Headship and Equality in the Garden of Eden
This post is part of a larger series of posts by Dwayne Forehand and Mark Tubbs on the book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (RBMW). The entire book is available online for free here or buy it on Amazon. For a complete list of posts in this series Click here for the series index.
Over the weekend I read chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3 by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. In this short essay Raymond sets out to prove that both male-female equality and male headship were instituted by God at creation according to Genesis 1-3. Along the way he also critiques egalitarian interpetations of these Scriptures and attempts to combat male domination in contrast to male headship.
From the outset he provides some working definitions:
Male-Female Equality
Man and woman are equal in the sense that they bear God’s image equally.Male Headship
In the partnership of two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.
Raymonds’ evidence for male-female equality at the time of creation rests on them both being created in the Imago Dei, the very image of God: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Raymond then deals with what he sees as a faulty view held by Gilbert Bilezikian. Raymond’s critiques of Bilezikian’s views carry on throughtought the essay.
Male Headship in the Garden
His evidence for male headship at creation advances as such:
- God named the human race “man”.
- God created the man first, not the woman.
- God created the the woman to be the helper of the man.
- God created the woman out of the man.
- God allows the man to name the woman.
- God explains his curse for the man as being in part due to him following the womans leading.
I set out to read this article and weigh Raymonds points by way of a tunnel vision for Genesis 1-3. I did this because Raymonds stated purpose was to prove those chapters alone teach headship and equality. While I found Raymond’s conclusion about headship to be essentially my views, I do not believe his case was proved on the basis of Genesis 1-3 alone. The evidences that he presents are, in my mind, only circumstantial. Now, taken in the context of the rest of the Cannon, I do believe that the “voice of headship” in Genesis 1-3 speaks clearly. I know some complementarian leaning folks won’t like this, but that’s just where I am at.
In dealing with 1 Timothy 2:14 and it’s reference to the fall as warrant for male headship and Genesis 3:16’s curse for the woman, Raymond basically bunts by presenting a couple interpetations. I myself was left less clear then before! I am hoping that Douglas Moo’s essay in chapter 9 on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 will bring me some clarity to me on this.
Eternal Subordination of the Son
In justifying the “paradox of equality and headship” Raymond turns to the doctrine of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. For those unfamiliar with the view, basically when Jesus said “Not my will be done, but yours” it was nothing new. That was always how the Son had related to the Father from eternity past and how he always will relate to the Father in eternity future. I’ve personally never been convinced of this position, but will be reading a 5 part essay by Jeff Robinson when I get a chance.
In conclusion
I found wrestling with each point of Raymons essay to be very beneficial. His arguments were engaging, thought provoking and challenging. This was a great article and I’m planning on reading it at least once more this week. My favorite part was in his concluding appeal which I’ll leave you with now:
What might be the principial source of evangelical feminist blindness to the Biblical text? Consider the following. There is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth. Feminism denies this principle. Feminism insists that personal role and personal worth must go together, so that a limitation in role reduces or threatens personal worth. But why? What logic is there in such a claim? Why must my position dictate my significance? The world may reason that way. But doesn’t the gospel teach us that our glory, our worth, is measured by our personal conformity to Christ? Or have we lost confidence in the gospel’s perspective on reality? The absurdity of feminism lies in its irrational demand that a woman cannot be “a serious person” unless she occupies a position of headship.
Fortunately, this type of reasoning has already been put to the test in real life, so we can see its practical consequences. Look at the world. Is it any wonder that we see all around us a mass stampede for power, recognition, status, prestige, and so on? But the world’s reasoning is invalid. Authority does not authenticate my person. Authority is not a privilege to be exploited to build up my ego. Authority is a responsibility to be borne for the benefit of others without regard for oneself. This alone is the Christian view.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
“The absurdity of feminism.” No truer words have been spoken. Good post. I must comment on this:
Male Headship in the Garden
#6. God explains his curse for the man as being in part due to him following the womans leading.
Acutally, imho, it’s not man FOLLOWING the woman’s leading that in and of itself was responsible for the curse; it’s man FORSAKING of his own leadership role and then listening to the woman…that was the real problem.
Adam was WITH Eve when she ate of the fruit and sinned (Gen 3:6).
April 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Hi there,
Interesting read. I’ll have to come back and read some more.
I just wanted to ask you one question …
How would you biblically define what the scriptures mean when it says that God created woman as a helper?
Btw, I do recognize the headship of man and also the equality of both man and woman, and their role in relationship with each other.
But I’d have to say that we undermine God’s intent for woman if we just classify woman as simply the helper, like “mommy’s little helper” in the kitchen.
I would argue that we as women lend our strengths to man that the two might flow with greater unity to see the purposes of God fulfilled in relationship with each other and with God in our unique God given strengths.
April 14th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
That’s a great question and I’ll be thinking about it for a while I suspect.
My gut instinct is to point to the New Testament description and instructions about marriage though. That leads to the question though “But that was written at least thousands of years after the Garden though. Is Pauls description of marriage as relating to Christ and the Church applicable to the word ‘helper’ found in Genesis?”
I think it is, because I don’t believe that the idea of relating marriage to Christ and the Church was an after thought, but that marriage was always meant to be a picture of God and His people and Paul. I see the Gospel as the unveiling of what was once a mystery, but it was not a mystery that had no appearance before it came (i.e. the priesthood, sacrifices, etc.) Likewise I think that while the full idea of marriage may have not been revealed in the Garden as it was tied to the yet unrevealed mystery of Christ its reality was still present and thus the word “helper”.
That doesn’t really answer the question though does it! :) I’ll get back to you later this week, but if anyone else wants to chime in then please do. Also, what do you take “helper” to mean? Do you see it as a unique “title” or something else?
April 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Hi again,
Well, I’d have to say that this is one of the more interesting reads I’ve had in a while. And it’s actually, when I think about it, it’s not leaning towards the misogyny that I find when, ironically speaking I’ve read what other women within the church have had to say on this very topic.
To some respect here we’re talking about man’s responsibilities. And I would agree. The whole question that sometimes people forget to ask, is.. “Where was Adam when Eve took from the tree they were forbidden to take from?”
The answer is that he was right by her side and said nothing. He forsake his responsibility in the garden… but she nonetheless made the choice to disobey God.
#6 — is mentioned about a curse.
If we look a little bit closer to the scriptures we’ll see that God actually DID NOT curse Adam and DID NOT curse Eve as so many people are misled into believing…
Now before you stone me for heresy let me explain…
Go back to the Genesis account at the fall of creation and see for yourself …
He curses the serpent and he curses the ground.
Did he not only hand out 2 curses?
Why then do we create a 3rd and say Adam and Eve were also cursed.
Here’s what actually happened. When God cursed the serpent and the ground it left Adam and Eve to deal with the consequences of choices made. And we can see that played out throughout the ages.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I do hold to a complimentary view of being created in the Image of God but in that complementarity “headship” is not necessarily forsaken, the leadership of the man is not forsaken. But the man acknowledges the strength of his partner and walks away from a dominating role and more of a Christ like leadership within the marriage. Both submit to each other, both serve each other. You will see in the relationship with man and woman reflecting God in relationship as three persons. Which is why complementarity is important to see.
God is neither male or female but one can see both a masculine and feminine traits within the Godhead.
It’s rather complex because I really believe there are times when the man would be smart to listen to what the woman says and also follow in a direction the woman feels strongly about. And the woman is smart and mature when she can keep in mind to treat her husband with respect.
I think the undertone of the feminist movement is this lack of respect for men and most women in this movement do respond not only from the place of brokenness but also out of response of men abusing their role and their greater physical strength over the woman as well as the misogyny found within pornography has degraded women. Women respond equally as bad with Misandry, a term not seen as much but refers to the hatred of men.
I’ve been on both ends… misogyny and misandry, a hatred for both men and women… due to my own brokenness. Not saying that’s the case for everyone who has come from a homosexual background but I’ve had to repent of both personally.
I do believe that we need to work towards restoring the masculine in men because our culture does a great deal of harm to men not only within their own gender identity but also this has created much confusion for many about the role of men in relationship with the woman.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Hi there, I’m a little behind on keeping up with the series, but looking forward to getting to do so soon!
I finally posted a review of Carolyn McCulley’s latest book: “Radical Womanhood: Feminine Faith in a Feminist World”. Here it is:
http://abranchinthevine.blogspot.com/2009/06/review-of-radical-womanhood-feminine.html