While I initially thought this project would be a discussion on the characteristics of a godly woman, more and more I have found myself wrestling with half a verse, Genesis 3:16b and examining what God intended by its interpretation: ‘Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you’. Both sides of the argument about how involved women should be in the day-to-day life of a church make reference to this verse, but both use this verse to mean entirely different things.
One view is the suggestion that Genesis 3:16b refers primarily to a result of the fall, whereby the equality of humanity is lost because of the sinfulness of male domination. Rather than the man and the woman being equal creatures made in God’s image, the man rules over the woman. Thus a hierarchy has developed which was not present before the fall. According to this view, Eve was made as a ‘helper’ for Adam, and holds the same responsibility for accomplishing the task set by God as Adam.[1] In this argument, ‘helper’ does not have a sense of hierarchy but means equality. Bilezikian states that ‘Adam had been given assignments that required the assistance of a helpmate’ and that this means he needed a ‘partner complementary to him’ because ‘without woman, man would have been helpless and unable to fulfil his God-given mission’.[2] Further, he states that the word “rescuer” would be a better translation and that ‘the word helper may not be used to draw inferences about subordinate female roles’.[3] Bilezikian suggests that as a human being, made in God’s image, Adam felt the need to socialise.[4] Woman is thus the ‘indispensable counterpart to man in God’s perfect creation’.[5] Being made from the human flesh of man, woman is ‘at least his equal’.[6] Bilezikian states that ‘no objection is raised to the fact that she, as woman or wife, took the freedom to instigate action and invite her husband to follow her’[7] and when Adam is rebuked, his rebuke is not ‘for allowing Eve to assume leadership’ but ‘for having followed her in her state of disobedience to God’.[8] This view seems inconsistent given that there are instructions to men to stand up and take leadership throughout the Biblical narrative. On the other hand, Bilezikian is correct in observing they were in a ‘state of disobedience to God’ as they had specifically eaten from the forbidden tree.[9] So following the fall, sinfulness takes over and hierarchy within humanity begins. Some scholars suggest that the word ‘desire’ in Genesis 3:16 is referring to woman wanting to rule.[10] Other scholars suggest that it means although she cares for man he will rule over her.[11] Regardless of whether the woman is aiming to rule or is just being ruled, the equality of humanity that this first view desired is lost.
The catch-cry of this first view is a verse of Paul that highlights the equality of the new creation and implies a return to the way life was before the fall. Galatians 3:28 states that through Christ: ‘there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’. From this perspective, passages that limit the role of a woman in the church are seen as reflecting the cultural setting of the day. Thus, such passages can be cast aside because our present day culture is considered to be more educated about the sinfulness of previous generations in the subjection of women. However, as Johnson states regarding Galatians 3:28:
‘There is no reason to claim that Galatians 3:28 supports an egalitarianism of function in the church. It does plainly teach an egalitarianism of privilege in the covenantal union of believers in Christ.’[12]
The problem with this first view is that the validity and unity of the Bible is questioned. Rather than accepting that ‘all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable’, the view implies that some Scripture is not as profitable as other Scripture and should be discarded.[13] Theologically, God seems to be a confusing and a malevolent God who hides his true message amidst various cultural peculiarities creating needless stress for interpreters of his word. God is no longer all-powerful but instead is unable to deal with the satanic influences of this world.
Counter to this first view, there are other scholars, for example Grudem and Ortlund, who argue that Genesis 3:16b highlights the sinfulness of the woman in trying to usurp the rightful place of the man as leader and ruler.[14] Some suggest that the woman’s role as ‘helper’ shows the hierarchy of man first and then woman.[15] In his study of the word ‘helper’, Grudem finds that ‘a person who helps can be superior to, equal to, or inferior to the person being helped’ so it is impossible to base an argument on this word alone.[16] Grudem argues that ‘the role of helper is an honourable one’ as it is ‘most often used to refer to God’.[17] Regardless of whether the term ‘helper’ implies a hierarchy, it is difficult to escape the fact that a type of hierarchy exists in humanity. While this does not imply dominance in a vicious or cruel way, there is a definite trend of God choosing men to rule over women and other men. From the foundation of Israel, God is identified by his relationship to the male line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.[18] Although in the stories of these patriarchs their wives are mentioned, God’s identity is not clarified in the Bible as ‘the God of Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah’.
Throughout the Bible, God chooses males to take on leadership roles. In Exodus 3, God called to Moses and chose him to lead his people out of Egypt.[19] Later, when Moses is nearing the end of his life, Joshua is chosen to succeed Moses and lead the Israelites in their conquest battles.[20] Military rulers and tribal elders were all selected from the male line. The mighty men were counted and esteemed.[21] When a monarchy is set up, God chooses a king to rule his people by anointing Saul.[22] When that King Saul displays poor leadership, God chooses David to be the next king.[23] The men are encouraged to stand up as leaders. Cowardice and fear are seen as qualities to be overcome by men chosen to lead. Although Moses made excuses and Gideon was unwilling to trust God’s initial answer, both men found the courage to lead the Israelites as God showed his faithfulness repeatedly.[24]
This second view claims the word translated as ‘desire’ (3:16) has negative overtones resulting in a ‘desire to usurp’ rather than a desire for the husband’s wellbeing. As women feel the effects of sin, they will want to overthrow God’s structure and exert dominance over men. Just as the first act of disobedience resulted in an initial disrespect for the commands of God, so sin will result in disrespect for the order that God has placed in the world. Since both male and female are made in the image of God, this order does not make women into lesser humans.[25] As Ortlund states the writer of Genesis ‘doubtless intends to imply the equality of the sexes, for both male and female display the glory of God’s image with equal brilliance’.[26] Both male and female will have an inheritance in the new creation.[27] As Frame states,
‘Women and men equally image God, even in their sexual differences, even in their differences with regard to authority and submission. The reason is that the image of God embraces everything that is human. Both men and women, therefore, resemble God and are called to represent Him throughout the creation, exercising control, authority, and presence in His name. This doctrine is not at all inconsistent with the subordination of women to men in the home and in the church. All human beings are under authority, both divine and human. Their submission to authority, as well as their authority itself, images God.’[28]
God creates an order to ensure peace reigns rather than chaos.[29] The man is the head of the household, and under Christ, male leadership is at the head of the church.[30] In this context of an order established by God, passages written by Paul, where a woman is seen in a lesser light than a man appear justifiable. Hence, when Paul states, ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man’, any challenge to this statement is seen as an effect of the fall and a usurping of the order God created.[31]
Theologically, this second view teaches that God himself is a God of order. He is relational and hierarchical, both within the Trinity and in his dealings with humanity. Just as Jesus does not try to overthrow the Father but rather submits to his plans, so women are given positions that require submission to men.[32] Each part of the Trinity works in unity with the other parts and men and women need to do likewise. God also placed order in his creation. God instructs humanity to rule over the plants and animals, elevating humanity above the rest of creation.[33] Though humanity is elevated, the man and the woman are still under the authority of God. Within humanity order also exists and the man demonstrates his authority over the woman as he names her.[34] Sinfulness quickly disrupts the order of creation as God’s authority is ignored and humanity strives against one another for the upper hand.[35] Just as God placed order in his creation, God also instigates order in his church.[36] He provides a ‘blueprint’ for how his church should be run as in the new creation there is also an expectation of order.[37]
In my reading of Genesis 3:16b, I have found myself constantly battling to know how much my own sinfulness is guiding me and which thoughts have been affected by my experiences, all against the ever-present fear of misinterpretation. From the views put forward and the Biblical narrative as a whole, it is clear that God made men and women equal. Genesis 3:16b shows the effects of the fall with dominance destroying the order that God created. In the church and in the home, we should be striving to see God’s order reinstated.
[1] Genesis 2:18
[2] Bilezikian, G., Beyond Sex Roles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995) 28
[3] Bilezikian, G., Beyond Sex Roles, 28
[4] Bilezikian, G., Beyond Sex Roles, 27
[5] Bilezikian, G., Beyond Sex Roles, 28
[6] Bilezikian, G., Beyond Sex Roles, 30
[7] Bilezikian, G., Beyond Sex Roles, 54-55
[8] Bilezikian, G., Beyond Sex Roles, 57
[9] Genesis 2:17
[10] Ortlund, R.C. Jr, ‘Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3’. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (J. Piper & W. Grudem [Eds.], Wheaton: Crossway, 1991) 109
[11] Maxwell, L.E. & R.C. Dearing, Women in Ministry (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1987) 39
[12] Johnson, S.L., ‘Role Distinctions in the Church: Galatians 3:28’. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (J. Piper & W. Grudem [Eds.], Wheaton: Crossway, 1991) 164
[13] 2 Timothy 3:16
[14] Grudem, W., Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (Oregon: Multnomah, 2004). Ortlund, ‘Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3’, 109.
[15] Mahaney quoted in Demoss, N.L., Becoming God’s True Woman (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008) 26. cf. Genesis 2:18
[18] For example, God identifies himself to Moses in this way in Exodus 3:6.
[19] Exodus 3:4, 10
[20] Numbers 27:18-20
[21] 2 Samuel 23:8-39 and 1 Chronicles 11:10-47
[22] 1 Samuel 9:15-17
[23] 1 Samuel 16:12-13
[24] Exodus 4:1,10,13. Judges 6:36-40
[25] Genesis 1:27
[27] Galatians 3:28
[28] Frame, J.M., ‘Men and Women in the Image of God’. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (J. Piper & W. Grudem [Eds.], Wheaton: Crossway, 1991) 231-232
[29] 1 Corinthians 14:33
[30] Ephesians 5:23, Titus 1:5
[31] 1 Timothy 2:12
[32] Mark 14:36, Philippians 2:6, Ephesians 5:22.
[33] Genesis 1:26-30
[35] Goldsworthy, G., According to Plan (Leicester: IVP, 2001) 133-137
[36] cf Exodus 20-31, Leviticus and the initiation of God’s covenant with Israel. Also, in reference to the NT church, see Knox, D.B, Selected Works, Volume II: Church and Ministry (Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2003) 201-203
[37] Milne, B., Know the Truth (Leicester: IVP, 2004) 346
[38] See Frame’s discussion about Exodus 20:12, 1 Timothy 5:14, Titus 2:4, Proverbs 31:10-31, Genesis 1:28, 1 Corinthians 3:21, etc. Frame, J.M., ‘Men and Women in the Image of God’. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (J. Piper & W. Grudem [Eds.], Wheaton: Crossway, 1991) 231
[39] Schreiner, T.R., ‘Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16’. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (J. Piper & W. Grudem [Eds.], Wheaton: Crossway, 1991) 128
No comments:
Post a Comment