So yesterday’s question was: “Can you think of a New Testament writer who described the current (in their day) state of male-female relations as being a result of The Curse?” I’d still like to hear from anyone who can think of an example. Because I can’t.
There are some references, though largely symbolic, to God’s words to the serpent:
“Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 12:17)
“He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2)
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Romans 16:20)
“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.” (Luke 10:18–19)
There are references to God’s words to Adam:
“For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” (Romans 8:20–22)
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.” (Romans 5:12–14)
“For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:21–22)
The New Testament argues that the curse on the ground will be lifted. The punishment of death, that came through Adam’s sin, will be undone. (Will there be a lifting of the curse on the serpent? Maybe, if you take Isaiah 11:6-9 as a description of the fulfilled Kingdom)
What I don’t see is any reference to the creation story followed by an indication that the relationship between men and women should be changed because of it. Sin is said to have come in through one man, as is death. There’s nothing saying that male leadership, male headship, women’s submission, or anything related came about because of the Garden. In fact, I can’t think of any Old Testament passages that make such an argument, either. (Again, with the possible exception of Genesis 3:16, though I find that interpretation to be forced on the text rather than read out of it)
I think anyone wanting to make that argument should do so with caution and humility. At most you have a possible interpretation of one less-than-clear text on your side.
Are men and women not created? Romans 8:20-22 seems to apply very pointedly here. When Paul says “children of God” there, I don’t think he means humanity in Adam, but rather the new humanity in Christ. It is the new humanity that can experience the “glorious freedom.”
I think Gen 3:16 points to the power struggles between males and females — I think that, because of their choice not to trust God and to be self-seeking, the relational consequence is a lack of trust and the instinct to be self-seeking in these relationships.
In the Genesis narrative, Adam is the namer (although that seems to be at least partially a facet of his training, so that he may learn his own need for relationship), and Adam is the one given the command not to eat of the one particular tree. As you’ve pointed out before, it is Adam who is first called to account in Genesis 3.
So if we’re talking about responsibility, I think I agree with you so far that male responsibility seems to be a pre-Curse concept.
The problem I’m struggling with, with the rest of your statement, is that I don’t see any evidence that female submission is under consideration in any of the texts either.
Where in the creation narrative is Eve commanded to submit to Adam?
Where in the Law of Moses are women commanded to be silent? (my HUGE issue with how 1 Cor 14:34 is interpreted)
Where in the Scriptures does the equality described in Gen 1:27 and 2:18 (“a strength comparable or compatible to his”) get converted into a hierarchy of authority and submission?
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the groups who are asserting that eternal female submission to maleness is embedded in the creation narrative?
Thanks Nick. I agree with your assessment of the impact of Genesis 3:16. When teaching on this recently, I have said that the scheming between husbands and wives in the rest of Genesis is a good illustration of what God is saying in the second part of 3:16.
Did you have specific texts in mind? There are quite a number of New Testament texts that refer to female submission, in one form or another: (1 Cor 14:34; Eph 5:22, 24; Col 3:18; 1 Tim 2:11; 1 Pet 3:1, 5)
To answer your questions,
None of this, however, changes the fact that the common idea that the concept of male leadership stems from The Curse (or the diagnostic) is unsupported by Scripture.
Here are some thoughts about the New Testament passages you mentioned:
1 Cor 14:34 — I’m not sure you can eat your cake and still have it, where this verse is concerned. If, as you say later, the Law doesn’t actually say that women are to be silent, then this verse lies in a very tenuous situation. I tend to believe that Paul was quoting the Corinthians here, because if ANY of the apostles would know that the Law *doesn’t* command women to be silent, it would Paul the Torah scholar.
Eph 5:22,24 — these verses hang on the post of 5:21, as the female expression of mutual submission. It is still hard for me to wrap my head around the argument that men submit by being in charge while women submit by submitting. I know that’s not how you would frame it, but that’s how it (the argument, NOT you) sounds from the cheap seats here.
Col 3:18 seems, as with many of the Colossians commands, to grow from the same thought root as the latter commands of Ephesians 5. Since in Ephesians 5, love is classified as the male expression of submitting himself to his wife, I’m not sure this is intended to be read as a hierarchy either.
1 Tim 2:11 says, “a woman should learn in quietness and full submission.” Unless you insert, “to men,” in that sentence, I’m at present unwilling to assume that that is Paul’s intended point.
1 Pet 3 is describing the relationship between a believing wife and an unbelieving husband. And if it is the pattern for us to follow, good luck getting Carolina to call you Lord Timothy of Archer :)
In short, there are passages that talk about submission, and there are passages that talk about relationships between husbands and wives. What I haven’t seen is a set of passages giving ,b>you (for example) authority over my wife, or giving me authority over your daughter, solely on the grounds of our maleness and their femaleness.
If Eve isn’t explicitly commanded to submit to Adam, from where is the idea drawn that what responsibility he has in that situation is due to his maleness?
I’m not convinced that there is an eternal hierarchy among the Father-Son-Spirit relationship of mutual love. The prophetic/apocalyptic image of two thrones, one for the Ancient of Days and one for the “one like a son of man,” seems to undermine the idea that within YHWH is an eternal hierarchy. There’s only room for one throne at the top of a hierarchy.
The concept of male leadership exists.
It has not yet been substantiated that said concept stems from the created order of things (the idea that Adam’s in charge because he was made first is consistently undermined by just about every hierarchy narrative in Genesis, where the firstborn — whether it is Ishmael, Esau, or Reuben — is NEVER the one God establishes as the leader. There are certain things that, because he was created first, Adam knew before Eve did, and Adam seems to have been expected to convey that information rather than to allow her to be deceived. But that’s an authority based upon giftedness rather than maleness or primacy of creation. Incidentally, that seems to be Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy – Eve was deceived because the one who was created first and who was gifted with wisdom failed to instruct her well; therefore women are to learn).
I don’t want to fall prey to the false dichotomy fallacy, so I don’t want to assume that the only two options are either CREATED ORDER or CURSE/FALL/INSERT PREFERRED NOMECLATURE HERE.
What other options are there?
Just so we don’t get lost in all of this, let me ask:
Do you agree that it’s inaccurate (or at least poorly supported) to assert that maintaining male leadership in the church is “prolonging The Curse”?
I’d like to leave the rest of the argument to one side, for now. In my circles, this is an important point to establish, one way or the other.
I do not agree that it is inaccurate. Here’s a thumbnail sketch of why, off the top of my head.
— I think that Adam was held responsible, in Genesis 3 and in 1 Tim 2, because he was gifted with the wisdom that Eve needed and did not teach her accurately.
— His role as the responsible party, therefore, is not based on a universal principle of firstborn leadership or male leadership, but from the principle that “much is expected from those to whom much is given.”
— Whatever Genesis 3:16 is describing (including the conflict between the genders and the dominance of the male), it is describing -clearly and contextually- as a result of the events surrounding the temptation and sin by the serpent, Adam, and Eve.
— Therefore, if submission to one another coupled with leadership by giftedness is the default creational intent, then the concept that leadership should be established/authenticated by gender alone finds its source somewhere other than in God’s intent for his creation.
— “The Curse” is current theological parlance for the source/cause of the whole category of behaviors, concepts, ideas, and activities that are against God’s intent.
— Therefore, being perceived as working to maintain a system that is against God’s intent, rather than working to live now according to the way we will relate to one another in the Eschaton, could be fairly described as seeming to “prolong the curse.”
OK, so let me deal with the texts you mentioned, or actually, that I mentioned. Let me say that you noted an absence of texts referring to female submission; that’s what I was providing. Let me react to your thoughts.
Where things get tricky is trying to determine how much submission is restricted to the marriage relationship and how much is seen as a broader principle. It seems broader in 1 Timothy 2, but that’s specifically referring to teaching/learning.
To your last paragraphs… I’m not one who argues male leadership based on order of creation. Nor on the curse/fall. Does that mean I successfully avoided the false dichotomy? :-)
The creation and the curse, seems to me, have a mirror effect. In creation man was to care for and tend to the garden… in the curse he will have to toil with the ground. In creation they are told to be fruitful and multiply… in the curse a woman is to suffer in childbirth. In the curse we have 3:16… so what is the antithesis in creation? I think it is the oneness and unity of the couple. What was once natural will now come only with struggle. That still leaves a lot of interpreting to be done, but it is an insight that helps me frame the passage.
Nick, I guess that’s more conjecture than I’m comfortable with to be able to directly accuse others of operating against God’s will.
Your first sentence is weird, because it seems that Paul is calling for a dramatic change in how married couples are to interact — unless sacrificial, saving headship is the typical way husbands treated wives in the first century.
Your second sentence, if it were actually in the text, would probably make things remarkably more palatable. But it doesn’t seem to be there. Neither party’s behavior seems at all predicated on “properly exercised” or “loving” behavior from their counterpart.
On 1 Tim 2:11-12: Submissiveness is the same word in 2:11 as in 3:4, where it describes the appropriate response from a child to a father. For that reason alone, I’m leery of saying that 2:11 establishes how Christian women should relate to Christian men. But there’s more — I’m nowhere near enough of a Greek scholar to argue intelligently about the difference between exousia and authentein, but I’m enough of a reader to know that authors pick words for reasons, and Paul had a reason why he did not choose his usual word for “exercise authority.” Finally, the example of Priscilla teaching Apollos must influence how we interpret Paul’s prohibition here concerning teaching. Whether Aquila was there or not is irrelevant — Luke says they instructed Apollos, not he instructed Apollos while Priscilla did whatever.
On Col 3:18, I agree, but that’s equally true of other passages. Are we to assume the opposite, that because the Colossians didn’t get the Ephesian correspondence, Paul didn’t actually want the Colossians to be submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ? Or is it possible that Col 3:17 and Eph 5:21 are conceptually synonymous, because “doing all in the name of the Lord” means living lives marked by submission?
On 1 Pet 3, you’re right, even though it undermines your earlier point about “properly exercised loving leadership.” Sarah obeyed Abraham when he commanded her to go be with another man. From your framework, Peter is saying, “Obey your husbands even if they are disobedient to the word…. because that’s how Sarah did it. You are her daughters if you submit to your husband and don’t give in to fear…” of how he might abuse such power. What else, in the 1 Pet 3 context, does the wife in question have to be afraid of?
As to the false dichotomy, I think you are caught on it, even if I used a poor word choice. You are asserting, it seems, that there are only two possible sources for male leadership: creational intent or the Curse. If it didn’t come from the curse, then it must be the way God wants life to be in his creation.
It may sound like I’m asserting that, but it’s not my intention. I’m not saying that denying one affirms the other.
Danny, I agree. I’ve found Susan Foh’s article on that text to be very helpful: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf
Well, I wouldn’t walk up to a soldier and say, “Hey, buddy, I think you’re operating against God’s will!” even though I believe nationalism and warmaking to be, well, operating against God’s will and prolonging the curse of chaos and futility that has infected God’s good creation.
Nick, you stated, “— I think that Adam was held responsible, in Genesis 3 and in 1 Tim 2, because he was gifted with the wisdom that Eve needed and did not teach her accurately.” This is directly contradicted by Genesis 3:3. Whether she was taught by Adam or by God, Eve knew precisely what the prohibition was.
You also stated,”— His role as the responsible party, therefore, is not based on a universal principle of firstborn leadership or male leadership, but from the principle that “much is expected from those to whom much is given.”” This is directly contradicted by Genesis 3:17. Adam was confronted by God because he “listened to the voice of his wife,” not because “you knew more than she did.”
I simply do not see where 1 Cor. 14 is so problematic. As one trained, as you said, in Torah interpretation, Paul would also be well versed in drawing specific conclusions from generic teachings. Under the law the males were to be the teachers and spiritual leaders. Also, specifically in regard to vows, a woman’s vow was able to stand only if her father or husband did not disapprove of the vow upon becoming aware of it (ref. Num. 30). From creation, or from the general (and specific) instructions within the law, it is very easy to see that Paul could add the phrase “as even the law says” in 1 Cor. 14:34.
*My opinion* Paul is consistent throughout his letters in dealing with male-female relationships. It is only those who want to base their behavior on current trends in gender-bending that have a problem with Paul’s consistency. Egalitarians want to turn Paul into a mysogynistic pig. LGBTQ advocates want to turn Paul into a homophobic, mysogynistic pig. The two tracks are identical in direction, they vary only in specifics.*My opinion*
Precisely? I suggest that you compare Genesis 3:3 with Genesis 2:16-17. “Adding to” is as much a lack of precision as “taking away from.” Your definition of “precisely” might need recalibration.
That does not explain why, in 3:9, God confronts Adam first.
Then Paul accuses Miriam of sin. And Deborah. And Huldah. And Philip’s prophesying daughters. And the very women he authorized to pray with a sign of authority in 1 Cor 11.
This is a non-sequitur, as no one in this conversation has accused Paul of inconsistency. I agree that he is consistent throughout his letters — I just disagree with the traditional stance that what Paul consistently teaches is that males submit by commanding females and females submit by submitting to males.
Nick, are you saying we have every word ever uttered by God, his prophets, or anyone else for that matter? In Genesis 42 the reader is told that the brothers of Joseph freely revealed the existence of their younger brother, Benjamin, still with his father. But, in Genesis 43 the reader is further told that it was only after the insistent questioning of Joseph that the brothers had to reluctantly reveal the existence of Benjamin. So – we are not told if the further instruction “do not touch” came from God or Adam – but in either case Eve knew that eating the fruit was expressly forbidden.
Paul does not explain his phrase “even as the law says.” He merely appends it to his statement that women should remain silent. Your earlier argument was that the law does not state that clearly. My point is that as one trained in Rabbinic thinking, Paul easily could have made that argument.
Don’t forget that God punished Miriam for getting a little too uppity with Moses.
God “confronted” Adam first because God expected Adam to be the leader. Why confront Eve first if Adam failed in his leadership responsibilities?
There is no contextual nor grammatical evidence to argue that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 has anything whatsoever to do with a gathered worship assembly. Paul is simply making an argument from a generic example. However – 1 Cor. 14 is CLEARLY in the context of a worship assembly setting. 1 Cor. 11:17-18 provide a clear contextual break. This is further emphasized in 11:33, and more importantly, in 14:26.
Paul is utterly consistent with his teachings on male spiritual leadership. It is not just 1 Corinthians, or just Ephesians, or just Timothy, or just Titus. Moreover, Peter supports that consistency as well. To argue against one passage is to argue against the entirety of Paul’s teaching. To redefine the role of men and women today, egalitarians have to completely “deconstruct” this uniform teaching. First, 1 Cor. 14:34 is a spurious addition to the MSS, and then Timothy, Titus and Ephesians are not genuine Pauline literature, but late first or early second century “proto-Catholic” letters written by imposters who use Paul’s name to further their androcentric dogma. I say Paul is being consistent, and it is the egalitarians that are the inconsistent ones.
Oh, all those uppity women! :)
It seems like the question always comes back to created intent versus man-imposed submission. And I guess the answer could be given from both sides of the fence, with both holding firmly to their beliefs and interpretations.
I am so not a scholar, so bear with me. I’ve been guilty of saying what your friend has said. But let me explain why.
There is an evident sense of mutuality before the Fall, which does not exist after the Fall. Your point makes a lot of sense (and is right) that God cursed the ground, not the people. But he describes something else that happens after that curse. A power struggle that honestly didn’t seem to be there before. Before “the curse”, female and male relationships looked different than after it.
This was something I wrote awhile ago that reflects my feelings on the subject:
The myth that men were created for headship and women were created for submission is a damaging one for many reasons. It not only sets up a hierarchy where there wasn’t one originally, but it speaks to a post-Curse world. Before the Fall, male and female ruled and subdued together. After the Fall, relationships were broken. Power came into the picture. Shame. Pain.
When we use the church to perpetuate this myth, we are telling women, over and over again, that anytime they demonstrate leadership skills, anytime they “step out of the box”, anytime they are not acquiescing, submissive, or silent, they are defying Creation. They are defying God. We are telling men, over and over again, that anytime they defer to their wives, daughters, sisters, or female friends, they are emasculating themselves and God is not happy.
When we make male leadership part of the Creation narrative, we are leaving out half of the picture. Half of the bone. Half of the flesh. Most of God.
———
That may seem too emotional for some. It may seem like a feminist agenda or a way to further an agenda.
But honestly, it’s just my heart.
These conversations are painful to read.
Kaitlin,
I feel the pain. I’m living through a congregational discussion of this topic that seems destined to lead to a number of good people leaving our flock… and that’s without knowing what our elders will finally decide!
Thanks for sharing. I agree with the concept of a power struggle existing after the Fall that didn’t exist before the Fall. I’m sure that you’re familiar with Susan Foh’s writings on the subject. Suffice it to say that I haven’t found a better description that fits with what the text says. One article of hers can be read here: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/foh-womansdesire-wtj.pdf
We disagree on several points. But I always welcome your input!
It’s so hard when people leave. :( I’m sorry. We just went through that and have lost some dear families.
That was an interesting article. I had never read that before; thank you. Her wording near the end was a little tough, but I appreciated where she was coming from. What makes this discussion so hard is the intensely personal nature of the conversation. I just don’t want that to be lost in the exegesis and scholarship. There are real women who really are affected by this.
Thanks for being welcoming even though you disagree. I really appreciate the space to talk.