sm

Yes, the most obvious conclusion is that Adam’s declaration is “nothing more than his joyful recognition that his ‘ezer neged’ has finally arrived.”

In the study of literature from any genre, all too often the simplicity of the message is lost in the over analyzing and in particular in the defending of an argument by reducing the whole to its parts.

Reading again this portion with the purpose of Genesis in mind, in view of the whole of scripture which reveals God’s intent from the beginning that marriage reflect the a “one-flesh union” between Christ’s and His Church, and in light of the glorious reality we now experience of God’s intent as members of His Bride, there is a simple and beautiful declaration in Adam’s poetic response to the woman. (Mark alluded to the poetic element in #94).
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

In response to seeing the woman, Adam waxed poetic. Poetry by its very nature is emotive. Poetry is not a cerebral response but an affective response. He proclaims that she is one like him—of him. After sorting animals, his emotion is stirred upon seeing Eve, and he proclaims, “Alas! This creature is like me. I recognize her as being of like substance.” His response may include an identification, but that, in my opinion, would be incidental and inconsequential to the intent of his lyrical response because the whole of the poem is that he recognizes one like him for she is of his substance, taken from him. He poetically acknowledges their shared quality.

The commentary in verse 24 explains that it is this emotive response by a man to a woman that compels a man to establish a unique emotional relationship with a woman which culminates in a beautiful expression that mirrors the reality of what has taken place in the heart—two bodies become one.

Poetry is not a cerebral exercise of analysis or diagnosis; therefore, it not analytical or diagnostic. Nothing in these lines of poetry, in the greater narrative of Genesis, of in the meta-narrative of scripture hint of an academic exercise of a role or responsibility by Adam to name the creature. To read this strikingly stirring response as an exercise of Adam’s diagnostic authority and leadership is to dismiss the very nature of his response and to miss the point completely.

Mark, if you can perceive that “Adam’s post fall naming is more a declaration of God’s promise than it is sinful lordship” and a “recognition of God’s grace” (#94), is it inconceivable that Adam’s pre-fall declaration in this poem is not an exercise of authority but a response of joy, happiness, and love in recognizing one who is like him and fits him?

(Cheryl, I accidentally posted this under the post about women being more easily decieved. I regret that. Feel free to delete that post as it was intended for this topic.)

Mark at #8 wrote: “I dont think comp theology believes that men and women are different spiritually.”

Then why does one gender need an earthly spiritual leader and the other doesn’t. If one says it is because of “design,” it seems to me that would suggest “design differences”. Therefore, what is the innate difference in females relative to males that predisposes them for the necessity of a male spiritual leader? I think this is in line with Cheryl’s question about design.

I think gengwall has really hit on something, here and on another post on this blog, regarding deconstructing the position by comps that males are divinely, inherently designed for bearing the “burden of responsibility” for authority over their wives.

In following this new concept (for me anyway), I have read much and listened to many sermons that say men were designed for leadership and authority over their wives. Yet, in the next breath it is explained that Adam went passive in the Genesis account by allowing Eve to exert leadership. If Adam was designed for leadership then why of all times IN his pre-fall nature would he “go passive”? Wouldn’t the inherent nature for exerting leadership and exercising authority “kick-in”, particularly in his pre-fall state?
I have yet to find an explanation of the physiological, psychological, emotional, intellectual, or any other type of advantage that males have over females for leadership and authority. I have heard in a few sermons that leadership and position of authority over wives is in the male DNA? However, there is no science given to support this claim. I am curious if anyone has heard an explanation as to this supposed advantage.

Dave, I took it as a joke. You’re refreshing humor comes across well. Read mine as a joke of sorts, too, except that it truly can be a problem for a frustrated wife….

Lin : ”And, btw…I have known people where the problem with sex overdrive was the wife, not the husband.”

Dave: “I do not understand…this is a problem?” (with emoticon, IDK how)

SM: “The problem is *hers* particularly if there is no ‘joyful submission’ on the part of her husband in the faithful practice of the text we have undertaken.”

I hope that helps.

“ In CBMW’s book there is only one short reference to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 in the overview section under question #46. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood says:

‘But this text definitely shapes that leadership and gives added Biblical guidance for how to work it out. It makes it clear that leadership will not involve selfish unilateral choices. He will always strive for the ideal of agreement.’”

What’s in a name? Leadership that does not involve selfish unilateral choices but strives for the ideal of agreement smells like mutuality.

I would also add to that last comment:

…or that prevent a spouse from faithfully fulfilling their responsibilities or obligations to the relationship.

Dave, the problem is *hers* particularly if there is no “joyful submission” on the part of her husband in the faithful practice of the text we have undertaken.
“…if everyone had equal sex drive then Paul would never have needed to say anything.” Exactly! Great point.
Dave wrote: #113 “…when we look at 1 Cor 7:3-4 we should note that the conjugal rights (i.e. sex) are only a part of the jurisdiction of the governing authority that has authority over the entire body of the spouse. The implication is that the authority extends to more than just sex…”
It seems to me that the jurisdiction of the governing authority extends to a spouse’s spiritual disciplines regardless of how honorable they may be, if they have implications that infringe upon or disadvantage the other spouse.

The following is excerpted from a series of post called Sexual Detox from challies.com and is, I think, related. Challies does acknowledge the authority of each spouse over the other’s body but still hold to male leadership in the area of sex. I am not sure how that is reconciled as he didn’t answer my questions.

http://www.challies.com/archives/christian-living/sexual-detox-ii-a-theology-of-sex.php

“Unequal Desire
Yet sexual desire, the appetite for sex, is not given in equal measure. It is typically given in greater part to men. Why is this? The answer, I’m convinced, goes right to the heart of the husband-wife relationship. God commands that men, husbands, be leaders. Men are to take the leading role while women are to follow. God intends that men take leadership even in sex and, therefore, he gives to men a greater desire for it. This way men can lead their wives, taking the initiative, taking care to love their wives in such a way that they wish to have sex with their husbands. Generally speaking, a man finds intimacy and acceptance through sex while a woman needs to first experience intimacy and acceptance before she can be prepared to enjoy sex. And so God gives the man a sexual appetite so he can in turn provide for his wife’s needs before she provides for his. His sexual appetite cannot be separated from his leadership.”

Here are the questions I posted that went unanswered:

“Men are created to be initiators (leaders in sex) and women responders, but if, however, in the sphere of sex women are given a pass to initiate (lead in sex “indicate” or “woo”) which could quite possibly be a rather frequent or at least a regular occurrence, is it possible that women could lead or take initiative in other areas as well?

Specifically how does the Bible outline clearly that “God’s normal plan” is that men take leadership in the area of sex? What scriptures clearly set out this tenet?

I noticed when asked if a wife may initiate sex, you responded a wife may “indicate that she would like to have sex” and that she may “woo” her husband? Do you consider this behavior taking initiative? Is there a level of subtlety that is to be maintained so as not venture into initiation or leadership?

Do you believe that God’s plan is for men to take leadership in the husband-wife relationship? If so, is it a sin for a man to abdicate his leadership role as it relates to being a provider, protector, spiritual leader or in any other way a man is suppose to exercise leadership? If so, then wouldn’t it be a sin for a man to abdicate leadership in the area of sex if it is God’s normal plan for man to be the leader in the sexual relationship?

Is it a violation of God’s design for womanhood for a wife to exercise leadership in a way that was God’s intention for man—i.e. provision, protection, spirituality? If so, wouldn’t it be a sin (violation of God’s design and plan for manhood and womanhood) for the wife lead out in the area of sex?

At the very least, if one does not know if it is a sin for a man to abdicate his leadership role in the area of sex, wouldn’t it be best to advise against it?

If leadership is rooted in an innate greater sexual desire, would a female/wife with a greater sexual appetite than her husband therefore be the leader? If a wife has a greater sexual appetite than her husband, would it not be aberrant?”

This whole topic is intriguing b/c it seems to hinge on absolutes that are not. Since discovering this issue, I hear and read that men are to initiate, they are innately and divinely designed as initators, but however, a woman can initiate sex b/c men like that. This is just one among many.

IF a woman is a responder and divinely and innately designed to be so, she should only respond b/c to do otherwise would violate God’s good design, right? IF it is wrong for a man to abdicate his leadership in provision, protection, etc., wouldn’t it be wrong to abdicate his leadership in sex irrespective of his interest and arousal by his wife’s initiating sexual b/c as Challies says God created men w/ a greater sex drive b/c he designed and intended them to lead in sex? Wouldn’t that be leading her into sin if he so desired such and encouraged it? At what point, after how many sexual intiatives would the wife be venturing into full-fledged sexual leadership and not just “wooing” or “indicating she wants to have sex”? Are their degrees of “wooing” as has been discussed in this thread already, I believe. (I’ve been reading Burleson’s, too, so I hope I have not confused the two.)
I would like to know how comps would answer these questions and account for the inconsistency.

gengwall: “Some may say that although the authority appears reciprocal in 1 Cor 7 it really isn’t because of the differences in sex drive. Since the male sex drive is so much greater than that of the female, the authority he wields over her is proportionally greater. Therefore, he can in a sense overrule her authority in relation to intimate relation and there is a hierarchy which needs to be submitted to. What say you to that?”

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/hormone.html

“However, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that because women have less testosterone than men do, they have lower sexual interest than their male counterparts. Instead, it seems that women detect and react to much smaller amounts of testosterone in their circulation than men do.”

Mark,

Mark: “3. In relation to head covering- since the passage has nothing to do with mourning and is clearly dealing with husband/wife relationships it is easy to make the parallel. There is no benefit in bringing in all these other non related topics when the context of the passage is not dealing with those.”

From the links Cheryl provided, the head covering as a symbol of mourning was only one of several. Even though it is clearly dealing with the husband/wife relationship, it is not so easy for me to make the parallel as to why this would have been an issue of shame because I am so far removed from time and place. If by “non-related topics” you mean the reasons Cheryl gave in her links, I don’t know, but, I do know that the passage is dealing with head covering, and it is important to know why this would have been shameful to a wife’s husband. The text doesn’t tell us why it would “shame her head” and why a man’s “head” is shamed if he does cover. Is it covering for women binding today? If not, why not?

Mark,

Verse 11-12- “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.”

Mark: “Again the interdependence of husband and wife is closely knitted to the ‘one flesh’ union at creation.”

I think these verses unquestionably characterize the interdependence of the sexes. However, I do not see how this is “closely knitted to the ‘one flesh’ union at creation” because while woman (Eve) initially had her origin/source from man (Adam) man (all others) continue to be born of woman (their mother).

Mark: “She is his glory and bears his authority, yet they are inseparabley one,… These verses imply the deep spiritual, emotional and sexual union shared by husband and wife-…”

I do not see any hint of authority in these verses, rather the clearly stated reality of interdependence of the sexes…. “woman is not independent of man nor man of woman” “woman was made from man” (source) “man is now born of woman” It took a man to get woman, but all other men come through a woman. Interdependence.

Moreover, I do not see these verses implying anything about a deep spiritual, emotional, and sexual union shared by a husband and wife. What is obvious is interdependence and source: woman was made from man, yet man is born of woman. Can you show me what I am missing?

Mark: “…everything is from God.”

Yes. Interdependence of the males and females one coming from the other but both originating from God.

Mark: “Also note that although the woman is under the authority of her husband, both are under the authority of God.”

There is no mention of authority but rather of interdependence between the created beings and their dependence on their Creator God from where they came.

Mark or Anybody,

Why was it a shameful act for a married woman to uncover her head while praying or prophesying? (I read the links. I am still sorting through that.)

I believe it was a cultural understanding and that it is no longer binding. However, if complementarians believe it was a sign of submission to a higher ranking head, which is what I understand them to be saying, then why do they not hold to veil covering by women today as a sign of submission? Is there an external sign of submission that is equivalent to the coverning?

I , too, do not know what “creation order of male headship” means. By itself, “headship” is a new word for me. I am trying to understand it as it is used in relation to this issue. “Headship” to a complementarian, if I understand, means hierarchy–male superiority and female subordination. I can not yet determine if egalitarians believe in a “headship” and if so, what exactly it means.

I see further down where Mark did explain what he identifies as the “pastoral problem”:

“Also it appears that although women were now allowed to participate along with the men with this gift, they had thus rejected the creation order of male headship. Yes women could now prophecy, but no they should not be dishonouring their husbands with an uncovered head. This is now the root problem Paul is addressing, women who were not being respectful to their ‘head’. It is again another picture of the Corinthians over-realised eschatology. The inauguration of the Kingdom and the gifting of the Spirit did not override God’s creational order and men’s headship…”

Is it an oversimplification to identify the “pastoral problem” as dismissing propriety–married women praying or prophesying with an uncovered head? I see that Mark does identify this as “the root problem” being adressed.

Mark or anybody,

What exactly was the “pastoral problem, namely the issue between the husbands/wives” that is being addressed by this portion of scripture?

Mark,

Mark writes:“My view is this- men and women are equal in essence, in the image fo God, but not in function. e.g- Adam is commissioned to look after the Garden and Eve isnt- she is his helper.”

In Genesis, both male and female were given the same functions– procreator, multiplier, replenisher, and subduer. One was not the leader procreator and the other an assistant or subordinate procreator. One was not the leader multiplier and the other an assistant or subordinate multiplier and so on. The accomplishment of the tasks is dependent on each participating in their shared functions as procreator, multiplier, and replenisher according to their unique physical design.

Mark,

Again, there are those here who have obviously given this much more thought than I and may be better equipped to handle your questions. I think our host has already answered this, but I’ll take a go at it.

You asked: “Why is it that wifes are told to submit? Why is it that husbands are told not to be harsh? There are specific commands given to each gender in the bible. We should not mesh everything to say the same things always apply to everyone- this is not what the bible does.”

The epistles were addressing real people in a specific culture, in real time with a set of circumstances some of which we may not be completely aware. The instructions given to the original audience in their specific set of circumstances contain general principles from which we post-modern westerners can gain. I certainly would not say they are gender-specific commands and apply at all times and in all circumstances, and I would not say “we should not mesh everything to say the same things always apply to everyone.”

For example, if we should not mesh everything to say the same things always apply to everyone, then can wives be harsh? Are women not allowed to lift up their holy hands in prayer without anger? Are men not allowed to learn? Are men permitted to dress immodestly, indecently and without propriety? And, if fathers (males) are not to provoke their children to anger, are mothers (females) allowed to embitter their children? Of course not.

Mark,

Is my understanding correct? Are you saying: Eve, a female, because she was created to be a “help meet” is assigned a subordinate helper role in a hierarchy in relation to Adam, the male, who is assigned a leader role and given a superior position in the hierarchy just because “the man” was directly addressed about the banishment?

I see that as equivalent to saying: Adam, a male, because he felt as if he was lacking something and needed someone is assigned a subordinate role in a hierarchy in relation to Eve, the female, who is assigned a superior role because she is created because she was needed in order to alleviate Adam’s sense of loneliness or need for a companion. Is it not?

While the latter is ridiculous, at least this scenario of supposed superior/subordinate role assignments is based on objective criteria rather than being based on the assumed significance of “the man” being addressed regarding banishment with disregard to the larger context.

Mark,

You write: “My view is this- men and women are equal in essence, in the image fo God, but not in function. e.g- Adam is commissioned to look after the Garden and Eve isnt- she is his helper.”

How do you reconcile “Adam is commissioned to look after the Garden and Eve isn’t-she is his helper” with both male and female were to be fruitful, multiply, replenish, subdue and rule (care) for the earth?

You continue: “Does this make Eve any less a person or less important,not at all. They simply have different roles to play in God’s created world, both equally precious in the eyes of God. I do not think Eve or women are less important, loved etc”

I do not see that they have different roles to play in God’s created world. I read from the text that both were give the same responsibility to be fruitful, multiply, replenish, subdue, and rule or care for the earth. There is no hierarchy but rather a glorious harmony–partnership.

You continue: “If Adam is the ‘leader’ of Eve, it makes perfect sense that he is the one spoken to by God in those circumstances.”

The caveat is “IF”. I read that both were spoken to by God.

You continue: “In fact throughout scripture it is the ‘leaders’ who are held more accountable for their actions over people, look through the historical books and prophets to see this outlined very clearly.”

I understand that kings, rulers, etc. where held to a high standard of justice towards their subjects or those they governed. A breach of this standard was more grievous because as kings, rulers, etc. were not to use their position for their own advantage or to abuse their power. When Samuel approached David regarding his sin, David understood that he was the man who was culpable and deserving of death–the same sentence of any man caught in adultery. His sin was more offensive because he being a king had access to many lambs but took the man who only had one. He abused his position and power in adultery and in the murder of Uriah.

If you are using this to say that as a leader Adam was held to more of an account for his actions, then please explain how the consequences of the fall are greater for him in comparison to the consequences of the fall for Eve and explain how his consequences are commensurate with the greater responsibility you say he had in comparison to the responsiblity that Eve was given keeping Ge 1:26-27 in mind.

You write: “The reason i ask about the ‘image of God’ stuff is because this is a constant fall back for egalitarian position. Maybe you dont hold to that particular teaching, im not sure?”

What exactly is the “image of God’ stuff” that is a “fall back” for the egalitarian position?

I just posted a quick response to this.

Mark asks: “What does it mean to be created in the image of God? Is it equality?”

Being created in the image of God does not mean equality with God. I have not studied how the original audience would have understood this which I believe would be key. I suspect, however, they would have understood it in relation to what closely follows which was humanity was created in the image and likeness of God, and together as partners male and female were to subdue the earth. To be good stewards of God’s creation in fulfilling this task would require the capacity for complex language, cognition, creativity, etc. Additionally, created for relationship with God and with each other, male and female created in the likeness of God would have to include the capacity for love and communion. This is not intended to be exhaustive.

Answers to other questions are forth coming.

Mark,

Mark writes: “i dont try to gain my hierarchy from Gen 1:26-27 explicitly. What i see throughout the rest of scripture is mens leadrship resposibilities and so i believe that same was there at creation. Adams responsibilty for what happened, his banishment, his conversions with God is consistent with this in my view. Could you please explain how you get equality in roles from being made in ‘the image of God’”

Divinely sanctioned hierarchy between a husband and wife relationship is no where expressly stated in scripture. What I suspect you see as “leadership responsibilities” throughout the rest of scripture, I see as counter-cultural calls to adopt virtues and character that reflect the kingdom ethic. I can’t wrap my mind around you seeing hierarchy in a husband and wife relationship because in Adam’s banishment “the man” was solely addressed even though you wrote you believe they were both banished.

Additionally, I can’t wrap my mind around you seeing hierarchy from Adam’s conversations with God. Why, with the whole of scripture and the revelation of God in Christ, would anyone infer from what is not stated and in light of the beauty of what is stated that there is hierarchy in marriage?

There seems to have been a progression in your question. In previous posts you have asked if “we are again all equal in every aspect of life” (88); are we “equal in every way” (98, 109); pre-fall were they (males and females) totally equal (88) to know asking me to explain how I get “equality in roles from being made in ‘the image of God’”. This is not a claim I have made, so you will have to explain to me what “equality in roles from being made in ‘the image of God'” means to you. I want to make sure we are speaking the same “language”.

That said– I believe only males can be husbands, fathers, sons, uncles, brothers…and only females can be wives, mothers, daughters, aunts, sisters… Males and females have the same degree of intrinsic value as human beings made in the image of God. For Christians, both males and females are called to live counter-cultural lives and are expected to walk worthy of their vocation (calling) by adopting virtues and character (putting on the mind of Christ) and living out the kingdom ethics to reflect their citizenship in Christ’s kingdom. I do not think that either gender has a greater responsibility to live out kingdom ethics in their varying relationships and circumstances.

Mark writes: “It is quite easy to see that ‘the man’ is discussed by God because he is the leading party.”
I disagree. You have yet to indicate what specifically points to ‘the man’ being the leading party.

Mark continues: “I agree that Eve did not stay in the garden, but i disagree with cheryl that she ‘followed’. No where in the text is this discussed. “The man’ is resposible for what has happened in the garden as the leader of his wife.”

Again, I can’t wrap my mind around you seeing hierarchy in a husband and wife relationship just because “the man” was addressed even though you wrote you believe they were both banished. (Let’s not forget that Eve was addressed in this same context.) The reason, I suspect you see hierarchy here, is as you have conceded, you read that into the text. As I said in a previous post, regardless of whether one believes Eve “followed” or was “banished”, she was no longer in the garden and how hierarchy in marriage can be assumed from that is beyond me.

I’ll get back later with your other questions.

Mark,

You write: “I obviously disagree with you that Adam is not the leader in Gen 1-3. You talked about the ‘them’ of Gen 1 and how both genders were to rule the living creatures- I agree.”

By your admission, you are “happy to read into the text” that which is not explicitly there. We all go to the text with presuppositions and must make a conscientious effort to not take those with us or pick them up as we read and study. Knowing the tendency to take our presuppositions with us, my approach to the text is to try to understand the purpose of the particular genre or literary section; to determine the larger intent of the author; to try to hear what the original audience would have heard and understood; to find the general principle, thought, or truth conveyed; to view that through the revelation of God through Jesus Christ trusting in the Holy Spirit which leads to truth; and then try to faithfully apply, when necessary, in the here and now.

I am not able to make the leap based on inference from both genders given dominion over the earth which is explicitly stated and to which you agree, to males being divinely designed to rule over females in a hierarchy, particularly within marriage which is the most glorious and intimate of human relationships. Will you explain how you infer hierarchy from Gen 1:26-27?

You write: “1. ‘Adam’ in the hebrew in Gen 1 is gender inclusive because of the ‘them’ phrases’. However hebrew does not have a ‘neuter’ gender, only masc and fem… – i have an issue with the TNIV for example which uses gender inclusive language as this is clearly NOT being faithful to the inspired words and grammer…. if we are going to be faithful exegetes we should keep the original masc words translated into masc english words, otherwise we are changing the original language and commentating on it, even though i do agree that it is talking inclusively…”

I do not see how “human being” or “humanity” changes anything. I do not see this as being unfaithful to the inspired words or grammar because the spirit of the text or the overall general principle, truth, or message is accurately conveyed. By your own admission “…[you] agree that it is talking inclusively…”

You write: “3. However in Gen 3 when they are banished from the garden, it is again ‘the man’, not ‘man’ (gender inclusive). Should we assume then that only Adam was removed from the Garden- i don’t think so.”

The point that IS clear from this portion of text is that Adam was sent from the Garden, and we read in subsequent verses that Eve did not stay in the Garden. Regardless, I do not see a connection between a hierarchy between a husband and wife and “the man” being addressed and banished from the Garden. That is another leap based on inference I am not able to make.

You write: “Therefore my argument is that to get hung up on the combined function of ruling animals to prove equality and no leadership soley by the gender inclusive language is weak.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “hung up”. I am convinced that male and female both equally bear the image and likeness of God and both share equally in the responsibility to subdue the earth. You have conceded at least twice that this is your interpretation, too. Furthermore, based on what we both agree to be correct understanding of the text as just stated, I am convinced further that there is no hint of hierarchy in Ge 1:26-27 because there is no explicit description of hierarchy or any instruction laying out the parameters of a hierarchy. Even complementarian leaders concede that hierarchy is not explicitly in the text but rather inferred. It is at this point that you infer hierarchy. I would, therefore, disagree that my claim is the weaker.

Moreover, it would be an incorrect assumption that I do not ascribe to hierarchy in marriage based on “gender inclusive language”. I cut my teeth on the KJV with only a Strong’s and most thankfully the Holy Spirit to guide in my understanding.

You write: “So i am happy to read into the text that ‘the man’ was held primarily accountable for the fall and thus is addressed first by God, and is the primary one spoken of in the banishment. You might be big eyed at my claim of ‘reading into’ but in reality we all do.”

No, not really. I understand that much is read into the text; I appreciate your honesty about what you read into the text. (See my first paragraph in this comment.)

You write: “What is Richard Hess’ understanding of God approaching Adam first…
1. Because he was given the injunction not to eat first
2. God has to address them seperably.
Neither of these two options are available from the text and are in fact ‘read into’ also. So please dont jump to the conclusion that the comp is merely again reading into the text”.

I don’t know who Richard Hess is or what his claims are. I don’t think the text explains why Adam was approached first. I don’t think it is relative to the purpose of the creation story in Genesis. You have conceded that comps read into the text. I don’t believe I made the claim.

You write: “…Egals claim that Adam was ‘with’ Eve when she was conversing with the serpent and thus dismiis the notion that Eve strayed from the protection of Adam as reading into the text. Where in Gen 2 is it explicit that Adam was there during the conversation?…”

First, I don’t know exactly what egals claim, but let’s start with the text:

Ge 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise she took of the fruit thereof and did eat and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat…

From Stong’s: “with” means “accompanying” and is also translated “beside” and “together”

Second, Adam having a responsibility to protect Eve, I believe, IS read into the creation story. If Adam had any responsibility to protect Eve, in fairness, Adam would have had to have known he had that responsibility and at the very least that there was a danger (crafty serpent) and the potential for deception. As far as I can tell, all he knew was that all was right with the world, so from what would Eve need protection? Adam was only warned to not eat and was not warned about a crafty serpent or that Eve had the potential to be deceived. Also, Eve would have to have had knowledge of what was required of her—“to stay in close proximity to Adam so as not to stray from his protection.” I see nothing explicitly or implicitly that indicates Adam fail short of a standard for protection and that Eve strayed away from Adam’s supposed protection.

Mark,

You ask: “2. If the above is correct, the redemption acheived through Jesus has in effect reversed this male leadership, that we are all now ‘co heirs’ in everything, including church leadership? Men are not to rule, because Christ rules. Is this a correct understanding of your view?”

First, your questions may not be directed at me, I may not be the best equipped to answer, and again I do not purport to speak for egals or our blog hostess.

Redemption is the forgiveness of sins and the releasing from the law affected by the blood of Jesus Christ (Ep 1:7, Co 1:14, He 9:12, 15) Jesus, our Redeemer, modeled and called people to a higher kingdom ethic which affects how we treat each other. Living this kingdom ethic does not negate the mandate in Genesis, so I would not say that “men are not to rule because Christ rules”. I would say the ethic of Christ’s kingdom precludes a “corruption of men’s rule” which includes dominating, dictating, subjugating, or subordinating men or women and prohibits aspiring to a top-level (hierarchical) position among the most intimate relationship that of husband and wife which in its beginning had no hint of hierarchy but overtly reflected God’s ideal—two becoming one—where it is difficult to see where one ends and the other begins. Husband and wife (men and women) together are to subdue and have dominion over the earth.

I would not say that church leadership is part of the Believer’s inheritance. Rather, I would say men and women are both heirs of God through Christ, of the promise, of the covenant, and of the gracious gift of life (Ac 3:25; Ro 8:17; Ga 3:29; Ep 3:6; Ti 3:6; 1 Pe 3:7 ). I think, however, you are asking if women can be involved in church leadership. Yes, women can, have always been, and are currently serving the body of Christ in many ways across the globe including the proclamation of the gospel, instruction, organization, management, as messengers, teachers, shepherds, etc.

Mark,

You ask: “1. Egals believe there is no creation order and the idea or corruption of mans ‘rule’ is a result of the fall, correct?”

First, I don’t claim to speak for egals or any codified system of egalitarianism as this term and debate are new to me.

I understand the Genesis account to give a narrative of mankind’s beginnings:

27 “God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

There is no hint of hierarchy between the male and female. The only hierarchy is the male and female ruling together over the earth, fish, bird, and every living creature that moves on the ground.

If by “creation order” you mean Eve was created after Adam, I would say chapter two gives the following order and account:

God caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took a part of him and fashioned a woman and upon seeing the woman Adam waxed poetic: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.” He will leave and cleave, and they shall be one flesh.

I do not see any description of or prescription for hierarchy in this creation account. It meshes very well with chapter one: God created “them”. “Male” and “female” he created “them”. God told “them” to multiple and *subdue* the earth as one flesh.

There is “no idea of man’s rule” in creation. If by “creation order” you mean Eve was created second, the narrative of chapter two describes a variation on chapter one with Eve being subsequent to Adam. I’m processing this now and wondering if by “creation order” you mean “divine rule by man” or hierarchy, then that is answered in the first line of this paragraph.

I would agree that the “corruption of man’s rule” is a result of the fallen nature of humanity.

Mark,

I obviously got the comment numbers wrong. My original questions copied from other posts follow:

“Mark writes: “…indeed men are the head in my opinion. But what does that headship look like is the question? Loving your wife in such a way as to help lead her to becoming more like Christ, the same way Christ acts to help His Church…”

Does a wife lead a husband in anyway to help him become more like Christ?

If yes, how does it differ from how a husband would lead so as to help his wife become more like Christ?

If no, a wife never leads a husband in anyway to help him become more like Christ, how then does a husband uniquely lead a wife to become more like Christ?”

“Mark, thanks for attempting to tackle the question.
You write: “I think both husband and wife help each other become more like Christ,…”
I agree.
You continue: “…but men and women have different roles and resposibilities in the family.”
How does this relate to the preceding clause? Do you see that the different roles and responsibilities that men and women have affect practically how each helps the other become more like Christ? If so, how is this practically applied in a way that is uniquely and exclusively masculine and in complete contrast to its practical application in a uniquely and exclusively feminine manner?
You write: “I dont see it helpful for me to explain or the differences as im sure we have all heard the arguments- clearly i accept them and others dont.”
It would be very helpful to me if you explained because I am new to this topic and while I have pursued some of the arguments via the internet, I have not found how this is practically applied. If you believe there are differences that are unique and exclusive to one’s gender that affect the manner in which they would help their spouse become more like Christ, I think it would be most helpful to explain. How does your wife help you become more like Christ in a way that is different than how you help her become like Christ? If it more than prayer and modeling Christ-likeness and if it is supposed to be done in a manner exclusive to one’s gender, how does a husband or wife know whether or not they are helping their spouse become more like Christ in a gender appropriate way?”

I’ll try to get to your new questions shortly.

Mark,

I suspect that among those in this conversation, I am the least equipped to answer. I am very new to this topic–just discovering that this issue existed within Christendom to the extent that it does. To learn, I am actually asking a question of you in 63, 78, & 81.

That said, you asked, “With the new covenant of Christ, women were redeemed from the curses of Gen 3, therefore we are again all equal in every aspect of life?”

I am not sure I understand your question. If you are asking that under the new covenant of Christ are women saved from the consequences of “the fall”, I would say ask any woman who has been pregnant and lost a child or given birth if it was accompanied by worry, pain, and sorrow and any woman raising children in a fallen world if there is not an element of worry, pain, and sorrow that accompanies. Also, because of the treatment of women even through the present and the very fact that we are having this discussion reflects the description in Gen 3 of the disunity that exists between men and women. Similarly, despite the reconciliation with God afforded by Jesus Christ, mankind (males and females) must work for their daily sustenance. Men (mankind) must still work in order to survive. I see Genesis 3 as descriptive rather than prescriptive.

As far as your asking if in the New Covenant are males and females “…again equal in every aspect of life,” I am not sure exactly what you are asking. If you are asking, “are males and females equal image bearers of God”–yes. Are males and females equal in essence, dignity, and value? Yes. If you are asking do men and women have equal abilities, aptitudes, talents, bents, interests, etc.? No. No more than all women possess equally the same degree of abilities, aptitudes, talents, bents, and interests and no more than all men possess equally the same degree of abilities, aptitudes, talents, bents, and interests. Also, you said “again,” and I would say males and females have always been equal image bearers of God.

Lastly, the declaration to Adam in Gen 3 that he would return to the ground because it was from the ground he came, while not directed at Eve, describes her end as well. The New Covenant makes them co-heirs of the gracious gift of life, but males and females equally share in the experience of death.

I hope you will answer more specifically the question raised in #63, 78, 81.

Mark, thanks for attempting to tackle the question.
You write: “I think both husband and wife help each other become more like Christ,…”
I agree.
You continue: “…but men and women have different roles and resposibilities in the family.”
How does this relate to the preceding clause? Do you see that the different roles and responsibilities that men and women have affect practically how each helps the other become more like Christ? If so, how is this practically applied in a way that is uniquely and exclusively masculine and in complete contrast to its practical application in a uniquely and exclusively feminine manner?
You write: “I dont see it helpful for me to explain or the differences as im sure we have all heard the arguments- clearly i accept them and others dont.”
It would be very helpful to me if you explained because I am new to this topic and while I have pursued some of the arguments via the internet, I have not found how this is practically applied. If you believe there are differences that are unique and exclusive to one’s gender that affect the manner in which they would help their spouse become more like Christ, I think it would be most helpful to explain. How does your wife help you become more like Christ in a way that is different than how you help her become like Christ? If it more than prayer and modeling Christ-likeness and if it is supposed to be done in a manner exclusive to one’s gender, how does a husband or wife know whether or not they are helping their spouse become more like Christ in a gender appropriate way?

Kay writes: “‘ First of all we need to realize that none of us can “make” another be more Christ-like.’
Case closed.”
Agreed.

I was hoping Mark was still reading and planning to help some of us or at least me understand, and in fairness to him, I understood him to write that husbands as “head of their wife,” have a responsiblity to “lov[e] [their] wife in such a way as to help lead her to becoming more like Christ..”
This is an important question because then one would wonder how success is measured? Who measures it?
I suspect this belief is the basis for the idea that husbands will present their wife to God and answer for how they fulfilled their role.

True, no one can “make” someone more Christ-like. Mark’s words were “help lead her (wife) to becoming more like Christ.” I am very uncomfortable with a doctrine that teaches husbands must “make” their wives more Christ-like. I am also uncomfortable with the idea that husbands must “help lead their wives to be more like Christ” if it is in a manner that is supposed to be uniquely and exclusively the domain of males, even it it is done with love. Both husband and wife can and should model meekness, sacrifice, gentleness, kindness, forebearance, love, joy, discipline, self-control, etc. and thereby influence (lead) their spouse to good works.
I am curious as to how Mark or a heirarchicalist would describe how a husband as “head over his wife” properly and practically “lov[es][his] wife in such a way as to help lead her to becoming more like Christ” and to explain how this looks uniquely and exclusive masculine. It must be more than modeling Christ-likeness, and if so, what does it look like?