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.

For most scholars, dealing with this passage is like trying to fold a fitted sheet – no matter how you manipulate it, it still doesn’t look right. The most they can hope for is to jumble together some cockeyed story and throw it in the closet hoping their guests won’t see the mess.*

This final verse in our pericope has taken a beating with the various interpretations – none of them offering anything theologically, contextually, or practically helpful. Most scholars would rather ignore the verse altogether. However, read in light of the Artemis Cult, it makes perfect theological and practical sense.

The usual interpretation – that is, taking the def. art. in front of ‘childbearing’ as specifying a specific childbearing, namely that of Mary’s deliverance of Christ, has nothing necessarily wrong with it. Both Egalitarians and Complementarians claim this as a legitimate interpretation. However, I do question it for this reason: Paul NEVER speaks of Christ’s birth anywhere else, and if this is going to be the only time he does so – why would he leave it so ambiguous? Just seems a bit odd to me. This doesn’t eliminate this interpretation as valid; rather it just poses a problematic question related to its oddity.

Now:

As noted previously, many Ephesian women considered the goddess Artemis superior to her brother Apollo because she preceded him in birth. This fact gave her female followers the ability to challenge the male dominance of Ephesus and rise above patriarchy (I know it’s an anachronistic term, but still helpful).

After her own birth, she helped her mother (Leto) in the delivery of her brother Apollo. For this action she became known as the goddess that assisted women in childbirth. Unfortunately, though, she killed many of these women, and this caused women to fear her as well as need her.

When Paul counters the Artemis cult in I Timothy 2 and replaces it with Hebraic narratives, he barbs Artemis in the process. Artemis couldn’t be trusted to save women. These women ‘will be saved,’ but not by Artemis. God (implied in the divine passive referred to later), by means of the Christian virtues he lists in this passage, will liberate these women.

The Genesis narrative offers no solutions to pain in childbirth; it only gives the origins thereof. Paul can use it to point to the problem, but cannot offer a solution. So Paul leaves Genesis and relies on Christian praxis for this liberation. (I know the dichotomy is a bit anachronistic, but I think it’s helpful at this point.)

By turning to Christian praxis, Paul can maintain that these women will be ‘saved’ (the Gk. word can mean ‘save’ ‘liberate’ ‘kept from harm’) through childbearing. This comes about “if” they appropriate a few specifically Christian virtues: faith, love, holiness, and modesty.**

The verb “will be saved” is a Gk. future passive indicative. This passive form is known as the ‘Divine Passive’ – suggesting that it is not the virtues that save, but divine action by means of the virtues. The salvation is contingent upon the virtues, but is enacted by God.

She will be saved “through childbearing” according to our English text. The Greek preposition here can also mean ‘during’ or ‘throughout.’ Thus, Paul may be speaking of being saved from the pain and possible death that arises during childbirth.

Following this, the listed Christian virtues actually transcend the punishment for the woman’s original sin. Christ’s death purchased salvation for sinners. In this act, He reverses the curses of the human sinfulness and institutes a community that is supposed to reflect pre-sin conditions, eliminating male patriarchy and pain in childbirth (the two punishments for the woman which just so happen to be the subjects of our pericope).

As women, through the appropriation of these virtues, return to the condition of the original community, they experience liberation from the original punishments. In other words, there is a reversal of the dominant world system of sin and a return to the original created order. Paul calls for a complete reversal, not only of our mythologies, but also of the way we order the world and see our community as a ‘new creation.’

SUMMARY: Sure, in their current sinful bodies, these women will still experience pain. But Paul offers a promise of hope. He barbs Artemis – where as Artemis may or may not save a woman in childbirth, Christ, through these virtues, offers these women hope of a future salvation (“they WILL be saved”) and a restoration of the created order within the community of faith – providing them present salvation from the original consequences of sin. They are being saved (both socially and spiritually) and will be saved (both socially and spiritually). He eliminates the fear of male dominance (as the first punishment) and death (the second punishment) in Christ and Christian virtues. Even though he is placing the original sin on the woman – he is liberating her from that sin through Christian virtues; something Artemis could have never done.

Ok: I’m sure there are some holes in my argument. Point them out so I can reflect on them. I’m still thinking through this issue and how this text works.

* Yep, I was doing laundry when I cam e up with this simile

** I don’t’ think these are strictly FEMALE Christian virtues. In fact, men are commanded to have these virtues in other place in the scripture. But in light of the female dominance in this community, Paul wants to emphasize these specific virtues and direct them at the women.