Theology for the Masses

Over a year ago I wrote a number of posts on the topic of Evangelical Feminism vs. Biblical Complementarianism. This post will further that discussion.

If Patriarchy was a Pre-Fall reality, then it would be present within the biblical text in some discernible form. I previously demonstrated that the 2^ndcreation account (in Genesis 2) does not support such a reading, but I said nothing at the time regarding the 1^st creation account in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:26-28 describes the creation of humanity “in the image of God” and after his “likeness.” There are a number of hermeneutical and theological difficulties related to these phrases - particularly what exactly it means to be created in God’s image and how that relates to the phrase about “according to our likeness.” Couple those things also with the use of plural pronouns and you’ve got a longstanding theological and exegetical argument.

What I want to demonstrate in this post is that the structure of the pericope provides us insight into the author’s intention –that is, the way he formulates the narrative gives us insight into what he means by the mysterious phrases. More to the point, though, when we see what he means, we are also given insight into the Pre-Fall relationship between the man and the woman - one which, as I will demonstrate, is one of equality not patriarchy. This argument will, in effect,support my reading of Genesis 2 and 3 which says that Patriarchy is a result of the Fall, not prior to it – contrary to the BC position which says Patriarchy is inherent in the creation.

The Hebrew text in 1:27 reads something like this…(the word order is important – often skewed by our English translations)

“Created God humanity in His image. In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them.”

Structurally, the text is a Chiasm (an inverted parallelism) followed by a straight forward Parallelism. Notice the Chiasm 1^st…

A Created humanity

B God

C man In His image

C’ In the image

B’ of God

A’ He created him

Surrounding the whole things is the Creative purposes of God. Central to the chiasm, and thus the emphasis of the writer, is the Image of God. Unfortunately, besides the fact that it is the creative act of God, no other exegetical clue is provided for us to help us discern the substance of the Image of God…that is, until the parallelism which begins with the 2^nd half of the chiasm:

A    In the Image of God B. He created C. Him

A    Male and Female B. He created C. Them

What the structuring of this narrative suggests, then, is that whatever it means to be in the image of God, it must be fully understood in the context of BOTH male and femaleness. Man is not the image of God without woman and woman is not the image of God without the man. They are both, together, the image of God. In other words – what the chiastic structure gives emphasis to (the image of God), the parallelism gives substance to (male and female).

Now notice that there is no implied subordination within this structuring. Rather, there is implied equality. Nothing within this text points to patriarchy or male headship. The Biblical Complementarian argument fails to account for the fact that this first creation account doesn’t even have a creation order for the genders. This narrative suggests that male and female are equal before God – for they both, together stand before Him and are equally created in His image – so much for the old discussions about whether women were really created in God’s image or not.

I know that BC’s generally don’t argued from Genesis 1 to support their view, but I think this structure provides the basis for understanding Genesis 2 (by means of structural particularization: a general idea occurs first, followed by the specifics of that general idea. The specifics are understood in light of the preceding general comment) and, thus, another point indicating the essential equality of men and women – both ontologically and functionally. Indeed, they are both given dominion and told to subjugate the earth. There are no inherent difference of roles within this text.

Of course, I don’t mean your giving should make life easy for others and hard for yourselves. I only mean that there should be some equality. Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal. As the Scriptures say:

“Those who gathered a lot had nothing left over, and those who gathered only a little had enough.”

- Paul, writing to the assembly of Christians in Corinth, 2 Cor. 8:13-15

A comment by Hank on The Way I need Jesus got me thinking: is there such a thing as a “biblical notion of husband and wife?” What notion are we talking about? Pre-Israel marriage? We gonna pattern it after the marriages in Genesis? Ancient Israel? 2nd Kings? Isn’t that what got us good US citizens up in arms against the Mormons a hundred or so years ago (poly-what?)? Are we gonna talk about the Jewish ideas of what marriage is in the time of Jesus? Are we gonna talk about marriage as it was practiced by the Romans (i.e. baby factories = wives)? Are we going to talk about those writing in the name of Paul when they are giving advice on how to be a couple of equality under the yoke of the empire?

The more I look at actual marriages in the Bible the less I am enamored with the monolithic notion of the so-called “biblical notion of husband and wife.” We need to realize that marriages in our Holy Scriptures are described (not prescribed) in different structures with different power realationships between the parties involved.

We see in the myth of Genesis 3 the consequences of the fall in marriages – women and men will try to dominate each other. This arrangement (both women looking to dominate their husbands and husband dominating their wives) is unnatural; God teaches us this in Genesis and He confirms it in the writings of Paul.

It gives me great pleasure to see people attempt to justify our culture’s (or rather the 1950’s) version of marriage where one party dominates the other.

With the coming of the Kingdom of God, we must work to restore the equality inherent in the “two becoming one flesh” by means of our practice and our teachings. What we need to do is rediscover the the pre-fall power relations between husband and wife and make those relations real in our lives. It is up to us to enact the Kingdom of God on Earth – now.