Tag Archives: gender

Male leadership a consequence of The Fall? Where’s the biblical evidence?

19 Replies

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.

Men, Women, and The Curse

8 Replies

Adam and Eve in the GardenWith the general feeling that I’m prying open a powder keg with a lit torch in my hand, I want to look at another aspect of the issue of gender relations in the church (And yes, I still lack a good way of referring to that topic). I want to talk about The Curse.

When discussing women’s roles in the church, one often hears a reference to male headship/leadership as merely being a result of what God described in Genesis 3:16. A friend of mine was discussing how churches limit the participation of women, and he said, “They don’t realize they’re just prolonging The Curse.”

A question came to mind. Can you think of any place in the New Testament where this argument is made? That is, 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? What scriptures would you offer to support such a view?

I’d just as soon we didn’t wander too far afield from this particular question. If you were going to prove the validity of this argument (male leadership began with The Fall and is a consequence of The Curse), what biblical texts would you use? Let’s leave out Genesis 3 for now. What does the rest of Scripture say about this?

Thanks for your input!

The woman desiring her husband in Genesis 3… it might not mean what I thought

8 Replies

01_Ge_03_04_RGAs I was doing some work on Genesis 1-3 for an upcoming Bible class, I ran across an interesting group of articles on Genesis 3:16. (Naturally I run across this right after posting an article on the same over at Wineskins)

Not that it should matter, but I’ll mention that these articles happened to be written by women. And they take an interesting view, one which emphasizes context (thereby hitting one of my hot buttons).

One is a journal article by Susan Foh titled “What Is The Woman’s Desire?”
The second is an article by Claire Smith called “A Sidebar Called Desire.” I should point out that this one is linked to a countering view: “Problems With A New Reading Of An Old Verse,” by Wendy Alsup.

The view espoused by Foh and Smith concerns the use of the word desire in Genesis 3:16—

“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

These women note that the Hebrew word translated “desire” is used three times in the Old Testament: here, in Genesis 4, and in the Song of Solomon. In the Song of Solomon, it appears to refer to sexual desire. But in Genesis 4, it means something very different:

“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4:7)

I’ll confess, I’d never noticed the amazingly similar language between Genesis 4:7 and Genesis 3:16. Foh summarizes her study in this way:

Contrary to the usual interpretations of commentators, the desire of the woman in Genesis 3:16b does not make the wife (more) submissive to her husband so that he may rule over her. Her desire is to contend with him for leadership in their relationship. This desire is a result of and a just punishment for sin, but it is not God’s decretive will for the woman. Consequently, the man must actively seek to rule his wife.

I’m not completely ready to buy this, but the evidence from the text is powerful. I’m not looking for a debate about gender roles (nor will I participate in one), but I’d love to hear your thoughts on this interpretation of Genesis 3.

Image courtesy of Sweet Publishing

Gender by design

32 Replies

bride and groomYesterday, I mentioned some of the affirmations about marriage that I presented in a sermon on Sunday. I want to take a few days to unpack some of these ideas.

To begin the list, I decided to start with what Jesus began with when talking about marriage:

““Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’”

(Matthew 19:4)

Affirmation #1: God created mankind as male and female.

God created gender. He created two of them, male and female. That’s the basic building block of marriage: the intentionality of a two-gendered humanity.

We live in an age where that statement comes into question. Many would scoff at the idea of God creating anything. Others take a rather deistic approach, seeing that God created things a certain way, but our world has evolved beyond that. Many in the church today take a dualistic approach to human sexuality, seeing gender more as a barrier to be overcome than a part of divine design.

But if we’re going to speak of marriage as Jesus did, then it’s right for us to begin with this basic statement: God created males and females. Two sexes. On purpose. By design.

We aren’t male and female because evolution so dictated. Our chromosomes don’t differ from one another because of the random happenings of a mindless universe. We were made by God, made to be male, made to be female. That’s stated in the very first chapter of the Bible and reinforced by the Word Made Flesh when he was living among us.

Affirmation #1: God created mankind as male and female.

Photo by Rachel James

Jews, slaves, women, and baptism

12 Replies

Bathroom-gender-signIn the comment section yesterday, Mike Cope, who directs the Pepperdine Lectures, responded to my post from Monday. He offered both clarifications and criticism. Both deserve to be heard. You can read Mike’s comments here and here.

Mike took exception to my calling Jarrod Robinson’s lecture “an agenda-driven talk.” Mike said that he chose both title and text, basing his decisions on scholarly writings, particularly those of Richard Hays. The choice was made for scholarly reasons, not in an effort to promote a certain agenda.

Mike also felt that I was saying that “if someone knew a little more about Galatians, they’d know how irrelevant it is to discussions of gender roles.” That’s not something I said nor intended, but it may have come across that way. Mike refuted that by referring to quite a number of scholars who feel that Galatians 3:28 does in fact reflect Paul’s egalitarian view of gender. Mike quoted both from Hays and from Gordon Fee in his comments.

I will note that Fee’s writings have generated quite a bit of pushback. I’m not as familiar with Hays’ writings. Either way, I recognize that many scholars hold the view Mike described. My study has led me to a different conclusion, one that I feel is biblical. As people say in Spanish, I don’t consider myself to be “the owner of the truth,” but I do feel that my beliefs line up with the larger themes we see in Scripture.

So let’s keep looking at this passage. Actually, I’d like to start by looking at two others, alongside Galatians 3:28:

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11)
“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” (1 Corinthians 12:13)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

One thing that I learned from Dr. Tom Olbricht is the importance of noting what is repeated in Scripture. Things that are repeated often represent concepts that were consistently taught among God’s people. They are less likely to be localized teachings and more likely to be important points with a broader application. Such is the case with the unity of God’s people, a unity that overcomes divisions among people.

When dealing with similar passages, it’s also important to note differences. One thing that jumps as we compare these three statements from Paul is the inclusion of male/female in Galatians 3:28. That bears investigation. Why does Paul include that particular grouping in the letter to the Galatians and not the other two letters?

One possibility is that the Galatian church had a particular problem with gender relations. That’s a possibility, but there’s really nothing else in the letter that would support that.

A better understanding, in my view, is one proposed by Troy W. Martin in his article “The Covenant of Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14) and the Situational Antitheses in Galatians 3:28” from the Journal of Biblical Literature, Spring 2003. Martin notes the parallels between what the Law said about circumcision and the three pairs mentioned by Paul in Galatians 3:28. Briefly, the idea is that male Jews were to be circumcised, along with any slaves that they owned. Jews. Slaves. Males. The same three groups that Paul addresses, when talking to a church that was wrestling with the issue of circumcision.

Why does Paul mention women in Galatians 3:28? Circumcision. Those who sought to impose circumcision on the Galatians were imposing it on the males, not the females. They were saying that one group came to Jesus one way, the other a different way.

Paul says no. We are all baptized into Christ. In that same way, we all become children of God, descendants of Abraham, and heirs of the promise. There is no difference. We are all one.

Note: that interpretation alone doesn’t answer the question of whether or not this verse has a broader application or whether it is meant to redefine all roles within the church. But it does make sense as to why women were mentioned in Galatians 3:28 and not in the other unity formulas written by Paul.

But we need to note a couple of things:

  • This is not a main part of Paul’s argument
  • This does not seem to have been something that Paul emphasized in other places; other unity formulas don’t include male/female
  • It’s dangerous to take a minor point in a single text and make it the basis for interpreting other texts. Many egalitarians accuse others of doing that with texts from 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, then do the same thing with Galatians 3:28