PerryDox – BeJustAChristian

At least two things are essential when understanding one’s own argument: 1) What the foundational fact(s) is that everything else is built on. 2) How one’s position may be defeated. The conclusion I have reached on whether headship is established by God in men, both in the home and in the church, is reasoned from two essential positions: 1) That headship is established in creation and is not a result of “The Fall”; 2) That if headship is not established in Genesis 1-2, then my whole argument falls apart.

When studying one’s own position, it is likewise essential to understand its weak points. For me, the strongest argument against headship being part of creation is that there is not a single clear statement with wording such as, “When God created man and woman, man is the head of the woman.” However, we all know that just because a clear, simple, and succinct statement is made does not mean all will accept it.

When looking at the arguments below, consider the “preponderance of evidence.” Like in a trial, sometimes guilt or innocence can be established without an eye witness based upon the weight of many arguments. Such I believe is true when looking at whether headship is established in Genesis 1-2. Some arguments are stronger than others as they stand alone; but put together they make a compelling case that when God created man and woman, he created roles of them wherein the husband is the head of the wife. Now on to establishing that conclusion.

The Two Creation Accounts

A young lady in High School approached me, wanting help with the “contradictions” her professor said existed between the two creation accounts in Genesis 1-2. Liberal scholars even teach these were written by two different authors which is why they are so different.

Firstly, these two chapters don’t contradict; they are complementary to each other just as coins have both heads and tails.

The first coin

• Genesis 1 is geocentric focusing on the earth.
• Genesis 2 is androcentric focusing on Adam and Eve and their home in the garden of Eden. This will become more of a focus later in that we can refer to Genesis 2-3 as The Garden of Eden Narrative (notice it is singular).

The second coin

• Genesis 1 focuses on mankind’s, both male and female, shared spiritual and authoritative identity – in God’s image.
• Genesis 2 focuses on mankind’s physical and relational identity – Adam out of dust; Eve out of man.

The third coin

Differences are even found in what God is called. This has made some conclude the chapters had different authors (Priestly and Yahwist). Once more we must look deeper into intent:

• Genesis 1 God is Elohim who creates everything which emphasizes God’s power.
• Genesis 2 has, what is revealed later to Moses, God’s personal name – Yahweh (equivalent to in some translations as Jehovah). This emphasizes the more personal side of creation; which is shown in how Yahweh individually forms Adam and Eve. This more personal view shows Yahweh to be concerned for Adam’s needs.

The fourth coin

• Genesis 1 emphasizes male and female having ontological equality – both in God’s image and therefore, both functionally ruling over the earth. As we will see below, that is not the only lesson taught concerning man and woman.
• Genesis 2 emphasizes male and female having functional differences – subjection of the female; and yet, not inferior, because she is created to be equipped to help the male. Being a helper implies ability, as well as compatibility. Maybe even more importantly, being a helper suitable to the cause means complementary supplement for the express purpose of completing the Divine will for humankind, His greatest creation. And again, we will see how functional inequality is not the only lesson taught.

Secondly, all of this shows that if we want to understand a text, especially those that are seemingly contradictory, we must first understand the writer’s purpose. What appears contradictory is, often, beautifully complementary. This is extremely important when in a later lesson we add Genesis 3 to the discussion. As an example of how being different can mean being meant to fill in the missing parts, let’s examine one word. The Hebrew word is neged. This means, “in front of, in sight of, opposite to”. The opposite can be exactly what is needed because Eve was the opposite of Adam and neged is translated in Genesis 2:18,20 as a helper “suitable” (NIV, NASB); “fit for” (ESV); “corresponding to” (CSB); “his complement” (HCSB). In this sense, “opposites attract.’

The Two Sides of Man and Woman

There is only one real argument against headship being taught in Genesis 1-2 (and re-emphasized in chapter 3). That is, there is no straightforward statement saying something to the effect of, “As male and female are to rule over the animals, the male is to rule over the female.”

If such was said, that still would not settle it because there are plenty of plain passages that invite all kinds of strange and differing interpretations. However, if the creation narratives had said that, it would make the point clearer.

Believing that headship is established, how is it taught without such a clear, concise statement?

Just as some see contradictions between these two creation narratives, Egalitarians and Complementarians contradict each other in what they see in Genesis 1 and 2.  People contradict, but what about the narratives? Even though they are written for different purposes, they say the same things in different ways. What we will discover is again harmony; where the two chapters complement one another even though Genesis 2 belongs more to Genesis 3 than to the first chapter.

Below I will show why both chapters are in harmony in what they teach concerning headship. Complementarians understand Paul’s reasoning to Timothy and the Corinthians, when dealing with the roles of men and women in the church, to deal with headship in Genesis 2:

• 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 (8) For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. (9) And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.
• 1 Timothy 2:13 – For Adam was created first, then Eve.

Seeing how all three chapters in Genesis teach the same lessons will also help us interpret Genesis 3:16 where God said to Eve concerning Adam, “he will rule over you.” This is a debated verse as to whether this is a result of the fall or a restatement of pre-sin conditions which were broken by both Eve and Adam. So, let’s go back to the beginning to see what the text says.

Egalitarians are right when saying Genesis 1:26-27 teaches ontological equality between men and women. Both are made in the image of God. Both are given the same economical function of ruling and subduing the earth and its inhabitants:

Genesis 1:28 – God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth.”

More on those words of dominion later. But for now, it is important to recognize that historically human cultures and churches have been remiss in asserting such equality among the sexes (and responsibility towards the earth and its inhabitants). One extreme usually leads to another, known as the Pendulum Effect.

Egalitarians argue that only equality (Same Worth) and function (Same Work) are taught in the creation accounts. I read somewhere, “there is not of hint” of headship within the creation accounts. One reason for this is that the word rule/mashal (Genesis 3:6) is not used in the pre-fall accounts. Then again, neither is marriage and yet we recognize it is present by both pictures and other words.

• First, I suggest many, even complementarians, misunderstand the word rule/ As a quick aside, many egalitarians and complementarians misunderstand Genesis 3:16 to mean that a man’s ruling is part of the curse or at least a consequence of sin in the world. While I do not hold that opinion, it is beyond obvious that sin has ruined the headship of the husband and made subjection for women miserable. What the new covenant does is restore – not a relationship where there is not headship and subjection – a proper understanding of such as seen in Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:21ff)
• Second, the fact the pre-curse passages do not use this word or similar words, does not mean headship is not taught. Lessons, especially in a narrative driven book such as Genesis, are more often taught via pictures or stories, than by direct commands. For example, the word “repent” is not used in the Joseph narrative concerning his brothers. Their actions, especially Judah’s, gives us a picture of repentance.

Let’s examine reasons why Paul might have reasoned (although inspired) that headship of men in home leads to the conclusion of headship in the church; and that such is part of God’s original, “good” creation. We will take the arguments in the order they appear.

Both Male and Female Are Called “Man”

Within the creation accounts (Genesis 1-2), there are three words that describe human males:

1. Man/adam (1:26-27; 2:23,25).
2. Male/zakar (1:27) which refers to the sex of the human as male, and not used of one’s humanity exclusively since zakar is used of male animals (6:19). This is exactly how we in English use the word “male.”
3. Man/husband/ish (2:23-24). This also is used to further differentiate males from females, and is used to identify their similarity yet differences.

Correspondingly (even complementarily), there are three words that describe human females:

1. Man/adam (1:26-27)
2. Female/neqebah (1:27) which refers to the sex of the human as female, and not one’s humanity since neqebah is used of female animals (6:19).
3. Woman/wife/ishah (2:22-25). The derivation of ishah comes from ish/man (2:23), much like in English “woman” comes from “man”, and “female” is derived from “male.”

Although this is not a direct statement of male headship, the picture drawn by linguistics in Genesis 1 and 2 teach male leadership:

1. Both Adam and Eve are man/adam.
2. Adam is not female/neqebah or woman/ishah.
3. Eve is not male/zakar or man/ishah
4. Woman/ishah is is derived from man/ish just as Eve was physically derived from Adam (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).
5. Therefore if both male and female are man/adam, and woman/ishah comes from man/ish, then male leadership is implied and taught in both Genesis 1 and 2 by the words used to describe them.

Adam was Created First – Primogeniture

The main reason this is such a strong point is it is the same point made by inspiration by Paul to Timothy: 1 Timothy 2:13 (HCSB) For Adam was created first, then Eve.

The question that must be answered is why this is such an important foundational point?

Caveat – The question which either solidifies or eliminates this argument is whether primogeniture is cultural or transcultural. There is no doubt that there is a cultural aspect to it within the Patriarchal period. There is also no doubt that within our American culture that the rights of the first-born as found in birthrights and blessings (i.e. Jacob and Esau is when we first see this), no longer exists.

That presents the possibility that this point is cultural and not transcultural. What evidence is there for the latter?

• All of Christianity is founded upon Christ being the first-born (Colossians 1:15,18).
• Paul uses the reason of primogeniture in arguing for his inspired reason (1 Timothy 2:13). And this reason was made to a Gentile audience.
• Creation is pre-cultural and therefore transcultural. Even if something is cultural, it still can be binding if it goes back to creation. For example, is the first day of the week significant? That first day is based upon a 7 day week. Romans used an 8 day week. Early Christians referred to the 1st day as the 8^th

Based upon the above, I consider it factual that God’s priority of the firstborn is pre-cultural and therefore transcultural and within the home and church, part of creation order.

Primogeniture means “the state of being the firstborn child.” The right of succession belongs to the firstborn child, especially in a feudal system by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son. In Bible times, the firstborn received the birthright and special blessing. The birthright was twice the amount left to the other children. In today’s American society, the firstborn does not have any special legal rights. For us, the question remains, did God intend us to learn and apply the rights of the firstborn as seen in creation as an eternal and therefore not cultural guideline for home and church? Is what Paul took note of in two discussions of this essential (1 Corinthians 11; 1 Timothy 2)?

Historically, Adam was created first, a fact attested to by the writer of Genesis and Paul. The fall in Genesis 3 is a reversal of leadership presupposed in primogeniture.

However, one theme in Genesis is the surprising number of times where primogeniture is set aside by divine intervention: Ishmael for Isaac; Esau for Jacob; Rebeun for Joseph; Manasseh for Ephraim. In Genesis the exception is ruled by divine decree.

The objection to this is “God created animals before Adam, so….” I find this objection silly and a non-sequitur.

1. Adam and Eve were made in God’s image, animals were not therefore they are over them.
2. God in authoritative speech gives mankind dominion over animals.
3. Adam shows his authority over the animals by naming them.
4. Number 4 gets its own extended explanation. Nowhere in scripture did the rights of the firstborn apply to animals over humans. Nowhere. When

How does this fit in with the role of women speaking in the assembly?

1) Paul uses the firstborn rights as head or leader in two passages (1 Cor.11; 1 Tim.2). That means this is an inspired divine culture for the church based upon creation.

2) Just as God intervened in Genesis involving primogeniture, we see God intervening in 1 Cor.11 where women were prophesying and praying (I suggest in tongues as in ch.14). Such an “unnatural” order and event is why those women wore a symbol of authority on their heads. They were demonstrating they were not usurping authority because God intervened through miraculous gifts in His rule of primogeniture.

So the rights of the first born plays a role in the church as did the exception.

Adam Made “Teacher”

While Genesis 1 does not differentiate a time difference between the creation of male and female, showing both created on day six; Genesis 2 gives an unspecified time difference. Because of this we know that when God is speaking to Adam, Eve had not yet been formed. What does God say among several things?

Genesis 2:16 (HCSB) And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, (17) but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”

Whether God Himself later spoke this to Eve is unrevealed, as is whether Adam told her. However, we do know she knew (3:2). The most natural reading is that Adam taught her.

This, I think, is significant when we get to the passages about teaching or exercising authority over men being forbidden (1 Timothy 2:11). The reason is, the teacher, “Adam was created first” (1 Timothy 2:13). This reaffirms what Genesis narrates. Genesis 3 shows the reversal where she is teaching Adam (3:17). This also will help us as we look at silence what it means and doesn’t mean.

Authority is Found in Naming

When comparing both creation stories, there is an instructive similarity concerning speaking and naming:

• In Genesis 1 is the repeated statement “Then God said” (1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26,28,29). God is the authority behind creation. Speaking entails authority.
• In Genesis 2 God speaks twice. The first is the twofold command to Adam stating what he could and couldn’t eat (2:16). The second time God speaks to himself about creating woman, much like in Genesis 1 when creating both man as male and female (2:18).
• The third time someone speaks the words are not recorded. Adam names the animals (2:20). This goes back to God saying man had authority over the animals (1:28)
• The third time the words are recorded is when Adam declares his affinity for Eve and declares her as his “woman” based off the Hebrew for man (2:23).

The point is this – looking at how the Holy Spirit tells these two stories is instructive. Authority is found in the one who speaks. This is turned upside down in Genesis 3 when the serpent speaks leading Eve into temptation (3:1,4-5), and Eve leads by giving the fruit to her husband who was with her (3:6), while Adam is chastised for listening to his wife (3:17). This should help explain Paul’s restrictions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. The speaking that is condemned is speaking that assumes authority. Interestingly, even asking questions can be assuming authority such as Supreme Court justices…and as the serpent enjoined upon Eve. He assumed authority by teaching why God said what He did, and contradicting God. Speaking, even in the form of questions, under subjection and not assuming authority, is not restricted. None of the speaking in Genesis 1-2 is speaking without proper authority.

Akin to this, there is a modern practice with an ancient beginning. And although not universally practiced, it does have a strikingly similarity to something common today in the USA.

Janet’s maiden name is Bates. When we married, I didn’t change my name; she changed hers. While older societies had wives take their husband’s name in various forms because women had no economic power, it also symbolized how they were one not two. When did this old-fashioned naming practice begin?

In the beginning God said, “Let us make man in our image” and then He does: “So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female.” (Genesis 1:26,27). The Hebrew for man is “adam”. Both Male and female share the same “name”. Both male and female are “adam”, are “man”. Adam is man/adam and Eve is man/adam; but Adam is not Eve nor woman. Later Adam names his wife “ishshaw” (2:23) based off Adam being “ish”.

In the beginning God names male and female as man, and then Adam follows the pattern and names woman from man. Getting more personal Adam even names his wife “Eve” (3:20). Eve is “man”, “female”, “woman”, and “Eve.”  Four “names” for Eve and two (adam, ishshaw) based on her relationship to her husband; and three times the woman derives her name from her husband.

Many today are saying the functional differences of the husband being the head of the family were not part of original creation. God having the wife take the name of her husband suggests otherwise. And this was in the beginning.

Let’s look at other verses that deal with assigning names:

1. 4:26 – “And to Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh.”
2. 17:5 – “No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham. For I will make you the father of a multitude of nations.”
3. 17:15 – “Then God said to Abraham, ‘As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.'”
4. 41:45 – “Then Pharaoh named Joseph Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On, as his wife. And Joseph went forth over the land of Egypt.”
5. 2 Kings 23:34 – “And Pharaoh Neco made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Jehoiakim . . . “
6. 2 Kings 24:17 – “Then the king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah.”
7. 1:7 – “Then the commander of the officials assigned new names to them; and to Daniel he assigned the name Belteshazzar, to Hananiah Shadrach, to Mishael Meshach, and to Azariah Abed-nego.”
8. Isaiah 62:2 – “And the nations will see your righteousness, and all kings your glory; And you will be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord will designate.”
9. John 1:42 “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).”

• CAVEAT – This is not a universal rule (i.e. Genesis 16:13)

Position as Head is Found in Eve Made From and For Adam

This is different than who was made first because both could have been made from the ground at different times. Again, using Paul as an inspired commentator and interpreter, he lists this in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9:

1 Corinthians 11:8 (8) For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. (9) And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.

Having established headship is taught in the creation accounts, we can not make better sense of how headship is shown during the account of the fall.

As a preview, here is how Genesis 1-3 all teach headship is part of the creation of man and woman:

1. Headship Found in the Name “Man”
2. Headship Found in Male Being Made First
3. Headship Found in Instruction About Tree
4. Eve created out of Adam
5. Eve created for Adam
6. Meaning of Woman – being taken out of Man
7. Headship Found in Naming Eve
8. Headship Found in Addressing Man First
9. God condemned Adam for two reasons

Tags: Role of Women

This entry was posted by PHall on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2019 at 10:08 am and is filed under Genesis. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.