A dude named Justin and I are engaged in a pretty good discussion regarding so-called “Biblical Gender Roles,” and the practical ramifications of such things, if any. I know this guy locally and personally, and while we disagree on almost everything (he looks, sounds, and acts like a neo-Calvinist and … well, I do not), I find him engaging and passionate.
The following started as a comment to Justin’s last reply left on a posted link here on Tribe, but became a post of it’s own. I think it’s important that we all work through issues like this and at least attempt to achieve a conclusion. Silence is never golden.
Justin’s latest comment begins the post; my reply to him follows it.
Justin says,
You talked a lot about how we should interpret the Bible. I agree about letting the scriptures speak for themselves and being interpreted on the backs of other scripture, but absolutely not in the case that it would ever lead to contradiction.
The Bible is sacred, infallible, inerrant and spirit-breathed. It cannot contradict itself. If we find contradiction with the Bible it is only in our interpretation of the scripture but not by scripture itself. I believe in sola scriptura, that the Bible is the divine authority by which I live my life and all other authorities are beneath it. I don’t doubt that you believe you take the Bible seriously (maybe even more than others like you say) but do you believe that all of this is true?
Our view of scripture is directly connected to how we interpret even the short excerpt I cited in Ephesians 5 and ultimately how we will view all practical application concerning this subject matter in the New Testament.
Since I believe in sola scripture let it act as evidence that I would never take Ephesians 5 alone to act on. Left to our sinful nature we could assume all sorts of wild things if we stop only with “wives, submit to your husbands”. The New Testament gives us everything we need to act this out in love, as it should, according to the will of God.
In order for us to have a holistic Biblical view in exercising gender roles we need to put our faith in exactly what Ephesians 5 states so clearly, that our marriages are a reflection of Jesus’ love to his church and his church’s submission to him. Our marriages are for worship to God. And if our marriages are conducted in any matter outside of the context of Ephesians 5, outside of faith in the mystery that is, then our marriages are wasted on good intention.
If one cannot see the way in which marriage is a reflection between Jesus and his church after reading the entirety of Ephesians I’m not sure they will ever truly understand any application as a result even if it looks great.
To be blunt, if one does not hold this view of marriage, I believe that though their application looks good to the culture around them that it is actually idolatry, a worship of each other instead of God.
Let’s start with husbands as the head and the submission of a wife.
I too agree that we must read Ephesians 5 within the context of the entire letter. And I believe the context is all things under the headship of Christ (Ephesians 1:10). But I do not believe I have a limited view of the Ephesian household code. In mentioning that I believe you are foreshadowing your view of mutual submission which I will allow you to illustrate for everyone on your own.
A husband is the head of the household and his wife is to submit to him. This is but one stroke in a great Biblical painting of marriage. Remember, marriage is a reflection of Christ’s love for his church and their submission to him. Anyone trying to debate these simple but profound truths has little hope as Peter even points women back to Sarah (1 Peter 3:1-7) – talk about driving a point home.
As for what this looks like in my own home, or more like what my wife and I strive for, I like what Kostenberger says in a chapter about marriage in the New Testament in his book God, Marriage and Family:
“… a more accurate way of looking at marital roles is to understand that wives are called to follow their husband’s loving leadership in their marriage. This leadership and submission is to take place in the context of a true partnership, in which the husband genuinely values his wife’s companionship and counsel and the wife sincerely values her husband’s leadership.”
I’ve always thought those words to be such a sweet commentary on the great scripture that they were inspired by and written from.
In the case that this is not practical enough I invite you to ask me any question you’d like. Maybe you want to know what happens when I ask my wife to bring me a beer or where that falls under submission. Ask away but please be respectful. In other words, ask me questions that you yourself are prepared to answer as well.
My Response to Justin’s Comment
First of all, let me just say this straight away: When I say “Let scripture interpret scripture,” I’m not saying the same thing as you are saying. There is a big difference between us hermeneutically. You are obviously coming from the school of thought that advances the idea that scripture can somehow interpret itself apart from all that you or I bring to the interpretative process. That’s just not so. Scripture doesn’t do anything to other parts of scripture – much less interpret it! You and I do that. The authors of scripture did that on their own too. It’s called proof-texting. Proof-texting is not “scripture interpreting other parts of scripture.” See, for example, Matthew’s attempt to do just this in his account of Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem on what became Palm Sunday (Matthew 21:1-10). A simple reading of that text reveals Matthew’s attempt at prophetic fulfillment by simultaneously placing Jesus on a donkey and a colt – at the same time – as he rode into Jerusalem. That’s right. Matthew has Jesus riding both animals at the same time, as prophetic fulfillment, because he misread OT prophecy. Can you picture that one? Do you see why Matthew did that? Can you see how – and more importantly why – the Gospel accounts that follow cleaned it up? Can you see how this happens when we advance the flimsy idea of “scripture interpreting scripture” without critical thought? If the author of Matthew can misfire, so can you and I.
Also, we are not in agreement on the definition of “contradiction.” I do not use the word as you are obviously interpreting it. To approach the idea of contradiction or tension from a Westernized view point requires us to rely totally upon a “it’s either all true or it’s all false mentality.” That smacks of Western scientific method (which isn’t all bad), but misses the point of Hebraic theology, poetry, and myth. Sure, most Westerners are allergic to all that Hebraic theology, poetry, and myth exemplify and require, but our faith can’t exist without it. Western apologetics (which I’m sure you are into) has been born from our detest of theology, poetry, and myth, and it shall be our religious undoing because our faith and the biblical narrative was never meant to be strapped to a black and white, right or wrong western worldview. We will lose if we keep trekking in this strange direction.
So, by contradiction I do not mean what you think. You are thinking like a good westerner – which makes your own claims of a gospel expression that is built upon total cultural exemption a tad silly. I’m talking tension and sometimes even Biblical disagreement, when I use the word contradiction. I neither intend to imply that a contradiction or tension in the narrative invalidates the narrative, nor do I intend to imply that following Jesus requires a specific approach to hermeneutics. It seems that you are saying those things. I am not.
Consider the issue we are discussing right now (i.e., women in home and church leadership). There is a bit of disagreement concerning this issue in the Scriptures. Hear me: this disagreement is a result of your interpretation of certain texts in the Bible; it’s not a inherent disagreement. You create it by holding the position you do regarding so-called “Biblical Gender Roles.”
I’ll explain this, but first I have to ask a question of you and your faith:
“Did Jesus of Nazareth bring salvific clarity to the distortion that Sin, Death, and Devil introduced to the world through the fall?”
If you answer “no,” then we have nothing more to discuss because we are still trapped in the distortion of Sin, Death, and Devil and are as lost as those who have never heard the Gospel.
If you answer “yes,” then we would agree that in Christ we have been rescued from the fall’s distortion. Said differently, we have been freed from Sin, Death, and Devil’s penalty and program. We no longer live under the Law (which was created and designed to show us how utterly unable we really are as far as righteousness is concerned), and we no longer live under the distorted program birthed by the fall. Right?
Now that we have asked and answered this question, let’s look at Genesis Ch. 3, shall we? Oh, and bring your answer to the above question with you as we explore Genesis Three!
In Genesis 3, God says the following, after the fall:
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Clearly, what we see in the above statement is detriment. It is a distorted effect produced by the fall. It’s in the same distorted category as the “cursed ground,” “painful harvesting of crops,” “sweaty bread eating,” “the expulsion from Eden,” and “humanity’s death (from dust you came; dust shall you be returned).” All of this distortion can be found in chapter three. Do you see it?
Jesus Christ is the redeemer of all of that junk, is he not? Does Jesus’ atonement free and heal us from the effects, penalties, and distortions of the fall or not? If he does, then how is the celebration of one of these distortions not blasphemy? How is it not wicked? How does such distortion fit with Paul’s declaration that “In Christ, there is neither man, nor women, slave or free, Jew or Gentile?
If what I’m saying is right, and I believe it is, then preaching anything else would be a different Gospel. Preaching anything else would be idolatry. Preaching anything else would be to do the work of the Sin, Death, and Devil that created the distortion(s) in the first place.
That said, let’s revisit your penchant for Westernized hermeneutics for a brief second or two. It’s important that you realize that you are shaped by your own culture more than you even realize, and that’s why you interpret things the way you do. It’s not a bad thing, totally. We all do it to a certain degree. Some of just admit it while others refuse to face the truth (while they proclaim to preach truth!).
Consider America, if you will. It’s obvious that we have a social dichotomy built almost exclusively upon the conservative right and the liberal left.
My point has less to do with those social constructions specifically, and more to do with what happens to the interpretation of scripture and Jesus within those camps. Jesus winds up looking and sounding just like conservatives rightists in their camp; he looks and sounds like liberal leftists over in their camp. You know this is true.
The same thing happens in the suburbs and in the cities. Jesus sounds and looks suburban in the suburbs; he sounds and look urban in the cities.
We have to be aware of the fact that at least some of our culture bleeds into our hermeneutic and interpretation.
My point – or question – is this: Do you think this is something new to humanity?!? Not in a million years is this a new phenomenon.
It’s present in our biblical narrative too.
Consider Paul (and all the NT writers) who thought the world was flat and built three-tiered. The problem is neither his archaic and obviously incorrect worldview, nor is it his unconscious inclusion of this worldview in scripture. The problem is our unwillingness to observe, acknowledge and work through it.
Here’s an example of this issue:
Philippians 2:9-11 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
There are a few things happening here, in this text.
1. There is revelation being proclaimed (Jesus’ name will bend every knee in either adoration, or humility).
2. Some of Paul is bleeding through the text (every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth). The earth is neither flat, nor is it three-tiered.
Here’s a picture of this three story universe, for your visual edification:
So, given all that is going on in Philippians 2:9-11, what are we to do as readers? I would suggest that we acknowledge the basic fact that scripture (revelation) is not revealed in a vacuum but within very specific, important, and unavoidable contexts and that some of all that bleeds into our expressions, records, and interpretations of these revelations. It’s totally unavoidable, but not as damaging to the narrative as some try to claim.
Consider Philippians 2:9-11. Does the fact that our context today is not a three story universe? Does this truth invalidate the revelatory aspects of Paul’s proclamation? No! But it does force us to to the hard work of Biblical interpretation instead of relying on yesterday’s easy fundamentalism(s).
And Philippians 2:9-11 is one one – REPEAT ONE – example of this! there are many, many, many more.
All that said, and with the distortion present in Genesis chapter three still fresh on our minds, I would challenge you to prove to me that the New Testament texts you cite as validity for your expression of so-called “Biblical Gender Roles” are eternal rather than cultural arguments.
Also, I would love to introduce you to Paul’s subversive expression of the Ephesian Household Codes … but first things first. :)
Finally, I would still love to hear how you express your beliefs concerning Biblical Gender Roles in real-time, and how exactly these expressions resonate with the bible and your specific hermeneutic (your expression of the texts must agree with the hermeneutic you used to build the interpretive foundation of your expression, or you will reduce your argument to a house of cards that won’t be able to endure a gentle breeze).
For now, I’ll close with this, while I await your response: Our faith expression proportionally weakens as our interpretive hermeneutic is squeezed tighter and tighter in our fists. Basically, we suffocate ourselves in our vain effort to synchronize (or syncritize) faith with our “black and white, it’s all right or it’s all wrong,” Westernized minds, apologetics, and culture. We can barely move, much less God.
Related posts:
skellig michael
Karen Sloan
Tony Jones
Thanks for replying and furthermore with its own post! I’m anticipating what others will say on the subject.
Our view of scripture is directly connected to our hermeneutic. I have a high view of scripture believing in sola scriptura. The Bible is spirit-breathed and I don’t serve a God who makes mistakes. And as you illustrated multiple times you believe that the Bible is fallible, that it is prone to mistake and error.
I’ll talk to a few points in rebuttal but I’m afraid we won’t be able to continue this discussion based on our opposing view of scripture alone. I’ve made my case for the idea of Biblical gender roles with scripture and you’ve made yours by poking holes through scripture.
Gender roles are established pre-fall in the order of creation. This is obvious through scripture and by God calling on Adam to account for the sin of both Eve and himself. There is an order, a hierarchy and it was not a mistake. The argument starts here.
Post-fall the Bible clearly states that part of the curse is the woman’s desire to rule over her husband. In other words, part of the curse is that we will pervert God’s order of creation.
Christ came to make right what we wronged but you will still die someday and that is evidence of imputed sin. Christ did not come to redeem the earthly affects of our sin, but to redeem its affect on our souls in eternity.
The case for Biblical gender roles is so great and connected in scripture that the only way to disprove it is by believing that the Bible is fallible and blasting holes through the men that wrote it (and Matthew did not misfire in chapter 21).
Even though we disagree with each other our arguments have shown that we view all subjects pertaining to Christianity as inherently holistic and that we don’t react on words alone. That’s a good thing.
I am not a Neo-Calvinist and I am also sincerely disappointed in your “us vs. them” attitude towards Calvinists. For someone who embraces relationships and peace I’m continually baffled how you manage to justify that type of ignorance.
To stay on topic in terms of gender roles, the Scripture speaks this way in Genesis chapter 3.
Gen. 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, “You shall not eat of it’:
In this Scripture look for the reason God gives for Adam’s sin…”Because you have heeded the voice of your wife…
Also
1 Timothy 2:
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
Also
Romans 5:
15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification.
Now in these Scriptures we find that even though Eve was deceived, God imputed the sin to Adam.
Brother Shawn have you considered why God holds Adam accountable and not Eve?
In Christ
Jeff Marshalek
Thanks for replying and furthermore with its own post! I’m anticipating what others will say on the subject.
Justin, you wrote; “Our view of scripture is directly connected to our hermeneutic. I have a high view of scripture believing in sola scriptura. The Bible is spirit-breathed and I don’t serve a God who makes mistakes. And as you illustrated multiple times you believe that the Bible is fallible, that it is prone to mistake and error.”
Justin – The Bible is only full of mistakes if our approach to it begins with presuppositions that are formed from ideas that suggest that it (the Bible) was meant to be a vacuumous work that contained absolutely no development or human expression. If we approach the Bible with that sort of presupposition, then of course the only result could be “it’s either all right, or it’s all wrong,” or, as you say, “It’s either “infallible and/or mistake free,” or “fallible and full of errors.” So, don’t charge me with an approach to the the Bible that only exists because of your reckless reading of it, especially when you don’t even understand how you are reading, interpreting, and applying,
The Bible is full of revelation, human expression, and development. To refuse to admit this fact just for the sake of a particular religious expression twists the very thing that we claim as foundation. It’s quite silly.
Consider the eschatological development in the Gospel of Luke, and how the author of Luke moved away from – and altered – the eschatological expression of Paul, Mark, and Matthew. When you really catch onto what I’m pointing at in this case, ask yourself the following questions: “Is this an error in the Bible or development? Is this indicative of the biblical authors real-time need to work things out? What does this do to my understanding and approach to scripture?
Again, check yourself and your approach to the Bible. Also, check your need to apply to me charges that only exist because of your own small approach towards the bible and interpretation. From here, you simply sound like a pep-rally jock who gets up to speak to the crowd but quickly discovers that has so little to say that he simply barks, “Go [ENTER SCHOOL NAME HERE]!” I don’t mean that to sound rude, but it’s the best image I can think of to describe how little you have to say concerning this issue, beyond the tired cliches you have picked up through secondary conversation and sources (how much of your argument have you discovered in primary sources anyway?).
I’ll say this, once more time: I take the Bible seriously, very seriously.
Then you wrote, “I’ll talk to a few points in rebuttal but I’m afraid we won’t be able to continue this discussion based on our opposing view of scripture alone. I’ve made my case for the idea of Biblical gender roles with scripture and you’ve made yours by poking holes through scripture.”
You have said virtually nothing about your so-called biblical gender roles. And again, when you say things like “you’re poking holes through scripture,” you are charging me with a charge that only exist because of your own small approach towards the bible and interpretation. You could charge the writers of Matthew and Luke with the same thing, if you really understood scripture. I’m not poking holes in anything.
Then you write, “Gender roles are established pre-fall in the order of creation. This is obvious through scripture and by God calling on Adam to account for the sin of both Eve and himself. There is an order, a hierarchy and it was not a mistake. The argument starts here. Post-fall the Bible clearly states that part of the curse is the woman’s desire to rule over her husband. In other words, part of the curse is that we will pervert God’s order of creation. Christ came to make right what we wronged but you will still die someday and that is evidence of imputed sin. Christ did not come to redeem the earthly affects of our sin, but to redeem its affect on our souls in eternity.”
This is wrong, and so convoluted, in a few places. It’s also pretty dim, eschatological speaking. I’d suggest you really dive into a study of Realized/Already Not Yet Eschatology. An understanding of eschatology will go a long way towards helping us understand what Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection really means for us right now, in this life and world. If it’s only about eternity, we are a sad lot.
Also, your take on Genesis (pre-fall/post-fall) is baffling. Where are you getting that from? You said “Post-fall the Bible clearly states that part of the curse is the woman’s desire to rule over her husband.” Where is that, Justin? Are you abandoning your own hermeneutic, to substantiate it as a hermeneutic? Baffling!
I am not a Neo-Calvinist and I am also sincerely disappointed in your “us vs. them” attitude towards Calvinists. For someone who embraces relationships and peace I’m continually baffled how you manage to justify that type of ignorance.
First of all, be careful who you are calling ignorant. Secondly, understand that there is a huge difference between Calvinists and neo-Calvinists. Calvinists themselves would agree, if they are aware of the current Christian scene in America. Neo-Calvinists are uncharitable, Calvinists are not. Neo-Calvinists are fundamentalists in cool clothes and new vocabulary, but underneath it all exists a cold, divisive fundamentalism. I did not create the “us vs. them” attitude, they did. To charge me with such an attitude when I respond to it is a wacky as charging me with hermeneutic errors that only exist because of the way you read the bible. You are consistent, at least, but wrong.
My embrace of peace and relationships is why I’ll call out neo-Calvinists. Silence isn’t golden.
And frankly, I’m disappointed that you would try to use my expression and dedication to peace and relationships in such a manipulative sort of way.
That said, if you have anything substantial to say about so called Biblical Gender Roles, I’m still waiting.
Hi, Jeff. I’m not sure I even know you. Who are you? How about a brief introduction? Hope you are well. Thanks for the comments.
I have this to say to you in response.
Jeff you wrote, “To stay on topic in terms of gender roles, the Scripture speaks this way in Genesis chapter 3.”
Everything I have stated previously is directly related to the topic of gender roles and the approach to the bible taken by those who express gender roles in the fashion you and Justin do. So, we are on and have always been on topic.
Jeff, you then wrote, “Gen. 3:17 Then to Adam He said, “‘Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you,’ saying, ‘You shall not eat of it.’ In this Scripture look for the reason God gives for Adam’s sin…”Because you have heeded the voice of your wife…”
You are reading so much into Gen. 3:17 that I am forced to question your personal dedication to the hermeneutic that is foundational to your expression of gender roles. Let me explain by asking a question: Are you suggesting that Gen 3:17 is some sort of divine indictment on women making leadership decisions? Further, are you suggesting that Gen 3:17 is some sort of warning against any and all feminine leadership? Where do you see these things in this verse? Can you point to either of these statements in Gen 3:17? Show me! Or are you just simply reading that into what the verse actually says? At the very least, you are implicitly attributing (assuming) these thoughts to be inherent to the verse while completely missing what the verse say simply.
How is Gen 3:17 not God correcting Adam for his own specific error, which ultimately was disobeying God (literally: You joined your wife and ate what I told you not to eat). Now, how is that crime attributed to the “wife’s voice” and not the “husband’s disobedience?” Asked differently, why are you looking at that particular verse and attributing the problem to the “woman’s voice” rather than “the man’s disobedience?” Further, how then does this occasion become a universal and permanent template concerning the “feminine voice” or “women in leadership?” Seriously? How do you make these leaps, given your own dedication to a hermeneutic that claims to not read things into the text that are not really there? All I see in Gen. 3:17 is God explaining to Adam the ramifications of his own personal disobedience. You, however, see a universal and permanent warning against women leadership. Interesting.
You also are interpreting Adam’s sin to be “listening to his wife’s voice,” when it clearly is not so! Adam’s disobedience was not centered in his listening to his wife’s voice,” but in his “eating from the tree.” There is a huge difference. Listening to his wife go on and on about the tree in this specific story may have been a cause for Adam’s fall, but no more than his own willingness and decision to disobey God. And while listening to his wife’s voice in this case may have been a cause for his fall, I’m still totally mystified on how you make such a universal and permanent leap from this story about Adam’s sin into the misguided and distracting belief that somehow this means that women should not be leaders in home and church! Furthermore, your logic baffles me, Jeff. You not only think that Adam’s sin was “listening to his wife’s voice,” and not his personal choice to in one moment disobey God, but also advance the idea then that the feminine voice is detrimental as concerns leadership. If I followed your hermeneutic all the way to practical application I would be forced to shout from the as many rooftops as I could mount that no true believer should eat any fruit from any tree from now ’till eternity. You clearly don;t think fruit is off limits universally and permanently, do you? No, because that would be ridiculous, right?
You then wrote, “Also 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Also Romans 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense.”
You also threw this one in, “For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. Now in these Scriptures we find that even though Eve was deceived, God imputed the sin to Adam. Brother Shawn have you considered why God holds Adam accountable and not Eve?”
You sound like you think that Adam did not actually sin! You are aware that Adam fell because HE directly and personally DISOBEYED God, right? It sounds to me like you don’t really understand this when you write things like this: “Now in these Scriptures we find that even though Eve was deceived, God imputed the sin to Adam.” Sin was not imputed to Adam because of Eve’s deception; Adam fell because Adam personally sinned. And where in the world are you getting this wacky idea that “God imputes sin?” You wrote, “Now in these Scriptures we find that even though Eve was deceived, God imputed the sin to Adam.” What’s that? It sounds heretical to me! LOL!
All of that said, the burden of proof is in your lap. Why? Because women are not treated like this in any other social sphere in our society. If you claim women should not be leaders in the home and/or church, then you must bear the burden of proving it. I’d suggest that you start with the challenge I presented to Justin. The challenge is this, simply: “I would challenge you to prove to me that the New Testament texts you cite as validity for your expression of so-called “Biblical Gender Roles” are eternal rather than cultural arguments.” Don’t forget to talk about patriarchal culture too, at least a little bit.
And don’t forget to process and include all of the information in the above post (that you apparently think is off topic) if/when you accept this challenge.
Also, if you would like to explain how the Gender Roles actually are lived out in your life and home and church t hat would be awesome. I have yet to hear from either of you regarding this request.
Thanks for the conversation. It’s good. Peace.
@Jeff: Great to see another viewpoint weigh in!
@Shawn: Genesis 3:16 says this: “To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 4:7 regarding Cain: “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”
There is a parallel between these two verses in talking about desire in both English and Hebrew. In other words, Genesis 3:16 means that the woman’s desire will be to overpower, subdue, exploit or devour her husband.
This is an example of God’s order of creation, perverted through sin, which is where my argument for Biblical gender roles and complementarity begin.
LOL! Jeff’s is the same viewpoint as yours, Justin! :)
I very much enjoy this conversation, fellows. I’m going to push hard, but please know that it is not personal or malevolent. I just think your expression is archaic, dated, a bit backwards, and ultimately harmful to people, relationships, and most importantly the Gospel and Kingdom.
Justin, you wrote, “Genesis 3:16 says this: ‘To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ Genesis 4:7 regarding Cain: ‘And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.’ There is a parallel between these two verses in talking about desire in both English and Hebrew. In other words, Genesis 3:16 means that the woman’s desire will be to overpower, subdue, exploit or devour her husband. This is an example of God’s order of creation, perverted through sin, which is where my argument for Biblical gender roles and complementarity begin.”
Justin, what in the heck are you talking about? I expected so much more from guys who claim such a high view of scripture. I’m not saying that to be rude, or condescending, but because your use of scripture in the above is more reckless and misguided than any Emergent church aficionado that I have ever read or met.
Was there a woman crouching at Cain’s door, desiring him, or waiting to crush him? No. Is the sin crouching at Cain’s door a woman? No. So, what in the world do these texts have to do with one another, and how did you make a leap from them to this (and I’m quoting you) “Genesis 3:16 means that the woman’s desire will be to overpower, subdue, exploit or devour her husband.” Wow! It seems to me that you are abandoning your own hermeneutic to substantiate that which you think your hermeneutic advance (i.e., Biblical Gender Roles).
Furthermore, the distorted effects of the fall as listed in Genesis three not only includes what was spoken to the woman (i.e., I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you), but also “the cursed ground,” “painful harvesting of crops,” “sweaty bread eating,” “the expulsion from Eden,” and “humanity’s death (from dust you came; dust shall you be returned).” All of this distortion can be found in chapter three. Do you see it? It’s all a distortion! This: “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,” is in the same distorted category as these: “the cursed ground,” “painful harvesting of crops,” “sweaty bread eating,” “the expulsion from Eden,” and “humanity’s death (from dust you came; dust shall you be returned).”
It’s all part of the fall! It’s results of the fall. Chapter three is all about the distortions that happened because of the fall.
Jesus and his Kingdom are about becoming free of these distortions (we are free and trekking towards ultimate freedom [realized/already-not-yet eschatology]).
So, unless you are prepared to actually start preaching and celebrating “the cursed ground,” “painful harvesting of crops,” “sweaty bread eating,” “the expulsion from Eden,” and “humanity’s death (from dust you came; dust shall you be returned), then I would probably stop – or at least question – my dedication to preaching and celebrating “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” in the manner that you are suggesting.
In Christ and Christ’s Kingdom there are neither male, nor female; slave or free; Jew or Gentile. The Dividing wall – or distortion – has been razed. Why are you trying so hard to rebuild what God has torn down?
Brother Shawn asked:
“Hi, Jeff. I’m not sure I even know you. Who are you? How about a brief introduction? Hope you are well. Thanks for the comments.”
I am 12 years old in the Lord. I am 52 years old under the sun. I commited my life to Him during a Promise Keeper’s event held in the LA Coliseum. I started out as a helper in a children’s ministry teaching the word of God to kindergarten thru second grade children. Over the course of time I served in various ministries in the Calvary Chapel denomination. I retired from UCLA three years ago and moved my family to Hershey. I work at the Med Center as a HVAC tech. We have been attending the Brethren in Christ church in Hershey for the last two years.
I will consider your response in short order, but I am currently at work during lunch time which is just about over…
God Bless
Jeff
thanks for the introduction, Jeff! it is appreciated, as are you! Thanks!
That said, I have to ask: You are going to a Brethren in Christ Church and you think that women shouldn’t be leaders!!! Wow! We must talk, my brother!
Have a great lunch, Jeff! I look forward to more conversations!
Regarding the word “desire”: In the Hebrew for the wording in Genesis 4:7 compared to the Hebrew in the wording for Genesis 3:16 we can understand what was meant for the word “desire”. We find that it means to overpower, exploit or devour and thus distorts the order of creation.
It’s important to understand that God built male-headship into the pre-fall order of creation (Genesis 2:4-24). An evangelical feminist’s argument should start there, but often times it won’t because it can’t be argued in scripture.
If this was not so then God wouldn’t solely call on Adam to give an account for both. Also, it was only after Adam partook that both Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened to their condition. Furthermore, Paul blames Adam for our fall (Romans 5:12-21, one man). In fact, if gender equality was the order of creation why were man and woman not both created at the same time? Is our God capable of doing that? Certainly so, but he did not.
Male-headship is God’s design. There is an order, a hierarchy, established in creation and it is no mistake. Paul recognizes this in 1 Timothy 2:13 in saying that “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; …”. But this does not mean that man is any better than the woman (on a personal level) anymore than a Pastor is better than his congregation or a boss is better than their employee.
It’s not Biblical, it’s idolatry, that personal role would reduce or enhance personal worth. As Christians we find our worthiness in Christ.
Shawn, you’re right in saying that Genesis 3 is a distortion of the way God intended it to be. But I’m afraid you’ve missed the entire point. Biblical gender roles are not a result of the fall. They were set into motion by the hand of God in the beginning. And a direct result of the fall is a distortion of those roles set forth in the order of creation.
Shawn
You echo the famed atheist, Richard Dawkins, in your claim that the Gospel authors fabricated stories in order to fulfill OT prophecy. I would like to know then, how the Gospel accounts are any different than a perversion of the truth? And is that any different than a pile of lies? Can Scripture be trusted at all? Why would you attempt to ground your argument in a book that you do not esteem entirely trustworthy?
You write, “…our faith and the biblical narrative was never meant to be strapped to a black and white, right or wrong western worldview. We will lose if we keep trekking in this strange direction.”
I can name one eastern-native apologist who would strongly disagree with your above statement–Ravi Zacharias. You might be interested to listen to his 3-part lecture series The Pursuit of Truth, in which he insists upon an absolute foundation for our faith.
It seems you build your faith on an undefined “whimsical” foundation. Do you cross the street with the same disposition? Does the oncoming truck matter to you at all, or do you ignore the contradiction and cross anyway? To quote Ravi Zacharias, “Even in India, you look both ways before you cross the street. It’s either the bus or me. Not both” (I remind you that India is not in the western hemisphere, and yet the black/white mindset still surfaces…. Why? Because definite truth is transcendent.)
Maps, clocks, scales, and rulers are all completely acceptable standards in our country. Does it surprise you to know that the same standards are valued in the eastern world as well in the west? It doesn’t matter what cultural worldview you have, north is still north. And it is the same north for the easterners as it is for the westerners. When it comes to a foundational standard there must be absolutes. Just ask any architect.
Jesus is Truth. He is transcendent. He is the Word incarnate. Does your cultural worldview change who Christ is?
Ironically, your position on biblical gender roles seems to be cultivated from a very western worldview. It is the sweeping trend in our society to abolish the the whole male-headship structure. You are in the overwhelming majority…on this side of the globe. (Do not think that I believe the oppressive structures established in other cultures, in which women are degraded and abused, are biblical in principle. They absolutely are NOT. Maybe for you, however, the matter isn’t so black and white….)
You ask: “Did Jesus of Nazareth bring salvific clarity to the distortion that Sin, Death, and Devil introduced to the world through the fall?”
To which you offer two opposing options. (Black or white?…):
If you answer “no,” then we have nothing more to discuss because we are still trapped in the distortion of Sin, Death, and Devil and are as lost as those who have never heard the Gospel.
If you answer “yes,” then we would agree that in Christ we have been rescued from the fall’s distortion. Said differently, we have been freed from Sin, Death, and Devil’s penalty and program. We no longer live under the Law (which was created and designed to show us how utterly unable we really are as far as righteousness is concerned), and we no longer live under the distorted program birthed by the fall. Right?
We aren’t in glory yet. We still live in this dark world. We do still have the law. The law is good. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. (Mt 5:17) The law does not condemn us because we have the perfect righteousness of Christ. Yet we still battle with sin because our flesh is weak. Paul writes of this struggle in Romans 7.
As long as we live in this fallen world, we must still endure the curse of our sin. If you believe we have been given immunity to the curse while we still inhabit this dark world, you are seriously mistaken.
What about death and decay? I guess there is no need to make funeral arrangements for believers. Ironic then, that so many churches have cemeteries….
Or what about the toil to provide bread for your family? You never have stressful or frustrating days at work? You don’t ever labor by the sweat of your brow? Even people who love what they do for a living still have bad days at work.
I am several months pregnant…Should I anticipate a painless childbirth? If I do experience pain am I to conclude that the promises of Christ are empty? Is that consistent with your logic?
We are not immediately immune to the effects of sin in our lives. But we do have security in Christ. We can rest in his promise of salvation. We can have a sure hope that we will be restored to the Father through the perfect righteousness of Christ.
Notice that the curse for man is related to his God-ordained role to provide for his household?
Likewise the curse for the women is related her God-ordained role to bear and nurture children and her role to be a suitable helper to her husband–to come along side him (as an equal) and compliment his weaknesses with her strengths.
Her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her (Genesis 3:16).
Rather than compliment her husband’s needs and unite with him as his suitable helper, the woman’s impulse is now to oppose her husband. Her desire is to dominate and he will rule over her. The marriage relationship is frustrated by the curse. The male-headship structure is perverted by our sin. I can testify personally that this is indeed true because I am a woman. I know first-hand this desire to have charge. (And my husband knows what a nagging b* I can be.)
This is not the start of male-headship–male-headship is NOT a result of the fall. It is part of God’s created order. It is according to his design.
God created Adam first and LATER created a suitable helper for him.
Adam called his companion woman and named her Eve. In so doing he exercised authority over her as her head.
Adam, as the head, would’ve passed on to Eve the command that he had received direct from God before Eve existed–the command to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil..
Eve disobeyed the command took the first bite. Not only that, but she gave the forbidden fruit to her husband to eat too. Eve sinned first, yet all of mankind fell with Adam. That is because Adam is the head. We were not there in the Garden of Eden, but we were represented in Adam, and we fell with him in his sin. We all have sinned. The women didn’t fall with Eve and the men with Adam. ALL OF MANKIND–both men and women–fell with Adam’s sin.
Likewise, those who trust in Jesus are redeemed through him. Christ represented us on the cross. He is the head of the true church. I am a woman but I am not waiting for a female messiah to come to earth and atone for my sins. Christ is my Savior! Just as Adam brought death to all of mankind, Christ brings life to those who trust in him.
In our individualistic society, we don’t like the idea of headship. “Every one for themselves!” we cry. The word “submission” has a bitter taste in our mouths. So what do we do? Do we try to fit God into our worldview? Or do we align ourselves with his Word? Do we dare SUBMIT to Jesus as sovereign Lord?
You wrote: “Basically, we suffocate ourselves in our vain effort to synchronize (or syncritize) faith with our “black and white, it’s all right or it’s all wrong,” Westernized minds, apologetics, and culture. We can barely move, much less God.”
You’re right, we do suffocate when we try to synchronize faith with our contemporary mindset. True faith is from God. True faith yields to his Word, not to our whims.
And God doesn’t move. He is the Immovable Mover.
Good morning Shawn,
Sometimes I will post Scripture in a way that makes sense to me but leaves others grasping in the wind. Sorry. I’ll try to explain things as I post.
We often hear this Scripture sited when speaking of the equality in God’s kingdom of men and women…
Gal. 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
If we are to take this in context to the issues that the Galatian church has, we will see that Paul is correcting their view of the path that they must precede down to find the unity that can only be found in Christ.
Gal 3
2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
The Galatian church had started out following the Spirit but now because of men who would try to teach that they must follow the law of Moses, the church had begun to work not according to the power of the Spirit but through the power of the flesh. Unity which is found in Christ can never be achieved by the flesh.
We know from Scripture that although we all are one in Christ as Paul has written above, we also must take into consideration what Scripture teaches concerning the gifts that Christ gives to each individual through the working of the Holy Spirit. In this, we according to Scripture all differ from one another in God’s kingdom. Paul writes:
Eph. 4:7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:
“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this, “He ascended”MDwhat does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)
So in this Scripture we know that Christ is the one who gives the gifts to men.
Paul then writes…
Eph. 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
In this we find the name of the office for which Christ determines who will lead His church for the following purpose.
12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;
Do you agree with this so far?
In Christ
Jeff
I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish by citing the word “desire,” Justin. I get what it means, but it doesn’t change the fact that what we are reading is ultimately distortion and judgment that is a direct product of the fall. Let me say it one more time: Gen 3:16 is a distortion of God’s intended plan. The original plan was that women and men would live in shared partnership and experience the blessings of having kids together. After the fall, literally, the story says that God said, “Great! Now that you’ve done this, this is how things are gong to be from now on! This wasn’t my original plan, but sin and your disobedience has mucked things up beyond recognition!” Therefore, childbirth became labor, the woman’s desire (as you define it) was for her husband, AND he (male) ruled over her. My question to you, at this point, is this: How do you not see “the man ruling over the woman” as a distortion of God’s plan? A simple reading of the text shows that it (the man ruling over the woman) is as distorted as and the proclamation that “he (male) shall rule over you” is as distorted as the “woman’s desire (as you define it) for her husband.” Both are products of the twisted sin of the fall. In Christ, we are not only redeemed from the effects of the fall, but also called to proclaim redemption’s freedom to the captives. We are redeemed and continuously being redeemed (eschatology). Again, I ask you, “Why are you working so hard to rebuild what God is tearing down?” In Christ, all are equals.
Justin, you also wrote the following: “In other words, Genesis 3:16 means that the woman’s desire will be to overpower, subdue, exploit or devour her husband.”
Wow! Do you honestly approach this issue with that presupposition? I’m tempted to ask if you run your house according to this principle, just to find out what this looks like in real-time, but I’m almost scared to ask. It sounds like a great foundation for shaky, insecure, and paranoid relationships, for sure.
Hello, Rostock. Welcome to the lively conversation! And tell your husband the key has been returned. Thanks.
You wrote, “You echo the famed atheist, Richard Dawkins, in your claim that the Gospel authors fabricated stories in order to fulfill OT prophecy. I would like to know then, how the Gospel accounts are any different than a perversion of the truth? And is that any different than a pile of lies? Can Scripture be trusted at all? Why would you attempt to ground your argument in a book that you do not esteem entirely trustworthy?”
First of all, stop building strawmen. I never said “The Gospel authors fabricated stories in order to fulfill OT prophecy,” you said that I said it. I simply said that in Matthew’s zeal to substantiate prophecy and link it to the Jesus event, he went a bit overboard and placed Jesus on a donkey and colt at the same time. It’s there, in the Gospel. Wrestle with it. I pointed to this as a bit of warning against our own rush to “let Scripture interpret Scripture.” I also pointed towards it to shine a tiny light on biblical development (of which we have barley scratched the surface).
You wrote, “Jesus is Truth. He is transcendent. He is the Word incarnate. Does your cultural worldview change who Christ is?”
No. Does yours?
You wrote, “Ironically, your position on biblical gender roles seems to be cultivated from a very western worldview. It is the sweeping trend in our society to abolish the the whole male-headship structure. You are in the overwhelming majority…on this side of the globe. (Do not think that I believe the oppressive structures established in other cultures, in which women are degraded and abused, are biblical in principle. They absolutely are NOT. Maybe for you, however, the matter isn’t so black and white….)”
Not at all sure what you are trying to say here…
My position on gender roles is cultivated from Jesus of Nazareth and His Kingdom of God. Perhaps the people on “this side of the globe,” as you say, are closer to the Kingdom of God than people like you who claim they are living in it? It wouldn’t be the first time that happened, you know (see the Gospels).
You wrote, “You ask: “Did Jesus of Nazareth bring salvific clarity to the distortion that Sin, Death, and Devil introduced to the world through the fall?” To which you offer two opposing options. (Black or white?…): We aren’t in glory yet. We still live in this dark world. We do still have the law. The law is good. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. (Mt 5:17) The law does not condemn us because we have the perfect righteousness of Christ. Yet we still battle with sin because our flesh is weak. Paul writes of this struggle in Romans 7. As long as we live in this fallen world, we must still endure the curse of our sin. If you believe we have been given immunity to the curse while we still inhabit this dark world, you are seriously mistaken. What about death and decay? I guess there is no need to make funeral arrangements for believers. Ironic then, that so many churches have cemeteries…. Or what about the toil to provide bread for your family? You never have stressful or frustrating days at work? You don’t ever labor by the sweat of your brow? Even people who love what they do for a living still have bad days at work. I am several months pregnant…Should I anticipate a painless childbirth? If I do experience pain am I to conclude that the promises of Christ are empty? Is that consistent with your logic? We are not immediately immune to the effects of sin in our lives. But we do have security in Christ. We can rest in his promise of salvation. We can have a sure hope that we will be restored to the Father through the perfect righteousness of Christ.”
1. The Law is only good for showing us how incapable we are as concerns righteousness.
2. Without Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law it damns us.
3. Jesus, in his life, death, resurrection, defeated Sin, Death, and Devil, thus freeing us from the curse. We are free. Do we still live in a world that is effected by Sin, Death, and Devil? Obviously. But we are free and are to live as we free until we pass or Christ returns (either way, we will dwell in eternity).
4. You are totally missing my point and the point of the Gen 3 story. I never said we were exempt from the distorted effects of the fall, I simply and repeatedly have said that to “preach and apply these distorted effects of the fall as if they were Gospel or God’s will is tantamount to blasphemously celebrating them as God’s will and original purpose for his creation – which they are not!” Would you preach “death and decay” as something all believers should embrace, enforce, and proclaim! Hardly! Would you preach that “the struggle and hardship to provide bread for your family” as God’s great redemptive plan (and consider places like Africa when you think about this one)! Is “the pain of childbirth” really part of God’s redemptive process?!? It sounds like part of the curse to me, when I read Gen 3! Think about it!
You wrote, “In our individualistic society, we don’t like the idea of headship. “Every one for themselves!” we cry. The word “submission” has a bitter taste in our mouths. So what do we do? Do we try to fit God into our worldview? Or do we align ourselves with his Word? Do we dare SUBMIT to Jesus as sovereign Lord?”
Funny, but this has nothing to do with me or my position, which is based entirely upon shared relationships not individualism. I could charge that this individualism is more akin to your position, but that would be fruitless, I think. PS: Jesus is Lord!
Finally, I have to ask, even if my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, “Why are you even attempting to teach me (a man) if you really believe in what ever it is you are arguing for (Biblical Gender Roles)?”
Well spoken Rostock, and Shawn, before I read your reply, I hope you will submit gracefully to this eloquent and profound answer from a daughter of Eve, surely your mouth should be stopped, things have been declared that you have not understood,things too wonderful for you that you did not know.Without doubt you have an impressive intellect , but your sophistry rings hollow before the true knowledge of the Lord.The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, they are foolishness to him.You have heard the mind of Christ, and if you have not ears to hear, may God deliver you from the position of a teacher to one who says
“I will ask Thee, and do thou instuct me”
@rostock: Wow and welcome to the debate. @Chris Wallace: Welcome as well and do elaborate if you’d like. @Jeff Marshalek: Exactly and thank you.
@Shawn: I’m afraid you continue to miss the point altogether.
The reason for showing what was meant by the word “desire” was to show readers (and you) not to take this sentence at face-value in our debate. It doesn’t simply mean that the wife will want her husband (emotionally or sexually) and that he will dominate her (out of force). The verse actually means that she will want to overpower her husband’s leadership but his role will be to lead her. In the same way we mustn’t abuse the meaning of the word “desire” we mustn’t abuse the meaning of the word “rule” which means to govern, have authority or hold the office over.
In a former post you accused me of abandoning my own hermeneutic in illustrating how the scripture gives us the meaning of the word “desire” but in your latest reply you say that you “get what it means”. What changed your mind?
Yes, the original plan was that women and men would live in shared partnership; however, you are skipping over the order of creation. And I’m talking about the entire chapter of Genesis 2 and most of 3 where many verses point back to a hierarchy. The original plan was that women and men would live in shared partnership without being frustrated by their order of creation. Genesis 3:16 tells us that because of sin we will now be frustrated with that order. In other words, Genesis 3:16 does not illustrate a distortion of shared partnership, it illustrates a distortion of God’s order of creation.
That is exactly where I find the evidence that you’re missing the point completely. My argument does not begin with Genesis 3:16 – it is reinforced by it.
You would be desperate in arguing against the fact that the Bible illustrates an order of creation before the fall. The sheer amount of scripture alone would be a fatal blow.
Furthermore, to ignore God’s order of creation in the beginning and the wealth of scripture in the entire Bible that points back to it when teaching about gender roles is the same as proclaiming that God’s order of creation in Genesis 2 was distorted. And you know that’s not truth.
You’ve asked twice why I am working so hard to rebuild what God is tearing down. This again is more evidence that you are stuck on Genesis 3:16 and have missed the point completely. Gender roles were defined in the order of creation and to proclaim that practicing them is rebellious to God makes no scriptural sense at all.
Lastly, in asking if I run my home according to the principle laid out in Genesis 3:16 you attempt to make a joke out of my argument. While I find this strikingly immature I’ll entertain it only to make a point. No, because it is not a principle. And yet again, Genesis 3:16 is not the foundation. I run my home according to the principle laid out in Genesis 2 and the order of creation. And it looks nothing like your neo-Calvinist-stereotypical-nonsense view of male-headship.
Justin, you wrote, “The reason for showing what was meant by the word “desire” was to show readers (and you) not to take this sentence at face-value in our debate. It doesn’t simply mean that the wife will want her husband (emotionally or sexually) and that he will dominate her (out of force). The verse actually means that she will want to overpower her husband’s leadership but his role will be to lead her. In the same way we mustn’t abuse the meaning of the word “desire” we mustn’t abuse the meaning of the word “rule” which means to govern, have authority or hold the office over.”
Justin, for the umpteenth time, I know what the word “desire” means and how it is used in this text. I get THAT … meaning I understand how the word is used and what it means. Any joe with a study Bible knows what the word “desire” means in this verse. I’m afraid, however, you still don’t understand my point concerning your repetitive pointing to this word. My point, which you fail to grasp is this (I’ll say it again): The “desire” in this verse is a distortion which is a direct result of the fall; the “husband ruling over the woman” is a distortion which is a direct result of the fall. The broken relationship the woman’s “desire” and the husband’s “rule” both point towards is a direct result of the fall! In other words, the relationship God originally intended has been broken by the fall and enmity remains. Get it? good!
My second point to you is equally simple: Christ’s work redeems what the fall distorted. Are we perfected? No. We strive. Also, you wouldn’t preach “death and decay” as something all believers should embrace, enforce, and proclaim! Hardly! Would you preach that “the struggle and hardship to provide bread for your family” as God’s great redemptive plan (and consider places like Africa when you think about this one)! Is “the pain of childbirth” really part of God’s redemptive process?!? no! So, why then do you pick this one Geb 3 distortion concerning the broken relationship between women and men and preach/proclaim it as God’s will?
You wrote, “In a former post you accused me of abandoning my own hermeneutic in illustrating how the scripture gives us the meaning of the word “desire” but in your latest reply you say that you “get what it means”. What changed your mind?”
My mind hasn’t changed regarding your expressions total combustion; I was referring to the definition and use of the word “desire” (which you keep repeating Ad nauseam) when I wrote that “I get what it means!” I get what you mean about the word/use of desire! I still think you are abandoning your own hermeneutic. I think you have to do so, if you want to try to prove it.
I think you should spend some serious time reading and re-reading what I wrote and stated. You are missing the point, Justin.
Carry on …
Eve will be frustrated by her desire to rule over her husband specifically because he is the male-headship. And Adam will be frustrated in leading her. This illustrates one of the many distortions where instead of enjoying in the perfectness of God’s order of creation we are now frustrated with it (Genesis 3:16).
Even though this affect of the fall is God’s will the greater point that gives those verses context is Genesis 2 and the order of creation. If you read through my comments you’ll find the phrase “order of creation” much more than you will find the word “desire”.
Why haven’t you commented on the order of creation as the basis of my argument in this debate? I hope you’ll answer, I believe it will help everyone understand your argument more clearly.
God’s order of creation is Adam as the male-headship as clearly stated, defined and reinforced through scripture.
My point is not to change your mind. My point is to make my argument by representing my argument with the Bible but without bias. This is not a social issue of the times for me, this is about God’s order of creation.
Justin, I’ll say it again, “The ‘desire’ in this verse is a distortion which is a direct result of the fall; the ‘husband ruling over the woman’ is a distortion which is a direct result of the fall. The broken relationship the woman’s ‘desire’ and the husband’s ‘rule’ both point towards is a direct result of the fall! In other words, the relationship God originally intended has been broken by the fall and enmity remains.”
I’ll also add this, this time: Before the fall there was no “desire” for the woman to “devour” her husband, as you so zealously phrased it; before the fall there was no “rule” for husbands. Why? because the relationship between husband and wife was a relational partnership that was shared. The fall created both the “desire to devour” and male need to “rule,” and the bigger point of this phraseology is not so much the specific gender roles themselves, but the break in the relationship between the story’s only two characters (i.e., Adam and Eve). You are missing the big picture, Justin.
Finally, I’m curious as to where exactly you are sourcing this so-called “Order of Creation.” Again, I think this is where your hermeneutic fails you and then you jump ship. Are you pointing towards the creation narrative, and are you pointing specifically towards the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2? Why not use the 1st creation narrative? You do know there are two, right? There is a creation narrative in Gen.1 and another in Gen 2. So, pick one and we’ll go from there. Further, after you pick one of the two creation narratives, please do tell where you find any material that suggests that the relationship shared between man and woman pre-fall was one built upon the idea of male-headship. Where are you reading this? And, if you do somehow find such material, tell me how is this pre-fall male-headship is different from the distorted male-headship we find in Chapter 3 (it is listed along with all of the other post-fall distortions!). Also, what significance does this “Order of Creation” you see in Gen 2 have in this conversation? What doctrine are you developing from this so-called order of creation? These are all important questions.
The most important question is this: Where, in Genesis, do you find any material that suggests that the relationship shared between man and woman pre-fall was one built upon the idea of male-headship.
Shawn, you’ve asked me to show you where in Genesis I find evidence of male-headship before the fall. I’m eager to do so as Genesis 1-3 is the very foundation of any Biblical argument for gender roles and the text in which all other scripture concerning the matter will point.
I’ll set the context by saying that men and women are equal in the sense that they both bear the image of God equally (Genesis 1) but the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction (Genesis 2).
Also, the model of headship is Christ as the head of the church and the church’s submission to him. Without male-headship marriage makes no sense in reflecting the cross (Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 5:22-24).
Genesis 1:26-28 explains that man and woman alike are created equal in the sense that they both bear the image of God. This gives us our personal worth in Christ. But why does God use the word “man” and not “woman” in speaking of all mankind? Surely if “woman” was sufficient he would have used it, he is God, would he not? Furthermore, God doesn’t even use a neutral term like “peoples”. He uses man. He’s pointing towards his design for male-headship defined in chapter 2.
Genesis 2:18-23 explains the order of creation and that God made the male the head and female the helper. Man is made first and given the responsibility of Eden, then woman is made from man second. Furthermore, God ushers woman to the man and he is given the responsibility of naming her. Finally, the design for marriage is set forth.
The ways in which this could have been different are endless but they were designed in a specific order, a hierarchy, a symphony of events and it is no mistake.
In order to completely grasp this concept you must shed the idea that Biblical gender roles suggest that a woman is in anyway less than a man anymore than a Pastor is better than his congregation or a boss is better than their employee. Our personal worth is designed in Genesis 1.
Why is it so hard to believe in the paradox that man and woman are equal in bearing the image of God, that woman was made from man (Genesis 1) but also uniquely different in complimentary roles, that woman was also made for man (Genesis 2)? After all we believe in the trinity and it’s three parts being equal in glory but unequal in role. God does not exist within the confines of this earth and scripture shows us he’s not concerned with our social conventions – he’s concerned with his glory. In addition the idea that God is uninterested in equality of intellect, aesthetic and wealth is so apparent in our lives and around us.
The notion that Biblical gender roles do not exist and were not part of God’s order of creation is perverse. As scripture tells us it’s quite the opposite.
Everything in Genesis 1, 2 and 3 leading up to the fall gives us our context for reading the affects of the fall in Genesis 3:16. Man and woman were supposed to live in harmony, enjoying their roles. The husband was supposed to lead his wife with enjoyment in a God-glorifying direction and the woman was supposed to be happy as a suitable helper assisting him in that pursuit. But when they fell those roles became frustrated and now the woman will try to reverse them with the desire to rule over her husband and the man will become frustrated in trying to lead his wife in a God-glorifying direction. There are many ways we see this frustration play out in marriage – neglect, violence, nagging, disgust, frustration, dissatisfaction, debauchery and the like.
This is the argument for Biblical gender roles.
Justin, you wrote, “Shawn, you’ve asked me to show you where in Genesis I find evidence of male-headship before the fall. I’m eager to do so as Genesis 1-3 is the very foundation of any Biblical argument for gender roles and the text in which all other scripture concerning the matter will point. I’ll set the context by saying that men and women are equal in the sense that they both bear the image of God equally (Genesis 1) but the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction (Genesis 2).”
Issue NO 1. – Gen 1 (the first creation account) does state that humanity – both genders – reflect the very image of God. We agree. However, show me in Genesis 1 where it says that male-headship as you express it is the standard. Give me a verse number, Justin.
Issue NO 2 – Gen 2 (the second creation narrative which for some reason picks up after God rests on the seventh day) repeats the account of humanity’s creation but adds the part about the rib, flesh of my flesh, and marriage. So far so good, but point me towards the verse that talks about male-headship as you express it. Give me a verse number, Justin.
You also wrote, “Also, the model of headship is Christ as the head of the church and the church’s submission to him. Without male-headship marriage makes no sense in reflecting the cross (Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 5:22-24).”
You fail to see Paul in his context, culture, and mission. Paul’s preaching and applying of the Kingdom of God and its principles was nearly as subversive as Jesus’. You can’t read the Ephesian Household Codes in their fullness without an understanding of this aspect of Paul. Also, it’s hard to submit – in your sense of the word – to a master who told us in word and deed to lead by serving one another (washing feet, for example). I haven’t even touched the Ephesian Household Code yet, and don’t plan on it until we get through Genesis. Don’t worry, we’ll get there too.
Then you wrote, “Genesis 1:26-28 explains that man and woman alike are created equal in the sense that they both bear the image of God. This gives us our personal worth in Christ. But why does God use the word “man” and not “woman” in speaking of all mankind? Surely if “woman” was sufficient he would have used it, he is God, would he not? Furthermore, God doesn’t even use a neutral term like “peoples”. He uses man. He’s pointing towards his design for male-headship defined in chapter 2.”
Justin, this is probably your weakest suggestion so far. Genesis uses the word “man” rather than “woman” for the same reason that the numbers attributed to crowds of people in the New Testament didn’t include women! So, for example, when you read that Jesus feed 5000 people that number doesn’t include women and children (Matthew 14:13–21; Mark 6:31-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-15). It was a patriarchal culture, so women were not included. Do you really think that was God inspiring scripture to not count women? It has nothing to do with weather God wanted to include the word “woman” in these texts; it has everything to do with the culture in which the authors of these texts lived. A bit of the authors shine through, Justin. If we follow your hermeneutic to its logical conclusion, then your church should not count women and children as members, because the Bible doesn’t count them and that must be God’s inspired way, right? That’s not meant to be facetious; I’m totally serious.
You go on, “Genesis 2:18-23 explains the order of creation and that God made the male the head and female the helper. Man is made first and given the responsibility of Eden, then woman is made from man second. Furthermore, God ushers woman to the man and he is given the responsibility of naming her. Finally, the design for marriage is set forth.”
Yeah, I think that if your entire “Order of Creation” suggestion is built upon the story’s chronological order that God created the garden, man, and woman, then you have a few issues to contend with, Justin. 1. You are applying doctrine to a text that does not clearly express doctrine. Where does the text say that male-headship as you express it exists because man was created first? According to this chrono-logic, then men should be slaves to the Garden and the Creatures! The garden and Creatures were created first, before man! But God actually tells man that he has dominion over all of those things, in spite of them being created first! So, in your “Order of Creation,” what you are really saying is: The order doesn’t really matter, as far as authority is concerned, except when I’m talking about the man and woman,” right? 2. The “Order of Creation” you cite in Gen. Chapter 2 is not even present in Gen. Chapter 1. In Chapter 1 man and woman are created simultaneously, it seems, and there is no mention at all of the word “helper.” So, clearly we have a few issues here. How would you solve them? A basic suggestion to get started: Look into a good study of the three authors of Genesis: J (10th century BC), E (9th century), and P (5th century).
You keep going, “Why is it so hard to believe in the paradox that man and woman are equal in bearing the image of God, that woman was made from man (Genesis 1) but also uniquely different in complimentary roles, that woman was also made for man (Genesis 2)?”
It’s not hard to believe that women and men share the image of God in their being, individually and together. I believe that completely. It is hard to believe that a woman can’t be a leader in the church and/or home. It’s hard to believe that a woman can’t teach or instruct a man. Your expression proclaims those sorts of things (and more) and it is wrong and has no basis in the Bible.
You wrote this too, “After all we believe in the trinity and it’s three parts being equal in glory but unequal in role.”
That’s actually heretical. The Godhead is not three parts equal in glory; the Godhead is one being shared by three persons who are unique in identity, according to orthodoxy. Beyond that, I have no idea what this has to do with our conversation about gender roles. I know you are trying to cite the Trinity as the model for your expression of gender roles, but I just don’t think you do so successfully at all.
You wrote this too “God does not exist within the confines of this earth and scripture shows us he’s not concerned with our social conventions – he’s concerned with his glory. In addition the idea that God is uninterested in equality of intellect, aesthetic and wealth is so apparent in our lives and around us.”
Are you serious, Justin? Do you really believe that God’s not concerned with our social conventions? Wow. You really need to read the Gospel again, bro. Jesus talks about social conventions all … the … time …
Finally, you wrote, “The notion that Biblical gender roles do not exist and were not part of God’s order of creation is perverse. As scripture tells us it’s quite the opposite.”
I will kindly ignore your passive aggressive attempt to call me perverse and return your loopy volley with a loving smile and sincere wishes for you to keep on studying and learning the faith about which you are so obviously passionate.
At this point, I think more than enough has been said for both positions to allow people to read and decide for themselves. I do not wish to add 50 more repetitive comments to this thread and thus make the conversation incompressible.
Watch for the next full post regarding this issue and a complete post summarizing the two positions.
[...] was hinted at recently that I myself am a Neo-Calvinist which is ridiculous at best. I don’t believe in the terms [...]