gengwall

Oops – one more thing. I didn’t mean that Promise Keepers as a movement is insidious. I meant that the general appeal to be spiritual leader is. Promise Keepers had its good points.

Cheryl – You missed one important aspect of the Genesis teaching that contributes to the spiritual covering mindset. Mark mentioned it in earlier posts. It is the belief that God’s approaching Adam first has significance in who is accountable in the marriage. Although comps will often admit that Eve is accountable for her sin, they see a kind of super-accountability for the husband over the family. They believe Adam’s being questioned first demonstrates that the husband/father is accountable before God for the operation and conduct of the family, even though the individuals are accountable for their individual sin.

Although I’m sure you can easily dismiss such adding to the text, you should not ignore the strong appeal such a position has, especially for many evangelicals now adays who see the decay of the core family as a result of irresponsible and unaccountable husbands and fathers (not necessary a false assessment). Many women, in particular, desire a spiritual leader in their lives and the lives of their children because they, frankly, have been doing ALL the heavy lifting for years – even generations. When presented with a biblical text that appears to support their appeal for the men in their lives to stand up and be accountable, they cheer, not ever once thinking about the other shoe.

I believe this was the primary reason why Promise Keepers had such initial and overwhelming cross gender support. It is very insidious. Men as the spiritual leaders of church and home sounds very, very appealing even to many women. Especially when Jesus is held up as the model. Especially when men have been so AWOL from any spiritual contribution at all. It all sounds so appealing – just like the fruit in the garden.

This is what I believed for such a long time. I was taught in Evangelical circles that I was supposed to be the “spiritual leader” in my family, and that the pastor and elders were the “spiritual leaders” of the flock. It is so easy to believe because it sounds so good – who could argue that being a spiritual leader is a good thing. The blinders started to fall off when I began asking where my guide-book for being spiritual leader was in scripture. Moreover, I began wondering exactly how this “job” looked in the activities of daily living. When someone would propose that a certain function was the spiritual leader’s, I first turned to scripture to find where such a delegation of duties was outlined. I could never find any biblical teaching to coincide with the human claim. Moreover, every activity that was presented seemed to be universal for all humans, not just a unilaterally male activity. In fact, for many things, it seemed that women were often more gifted than men at doing “x”. At the very least, when I looked at individual marriages, there was no unilateral gender that was better at activity “x”, “y”, or “z”.

So, I have slowly abandoned any trust in the “spiritual leader” teaching. It has freed my wife and I to BOTH lead according to our gifts, and has greatly enhanced the “spiritual” dimension of our marriage and our connectedness to God.

Thansk for all the concern. I will respond briefly so we can get back to the subject at hand.

It was awful – worst flu I have ever been through, but not at all life threatening.
I could not be vaccinated for H1N1 because I am not in a high risk group (children, people with medical complications)
It lasted for the worst part about 5 days (I am still recovering slowly).
Dave – you crack me up.

Now, back to gender wars…er…roles…ah…whatever. My head is still fuzzy. Talk amongst yourselves….

Sorry for the absence. I got H1N1’ed (we think). Trying to catch up.

“Egalitarians argue that there is no creation order in Gen,”

Nonsense. What we argue is this: the fact Adam was created first has no bearing on the marriage relationship and absolutely does not establish any form of hierarchy, either in Genesis, 1 Corinthians, or any other place in the bible. On the contrary, order of “creation” (i.e. birth) was explicitely overturned as a basis for hierarchy in several famous biblical accounts.

Anyone who believes order universally denotes hierarchy has to explain, at the very least, two glaring exceptions: why do the animals not have authority over humans and why did God choose David as King. Once they tackle those two seemingly incontrovertible rebuttals of the order=hierarchy theory, they must explain why Jesus, on several occasions, completely flipped the order paradigm upside down.

So, you see, we do not deny the order of creation in Genesis. But as far as its relation to marriage, or gender based authority in general, based on the truth in the bible including both godly decisions and the teaching of Jesus, we are led, and even admonished, to exclaim “so what”!

I simply can’t hold back any more. Sorry for the length but this simply must be resolved. Below is a breakdown I did some time ago on the use of kephale in the NT. I present this as textual proof that this Greek word is not used to convey authority, let alone authority of the head over the body. Mark – the challenge to you is to prove the opposite from the same texts. I have shown the absence of authority in these texts. Moreover, I have shown the presence of equality. It is no longer sufficient for you to baselessly claim that kephale “was never used in relation between PEOPLE without the notion of authority”, you must prove it. No more circular reasoning, arguments from silence, and simply “sayin’ it’s so”.

The word kephale occurs 75 times in the NT. It is used literally in all the occurrences in the gospels EXCEPT for the synoptic references to Psalm 118 where it is used as “cornerstone”. This is also its use in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:7. All the other non-Pauline uses in Acts and Revelation are essentially literal (referring to a person’s or things anatomical head).

That leaves us with the Pauline uses, which are predominantly metaphorical.

Only in two of those uses – Ephesians 1:22 and Colossians 2:10, is there an implication of authority, rule, or “Lordship” associated with kephale.

In Ephesians, the church, as body, is mentioned in the very same verse. But it is not as the object of Christ’s lordship, but as the benefactor of it. The object of Christly “rule” is every “rule and authority and power and dominion and name” (vs. 21). This authority is given to Christ “for the church, (23) which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Later, in Ephesians 2:6, we are told that God “raised us up with Him (Christ), and seated us with Him in the heavenly {places}…” So, we are seated with Christ “at His (the Father’s) right hand in the heavenly {places,}” (Eph 1:20) and SHARE his authority over the powers, etc. In summary, the authority Christ has as head in Ephesians 1 is not OVER the church but for the benefit of and shared with the church.

Colossians 2:10 expresses a similar vision for Christ’s authority as Head: “and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority”. Although the church/body side of the metaphor is not fleshed out in the text of this passage, it is clear that “you” is the church which is still in view AND “you”, the church, are not the object of the authority which dwells in Christ but are instead the benefactor of it. (this passage has more to do with worldly rules and whether or not we are free in Christ. It is hard to make any marriage parallel here.)

Those are the only two times that authority is referenced in the Pauline metaphorical uses of Christ as “head”. But, of course, Paul uses the metaphor more than that.

The only major passage which uses the head/body metaphor referring strictly to the marriage relationship is Ephesians 5. Complimentarians read authority into that passage but it is not even remotely implied by Paul. In fact, the only thing that headship relates to in Ephesians 5 is love. Complimentarians apparently believe authority and agapeo love can coexist. To me they seem mutually exclusive.

The other major passage which uses kephale and has any semblance of a marriage context (although no corresponding “body” reference) is 1 Corinthians 11. This is, of course, an infamous passage in the comp/egal debate. Cheryl does a great job, IMO, of making the case that head in this passage means source. Anyone can read her verse by verse commentary by looking under her 1 Corinthians 11 section of the blog. What seems to me very clear in this passage is that head does NOT mean “authority”, unless one dogmatically assumes that head universally means authority. Never-the-less, authority is not implied in the passage. Because the passage is more about the conduct of worship and far less about marriage, and is focused on how one shows the glory that is inherent in Christ, it is a very big leap to even assume husbandly authority over the wife is the topic here.

The head/body metaphor is used again in Colossians 1:18. Here, that relationship is simply given amongst a list of the attributes of Christ. In essence, it is stated as a matter of fact. There is no teaching about the head/body relationship involved. Again, no authority can be derived from this brief citation.

The final two references to Christ as “head” are in Ephesians 4:15 and Colossians 2:19. These are kind of a mixed metaphor in that it is using the literal head and body arrangement but referring to Christ and the church. Both passages are very similar. Here is the Colossians (starting with vs. 18):

“Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on {visions} he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, (19) and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.”

These verses have nothing to do with authority but echo much of what Ephesians 5 says about the “head” and support the argument that “head” in Pauline metaphor means something much more closely related to “source”. The church/body “grows out of” Christ/head; Eve was “fashioned” from Adam’s rib; Christ “proceeded forth” from the Father. None of these references imply a hierarchy of authority; one has to read that in based on presumptions about the English word for kephale.

The final instance of head and body being used in metaphor by Paul is in 1 Corinthians 12:21. Here, Christ is not involved. Instead, the “head” refers to any member of the body in relation to other members of the body. The teaching here is that no member of the body, including the head, has more preeminance than any other. In fact, the lesser members of the body are to be elevated “in honor” above the greater. Not only is authority not granted or even in view here, but the passage suggests exactly the opposite relational paradigm – equality.

That’s it – just two direct applications of Christ’s authority as “head”, both of which explicitly remove the “body” as an object of that authority and one that directly imparts that authority equally onto the body. All the other references with head/body as a metaphor lack any authority component. In order for one to believe it, they have to read it into the text (and presume it as a universal truth). That isn’t to say that all those other references don’t teach a lot about headship. On the contrary. But what they teach is that the head, rather than taking authority over the body, is to sacrifice for, serve, nurture, build up, and love the body. Again, if one believes that authority has a place in that list, it has to be read in. The bible surely doesn’t say it.

“2. It was never used in relation between PEOPLE without the notion of authority.”

Wrong!

1 Corinthians 12:21. Head is used metaphorically to represent one person in the body relating to other persons in the body and the context of the verse is specifically the equal standing of all parts of the body from head to foot.

I really don’t know how you can make such a statement Mark. Others have shown over and over how authority is not in view with kephale in either the bible or the contemporary Greek literature. You have yet to coutner any of their claims with any evidence. Instead, you dogmatically insist it implies authority without ever showing an example where it does. To quote one of my favorite lines from Tom Sawyer – “your sayin’ so doesn’t make it so”.

The reality is that you are assuming authority based on a biased cultural paradigm and, as Lin correctly states, the burden of proof is on you. We can’t prove something that isn’t there doesn’t exist. You need to prove that the something that is isn’t there is actually really there. The proof would be within the extended text but Paul never, ever, EVER, says “husbands are in authority over their wives.” Nor does Jesus. Nor does God. Nor does Moses. Nor does Peter. I know you believe that is what they are implying. But you can’t deny they never say it directly. I can’t fathom how it doesn’t make you wonder whay they didn’t say this directly when there are plenty of ways both in Hebrew and Greek to say it directly – ways that are used abundently even by the same authors in other writings within the bible.

This all amounts to circular reasoning. It goes like this.

Comp: “Husbands are in authority!”
Egal: “How do you know that?”
Comp: “Because husbands are ‘head’.”
Egal: “So what?”
Comp: “Well ‘head’ means authority.”
Egal: “How do you know THAT?”
Comp: “Because husbands, who are the head, are in authority – therefore, ‘head’ means authority.”

The same is true for every argument. Here it is regarding created order.

Comp: “Adam was in authority over Eve!”
Egal: “How do you know that?”
Comp: “Because Adam was created first.”
Egal: “So what?”
Comp: “Well first in order has authority.”
Egal: “How do you know THAT?”
Comp: “Because Adam, who was created first, was in authority over Eve – therefore, first in order means authority.”

All we are asking is that you show just one place anywhere in the bible where it says unequivicably (or even marginally) that either first in order is in authority over second or the head is in authority over the body. As Dave is imploring – show us the words.

You, of course, won’t find it. But here is one little glimpse of what you will find. We have mentioned this passage many times before but you ignore it. That won’t make it go away.

Ephesians 1:18 {I pray that} the eyes of our heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, (19) and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. {These are} in accordance with the working of the strength of His might (20) which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly {places,} (21) far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. (22) And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, (23) which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (2:1) And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, (2) in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. (3) Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (4) But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, (5) even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), (6) and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly {places} in Christ Jesus, (7) so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

This comes from the same letter that contains Ephesians 5. The head and body metaphor is used both here and in chapter 4. Several questions/challenges for you Mark.

1. Do you believe Paul uses the head/body metaphor inconsistently in Ephesians, or is Paul consistent in his view of how head and body inter-relate?
2. Show me in the above passage where Christ has authority over the body.
3. Conversely, rebute the plain reading of this text that shows Christ’s authority is over “all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name…”, not over the body, and that this authority is for the benefit of the body, and that the body will be place along side of Christ in the seat of authority and share in His dominion “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name…”

“I would like to see a list of pre fall NON biological attributes of men and women. Where does God say, women will think like this and men will think like that. Where does God say women will be more emotional and men will be stoic?”

Actually, such considerations as how a person thinks and acts are just as biological as they are “nurtured”. I see no reason to believe that ALL the physiological differences between men and women including not only gross anatomy but hormonal levels and brain structure didn’t exist pre-fall just as they do post-fall. Nowhere does the bible say that our fundimental physiological design changed with the fall. All of that as well as culture and nurturing contribute to how we perceive and process stimuli and interact with our world (and of course, each other). There is no issue with being fundimentally different in design when neither design paradigm is “better”.

“this conumdrum for comps was brought home during the last presidential election. While they supported Sarah Palin (me too!) they said her secular work had nothing to do with male leaderhip in the home or church.”

It was fun to watch them try to squirm out of that one (quite unsuccessfully I might add).

I see Cheryl is re-focusing the discussion on ministry (“…functions within the body of Christ…”) which is her perogative and is appropriate given the main theme of her blog. I greatly enjoyed the discussion focused on marriage and know we will have similar ones in the future. Since marriage is my main interest, I will fade back some at this point on this particular thread (I also am way behind blogging myself plus way behind on several projects at home.) I will still be lurking around, but probably will be mostly silent (ha!). Suffice it to say that I don’t believe you can establish equality in the church until you have established equality in the home. An acceptance of male leadership at home prompts, and in some sense, even requires male leadership outside of the home. That reality is why complimentarians can make no compromise in their doctrine of the home, because it would invlaidate their doctrine of the church (or at the very least significantly weaken it). The two are linked not only in realtiy but also in Paul’s “head” and “body” metaphors. So, I suspect and expect a continuing lively discussion. Carry on…

Although it has been done to death, I feel again it is important to completely explore ‘ezer in order to understand that it does NOT mean helper in the sense that complimentarians mean it, i.e. subordinate.

In Exodus 18:4, God is the ‘ezer of Eliezer and His “help” is described as “deliverance” from “the sword of Pharoah. An ‘ezer is a deliverer from harm.

In Deuteronomy 33:7, God is the ‘ezer of Judah, helping him “contend…against his adversaries”. An ‘ezer is a co-contender for a goal or prize and against enemies.

In Deuteronomy 33:26, God is the ‘ezer “who rides the heavens to your help”. An ‘ezer is a rescuer.

In Deuteronomy 33:29, God is the ‘ezer, “the shield of your help”. An ‘ezer is a protector!

And it goes on and on. There is nothing in scripture that possibly can attest to ‘ezer being a subordinate or servant. Surely God is not under the authority of those he helps! Nor is Adam’s ‘ezer, Eve, under Adam’s authority. It would nearly blasphemous to say so. Of course, neither is Adam under Eve’s authority. The whole idea of ‘ezer in relation to God is that he partners with those he helps to accomplish a goal. There is no exerciseing of authority at all in these relationships. Certainly, God is in authority over us in the grand sense. But God is not exercising authority when he is our ‘ezer, he is exercising partnership. Authority or any other hierarchical structure simply is not an element of the word ‘ezer.

I LOVE Lists!

1. Where in Gen 3 does it say Adam ‘intentionally’ sinned. He is charged for ‘listening’ to his wife. This is ‘read into’.

I think we have a symantic disagreement only. Adam was not deceived. This we can agree on, yes? Therefore, when Adam ate the fruit he did it with full knowledge of the consequences. He knew he was going against God. He knewe he was “sinning”. One way to describe that is that he ate the fruit with “intention” to sin because he did indeed know it was against God to do so. But I am open to other word choices. The point is that Adam and Eve sinned from two starkly different standpoints in relation to the sin itself. This is what Cheryl is saying and what I find indisputable.

2. Cheryl’s literal approach has failed to recognise the great implications of sin, since she insists that Eve was not a ‘threat’ to the tree of life. I totally disagree with her doctrine of sin, and as such her analysis of the banishment is suspect in my opinion.

Cheryl will have to respond to this one. I did not appeal to this part of her argument per se in my attempt to gather us together.

3 ALL the key passages for ‘equality’ have not been proven to show this. The’image of God’ has failed to be shown as equal. Adam’s exclamation of Eve really does nothing to promote total equality without distinctions of roles. The ‘one flesh’ verse is never used in scripture to promote the egalitarian view of equality.

I would strongly contend that Genesis 1 and 2 shows us something about how Adam and Eve interrelate. You seem to believe that the chapters have nothing to say about how they interrelate. Correct me if I am wrong. Going on my presupposition, the verses that convey relational insights – 1:27-28; 2:18, 23-24 – can only show one of two different kinds interrelatedness: equlity or hierarchy. Certainly, you can not show any hierarchy within these verses. I believe you have admitted as much. What astonishes me is that you don’t see equality in phrases such as “This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh”, “[the man] shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”, and “I will make a ezer neged [helper/partner/companion/friend/ in front of] for him” to relieve his aloneness. Again, you seem to believe these words say nothing about how Adam and Eve relate to one another. I can;t wrap my mind around that position.

4. I am hesitant to understand if Cheryl believes that the ‘death’ that was promised from God was only physical or spiritual aswell.

I’m sure it was both, but I will let her answer.

Now my view

1. Adam is made first, spoken to first, the primary recipient of God’s banishment. This creation ‘order’ is significant once we begin a looking at other passages. Paul most definately sees a creation order in 1 Cor 11

My brief response is “so what”. Where does the bible say that order=hierarchy? I give a more detailed reponse to the order argument in this post on my blog: http://gengwall.blogspot.com/2008/09/equality-in-original-marriage-design.html. I don’t mean to start yet another debate, but you may want to read it and comment back here. My question to you would be, naturally, what do you make of the fact that the animals were created before man? (I know, or believe, that Cheryl contends the animals, at least in the garden, were created after Adam, but I suspect you do not agree.) And what do you make of all the figures in biblical history that were “created” (i.e. born) after people they subsequently were superior to? And what to you make of Jesus’ decree that “the last shall be first”? I ask those rhetorically. My point is that there is no universal biblical principal and no biblical teaching at all that says first in order means first in hierarchy.

2 God give’s Adam the primary role of the ‘caretaker’ of the garden, and Eve is made as his helper. This does not contradict the mandate to subdue the earth, but fits with it. This is significant if we are going to see that God does actually designate ‘roles’, although we are equal in essence.

I fail to see what Eve’s “role” is then, unless it is secondary caretaker of the garden. But that certainly is not the type of “role” that ezer denotes. And again, I still fail to see how being caretaker over the garden makes Adam the authority over Eve. But I suppose this argument is what men often use when they demand their wives go out and mow the lawn while they sit in their recliner watching the ball game. Is that how you view Adam and Eve’s relationship? Of course, I know you don’t. So I still fail to see any hierarchy or authority even if I accept (which I do) that Adam was primary caretaker of the garden.

3. Adam is the only one who ‘names’ the animals. Likewise Adam ‘names’ his wife. That is a role Eve doesn’t have

Again – “so what”, and also not true. Eve names both Cain and Seth (at least), so she does have a naming role. I address this argument in the same blog post. Again, there is no biblical teaching that says naming something gives you authority over it.

4. Both are equally sinful by rejecting what God has said (there eyes were opened), and in Eve’s case listening to the serpent, and Adam listening to his wife.

This takes us all the way back to your first point at the top of the post. I would tentatively agree that they are equally sinful. I don’t believe there are greater or lesser sins. But the standpoints from which their sin emerged are opposite. One was deceived and one was not. I don;t see how there can be any disagreement about that. And therefore to say that they both “rejected” what God said, while true on the surface, is not exactly equivalent in the details. There rejections were very differently motivated. At any rate, this has little to do with hierarchy, which is at the core of our discusision

5. The ‘one flesh’ verse is used by Paul to demonstrate the covenant with Christ and the Church. This is most definately not ‘equal’ as im sure we will discuss further on.

You correctly sense my disagreement. In the marriage relationship with His church, I do believe that there is equality. But as you suggest, I will leave that to another day.

6. I think an obvious one we didn’t discuss is the physical differences. God coud have made babies any way he wanted, but he chose to make male and female different. Why can you accept that there are obvious physical differences, but God wouldn’t give other differences. This is contradictory to what we know about the different natures, emotions etc that men and women have.

I am so glad you finished in this manner. I absolutely do accept that there are differences beyond the anatomically obvious ones between men and women (I’m not sure why you think otherwise). And I understand that this is a main point underlying the use of the term “complimentarian”. I don’t disagree with that at all. BUT, (warning, other shoe dropping) what of those differences is “superior” in one gender which justifies giving them authority over the other gender? That is the question posed when using the term “egalitarian”. Don’t believe the propoganda from paranoid complimentarians that all egalitarians are radical feminist “sameness” advocates. I have never heard anyone here make the “sameness” argument, and Cheryl in particular is a great advocate for our God designed differences (other contributors are less impressed with the differences and less convinced of their gender universality, but they admit differences beyond the outwardly obvious never the less). But the response to those differences remains – “so what”? How does that give one gender authority over the other?

One last point

” Frankly, if I look at this from a dramatic point of view…”

Nothing in the text makes us think it unfolded this way. Both their eyes were opened. They both made clothes to cover BOTH their shame. They both hid in the garden. Nothing in this makes poor little Eve sound ’shell shocked’. SO therefore it is most dinately NOT fitting to come to this conclusion why God spoke to Adam first. This comes dangerously close to saying that Eve didn’t infact sin. There is nothing innocent about sin. It is a rejection of God. I hope we can all agree on that. Being ‘decieved’ doesn’t make her innocent.

LOL – Like I said, this is me being “dramatic”. I make no claim that this is so. But I just get a feeling that Eve was still not quite all there. Two people can go into a battle and its aftermath and yet be in vastly different psychological states when it comes to the debriefing. Anyway, my point wasn’t that God talked to Adam first so that poor little Eve could get her wits about her. My point was that, regardless of Eve’s state of mind, it was Adam who knew what he was doing at the point he did it and therefore his undeception based sin was more egregious. Nothing I said could be construed to suggest Eve didn’t sin, as she was questioned in turn.

It is best that we not go off on bunny trails. There are several core assertions by Mark and responses by Cheryl that need to be concluded. One in particular interests me (mainly because I too believed it for a long time): that is that Adam is the “leader” of Eve (and the first family). Only one point from Genesis 3 has been put forth to support such an idea: Adam was approached first which designates him the leader.

We do know that Adam was approached first. There is no argument on that point. The question is why (assuming God had a reason and did not simply address the two randomly)? Although “Adam is leader” is certainly possible, Cheryl’s assertion that Adam committed the more egregious act is equally as possible and, I believe, more plausible given the supporting text. What do we have left that can help us determine the proper answer? Cheryl adds the following to her argument:

Adam was not called to answer for Eve (something any leader must do)
Eve was addressed separately and equally by God, both during the “trial” and during “judgement”.
The consequences from Adam’s act were far greater than from Eve’s (bringing death to the world, bringing a curse onto the ground, bringing eviction from the garden, whether for him alone or for them both)
Every biblical writer who has commented on Genesis 3 comes to the above conclusions. Likewise, no biblical writer says one word about Adam being the pre-fall leader of Eve, or of him being accountable for her actions.

My reading of the text, whether in Hebrew or English, accords these arguments the status of fact. Although Mark has rumbled a little against them, I don’t see how anyone can deny that that is exactly what happened.

Conversely, the only argument from the subsequent text that seems to support Adam’s leadership is “he shall rule over you”. Mark takes that as a remedy. I see it as a prophetic consequence. In either case, it is post-fall, so it can’t possibly be used to establish Adamic leadership pre-fall.

So, the only position that garners any evidence from the entire passage is Cheryl’s. Scripture remains mute on any leadership role for Adam pre-fall but has plenty to say about Adam’s crimes. I would maintain that, at the very least, the preponderance of evidence indicates that God sought out the more craven criminal first.

Frankly, if I look at this from a dramatic point of view, I imagine Eve being still a little shell shocked by the whole thing, while Adam knew what he had done all along. It is only fitting that God would deal with the intentional perpetrator before the deceived one.

I would hope that would settle the question. Although some people continue to hold out hope that Adam was Eve’s superior in the garden, it is still a baseless hope. At any rate, God did not deal with Adam in the same way He has dealt with every other accountable “leader” throughout history. That fact in and of itself should eliminate an Adamic leadership paradigm from our minds. If Adam wasn’t called to be accountable for Eve, then Adam simply wasn’t accountable for Eve.

And I hope that the “Eve was deceived; Adam intentionally sinned” debate would be soon resolved. I simply can’t see any other possibility. Frankly, any good complimentarian can’t come to any other conclusion, since, in their interpretation, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman [Eve] was deceived and fell into temptation [in the garden]”. Now, I don’t subscribe to Eve being “the woman”, but a true complimentarian must. Anyway, interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:14b not withstanding, there is a huge amount of evidence just with Paul that Adam’s sin had a different dynamic than Eve’s.

p.s. Thanks Kay – it is actually our 26th this year but we didn’t do anything for our 25th when we, along with the rest of the world, were tightening our belts, so this was out belated celebration.

Kay – I have heard a semi-parallel interpretation, in that it is the “pain” in raising children in a fallen world. In that way, it is less universally female (certainly men are involved in such activities), but still possibly a burden borne more by women than men. Likewise, the burden of wrestling with the soil, while not universally male, is somewhat borne more by males. I know that such ideas raise a whole other boat load of concerns, caveats, and complaints, but they are part of the whole interpretive melieu.

Yeah TL – I don’t really have a problem with that per se, although, as you have said, death in itself is the ultimate punishment. But one can’t deny that the specific whatever-you-call-it, i.e. “pain in childbirth” is uniquely female and appropriately directed only to Eve (and women). That is a reality you need to account for, whatever the terms you use. I will point out that I do see a parallel for men.

The point is that neither gender gets “off scot free” for their sin. But as Cheryl has said, the judgement, if you will, for the woman has a strikingly different structure to it than what befalls the man and serpent. I think on that we agree without question.

TL – Thanks for the input. It is a work in progress and very much a “draft”. I am not hung up much on terms, but a “judgement” to me is “you are guilty” (a foregone conclusion within the charge “because you have done”, IMO), while something like “I will greatly multiply your pain” sure sounds punishing. But “tomAtoe, tomatoe”.

“When God addressed the woman, He did not phrase it as a curse…”

I believe I have said as much. Nowhere do I claim a “curse” for the woman in the outline.

Wow have you all been busy. I have been spending a long weekend with my wife on a belated 25th wedding aniversary in AZ and have fallen far behind. So, I will not try to make up ground, but simply join the discussion in progress.

Cheryl – as a side note, I see parts of Genesis 3:17 as prophetic for the man. Actually, there is a poetic flow to the Genesis 3 account in my opinion. Let me share:

vs 14a – Charge against serpent – The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,”
vs 14b – Curse against serpent – “Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field;”
vs 14c – Punishment against serpent – “On your belly you will go; and dust you will eat all the days of your life;”
vs 15 – Prophecy for serpent/Eve – “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”
vs 16a – Punishment against Eve (females) – To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children;”
vs 16b – Prophecy for Adam/Eve – “Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Vs 16 completes a pattern – Charge, Curse, Punishment, Prophecy, Punishment, Prophecy. In verse 17 the pattern begins again.

vs 17a – Charge against Adam – Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;”
vs 17b – Curse against Adam – “Cursed is the ground because of you;”
vs 17c – Punishment against Adam/mankind – “”In toil you will eat of it [the ground] all the days of your life”
vs 17d – Prophecy for Adam/mankind – “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you”
vs 17e – Punishment against Adam (males) – “By the sweat of your face You will eat bread”
vs 17f – Prophecy for Adam/mankind – “Till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken”

Furthermore, each of the 4 punishments outlines a difficulty in life:
For the serpent in 14c – difficulty surviving (or, perhaps, thriving)
For Eve (females) in 16a – difficulty accomplishing the population mandate for humanity.
For Adam and mankind in 17c – again, difficulty surviving
For Adam (males) in 17e – difficulty accomplishing the dominion (over the earth) mandate for humanity.

Note that the mandates are given to man and woman equally, but the difficulties in each seem to have some (although not universal) gender specificity.

And each of the 4 Prophecies outlines a type of warfare in life:
For the serpent and Eve in 15 – warfare in the spiritual realm
For Adam and Eve in 16b – warfare in marriage
For Adam and mankind in 17d – warfare with the earth (ground)
For mankind in 17f – warefare within our mortal bodies (which we will lose)

Just some food for thought. Of course, Cheryl’s points are so important – each character in the drama is addressed directly and individually, Adam does not speak for Eve, nor Eve for Adam, nobody gets off without punishment, but only the serpent and Adam are charged and have curses related to their actions.

It is not insignificant that Genesis 2:5 says “there was not a ‘adam (human) to till the ground”, not “there was not a ish (male)…” Maintening the garden was not “men’s work”, it was “human’s” work.

Mark – “I also disagree with TL who claims ‘ezer kenegdo’ means equal. This word is used in other parts of the OT in reference to God being our help. Surely we are not equal with God.”

Ah yes, but certainly, God in the “role” of “helper” is not inferior or under the leadership of us! The stress of ezer in this as in other uses related to God as helper is a partnering to accomplish a task that one alone can not accomplish. Adam didn’t need a servant, nor did he need someone to lead. Adam needed a partner because he was not able to fulfill his responsibilities, nor was his life fulfilling, without a “corresponding partner”, his ezer kenegdo. Contrary to your assertion, the text of Genesis 2 from ezer to “one flesh”, and most certainly the joint “rule” and equal image bearing for males and females in Genesis 1, do indicate “equality”.

This equality, of course, does not also indicate sameness. Adam and Eve, men and women, are certainly not the same, even though we are equal. Certainly, men and women will take different approaches to our joint responsibilities.

So I would definately disagree with your weighing of arguments. There is not an absence of equality support in Genesis 2. On the contrary, everything about Genesis 2 points to the equality between the man and the woman. It is only the hierarchy argument that lacks any backing in the text.

“What i see throughout the rest of scripture is mens leadrship resposibilities and so i believe that same was there at creation.”

First of all, men are not the only leaders throughout scripture. So there is no unilateral, universal “mens leadership” to back your claim. Second – reliance on the historical male dominance perpetrated by fallen males is hardly a hook to hang your hat on. My challenge to you is to find any biblical teaching where God says men are the leaders in marriage. I have searched far and wide and have found none. Maybe you will have better luck. What I have found is that wherever the bible teaches about godly marriage, equality is the rule. Wherever biblical history records the foibles of fleshly marital relationships, male “rule” causes nothing but harm.

Mark – as to question 1, yes, Adam and Eve were equal in Genesis 2. But, the fall did not make them unequal in reality, even if males would view them as unequal. The idea of a hierarchical authority structure as God’s design is completely man made. (Actually, it is Satan made). It did not exist in Genesis 2 and God changed nothing about the design of marriage in Genesis 3. It was sin that changed the marital relationship! Humans, in their fallen state, have perpetuated that unholy view of marriage by creating a hierarchy, just as God said they would do. But in God’s eyes, men and women have never stopped being equal.

My belief is that Paul is addressing marriage in such detail here to point married couples back to the Genesis 2 relationship. In order to do that, he needs to instruct each gender about each gender’s weakness caused by the fall. That is why he address submission to wives and love to husbands – because in relation to their spouse, and as a result of the fall, that is the particular area they are weak in. Nothing in Paul’s teaching suggests a hierarchy or one spouses authority over the other. Quite the contrary – Paul is intentionally stepping in to break down the man made authority and hierarchy that the fall produced.

TL – Gengwall, what do you mean by ‘free submission’?”

Just echoing Cheryl. What I believe she is getting at is that, rather than the forced submission prevalent in the culture of the time, Paul is calling wives to freely submit to their husbands. It is a voluntary act of the will. Wives would naturally have a difficult time doing that since they had only known forced submission. So Paul needs to take extra steps to encourage them.

Hi Mark. I agree with Cheryl in comment 79 to a great degree*. That is, I agree that Paul is addressing gender specific problem areas. what is important to note is that just because wives are told to submit and husbands to love, that doesn’t mean that husbands aren’t ever to submit any more than it means wives aren’t ever to love. Do you see the parallelism? Paul’s instructions are not for one gender to universally and unilaterally do one thing while the other gender does another. Submission and love are to be characteristics of all believers toward each other. But, and it is a big but, the dynamics are such in the unique relationship of marriage that each gender needs extra instruction, or, might I say, encouragement, to address areas they are weak in when it comes to marriage under a fallen world. Such instruction would have never been necessary in the pre fall world. But the fall has made such instruction essential.

*The small quibble that Cheryl and I have deals with the cause of the female state of resistance to free submission. Whereas Cheryl believes the resistance of wives to free submission is culturally based (and is therefore somewhat impermanent), I believe it goes all the way back to the fall (and is therefore a permanent condition). It is a small difference that doesn’t detract at all from the reason Paul gives his instructions in such a gender specific way.

sm – I too have asked that question and similar ones many times. “What does that look like in real, practical, day to day terms”? I get nothing but silence or, at best, vague, fluff answers like you mention. The reality is that this “universal, unilateral male leadership” view is completely impractical and impossible to implement in the real lives of real human beings – that is, not without the marriage suffering all kinds of hurt and neglect, if not outright abuse.

sm – The answer by a complimentarian to your first question would be “no”. I think complimentarians would argue that men lead other men to become more like Christ, and men lead women. They would further argue that men have been “designed” to lead and therefore are the natural and God directed leaders of the human race. So, a man uniquely leads a wife by following his God given leadership design (of course, using Christ’s leading and example as a guide and the “iron sharpening iron” from other men as a check and balance).

The problem with all of this reasoning is that it is completely made up; there is no scriptural basis for it.

ezer neged

I don’t mind the NASB – “helper suitable”, although the use of “suitable” might make one think of a suitable servant or something of the sort. It also doesn’t exactly capture the idea of neged. The New KJV comes closer yet, with “helper comparable”. scripture4all.org’s literal translation is “helper as in front of him”. With that literal definition (neged is often translated “opposite” or “before”, i.e. in front of), I like “corresponding” as a closer translation of neged. That would render it “helper corresponding to him” or “corresponding helper”.

Some others that aren’t bad.
NLT – “a companion who will help him”
Young’s – “to him an helper — as his counterpart”
Darby – “a helpmate, his like”
CEV – “suitable partner”

That last uses the questionable “suitable” but also introduces a stronger word for ezer. In this verse, ezer potentially needs some power behind it since “helper” tends to bring to mind subservience. (It of course couldn’t be viewed that way if someone studies the use of ezer throughout the scriptures, but I am assuming that a student is looking at Genesis 2:18 as a standalone) “Partner”, I think, still carries the spirit of ezer but entirely eliminates the thought of hierarchy.

Therefore, my preferred translation of ezer neged is “corresponding partner” or “partner corresponding to him”. That is a bit clinical, I confess, but for me it captures the truth of what Eve was created to be. Most of all, in my mind, it conveys the essence and fullness of God’s creative work in humanity. Man and woman are equal; “partner” leaves no doubt about that. But “equal” does not mean “same”. “Corresponding” captures the idea of two unique but matching parts that, put together, make a perfect whole.

“I think it would be a good idea at some point to cover the issue of a woman’s “covering” to see where these groups get such an idea and why it is unbiblical. When I am not so busy, I would like to work around that one.”

That would be great, Cheryl, and I will wait with great anticipation for that. I have been working on an Genesis 2/Ephesians 5 marriage model for about a year now. As I fiddle with certain terminology to convey certain ideas, on term I came up with for the positive masculine contribution to marriage was “covering strength”. I will look forward to your ideas on “covering” to see if it you find it universally unbiblical in regards to men or only unbiblical in the way that complimentarians are using it. (I especially am curious about your take on Ezekirl 16:8 and God’s “covering” of Jerusalem in a clear metaphor for marriage). I know it is a little OT here, but I am glad it is on your list for future commentary.

I can not speak from the woman’s perspective, but I can share a couple of observations in general.

Many people are fairly content in the complimentarian life style and church because the men in their lives don’t “lord it over” them. The women are happy to have a strong leader to look up to and don’t themselves feel qualified to lead. (I’m not making a statement as to whether or not that is positive, just that it is a reality). Unless real abuse is taking place, these women are…well…happy. Some would say that their happiness is a fantasy, but I disagree. I really do think they are satisfied with that life style. Now, it could be argued that they could be far more satisfied if they were able to live life to the fullest and “be all they can be”. But they would argue in return that they are allowed that, and how there are is how they want to be. I would describe my wife’s grandparents on her mothers side (I never knew her other set) as this type of couple. He was definately the patriarch, but he was loving and supportive of his wife (she had many hobbies and an in home business) and they did not appear to be in want of anything from a relational aspect.

There are others who look to be living the complimentarian life style on the outside (husband is provider/protector, wife is home maker/nurturer) but if you examine their day to day living, you see that they are actually quite egalitarian. Though they may look traditional (and patriarchal), they have an equal partnership. I would describe both sets of my grandparents, and my and my wife’s parents in this category.

Then there are those who, because of the cherry picked teaching they have been brought up with, simply believe this is how God designed it. Although they are not quite content, and although they are not quite equal, they still have a good life and believe all is well and godly. (Maybe Cheryl’s marriage fits most closely with this). Still, there is something that just isn’t quite right, but because they are taught that this is the way it should be, they can’t quite put their finger on why they feel so unfulfilled.

Now, all three of these situations lack any abuse. Obviously, there are other paradigms that come into play that cause a woman to stay in an abusive situation. But these are three fairly normal reasons why I think they may stay. Others here have much more despicable situations that they have lived through and I’m sure will fill you in.

And this says nothing about how the church operates. As I said before, the church we have attended for years is complimentarian “light”. They allow only male elders and pastor, but in all other visible ways, seem very egalitarian. I have commented here before that I am actually almost completely ignorant of strict complimentarian churches, despite the various denominational backgrounds I have been exposed to through my marriage and family.

Gen. 3:15-16 informs us that the male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation…

Most complementarians understand the curse of the woman in 3:16 to mean that sin would bring about in Eve a wrongful desire to rule over her husband (contrary to God’s created design), and that in response, Adam would have to assert his rule over her.

What an extraordinary contradiction. Ware conceeds that Genesis 3:16 outlines “a mutual enmity” between the man and the woman but then goes on to describe Adam’s “enmity” as a positive remedy to Eve’s. If rularship is an act of “deep-seated…hatred” (American Heritage Dictionary – “enmity”) on the part of Adam toward Eve, then how can it be a positive godly remedy to Eve’s corresponding enmity? Maybe Ware has not ever heard that “two wrongs don’t make a right”.

Moreover, if this was to be a God directed remedy to Eve’s rebellion, why did God not issue the command to rule directly to Adam? After all, Ware claims that “Adam would have to assert his rule over her”. That presumes it was not asserted prior to the fall (although, mysteriously, was available as an option for Adam???) Since God is now dictating that something needs to happen that has never happened before, wouldn’t you think God would give Adam a little shove? Does God think Adam will just pick up His meaning and run with it?

Of course, this is all absurd. God’s chastisement of the parties involved with the fall contains nothing positive to say about any of them. “Desire” and “rule” are consequences of sin entering the world. The marriage relationship, which was once selfless, loving, and EQUAL, would now be full of pettiness, selfishness, and enmity (Ware got that part right). Patriarchialists basically are equating sinful consequences with godly remedies. Can these two coexist? No, the correct question is even more dire: can they be synonymous? As Paul might say: “may it never be!” There simply is no good news in Genesis 3:16 (the good news came a verse before), and any attempt to find virtue in fallen humans in that verse is not only folly, it is fantasy.

I’m so glad you followed up your last post with this one. The patriarchal view of Genesis 1-3 is so distorted and unfounded that it makes me want to scream. Well done as always.

I wrote a refutation some time back on the various patriarchal arguments for male rule. Here is a little of what I had to say on this particular idea (naming means ruler):

“Your Delta Tau Chi name is…”

In the movie Animal House, there are several ways in which the fraternity members exercise authority over their new pledges. One of them is by giving each pledge a new name. This concept of “naming = possession of/authority over” is certainly not new. Like birthright, it has been a staple of societies throughout history. Even our common practice of having the new wife “take the name” of her husband is a reflection of the patriarchal notion that a woman is the property of her husband. So goes the naming argument when applied to the first marriage. Because Adam named Eve (twice, no less), he automatically assumes a position of superiority, authority, and ownership over her, and she becomes subservient to him. So what is wrong with this reasoning?

First of all, it is again, man made. God has never said that naming something gives you dominion over that something. Humans don’t have dominion over the animals because Adam named them; they have dominion because God delegated it to them. The dominion would exist whether Adam named the animals or not. The naming of the animals was simply a function that Adam performed – part of his on the job training. Moreover, as we have already discussed, the dominion role was given to all humans, male and female. Presumably, if there were animals left to name, Eve would have been just as qualified and empowered to name some of them.

In fact, nowhere in the bible does it say that it is the male’s unilateral job to name anything, nor does it say anywhere that naming something gives you authority over or possession of that thing. That is a cultural standard, not a biblical teaching. In fact, there are many significant cases of women naming things (mostly children). Are we to assume that Eve had sole dominion and authority over Able and Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25) because she named them instead of Adam? What about the command of the angel that Mary was to name Jesus (Luke 1:31)? Did that cut Joseph out of the picture in terms of having authority over his son? In reality, the naming of something does not grant any authority that does not already exist. Parents have authority over their children not because they name them but because they simply are their parents. Humans have dominion over creation not because we name the animals but because God has designated us to rule over the earth. Naming is simply a necessary task with no inherent godly grant of superiority associated with it at all. The fact that we attach human significance to the act of naming does not impress God.