tom October 23rd, 2007
After the ‘Original Sin’ of Adam and Eve, God shows up to collect on their transgression. In ultimate graciousness, God doesn’t come and do as he had promised – that is, He did not bring the Grim Reaper with Him. Rather, Yahweh shows up and calls out for the creatures, giving them opportunity to acknowledge what they have done and repent. Rather than fessing up, they decide to hide (Though, I’m not really sure why they thought it would be a good idea to play hide-and-seek with God in the garden that He created.) When God finds them, the man blames his wife, and the woman blames the snake. No one wants to take responsibility – they still don’t.
After some dialogue, Yahweh pronounces judgment on the snake, the woman, and the man for all that has transpired. The judgment brought on the 3 of them is interesting. A curse is brought on the snake and the man, but not on the woman. That is, she is punished, but the word “curse” never comes up when Yahweh meets out her judgment.
The woman’s punishment is 2 fold:
- Increased pain in childbirth
- Her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her
Now, the traditional approach often overlooks what the text actually says. The traditional approach justifies patriarchy on the bases of #2. That is, they say men should be the leaders in home and church because that is part of the woman’s curse.
Now, this would be the case if the Hebrew sentence contained an imperative. But in actuality, there is no imperative present. #2 is not a command for men to rule and women to submit. Rather, it is a description of the post-fall gender relationships. Because of sin in the human community, men will dominate women. In other words, patriarchy is a result of the fall, not an original part of the human community, and definitely not the ideal.
God does not command women to have pain in childbirth, nor does he command them to be ruled by their husbands – these are results, not ideal situations.
As this is the case, why do we continue to insist on patriarchy in our homes and churches? In Christ we are a new humanity which is not bound to these old results. In Christ these shackles have been broken. This new community created in his image is to reflect the original creation – one that did not involve male dominance.
Until we see that this verse does not command male rule and female submission, until we realize that male rule is a result of the fall and does not predate it, we will continue to anachronistically read our own prejudices back onto the biblical text.
Response to Challie’s 10 points
1. “The order of creation” Nowhere in the Genesis text is the creation order used to justify patriarchy and submission. I do agree that submission is a part of the created order, the church, and even the Trinity. But the practical application of submission of men over women is not found within the text of Genesis 1 or 2. Furthermore, he reads I Timothy 2 back onto Genesis without first letting Genesis speak for itself. Had Genesis been allowed to speak for itself, maybe he would see his interpretation of I Timothy 2 needs reworked.
2. “The representation of the human race” I suppose this comes down to your hermeneutic when approaching Genesis. As I think it is myth, I think Paul is drawing on a particular mythological figure, one which represents the sinful human race, and contrasting that figure with Christ, who is also the beginning of a new humanity – one not marred by sin. (I’m sure this will get some discussion, but oh well. I’ve avoided the language of mythology thus far b/c I didn’t want it to be distracting, but it needed to be brought up here in refutation of this point.) As Adam is not a literal individual person, but a mythological representative, there is no reason to assume Eve is not included in Paul’s mentioning of Adam.
Even if you don’t read it as mythological (which I’m assuming many of you won’t.) Paul does not make male-leadership related applications in Romans 5. It is an inference not found within the text. In my view, there’s no reason to read it into a text that is speaking of something else entirely.
3. “The naming of the woman” Interestingly, I don’t think he examines all the evidence here. “Woman” is not a name! It is not until after the fall that the woman is give the name “Eve.” If naming the woman supports patriarchy, and the woman is not actually named until after the fall, then patriarchy is the result of the fall! Which is exactly what I’ve been arguing for.
4. “naming of the human race” – What? Before there was a human race, when just the man existed (according to the 2nd creation account), the man was still called man. But man as male cannot exist without the female. Also, the term ‘man’ is applied to both of them in the 1st creation account. “Man” is the result of patriarchal language, not necessarily the originating factor of patriarchal language.
5. “Primary Accountability” – Why did God call upon Adam first? Was it because he was the man? The text does not affirm this. However, as Challie says, it may be because he was older – it was his responsibility to teach the younger Eve. As Eve was decieved, it was Adam’s fault. Adam is called to account, not because he is the man, but because of the two of them, he should’ve known better because God gave him the direct command! (Genesis 2:16-17)
6. “The purpose of the woman” – I already dealt with this word ‘ezer.’ There is no reason to assume hierarchy from this word’s usage.
7. “The conflict” – I just deal with this in this post.
8. “The restoration” – he offers to scriptural support, here. But Egalitarians have pointed out several texts which support the view that God reverses even the marital consequences of the fall. And again, this still assumes patriarchy is a pre-fall condition.
9. “They Mystery” – I think it’s going to take a few posts on Ephesians 5 to deal with this, but Challie assumes male headship is being upheld here, and I think it more has to do with mutual submission and the decrease of male privledge. I don’t expect you to accept my thoughts here….I’m sure I’ll have to write a post or 2 on it, so don’t jump me yet.
10. “The Trinity” – This could go a lot of different ways. Stephen Seamands, a Methodist Theologian, has recently argued for the Trinity as an example for a radically egalitarian community that submits to one another.
Well, I hope you’ve enjoyed these posts. I’ll think about putting some things together on Ephesians 5, but that may be a while coming. I’m enjoying your thoughts. And as someone else pointed out in the last post, I too am glad this has not spun into polemics, but has rather been beneficial spiritually and academically.