Grace Theological Journal 2.1 (1981) 23-44
Copyright © 1981 by Grace Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
MALE/FEMALE ROLE
RELATIONSHIP
MICHAEL F. STITZINGER
An examination of certain considerations
in Genesis 1-3 contrib-
utes to a
proper view of a hierarchical distinction between male and
female. Genesis 1 primarily emphasizes the
relationship of spiritual
equality. Genesis 2 focuses upon the positional
distinction in the area
of
function. Contrary to the feminist
position, several indications
reveal that
a hierarchical relationship exists prior to the fall of
mankind. The New Testament consistently upholds this
same rela-
tionship
between male and female. Genesis 3 indicates
that the sexes
reversed
their respective roles with their fall into sin. An aspect of the
curse that
is subsequently placed upon the woman is Genesis 3:16b,
which
indicates that sin affected the hierarchical relationship, but did
not disannul
it. The "desire" of the woman
provides a reminder to all
women that
the subordinate role still remains as her correct posture.
As a
consequence of sin, man will often abuse his headship, exercis-
ing his
"rule" harshly over the woman.
Together, the first 3 chapters
of Genesis
consistently argue for a continuing hierarchical order
between male
and female.
*
* *
INTRODUCTION
ONE of the
most important subjects of our day is that of the role
of
women. Our society is in the midst of a
sexual revolution.
Increasing
confusion has developed about our identities as men and
women. A diminishing influence of the
Judeo-Christian heritage, the
rise of the
feminist movement, and pressure for the Equal Rights
Amendment
have called into question traditional understandings of
sexual
roles. This has created great
uncertainty in our contemporary
situation
both inside and outside of the church about what it means
24 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
to be a man
or a woman.1 As John Davis
observes, "The proper roles
of men and
women in marriage and family, in the church, and
in the wider
society are the subject of an ongoing debate that has
touched us
all."2
Under the guise of the term
"evangelical," many current writers
are
advocating positions that are acceptable to the women's liberation
movement. Individuals such as Paul Jewett,3
Virginia Mollenkott,4
Letha
Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty,5 Don Williams,6 and Patricia
Gundry7
have suggested similar arguments in support of egalitarian-
ism. This understanding of Scripture provides a
very real threat to the
traditional
hierarchical view of male and female.
There is a great need for a proper
understanding of the respective
roles God
has established for man and woman. This
study will
examine
certain considerations in Genesis 1-3 which contribute to an
understanding
of a hierarchical distinction between male and female.
FEMINIST CLAIMS AND THE CREATION ACCOUNT
No one denies that the apostle Paul used
the creation account to
support his
claims for a subordinate position of the woman. In both
1 Cor 11:9
and 1 Tim 2:13, Paul specifically appeals to the fact that
Adam was
created before Eve.
Rather than accept this as a divinely
inspired commentary on the
creation
order, Paul's teaching about women is viewed as a result of
cultural
conditioning and providing no application for the 20th
century. According to the "evangelical"
feminists, there is no role
distinction.
Herein lies the heart of the issue. The feminist advocates have
taken the
liberty to reconstruct the creation account of Genesis in
order to
argue for complete egalitarianism.
Fellowship and equality
are said to
be the main purposes for God's creation of the male and
female (Gen
1:26-30). Any suggestion of
subordination prior to the
1John J. Davis. "Some Reflections On Galatians 3:28, Sexual
Roles, and Biblical
Hermeneutics,"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19 (1976) 201.
2Ibid.
3Paul K. Jewett, Man As
Male And Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
4Yirginia R. Mollenkott,
"Evangelicalism: A Feminist Perspective," USQR 32
(1970)
532-42; "The Woman's Movement Challenges The Church," Journal of
Psychol-
ogy and
Theology 2 (1974)
298-310; Women, Men and the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon,
1977).
5Letha Scanzoni and Nancy
Hardesty, All We're Meant To Be (Waco: Word,
1974).
6Don Williams, The Apostle
Paul and Women in the Church (Glendale: GIL
Publications,
1977).
7Patricia Gundry, Woman Be
Free! (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977).
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/FEMALE ROLES 25
fall is
disregarded. For this reason, any
hierarchy of relationships in
Genesis 2
(Gen 2:15-24) is de-emphasized. Not
until the perfect
relationship
of Genesis 1 was shattered in chapter 3 is there any
suggestion
of subjection. When subjection did come
about, it was
only a
temporary measure that ceased with redemption.
The work of
Christ again
provided the basis for complete egalitarianism.
Individuals
such as Jewett and Mollenkott have de-emphasized
Genesis 2 in
order to establish positional equality from chapter 1 as
the standard
for both chapters. The account of
Genesis 1 is much
more general
and does not explain any hierarchical relationship that
may exist
between male and female. Thus, it could
allow for complete
equality
between the sexes. Mollenkott states:
I suggest that if religious leaders want
to maintain any credibility with
the younger members in their
congregations, they had better shift their
emphasis from the "Adam first, then
Eve" creation story of Genesis
Two to the simultaneous creation of Adam
and Eve in Genesis One.8
It appears
that Mollenkott assumes a contradiction between Genesis
1 and 2
which allows her to disregard the latter.
Jewett also holds to this view by his
designation of a "partner-
ship
model," instead of the hierarchical arrangement in Genesis 2.9 In
this
account, man and woman are understood to relate to each other
as
functional equals whose differences are mutually complementary in
all spheres
of life and human endeavor.10
This does not parallel
Genesis 2,
however, unless the essential meaning of this latter chapter
is
altered. Jewett accomplishes this by
understanding the central
theme of
chapter 2 to be that the woman's creation from man "is to
distinguish
her from the animals by implying her essential likeness" to
the man.11 Genesis 3, in turn, reveals the first
mention of the woman's
subordination
to man as a punishment of the fall.12 While these
alterations
result in what seems to be a fairly consistent interpretation
of the three
chapters, they do not adequately consider what is being
stated. When
the creation accounts are allowed to speak for them-
selves, a
positional distinction becomes quite clear.
8Mollenkott, "The Woman's
Movement Challenges The Church," 307; Jewett
("Mary
and the Male/Female Relationship," Christian Century 90 [1973]
1255) states
much the
same idea: "I have come to reject this whole approach as contrary to the
fundamental
thrust of Scripture. The first creation
narrative contains no hint of female
subordination,
and the second, which speaks of the creation of the woman from the
man, does
not say what it has traditionally been interpreted to mean. . . ."
9Jewett, Man As Male And
Female, 14.
10Ibid.
11Ibid., 126.
12Ibid., 22, 114.
26 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
GENESIS 1:26-28
The emphasis of Genesis 1 is altogether
different from that of
Genesis
2. A chronological method is employed
to express the
creative
events as they develop-day one, day two, etc.
Mankind is
first
mentioned in the account of the sixth day; "Then God said, 'Let
us make man
in our image, according to our likeness'" (Gen 1:26).
The creation
of man and woman was distinct from all that was
created
prior to them. As the crown of
creation, they were to exercise
supremacy
over the cosmos. On a scale of
ascending order, God
created the
highest of all his handiwork last.13
Genesis 1 gives only a general statement
of the details surround-
ing the
creation of male and female. Both are
described as though
created
simultaneously (Gen 1:26). In addition,
God gave both of
them the
commands to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,
and subdue
it, and rule" over the earth (Gen 1:28).
In these verses,
two
relationships are addressed: the ontological or spiritual realm as
man relates
to his Creator, and the economic or functional realm
regarding
his specific duties upon earth.
There is also no elaboration of the
functional relationship of the
male and
female in this account. Some have thus
concluded that both
male and
female share equally in position with regard to the com-
mands of
responsibility. Two areas of function
are evident, however.
1) Being
fruitful, multiplying, and filling the earth include responsibil-
ities toward
each other. 2) Subduing and ruling over
the earth
emphasize
obligations with regard to the created universe. It is not
clear from
this account whether or not each was given equal status to
exercise
their responsibility. There is nothing
to suggest hierarchical
relationship,
but there is also nothing to deny it.
These details remain
incomplete
without the further revelation given in Genesis 2.
Spiritual
equality
The thrust of the creation account of
male and female in Genesis 1
appears to
be that they were made in the image (Ml,c,) and likeness
(tUmD;) of God (Gen 1:26-27). These terms are best regarded as
essentially
synonymous.14 There is no
distinction made between the
male and
female in this regard. For this reason, the use of the word
"man"
(MdAxA) is significant in these two verses.15 MdAxA is here being
13Clarence J. Vos, Women in
Old Testament Worship (Delft: Judels and Brink-
man, 1968)
17; John Murray (Collected Writings of John Murray [Edinburgh: Banner
Of Truth
Trust, 1977], 2.5) states, "That man's creation is the last in the series,
we may
regard as
correlative with this lordship."
14Davis, Paradise to Prison
(Winona Lake: BMH, 1975) 81.
15The use of MdAxA is important in determining the spiritual
relationship between
God and
mankind and in distinguishing between the positional roles of man and
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/FEMALE ROLES 27
used
corporately and generically of the human pair, or species.16
As
Jewett
points out, "man" in this instance is "dual"17
("male," rkAzA and
"female,"
hbAqen;, "created he them." Both the male and the female
comprise
mankind, and in this respect they are of corresponding
value before
God (cf. Gen 5:1-2; 9:6; Matt 19:4).
The image of
God
The image has to do with the ontological
or spiritual qualities,
namely, the
communicable attributes that man and woman reflect
from
God. This is best understood as a
moral, not a physical,
likeness. The image of God is usually understood to
include the will
or freedom
of choice, self-consciousness, self-transcendence, self-
determination,
rationality, moral discernment for good and evil,
righteousness,
holiness, and worship.18
Basically, it is that which
makes men
"persons."
The statements of Gen 1 :26-27 assert
that the woman is an equal
participant
with the man in respect to the image of God.
The NT
continues to
uphold this doctrine of the equality of the image.19
The
Apostle
Peter indicates that a woman must be granted "honor as a
fellow-heir
of the grace of life" (1 Pet 3:7).
Thus far, the feminists, by an argument
from silence, may be
correct in
supporting complete positional equality.
However, this
equality can
only be certain to exist in the spiritual realm. There is
simply no
information in this chapter regarding the functional rela-
tionship of
man and woman. The feminists argue that
the spiritual
equality
presented here is proof against a distinction in role relation-
ships. They fail to recognize, however, that
spiritual equality does not
prohibit a
distinctiveness in role relationships.
woman. MdAxA is used in the first chapters of Genesis
in three ways. (1) It is used
generically
to refer to man as a race, species, as mankind or humankind. In this way,
MdAxA with
or without the article refers to both male (rkAzA) and female (hbAqen;)
(cf. Gen
1:26-27;
5:1-2 and 9:6). (2) It is a) used to
refer to the individual man (wyxi), as
in Gen
2:5, 7, 8,
15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25; 3:9, 20; or b) to designate both the individual
man and
woman (man, wyxi and
woman, hw.Axi), as
in Gen 3:22-24. The article is used
in every
case except 2:5, 20. This is used when
denoting the functional realm. (3) MdAxA
is also used
to designate the proper name, "Adam." This occurs in Gen 2:20; 3:17, 21;
4:25. This usage is always without the article.
16G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1888), 2. 19-20.
17Jewett, Man As Male And
Female, 39.
18Charles L. Feinberg,
"The Image Of God," BSac 129 (1972) 246; see also Gordon
H. Clark,
"The Image Of God In Man," Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society
12 (1969)
215-22; Murray, Collected Writings, 2. 3-13,34-36. Murray also includes
the
body as part
of the image.
191 Cor 11:7; Gal 3:28; Col
3:10; Eph 4:24; James 3:9.
28 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
GENESIS 2:15-24
Further expansion of the events of the
sixth day is revealed in
Genesis
2. The new revelation given in this
chapter focuses mainly on
the
functional aspect of man and woman, rather than the image. The
account
relates the duties and relationships God commanded the first
man and
woman to maintain toward each other and creation. Man
was
commanded to cultivate and keep the garden (2:15). Various
stipulations
about the eating of the fruit were given (2: 16-17). He also
named the
animals, which helped to convey to him that he had no
one like
himself to help him in his tasks (2: 18-20).
The woman was
created
sometime after this on the same day (2:21-22).
The man
subsequently
named his wife "woman" as a derivative of himself.
It seems
apparent from the development of man's purpose that a
hierarchical
relationship does exist in man's functional realm. The
account
assumes this rather than states it directly.
Still, however, the
evangelical
feminists refuse to allow for anything but complete egali-
tarianism.
Evangelical
feminist claims
Feminists have a unified opposition to
interpreting Genesis 2 as
teaching
subordination. Gundry reflects upon
this passage, stating
that
The fact that Adam is spoken of in Genesis
2 as having been created
first, . . . does not argue for his being
superior in authority. . . . God
created living things in an ascending
order of complexity. If order of
creation means anything, it would have to
mean Eve was superior
because she was last.20
In similar fashion, Jewett makes three
fundamental claims about
this
chapter. First, he claims that to
assume any type of hierarchy of
man over
woman also means that the male is superior to the female.21
Second, the
superiority over the animals and not the woman's
inferiority
(in function) to the man is the basic thought of the
context.22 She is shown, by this fact, to be in the
same likeness as
Adam. Third, the fact that the woman was created
after man demon-
strates, if
anything, that "woman is superior to the man."23 His
reasoning is
that man's creation is the highest event in all the work of
20Gundry, Woman Be Free!,
23; also p. 61, "No indication of man's position of
authority
appears until after the fall."
21Jewett,
Man As Male And Female, 14.
22Ibid., 126.
23Ibid., 126-27.
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/ FEMALE ROLES 29
creation. He is superior to all that proceeded. The woman came after
the man and
thus, she is even higher in importance than he. He goes
on to say
that, "If men do not find this conclusion palatable let them
ask
themselves why women should stomach the rabbinic conclusion
that the
woman is inferior because created after man."24
Virginia Mollenkott interprets the
creation account to provide
for
positional equality by the "rang technique."25 She tries to demon-
strate that
the objective of chapter 2 is the same as that of chapter 1;
mankind is
the masterpiece of creation. By the
"rang technique" she
means that
chapter 1 discloses man as the zenith of creation by a
chronological
fashion (Gen 1:26-27). Chapter 2 also
demonstrates
man to be
the zenith of creation by placing his creation "in the most
emphatic
positions: the first (Gen 2:5, 7) and final (Gen 2:22)."26
She proceeds
to emphasize the stress of chapter 2 as an equality
in
"relationship." Adam
instantly recognizes Eve as different from the
animals and
exactly like himself. The development
of chapter 2
provides no
basis for hierarchy whatsoever.
Mollenkott is correct
insofar that
both accounts emphasize that man is the zenith of
creation. However, her use of the "rang
technique" in chapter 2 fails
to address
certain indications that support a hierarchical relationship.
All three of
these writers are guilty of neglecting contextual
evidence
within Genesis 2 itself. Chapters 1 and
2 make use of the
important
Semitic historiographical principle known as recapitula-
tion. Genesis 1 gives a short statement
summarizing the entire crea-
tion of
man. The second chapter follows with a
more detailed and
circumstantial
account dealing with matters of special importance.27
While
Genesis 2 harmonizes with Genesis 1, it must not be expected
to report
the events identically. Moses
stipulates the concept of
equality of
image in chapter 1 but presumes it in chapter 2. He
proceeds to
emphasize the function of man, and in his expansion he
assumes a
hierarchical relationship.
Gundry and Jewett have suggested that
because the woman is
created last
in Genesis 2 she may be positionally superior to the man.
24Ibid.
25Mollenkott,
"Evangelicalism: A Feminist Perspective," 99-100.
26Ibid.
27Gleason L. Archer, A
Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody,
1964) 118.
"There is, however, an element of recapitulation involved, for the
creation of
the human
race is related all over again (cf. Gen 2:7 and 1:26, 27). But this technique of
recapitulation
was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. . . . To the author of
Genesis 1,
2, the human race was obviously the crowning or climactic product of
creation,
and it was only to be expected that he would devote a more extensive
treatment to
Adam after he had placed him in his historical setting (the sixth day of
creation)."
30 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Chronologically,
it may be granted that there is an ascending order in
chapter 1,
with mankind as the zenith of creation.
However, it is
conjecture
to argue that this ascending order extends into the events
within each
particular day. To assume that the
events of the sixth
day, which
culminate in the creation of the woman, are chronologi-
cally
ascending in importance cannot be substantiated.28
Role
distinctions
There are several internal factors in
Genesis 2 which suggest a
hierarchical
relationship in which the woman, by virtue of her place
in creation
and the God-ordained structure of events, is in a position
of
subordination. Hierarchy is not
directly stated but is implied by
many duties
and obligations that the man exercises.
It is a non
sequitur to
conclude, as Jewett has, that for the woman to be
subordinate
would be to make her inferior in value, ability, or as a
human
being. The man's headship over woman is
solely a position of
rank. The man owes this authoritative preeminence
to God's appoint-
ment rather
than to personal achievement.29
There are several indica-
tions which
point definitely and consistently to a role distinction.
Signs of
headship
First, v 7 stipulates that man was
created prior to the woman.
Second, the
man was designated as "Adam" (Gen 2:20 MdAxA), which
was also the
term used to describe the entire race!30 That the man was
given this
name and not the woman suggests that he occupies the
position as
head of the relationship. Third, the
events of the narrative
reveal that
Adam was invested with his position of leadership,
responsibility,
and authority prior to the creation of Eve (Gen 2:15).
He was
commanded to "cultivate" and "keep" the garden. He was
also
restricted from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. Fourth, Adam immediately began to exercise
his authority by
naming the
animals (Gen 2: 10).31
Motyer notes that, "To give a name
28See E. J. Young, In The
Beginning (Edinburgh: Banner Of Truth Trust, 1976) 70.
29Emma T. Healy, Woman:
According To Saint Bonaventure (New York: Geor-
gian, 1955)
14.
30Man is designated such by
several different words. He is called MdAxAhA --"man-
kind," rkAzA--"the male," MdAxAha--"the man," MdAxA--"Adam," and wyxi
"man."
31Ps 8:5-9 also substantiates
the claims of man's investiture of leadership (cf. Heb
2:6-8). While man (wOnix<, Ps 8:5) most likely refers to mankind
(Gen 1:26), v 7
supports
fully the leadership that man was given in Genesis 2. Adam was assigned or
caused (Uhleywim;Ta) to rule over the works, flocks, cattle,
birds, and fish. David could
very well
have in view man's positional leadership given and exercised prior to the
woman's
creation.
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/FEMALE ROLES 31
is the
prerogative of a superior, as when Adam exercised his domin-
ion over the
animals. . . ."32
Fifth, Adam's leadership role is
designated by his need of a
helper (Gen
2:18, 20--rz,fe). The expression used to describe the type
of person
Adam needed is "a helper suitable for him" (Gen 2:18,
20-- ODg;n,K;
rz,fe). The particular usage of rz,fe, "helper,"33 in this
chapter has
generated considerable debate. Sixteen
out of the twenty-
one usages34
in the Old Testament refer to God as a superior helper
assisting
the needs of man. The remaining three
refer to men helping
other men.35 In each of the latter instances, man's help
is ineffectual.
It is
unlikely that the helper referred to here (Gen 2:18, 20) is
"corresponding
to" or "suitable to" Adam in nature and ability.
The term
"helper" is generally agreed to be a designation of
position. With this in mind, Scanzoni and Hardesty
have suggested
that the
"helper" referred to is a superior, just as God is a superior
helper to
man.36 However, this
suggestion neglects the context of the
passage. The kind of helper proposed in Genesis 2 is
not a divine
helper but a
human helper. Another suggestion is
that the woman
helper is
equal in rank with man.37 In
arguing for this view, Vos takes
ODg;n,K; to
mean "counterpart" or "corresponding to" in position.38
However, in
view of other contextual indications suggesting posi-
tional
superiority of the man, it cannot be argued consistently that
"corresponding
to" refers to a complete equality of position.
The most
consistent and harmonious answer is found when the
helper
proposed for man is understood as positionally subordinate in
function to
man. Until this time, all of man's help was superior.
However, man had a specific need for a
human helper. The divine
helper
supplied this need by designing for him a subordinate human
32J. A. Motyer,
"Name," The New Bible Dictionary (ed. J. D. Douglas et al.;
Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 862.
33BDB, 740.
34See Gen 2:18, 20; Exod 18:4;
Deut 33:7, 26, 29; Pss 20:3; 33:20; 70:6; 89:20;
115:9, 10,
II; 121:1, 2; 124:8; 146:4; Isa 30:5; Ezek 12:14; Dan 11:34; Hos 13:9.
35BDB, 617.
36Scanzoni and Hardesty, All
We're Meant To Be, 26; George W. Knight III (The
New
Testament Teaching On The Role Relationship Of Men And Women [Grand
Rapids:
Baker, 1977] 43) refutes Scanzoni and Hardesty: "This argument cannot be
valid.
Cannot a word, however, have a different nuance when applied to God than it
does when
applied to humans?"
37Katharine E. Sakenfeld,
"The Bible and Woman: Bane or Blessing?" TToday 32
(1975)
224-25; Vos, Woman In Old Testament Worship, 16; Jewett, Man As Male
And
Female, 124-25.
38Vos, Woman in Old
Testament Worship, 16.
32 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
helper who
would aid him in obeying the commands.39 This woman,
who was to
be voluntarily submissive to man in function, would
"correspond
to" or be "suitable to him" spiritually, physically, men-
tally, and
in ability.40
Sixth, man's headship is unveiled when he
names his wife
"woman"
(hw.Axi--Gen 2:23).41 Prior to this point man gave names to
all the
birds and cattle. Now the dominion that
God gave to Adam
comes to
expression again as he exercises authority in designating his
helper's
name. In conjunction with this name,
Adam also titles his
wife hUAHa in Gen 3:20, and specifies her function
as "the mother of all
living."
These actions give further evidence of his authority.
Some, such as Cassuto, do not identify
any parallel between
these texts
(Gen 2:23; 3:20), but view Gen 3:20 as the beginning of
headship.42 Coming just after the post-fall decree in 3:
16, "and he
shall rule
over thee," it evidences man's first act of rule over his wife.
However, it
seems more likely that the authority exercised here is not
a new act,
but parallels the same type of authority exerted by Adam
when he
named her "woman."
Seventh, man's leadership is demonstrated
by the fact that he is
to leave his
mother and father and cleave to his new wife (Gen 2:24).
These acts
are read by some as a point of weakness and inferiority on
the part of
the man.43 To read this as
the man's weakness, however, is
39Although it is not mentioned
in the account, it is obvious that the woman's
physical
makeup is different from that of a man.
God gave her a physical constitution
that is
inherent to her role as a helper and a complement to the man.
40Submission must not be
confused with inferiority. As a helper,
Eve was equal to
Adam in
capability and value but appointed to a subordinant position by God. She
was to
voluntarily place her abilities under the man. Martha E. Rehn ("Did Paul
Require
Women to Wear Veils in the Church? An Exegetical Study of I Corinthians
11:2-16"
[M.A. Thesis, Capital Bible Seminary, 1978] 55) states, "Eve was,
neverthe-
less,
created to meet Adam's needs and to assist him in his life and purpose. Her
capabilities
are not a factor in her subordinant role to man. It is by virtue of the fact
she was
added to his life that she must be submissive-because she was created to assist
and be a
companion to him."
41Six different words are used
to refer to the woman in the first three chapters;
MdAxA--"mankind,"
hbAqen;U--"female," rz,fe--"helper," hw.Axi--"woman," hUAHa--"Eve,"
and dg,n,--"counterpart to."
42U. Cassuto (A Commentary
on the Book of Genesis [2 Vols.; Jerusalem:
Magnes,
1961], 1. 170) states, "To me it seems that the elucidation is to be
sought in
the fact
that the giving of a name, . . . was considered an indication of lordship. Since
the Lord God
decreed that he [the husband] should rule over her he assigns a name to
her as a
token of his rulership."
43Vos, Women in Old
Testament Worship, 18, n. 25 states, ". . . it is the man who
cleaves (dabaq)
to the woman and usually with regard to persons the lesser cleaves to
the greater
(Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; Josh 22:5; 23:8; Ruth 1:14; 2 Sam 20:2; 2 Kings
18:6)."
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/FEMALE ROLES 33
to overlook
the major significance of the verse.
This is not Adam's
declaration
but God's pronouncement (Matt 19:4-5) instituting the
first
marriage. The proper emphasis of
leaving and cleaving is not
headship as
much as it is to demonstrate the complete identification
of one
personality with the other in a community of interests and
pursuits. This new unity of Adam with his wife is to
be closer than it
would be
with a father and mother. It is
important to notice that God
addresses
the man and not the woman to accomplish this activity
(Eph
5:21). He is placing the responsibility
primarily upon Adam
(and his
male descendants) as he has done thus far with other
commands. Rather than a sign of weakness this appears
to be a sign
of
leadership on Adam's part.
The final indication of the headship of
the man is found in Gen
3:9,
11. The Lord addresses and receives a
response from the man,
who is the
spokesman for the relationship. This factor suggests
strongly, if
not conclusively, that the man was the head of the
relationship.44
The importance of Genesis 2 must not be
underestimated..
Revealed to
man are the keys of creation order. A
thorough analysis
of its
contents argues for a hierarchical relationship between the man
and the
woman.
THE NEW TESTAMENT AND CREATION ORDER
On several significant occasions, the NT
recognizes or refers
directly to
Gen 2:18ff as supporting a role distinction between the
male and
female. First, Paul asserts that man is
the head (kefalh<)
over the
woman in I Cor 11:3. The meaning of
"head" in v 3 is
indicative
of man's "rank"45 over the woman rather than "source" or
"origin."46 His statement is not ascribing a deficiency
in intellect or
ability of
the woman, but is designating her to a subordinate position
in function.
Paul substantiates his comments in a
relationship more basic
than the
creation account, namely, the economic aspect of the
44Gen 3:17 could as well be
used as a proof of Adam's headship.
Adam is
condemned
for listening and following the voice of his wife to commit an act he knew
was
wrong. In doing so, he inverted the
role of leadership that was initially established
for him to
fulfill.
45BAG, 431; Edwin Hatch and
Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the
Septuagint (Oxford: Clarendon, 1897), 2. 761-62; see
the following: Deut 28:13, 44;
32:42; Judg
10:18; 11:8,9, II; 2 Sam 22:44; I Kings 8:1; 21:12; 2 Kings 2:3, 5; I Chron
23:24; Pss
18:43; 110:6; Isa 7:8, 9; Jer 31:7; Lam 1:5; Dan 2:38; Hab 3:13.
46F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2
Corinthians (New Century Bible; Greenwood: Attic, 1971)
103; Colin
Brown, "Head," NIDNTT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 2. 160.
34 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Trinity. The Son is God as the Father is God
ontologically (John
5:18-23;
10:30; 20:20). However, economically
(in function) the Son's
redemptive
work involved a volitionally subordinate position or rank
(I Cor
15:28; John 4:24; 5:18-19).
Further support is derived from the
creation account itself. "Man
does not
originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed
man was not
created for the woman's sake; but woman for the man's
sake"
(I Cor 11:8, 9; cf. 1 Tim 2:13). The
time and purpose of the
woman's
creation is significant in Genesis 2.
She was created as a co-
laborer to
share in the mandates of creation. From
the very first,
however, she
was to participate as a subordinate in rank.
At the same time that Paul establishes a
role relationship, he is
careful to
include a caution, lest men pervert their designated leader-
ship into
spiritual superiority and functional snobbery (1 Cor 11: 11).
Spiritually,
man and woman remain equal before God (cf. Gen 1:26-
27). The Apostle may also have in mind the role
distinctions mani-
fested in
various functions between the sexes. A
woman can and often
does assist
men in advice, counsel, and guidance in the home, church,
and
society. However, she is never to take
on the role of a leader over
men. "In the Lord" she will retain her
subordinate role as she shares
in these
responsibilities.
A man must remember that he is not
independent of the woman
just because
he is superior in rank (1 Cor 11: 12).
He needs her help
even to gain
existence in this life. Thus, God has
established a mutual
dependency
to coincide with the headship that man continues to
exercise
over the woman.47
Second, the apostle makes use of the term
"to be subject"
(u[poota<ssw) to describe the relationship of the
female to the male
both in and
outside the context of marriage (1 Cor 14:34-35; Eph
5:21, 22,
24; Co1 3:18; 1 Tim 2:11-14; Titus 2:5).
The term "to be
subject"
from the verb ta<ssw, has
a background in military usage,
namely, that
soldiers were appointed or placed in positions under
others. [Upota<ssw carries the meaning "to place
under," "to affix
under"
or "to subordinate oneself to the control of another."48
However,
this word in no way implies that the subordinate is an
inferior,
except in position. A woman may be
superior to a man in
ability,
personality and even spirituality, but because of the divine
order of
creation, she recognizes the superior rank of the man and
"ranks
herself under man."49 This principle is to demonstrate itself
47Contra Williams. The
Apostle Paul and Women in the Church, 67-68; Scanzoni
and
Hardesty, All We're Meant To Be, 28-31.
48Gerhard Delling, "ta<ssw, u[pota<ssw," TDNT 8 (1972) 39.
49James L. Boyer, For a
World like Ours: Studies in I Corinthians (Winona
Lake: BMH,
1971) 104.
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/ FEMALE ROLES 35
both in the
marriage relationship, and/or outside of marriage to
various
extents. In all of these texts, Paul
alludes in principle, if not
in
actuality, to the creation account to substantiate his claims.
A final
support for a role distinction is expressed in 1 Pet 3:1,
5 -7. Concurring with Paul, Peter uses the term
"submission" to de-
scribe the
position of a wife toward her husband.
While he does not
refer to
creation, he does use the example of Sarah's relationship to
Abraham. It is fairly certain that her relationship
to Abraham stems
from the
divine order of creation in Gen 2:18-24.
Furthermore, while
Peter
discloses the wife as the "weaker vessel" in rank, he also main-
tains that
she is spiritually an equal ("fellow-heir of the grace of life,"
1 Pet 3:7).
A significant contrast sheds light upon
the role relationship of
Abraham and
Sarah and that of Adam and Eve. In Gen
3: 17, Adam
is condemned
by God for "listening to" or "obeying" the voice of
his wife (lOql; TAf;mawA). In Gen 21: 12, Abraham
is told to "listen to"
or
"obey" (h.lAqwB; fmaw;) the voice of Sarah.
Peter indicates that Sarah
was
submissive to her husband, calling him "lord." The use of the
verb
"obey" to condemn and condone the same activity poses an
apparent
contradiction. This contrast is
explained when the total
picture is
examined.
Two different conditions are presented
in these contexts. It is
suggested
that Eve received her knowledge of the command not to eat
of the fruit
through the instruction of her husband.50 Eve's encourage-
ment to her
husband to partake of the fruit was an act of insubordi-
nation. Furthermore, when Adam chose to eat of the
fruit, he ignored
his
leadership role and followed his wife's sinful promptings. God's
condemnation
of Adam for obeying his wife is justified.
It should not
be concluded
from this passage that men must reject the voice of their
wives in all
situations.
Gen 21:12 provides a blueprint for the
correct role relationship
between
husband and wife. Abraham was
distressed at the thought of
expelling
Hagar and Ishmael.51 Sarah
realized the full implications of
not
expelling them, however, and thus encouraged her husband along
these
lines. When Abraham's mind would not be
changed, God
corrected
him by telling him to listen to the voice of his wife. The key
is found in
that once Abraham was corrected by the Lord, he took
the
initiative to exert leadership (v 14).
Unlike Adam, he did not
ignore his
role as head of the relationship and follow a course of
50The account in Gen 2:16-17
indicates that man was given the prohibitions prior
to the
creation of Eve.
51See Harold G. Stigers, A
Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1976)
184-85.
36 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
cognizant
error prompted by his wife. Sarah can
thus be viewed by
Peter as a
woman who "obeyed her husband, calling him lord," yet
provided
advice in a submissive role.
From these examples, it is rather obvious
that the NT supports a
role
distinction between the male and female, a distinction which
originates
before the fall. On certain occasions,
the concept is applied
to the
husband and wife relationship; on other occasions, Paul refers
generally to
the male and female. In both cases,
however, a role
relationship
exists to differing extents in which the woman is instructed
to be
submissive in function to the male.
GENESIS 3
A final claim of the feminists is that
subordination for the
woman began
as a result of the fall.52
Yet, examination of the text has
demonstrated
that subordination was established prior to the fall.
The events
of chapter 3 follow immediately after and are predicated
upon the
events of chapter 2. They reveal that
man and his new
helper
reversed their hierarchical positions in their act of sin. The
outcome was
that the effect of sin corrupted the relationship between
man's
headship and woman's subordination, but did not change it.
Woman's part
in the fall
The woman was an active participant in the fall. Her initial sin
began when
she continued to listen to the serpent, who was intention-
ally
deceptive by his communication. During
the course of the
conversation
the woman was deceived (Gen 3:13). It was
at this point
that her
appetites gave birth to the first sin.
The deception of the woman is of major
significance for Paul's
NT
teaching. In 2 Cor 11:3, Paul warns the
Corinthian believers "lest
as the
serpent deceived (e]chpa<thsen) Eve by his craftiness" they
would be
deceived also. The use of e]c is
added to a]pata<w for
intensity,
i.e., Eve was completely deceived. Paul
is stressing that Eve
was led to
believe something that was not true.
She was doctrinally
beguiled
into hostility toward God and sensual desire for the un-
known.53 This same deception could happen to both men
and women
at Corinth.
Paul also uses the term in 1 Tim 2:14,
where he states, "It was
not Adam who
was deceived but the woman being quite deceived, fell
52Gundry, Woman Be Free!
61: see also liberal support for this, Phyllis Trible,
"Woman
In The OT," IDPSup (1976) 965; John Skinner, Genesis (ICC;
New York:
Scribner's,
1917) 82.
53Albrecht Oepke, "a]pata<w, e]capata<w," TDNT I (1964) 384.
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/ FEMALE ROLES 37
into
transgression."54 This
statement is made as a supporting argu-
ment for the
limitations given to women with regard to positions of
leadership
in the church. In contrast to Paul's
appeal in I Corin-
thians, the
deception described in I Timothy could only happen to
women.
The apostle may have had more than one
idea in mind by this
mention of
the woman's deception in I Tim 2:14. He
may be
suggesting
that a woman's emotional faculties are different than
man's in such
a way that she is more apt to be led into a course of
unintentional error,55 and/or he may be
using this verse as an
argument for
what her deception precipitated, namely, a usurpation
of her role
as a helper.
In either case, Gen 3:1-7 indicates that
Eve allowed herself to
listen to
the serpent. In the course of this, she
was deceived and
subsequently
sinned. She then introduced her husband
to sin, who
willfully
ignored his headship and partook of the fruit.
Eve's sin was
disobedience
to God, which expressed itself, in part, by a self-
assumed
position of leadership above her husband.
Man's part
in the fall
The woman is often viewed as forcing,
driving, or compelling her
husband to
eat. It is true that Adam participated
in the sin because of
his wife's
offer (Gen 3:6); however, he was not forced to eat the fruit.
The account
does not reveal whether Adam was present, passively
listening to
the serpent, or if he was away at the time.
V 17 declares
that he
"listened to" or "obeyed"56 the voice of his
wife prior to eating
the fruit,
which may indicate that he was not there initially. In either
circumstance,
v 17 is the key; Adam freely chose to obey the voice of
his
wife. This sin actually began at the
point when he failed to
exercise his
position of leadership over his wife.57 While Adam was
not
deceived, his action was equally as wicked as Eve's. Not until he
sinned was
the entire human race plunged into sin (Rom 5:19; I Cor
15:22). The sin of the first human beings was a
direct violation of
54Using a contrast, Paul
states that Adam was ou]k h]path<qh (was not deceived--a
simplex
usage) while Eve e]capathqei?sa (was completely deceived-intense usage).
55John A. Bengel, Gnomon Of
The New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1859), 4.
254.
56BDB, 1034: fmawA with the l; as in
Gen 3:17 is a common idiom for "to obey."
57Young (Genesis 3
[London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1966] 130-31) takes Adam's
forfeiture
of position a step further. Not only
did Adam place himself in a subordinate
position
under the woman, but "he listened to her when she was deceived by the
serpent. Hence, Adam had abandoned his place of
superiority over the creatures."
38 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
God's
command, which expressed itself, in part, by a complete
inversion of
the roles. This was a total distortion
of the pattern
established
in Genesis 1 and 2.
Some
background to Genesis 3:16
Another verse showing a positional
differentiation between man
and woman is
Gen 3:16, "Yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall
rule over you." Most liberals and
evangelical feminists
interpret
this pronouncement as the beginning of female subordina-
tion. Conservatives generally prefer to assume
that subjection was
intensified
to the point of servitude at this point.58
Gen 3: 16 cannot be treated in a
vacuum. Much of the preceding
context
deals with the headship of the man. The
first section of this
chapter
demonstrates a reversal of the roles.
This will have some
bearing on
the meaning of v 16. It should also be
noted that this verse
comes in the
middle of the curse section. This
pronouncement is
basically
divided into 4 areas: the curse upon the serpent (3:14-15),
the woman
(3:16), the man (3:17-19), and the creation (3:17b). The
curse placed
certain alterations upon individuals, animals, and nature.
Biologically,
woman became the recipient of increased pain in
childbirth;
the snake began to crawl on his belly; all individuals
became
participants in physical death; nature received agricultural
and other
changes (Rom 8:22); and man had to compete against
nature by
toil and sweat.
Spiritually, man and woman became
depraved and alienated
from God,
shattering the perfect harmony that existed at the begin-
ning of
their marriage. In some fashion, sin
impinged upon the
hierarchical
relationship as well. It is not evident
from any passage
after Gen
3:16 that the pronouncement made here canceled or
changed the
hierarchical arrangement (cf. 1 Cor 11:3-10; 14:34; 1 Tim
2:13-14). In light of this background, a thorough
examination of this
verse
provides for its proper understanding.
Much controversy has surrounded the
meaning of "desire" in
v 16. "Desire" (hqAUwT;, from the verbal root qvw) may be derived from
the Arabic
root saqa.59
Traditionally, saqa has had the meaning of
"to
please, delight, longing, craving, desire, arouse, yearn or desire
ardently."60 From this Arabic derivation, scholars
usually understand
58Vos, Women In Old
Testament Worship, 30-31; John Calvin, Commentaries on
the First
Five Books of Moses Called Genesis (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society,
1843;
reprinted; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 1. 172.
59BDB, 1003.
60Hans Wehr, A Dictionary
of Modem Written Arabic (Ithaca: Spoken Language
Services,
1971) 493.
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/ FEMALE ROLES 39
the
"desire" to contribute positively to her husband's rule. On the
other hand,
"desire" may have come from the Arabic root saqa,61
which means
"to drive, urge on, herd, impel as one would a prisoner
or control
cattle."62 It envisions
harsh, forcible and negative treat-
ment upon
the receiver. If this is the meaning,
then the "desire" of the
woman will
not contribute to the rule of her husband.
A further complication exists with the
Hebrew root (qvw),
because
there are no examples in verbal form found anywhere in
Scripture. It has been hypothetically drawn by the
lexicons from the
Arabic
possibilities. Outside of Gen 3:16,
there are only two other
usages of
the noun hqAUwT; in the OT (Gen 4:7; Cant 7:10). Thus, the
usage of the
word must be established by the context in which it
is found.
Canticles 7:11. "Desire"
in Cant 7:11 (OtqAUwT; is
expressed by the
bride toward
her spouse. The "desire" is
primarily a physical one,63 or
possibly a
desire that is all-encompassing (sexual, mental, and emo-
tional). The context surrounding this word argues
against it being
derived from
the Arabic root saqa in the sense of "a forcible, driving,
urging or
impelling desire." The meaning here
is "a more gentle,
passionate,
yearning that contributes positively to the mate." Thus, it
corresponds
with the traditional root, saqa.
Genesis 4:7. The narrative of Gen
4:7 depicts Cain in the midst of
a struggle
with sin. The Lord said regarding his
sin, "Sin is lying at
the door;
and its desire is for you, but you must master it." The desire
of sin will
overcome him if he does not master it.64
The possibilities for the root of
"desire" could be related to either
saqa or saqa. The traditional meaning of "desire," from the root saqa,
would
indicate that sin's desire for Cain is "a passionate, longing,
craving
appetite for ownership." The
emphasis of this root is "a desire
to
possess." This harmonizes with its
meaning in Canticles, only here
it is
"a desire for evil."
On the other hand, if the "desire of
sin" is connected to the root
saqa, its meaning is "to drive or
impel" Cain into subjection by force.
The emphasis
of this root is in the idea of "compulsion." Yet the idea
of a forceful,
compulsive desire does not seem to be evident in the
61BDB, 1003; KB, 597.
62Wehr, Dictionary,
443.
63S. Craig Glickman, A Song
For Lovers (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976)
86-87.
64"Master" is the
word " lwAm;Ti;
literally, "you should rule."
In this instance, the
imperfect of
"rule" is best understood to express "obligation"; also the
modal idea of
"potential,
of taking place, or not taking place in the future" is in view. GKC, 330.
40 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
narrative. Rather, the traditional meaning of
"desire" in the sense of
"a
yearning or craving for possession" seems to be predominant.65
Genesis 3:16. Three worthy views have been offered to
explain
the meaning
of the woman's desire in Gen 3:16.
First, following the
traditional
root for "desire," the word is understood as "a passionate
sexual
desire that becomes so strong in the woman that she will never
rid herself
of the pain of childbearing."66
Second, some have understood
"desire" to represent "a deep,
natural
attraction which a woman will have for her husband."67 This
yearning is
to fulfill certain psychological and protective needs which
she does not
possess herself. Keil and Delitzsch
suggest that this
"desire
will be so strong that it will border on disease."68 While these
two views of
the meaning of "desire" cannot be readily denied, it is
questionable
that the desire ought to be limited to such narrow senses
as sexual or
psychological needs in view of the preceding context.
A third view
argued by Susan Foh tries to draw a linguistic
parallel
between Gen 3: 16 and 4:7, affiliating both instances of the
word
"desire" with the Arabic root saqa.69 Eve's desire was to forcibly
drive or
urge her husband in the same way sin was trying to forcibly
drive Cain.70
The meaning of "rule"
is changed from a future indica-
tive to the
modal aspect of the prefix conjugation.
Instead of "the
husband
shall rule," it is "he should rule," indicating potential rather
than
certainty. The whole statement thus reads,
"Your desire shall be
to control
your husband but he must rule over you if he can."
Making these
changes, Gen 3:16 is made parallel to Gen 4:7, "Its
(sin's)
desire shall be to control you but you must rule over it if you
can." Thus, these words in v 16 mark the beginning
of the antithetical
65The phrase, "sin is
lying at your door" has been interpreted, "sin is crouching at
your
door." The word Cbero,
"to lie down, lie, stretch out," is often used of animals (cf.
Gen 29:2;
Exod 23:5; Num 22:27; Isa 11:6; 27:10).
In Gen 29:14 it is used of a
crouching
lion. Many have thus understood sin to
be "crouching at Cain's door
desiring to
pounce upon him." This imagery of
the lion is not substantiated by the
context. However, if this symbolism is used, it
upholds the traditional meaning of
"desire." A lion's desire is for possession rather
than compulsion.
66Adam Clarke, The Holy
Bible, Old and New Testaments (New York: Carlton
and
Phillips, 1854), I. 51.
67H. C. Leupold, Exposition
of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1942), 2. 173;
Davis, Paradise
To Prison, 94; Vos, Women In Old Testament Worship, 24-25; David
B. Nicholas,
What's a Woman To Do . . . in the Church? (Scottsdale: Good Life, 1979)
16-20.
68C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch,
The Pentateuch (reprinted; Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1949),
I. 103.
69Foh, "What Is the
Woman's Desire?" WTJ 37 (1975) 376-83.
70Ibid., 381-82.
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/FEMALE ROLES 41
battle
between the sexes. The woman's
"desire"71 will work against
her
husband. As a result of the fall, man
no longer rules easily; he
must fight
for his headship.
There are major difficulties with this
view. The basic defect of
this
proposal is that it assumes certain conclusions about the passage
at the expense
of the context. This argument is
predicated upon the
assertion
that exactly what happened in the fall became God's
continuing
pronouncement upon man. However,
examination of the
context
already has established that Eve did not forcibly urge her
husband,
which this interpretation requires. On
the other hand,
neither did
Adam try to rule over her. He listened
to her and then
made his own
choice to participate with her in sin (Gen 3: 17).
Also arguing
against Foh's suggestion is the fact that it reads a
possible
rendering of Gen 4:7 back into 3:16, just because the phrases
are almost
identical in the Hebrew. This provides
a good grammatical
parallel,
but not a contextual one.
A final major deficiency in this view is
that it fails to provide for
a consistent
usage of hqAUwT;.
Cant 7: 11 will not permit the meaning
of a
forcible desire.
A suggested solution to Genesis
3:16. The exact meaning of Gen
3:16b
continues to perplex scholars. It is
not possible to come to any
kind of a
definite conclusion. The best that can
be provided is an
alternative
solution.
A suggested solution to Gen 3:16b is found
in assessing the
pronouncement
made to the woman as a curse, which has its major
emphasis in
the "rule" of the man. The
sense of "rule"72 in this
context is
negative, predicting the type of abuse that man will vent
71The LXX rendering of hqAUwT;
as a]postro<fh in Gen 3:16 and 4:7 cannot be
used as a
positive support for this view.
Instances do demonstrate that a]postro<fh can
be rendered: (1) a positive sense of "turning,
turning back, refuge, bend in a direction
toward";
this would be derived from the Arabic root saqa; (2) it may also be a
negative
sense of
"turning away from" as a derivative of the root saqa. The LXX rendering of
Gen 3: 16
is, "Your desire is toward your husband," (pro>j
to>n a@ndra sou h[
a]postrofh< sou).
In Gen 4:7 (pro>j se h[ a[postrofh< au[tou?), the LXX translators
interpreted
this as a reference to Abel's "desire, toward his brother." In both
instances, the
preposition pro<j with the accusative expresses
"direction toward." Pro<j may only carry
the meaning
"against" when it follows a verb of disputing or hostility, which is
not the
case in
these instances; see George B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New
Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957)
717. The LXX translators would most likely have
used a@nti if they meant Gen 3:16 and
4:7 to mean
"desire that resists or works against."
72The word "rule" (lwamA) was already seen to have reference to man's headship
over
creation (Ps 8:2-7). Now, for the first
time, this word is found in the text of
Genesis.
42 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
upon his
wife. He will carry his headship to
domination because of
his depraved
nature. While this aspect of the curse
primarily refers to
the husband
and wife, it can also refer to men and women outside of
the context
of marriage where role relationships exist.
Almost every husband, or even most men in
general, who have
exercised
leadership over women have used their position to domi-
neer at one
point or another. Paul continually
reminds men not to
"rule"
over their wives in this negative fashion (Eph 5:25-30; Col 3: 19;
cf. 1 Pet
3:7-9; see also an inference concerning all men in 1 Cor
11:11-12 as
to how they should treat women). If a
man is controlled
by the
Spirit, he may to some extent rise above the downward drag of
his
depravity and thus nullify the effects of this aspect of the curse.
It is even
more difficult to make a dogmatic statement concern-
ing the
woman's desire. It appears that this
statement must be taken
in
conjunction with the rule of man in order to be part of the curse.
Yet this
statement must not be viewed, as it has by many, to suggest
that
"all women willingly or unwillingly shall subject all their desires
to their
husbands."73 Nor is
there any evidence to support the view
that woman
is here placed under subjection for the first time. It is
also
doubtful whether Foh's suggestion is compatible. Women often
do battle
against their husbands, but this does not serve the intent of
Gen 3:16.
The term "desire" is best
related to the traditional root, saqa.
It
refers to
"the woman's longing or yearning that she may have about
the affairs
of life." In the course of the
fall, she failed to subordinate
this desire
under her husband. With this in view,
the phrase, "your
desire is to
your husband," is best regarded as a statement of fact,
reminding
the first woman that the subordinate principle still remains
in
effect. However, it is not a
pronouncement that all women will
submit all
their desires to their husbands. Their sin nature precludes
that they
will do this.
Women, for the most part, have continued
to perpetuate the
subordinate
relationship established prior to the fall to different
extents. In
almost every case, however, they have experienced a
varying
degree of harsh rule from men. The statement regarding the
woman's
desire is not a curse in and of itself, but it becomes one
when it is
treated in relation to the man's sinful rule.
73Young, Genesis 3,
127-28; Calvin (Commentaries on the First Book of Moses
Called
Genesis, I. 172)
states, "'Thy desire shall be unto thy husband,' is of the same
force as if
he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject
to the
authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said,
'Thou shalt
desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.'" See also Foh, "What Is
The
Woman's
Desire?" 379.
STITZINGER: GEN 1-3 AND MALE/FEMALE ROLES 43
Women, by virtue of their sin nature,
resist the leadership of men
by rejecting
the harsh rule pronounced in the curse, or, often, any
positive
rule as well. In either case, the NT
confirms that such women
are
subordinate (1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:34-35; Eph 5:22-23; Col 3:18;
1 Tim
2:11-14; 1 Pet 3:1-7). Depending upon
the temperament of the
man, as well
as the amount of a woman's insubordination, she may
receive more
or less harsh treatment. The rule of
man may not
actually
seem like a curse to those women who refuse subordination
altogether,
for they are not in a position to receive it.
However, they
potentially
remain under this curse.
The consistency of this view over other
views is found in several
factors. It provides a unified explanation of hqAUwT;
throughout the
OT. It also upholds the hierarchical
relationship established prior to
the
fall. At the same time, it acknowledges
the effects of sin that tend
to distort
and corrupt this role relationship.
This view also brings the
meaning of
Paul's commands concerning the woman's subjection and
the man's
leadership to full expression.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this article has been to
examine the key themes
of creation
order for their contributions to role relationship. The
evangelical
feminists who promote egalitarianism emphasize Genesis
1 as the
main account describing the positional relationship between
the sexes.
First, it was noted that Genesis 1 is a
general, chronological
account of the
events in creation. It introduces the reader to two
realms, the
spiritual and the functional. The main
emphasis is placed
upon the
spiritual realm in which man and woman correspond in
every
respect. Both share equally in the
image of God.
On the other
hand, Genesis 2 shifts the emphasis.
When the
details of
the sixth day are unfolded, they reveal a definite positional
distinction
between man and woman. The feminists
refuse to believe
this and
have provided several explanations to dilute a role distinc-
tion. However, many indications argue for the
headship of the man.
This chapter
is also the backbone for the NT's emphasis upon role
differentiation
in the church, home, and society. Paul
uses this pre-
Fall
principle to support post-Fall subordination.
Moreover, Genesis 3 does not disregard a
positional distinction
between the
male and female. The events of the fall relate, among
other
considerations, that there was a sinful disregard for the head-
ship
established in the previous chapter.
The specific meaning of Gen 3:16b becomes
vital to understand-
ing the role
relationship. Several views were
observed, and a sug-
gested
possibility was then presented. Gen
3:16 pronounces a curse
44 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
upon the
woman, with emphasis upon the abusive rule that man will
exercise. The "desire" mentioned provides a
reminder to the woman
that the
subordinate role still continues for her and is the correct
position for
women in every age. In and of itself,
this is not a curse to
women. However, it becomes a curse in conjunction
with the man's
sinful
rule. When women do submit themselves
under men, it will
become hard,
at times, because of the man's misuse of rulership. Not
all women
have placed themselves in a subordinate position to men,
but the
statement was not meant to express this.
In almost every case,
women who
have subordinated themselves to men have experienced
harsh rule
in varying degrees. Gen 3: 16 continues
to uphold the
creation
account wherein God established the hierarchical relation-
ship. Together, the first three chapters of
Genesis consistently indicate
that God's
order for man and woman has never changed.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
200
Seminary Dr.
Winona Lake, IN
46590
www.grace.edu