part of the word of God. If you say that Adam taught Eve the law then you are interpreting the narrative – an acceptable and necessary activity (exegesis). If you say that scripture teaches that Adam taught Eve the law then you are probably adding to the word of God.

The fact that some people argue that God giving the command to Adam and not Eve shows that Adam had headship over Eve is not a good reason to believe that God told Eve separately. I would want to challenge the idea that only Adam being given the command was linked to headship. Ask where scripture says this. There is no mention of headship in Gen. Anyone using the word ‘headship’ when talking about Gen 1-3 is importing terminology from the NT. Maybe not adding to the word of God but certainly eisegesis

Comment by Liz

May 15, 2009 @ 3:48 am

And…..talking about God speaking to Adam first because he was the ‘head’, there are numerous accounts in the old and new testaments where God spoke to the wife or single woman first (rather than her father in that case)

To make a case on one incident, and a very thin argument at that, is not good interpretation at all.

Comment by Liz

May 15, 2009 @ 6:35 am

Just read a great statement by Gretchen Gaebelein Hull who wrote “The ABC’s of
Biblical Equality”

‘Genesis 3: 16-19 predicts such toil and pain, with fallen man now in disharmony with the ground from which he was created and fallen woman in disharmony with the man from which she was created. Relationally, sinful man and woman have become competitors, adversaries, and even oppressors of each other, instead of cooperators and joint administrators of their God-given inheritance.’

Comment by joanne

May 15, 2009 @ 8:51 am

Liz… that is a great quote. I think that is exactly the issue. We are at odds with one another instead of in union with one another. Moses (in Genesis) Jesus (in the gospels) and Paul (in Ephesians) stressed the One Flesh union of the man and the woman.

What we need is not division and blaming of one another, we need reconciliation. It begins with God and extends to one another. How I wish men and women could be reconciled to one another.

I think that is the heart of the Bible. Union with God through faith in Christ and union between humans as opposed to division and separateness. (being separated from God and division in humankind).

I think it is what was intended and the place of healing or mending in Christ. It’s like the division is healed or mended in Christ’s own body.

When Paul says there is niether Jew nor Greek, Slave or Free, Male or Female in Christ… he is speaking of healed, reconciled relationships because of Christ’s broken and resurrected body.

We are united with Christ through faith and One New Human made up of people who were formerly divided by sin.

Comment by Liz

May 15, 2009 @ 9:56 am

That is so beautifully expressed Joanne. The thought of reconciliation is the gospel. We have just committed to being at the CBE conference and my communion talk is on that subject. It’s so central to everything.

Comment by Francine

May 16, 2009 @ 6:53 am

Liz you stated “And…..talking about God speaking to Adam first because he was the ‘head’, there are numerous accounts in the old and new testaments where God spoke to the wife or single woman first (rather than her father in that case)”. One very good example is Samson’s parents. The wife was told that she was going to have a son and she tells her husband what the “man of God” said. He prays that the “man of God” would return to explain how they were to raise the child. The “man of God” does come back but he comes to her, again. She had to go to get the husband. I like the fact that the man of God said I already told your wife what she is to do.

Comment by Donald Guffey

May 21, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

I totally loved this post and the conversation that spawned from it. It was refreshing albeit a little unpleasant at times and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can’t wait to see the outcome for my next article.

Comment by tiro

May 24, 2009 @ 9:55 am

“There is no way for us to really know what happened, of course, but what *I* have heard proposed is that Adam told Eve what God had said to him. God did not speak directly to Eve about the tree.

Adam, in stressing to Eve the importance of not eating from the tree, added that God said they were not supposed to even *touch* the tree.”

Since Scripture does not say that Adam told Eve, we do not know for sure. Adam could have said something to her, but we don’t know what. God also could have told Eve. In fact, it is more likely to believe that God told Eve because Eve said so herself where it is written that Eve said that God said. As for Eve adding to what God said, since we did not hear God’s exact words to Eve, it is more likely to believe that Eve said exactly what God told her. There was no rule that God had to say exactly the same thing to Eve in exactly the same words as God said to Adam. In fact, there were already two ways that God commanded that the tree not be eaten from. Once by his words to Adam and then once by saying that only trees with seed were given to be eaten from. The implication is the the tree of “knowledge of good and evil” did not have seeds, meaning it could not reproduce. Then God’s words to Eve would be the third command – all slightly different but with the same intent.

Comment by tiro

May 24, 2009 @ 10:02 am

“And…..talking about God speaking to Adam first because he was the ‘head’,

There is no such rule, command, directive or example of such in Scripture. God chooses case by case whom He will speak with. God does not prefer the male gender over the female gender. God is able to speak to both and both are able to comprehend conversation with God.

Comment by leigh

May 25, 2009 @ 11:12 am

Hence the way I started that first sentence in the quote, “Interesting. There is no way for us to really know what happened, of course….”

Sorry. I tire of the number of disclaimers we must include sometimes, even with one another.

Comment by joanne

May 27, 2009 @ 8:40 am

Liz…I know, it makes the body of Christ incredibly meaningful and beautiful. the bruises and scars are what it took to knit humanity together in Christ. iIthink too, that is why the resurrection is so amazing. This new body once brusied and battered is now whole, holy, healed… any who are united become so in him.

worship anyone?