Genesis 1-3 and Gender Roles
- January 10th, 2009
- Posted in Uncategorized
- By Michael
- Write comment
I’ve been having a discussion with my friend Mark Traphagen on twitter (if you can call 140 characters at a time, discussion ;P ) about Egalitarianism and Complimentariansm i.e. the roles of men and women in the Church/Body of Christ. We’ve decided to take it to blogs in order to have more room to form arguments..etc. I hope the following is beneficial.
Just for background …
Mark: Redemption involves restoration of the imago dei, shared by both male & female before the fall.
Me: I totally agree. And even before the fall Men and women had jobs and roles that we distinct and different
Mark: Just curious: where do you get that they had different “jobs and roles” pre-fall?
What follows is my response.
————————————————————
Three issues stick out to me in the first few chapters of Genesis as they pertain to gender roles. While there may be more I shall only focus on these three.
Second, we see that Adam is given a job before Eve is ever created. It is only after this that Eve is created and given the task of being an assistant or “helper” to Adam (Heb., ‘ezer kenegdo, literally “helper like unto himself “). Adam was not made to be a helper for Eve but Eve was made to be a helper for Adam. Though some argue that gender roles are a result of the fall, Paul bases his argument in 1 Timothy 2 for male-headship on the situation in Eden before the fall which we see in Genesis. While it is true that the fall did corrupt gender roles, as it corrupts everything it has to be important that Paul uses this pre-fall argument. The woman was created from the man and for the man to be a helper to him in his responsibility (Gen 2:18); The man was clearly identified as the head or leader and his headship was defined as well
Thirdly, and finally we have the issue of the specific job of Adam. He was given the job, though not his only job, of naming all the animals that he has been given dominion over.In Genesis 1:26, God gives Adam rule, dominion and authority over all animals. Withing the next chapter, in the parallel account in Gen 2:19-20, we see Adam being given the charge naming the animals. God makes them and then Adam names them, thus displaying a form of God given authority over them. But the question arises, who named Eve?
Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.” (2:23)
There it is. The very sign of Adam’s authority was naming. Therefore, it would seem, that one must conclude that Adam naming eve “Woman” was a sign of dominion and authority.
Women are equal to men this is evident in the greek word for helper being translated “”helper like unto himself “. Adam had a helper that was, like himself, created in God’s image. However, she was different from him in creation order and role.
Let me add a final post script, if I may.
Mark had mentioned Galatians 3:28 and the equality of men and women. In response i will quote John Piper and Wayne Grudem:
The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: they are equally justified by faith (v. 24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v. 25), equally children of God (v. 26), equally clothed with Christ (v. 27), equally possessed by Christ (v. 29), and equally heirs of the promises to Abraham (v. 29).
This last blessing is especially significant, namely, the equality of being a fellow-heir with men of the promises. In 1 Peter 3:1-7, the blessing of being joint heirs “of the gracious gift of life” is connected with the exhortation for women to submit to their husbands (v. 1) and for their husbands to treat their wives “with respect as the weaker partner.” In other words, Peter saw no conflict between the neither-male-nor-female principle regarding our inheritance and the headship-submission principle regarding our roles. Galatians 3:28 does not abolish gender-based roles established by God and redeemed by Christ.
That’s an interesting view on things. I certainly see your point and how you get there.
I think my main question is how you contrast this with the concepts and examples of servant leadership.
Thanks, Michael, for laying out your position and so ably clarifying the three issues that came up in our brief discussion on Twitter. There was nothing new or surprising in your arguments; nor will there be anything in mine (for anyone familiar with how egalitarians look at these passages). Nonetheless, I think it is worthwhile for me to go over those positions, as many brought up in conservative churches have never heard that there are other ways to interpret these passages, nor that the translations they commonly see in their English Bibles for certain key words/phrases in those passages is–unbeknownst to them–reflective of certain unspoken assumptions.
I’m going to respond to your three points each in one comment. May take a few days to get to them all, as we’re busy packing for our move. Nudge me on Twitter if I forget!
First, Paul’s use of the “creation order” of Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2. The Apostle Paul’s interpretation of Genesis may be “incontrovertible,” but Ligon Duncan’s assumptions about what that was are not. The first assumption that Duncan, complimentarians, and most English translations make is about what Paul is talking about in the first place. What is ignored is the context in which Paul is addressing Timothy in this letter. What is he actually prohibiting?
Complimentarians assume that Paul is making a “for all times in all situations” commandment that women may not ever “teach or exercise authority over a man” in the church. The first problem is that this ignores the context of the letter. 1 Timothy is different from many of the other epistles in the NT because it is addressed to a person rather than to a church (or group of churches). In the beginning of the letter Paul is very clear about his purpose in writing to Timothy: to encourage Timothy to stand up against false teachers and the effects their teachings were having on the church at Ephesus.
So his prohibition in 2:11-14 has to be seen in the light of the purpose of the letter. Otherwise, chapter 2 reads like an illogical insertion in the letter. Paul starts right off the bat about false teachers, and then all of a sudden he’s giving instructions about church order? We have to pay attention to his “then” in 2:1 before he begins to list the things that he “urges” Timothy to do. The “then” connects those instructions to the warnings about false teachers in chapter 1.
2:8 hints that there had been disturbances in the worship of the Ephesian church. In view of the “false teachers” context of the letter, it seems to fit better that Paul’s concern is over unlearned women who had come under the influence of the false teachers and were now causing trouble in the church. So he tells Timothy to tell them to “learn quietly with all submissiveness.” This does not have to be read as a universal command to all Christian women everywhere in all times. The complimentarian reading of that clause misses the truly radical thing that Paul was saying: “let (permit) a woman learn”! In that culture there was little concern with women learning; in fact it was usually looked down upon. Paul is actually encouraging them to learn, and telling them that they shouldn’t be teaching until they have more learning. Otherwise they just end up spreading the false teachings he’s so concerned about. In this light, “with all submissiveness” simply refers to the way a pupil should be toward his or her teacher.
But what about the next verse (14 - “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man”)? Doesn’t that sound like a universal command? Here Lig Duncan and other complimentarians assume that “exercise authority” is the straightforward translation of the Greek, and that it has reference to holding church office (e.g., ordination). However, we do not have absolute warrant to put that much force on it. The Greek there is authentes, and is a hapax logomena (a word that occurs only once in the NT). Other Greek words like exousia are more commonly used in the NT to refer to the authority an office holder or official leader has over his underlings, so it is possible that some other meaning is intended here. Elsewhere in Greek literature of the time, authentes carries the meaning “to dominate over.” So Paul’s concern here is that these unlearned women in Ephesus were refusing to sit under (”submit to”) good teaching and therefore causing disharmony and disruption by asserting false teachings, thus “domineering” the men.
If the foregoing is a better contextual reading of what Paul was after, then his referencing of the creation order of Adam and Eve takes on a whole different meaning. He is not setting Adam over Eve, but saying to these women that, like Eve, they are not better than the men. The problem wasn’t that Adam needed to “take authority” over Eve but rather that Eve had tried to dominate over Adam with a false teaching. Again, Paul’s analogy makes perfect sense in the light of his concerns expressed in chapter 1. He’s not at all reading some new meaning back into Genesis “that we just have to accept” as Rev. Duncan says. He’s just stating what was plainly there all along. Women were not created to be “under” men (more about that in another section of our discussion), nor were they created to be “over” men. They were created to be equal helpers in the imago dei task: to be co-viceregents under God, helping to carry out his mission to develop the earth. So Paul’s example here IS saying “women remember your place,” but that place is not under men (except insofar as these women needed to submissively learn to overcome their ignorance), nor is it to be over men (in the sense of being domineering, not in reference to church office).
This interpretation also makes more sense of verse 14 (”Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” ESV). Woah, Paul, Adam was not deceived? The Fall was all Eve’s fault? We know that can’t be the case, because everywhere else Paul names Adam as the one who brought about the Fall. So what gives here? Well, in our reading, the verse becomes quite clear. It was Eve who listened to the false teacher (the Serpent) and thus was “deceived.” It was the false teaching that was ultimately the problem, not Eve “teaching and having authority over” Adam.
The next verse (the famously confusing “will be saved through childbearing” one), actually now adds weight to my interpretation. Ephesus was the home of the Aremis cult. One of Artemis’s roles was to protect women through the dangers of childbirth. Paul is trying to get these ignorant women to turn from paganism and see that it is Christ who will keep them safe, not Artemis. Once again, the issue isn’t womanhood itself, but the lure of false teaching.
I’m sure we’ll get into this more later, but seeing Paul’s instruction in 1 Timothy as a universal command for the order of the church, forever and ever amen, just doesn’t match up with his references to women elsewhere. Aquila is given equal honor and respect to her husband, even joining him in correcting (teaching!) Apollos (Acts 18:26). Junia is hailed by Paul as “among the apostles” (TNIV, the ESV translation there is horribly forced). Women are encouraged to prophecy, etc.
I enjoyed reading the opposing view points regarding these issues. I am researching this topic and would apperciate if you could point me in the direction of some books supporting both sides of this debate!
Thanks!!