A Rather Boring "Brief" on a Rather Controversial Topic (Part 4 of 4)

< Back to Part 3

You want me to put what on my head?

K. P. Yohannan, the founder of Gospel for Asia, tells this story:

Yohannan | I know of a man from India who was traveling in the United States and had an interesting encounter at a church. As he walked in, an older woman gestured to his head and said, “You are going into the worship service; you need to take that thing off your head.” He had forgotten to take off his hat! Of course, immediately he took it off, knowing that the Bible says men should not wear a head covering during a spiritual gathering. But when he went inside, he was surprised to find that none of the women wore a head covering even though the Bible teaches this truth in the same passage.

Often, the hardest things to accept in the Bible are not those things which are obscure or hard to understand, but those things which seem to fly in the face of cultural common sense.

Daniel B. Wallace also notes this tension:

Wallace | The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically (emphasis his).

What are these men talking about? They’re talking about a passage found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 | Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that Christ is the head [root: kephale] of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [root: akatakaluptos] dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. So if a woman’s head is not covered [root: katakalupto], her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered [root: katakalupto]. A man, in fact, should not cover [root: katakalupto] his head, because he is God’s image and glory, but woman is man’s glory. For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. And man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, and all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering [root: peribolaion]. But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Perhaps the most famous evangelical feminist argument on this passage is that the word for “head,” kephale, means “source” rather than “head.” But it seems the evidence for this interpretation is surprisingly weak, and ultimately, a moot point. Words don’t hang in space waiting to be given a meaning. Even if this word did mean “source,” it wouldn’t change much. We are given a pretty good idea of what kephale means in the following verses:

Ephesians 1:22 | And He [God] put everything under His [Jesus’] feet and appointed Him as head over everything for the church.
Ephesians 5:22-24 | Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.
Colossians 1:18 | He [Christ] is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything.
Colossians 2:9-10 | For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, and you have been filled by Him, who is the head over every ruler and authority.

Kephale implies authority. Even here in verse 3, we see this:

• God is the kephale of Christ. God is Christ’s authority (1Co 15:24-28).
• Christ is the kephale of man. Christ is man’s authority (Mt 28:18).
• Man is the kephale of woman. Man is woman’s authority (Eph 5:22; 2Tm 2:11).

The reader of the passage very quickly becomes aware that some type of physical symbol is involved here. Paul is not only concerned with female submission and male headship in principle; he also wants Christian men and women to recognize physical symbols that point to the authority structure within the church.

This is not a new concept to the well-versed reader of the Bible. We already note that we practice the physical symbol of baptism upon belief in Jesus Christ (Rm 6:3-10; Ac 2:38; 10:47-48; 22:16; 1Pt 3:21; Mt 3:11; Gl 3:27; Mk 16:16; etc.), as well as the physical symbol of the Lord’s Supper (Jn 6:50-57; 1Co 11:17-34; Ac 20:7; Mt 26:26-29; Lk 22:19, etc.). In fact, we see closer parallels than that. Jesus, in His baptism, gave glory to His Head, His Father in heaven—in Matthew 3:17 we read: “And a voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased.’” The church gives glory to her Head in the remembrance of His death: “’Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1Co 11:26). Likewise, the woman gives glory to her head through the symbol of the headcovering: “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1Co 11:5).

Additionally, we note that these symbols aren’t intended to be a message to unbelievers so much as they are intended to remind the Christian of biblical principles. Also, rather than being a legalistic tradition, the practice of the headcovering is an apostolic tradition rooted in Scripture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we read: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter.”

Paul gives his first reason for the practice of the headcovering in verse 3: because of the example of divine authority structures. He details the order: God, Christ, man, woman. In verses 4-6, the second reason is given: the glory of man and woman. What brings glory to a man? To have an uncovered head. If he covered his head, he would be acting like a woman, dishonoring his own head, Christ. What brings glory to a woman? To cover her head. If she uncovers her head, she acts like a man and dishonors her own head, man. Just as it naturally tends to disgrace women to cut their hair short, so too, it disgraces them not to cover when they are praying or prophesying, which usually occurs during the public gathering of the body of Christ.

The third reason Paul gives comes from creation order in verses 7-9. In the beginning, man was created imago Dei, in the image of God. Furthermore, man is God’s glory—God takes delight in man. Because of this, his head ought to be uncovered. Woman, as part of man, shares in being made imago Dei as well as being God’s glory and delight. However, she is also man’s glory—man takes delight in woman. Because of this, her head ought to be covered. Paul notes two facts from creation which uphold this: woman was created for man and from him. The fourth reason Paul gives, in verse 10, comes from angelic example. Perhaps if any created beings understood authority structures and hierarches, it would be the angels, among whom we find seraphim (Is 6:2), cherubim (Gn 3:24; Rv 4:8; Ez 10:5), archangels (1Th 4:16; Jd 1:9), and angels (Gn 19:1; 28:12; Mt 4:11). Women are to have authority (exousia, either their own authority to pray and prophesy, granted by the veil, or their husband’s authority; cf. Mt 8:9) on their heads because of the example of the angels.

All throughout biblical writings, we notice the paradox between ontological equality and functional role difference. Here Paul brings it up once again in verses 11-12, reminding the two sexes of their mutual interdependence through the example of female childbirth—an ultimate reminder, in case any gender think the other is worth less, that both men and women come from God.

The fifth reason comes from nature in verses 13-15. “Judge for yourselves”—the ordinance of the covering or the uncovering of the head fits in very closely with the pattern of nature. Even nature teaches us that long hair is disgraceful on men and graceful on women. In fact, female hair is already given as a type of covering. Paul’s sixth and final reason comes from universal church practice: If any wanted to argue, this custom was practiced in all the churches of God, which spanned a wide geographical and cultural range. If anyone wanted to propose a new custom, the response was: “We have no such custom [like you have proposed], nor do any of the churches of God.”

Must Christian women wear fabric headcoverings today? Overtime, several reasons have been propounded as to why this is not so:

The hair is the covering. Verse 15 says: “For her hair is given to her as a covering.” There it is, black and white, right? Not quite. There are several reasons why Paul is not referring to the hair when he talks about women covering their head. First, the word used for “covering” here in verse 15, peribolaion, is a completely unrelated word to katakalupto, which is used everywhere else in this passage. Second, this statement finds itself in the context of the argument from nature, which implies that the verse means that hair is a natural example, given “as a [type of] covering” rather than “[in the place of] a covering.” Finally, it is hard to read verse 6 with a straight face if the hair is to be considered the covering, since one would have to read it like: “So if a woman’s head is not covered [i.e., her hair is cut off], her hair should be cut off.”

The hair pinned up is the covering. Leviticus 13:45 reads: “The person afflicted with an infectious skin disease is to have his clothes torn and his hair hanging loose [para], and he must cover his mouth and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean!” In the LXX, this word para is translated into our Greek word akatakalyptos. Thus, it is argued, akatakalyptos means “loose, unkempt hair.” However, this simply seems to be a bad translation of the word. Furthermore, if we are going to be consistent, than men would need to have their hair “loose and unkempt” while praying or prophesying, which seems to contradict the command for men to have short hair. Finally, there is no evidence of any of the early church fathers interpreting the command in this way; all understand it to mean a fabric veil.

The head covering is cultural. While I admire many complementarian leaders for their serious biblical interpretation when it comes to other texts, yet I am disappointed at where they stop when it comes to this text. Note what John MacArthur has to say about 1 Timothy 2:11-15: “Some leaders and writers ... teach principles that attempt to redefine or even alter biblical truths to accommodate the standards of contemporary thinking in the world. To do that, of course, they have to believe that the apostles sometimes taught culturally determined customs rather than divinely revealed standards” (emphasis mine). John Piper and Wayne Grudem run along a similar vein, as well, when it comes to cultural arguments about other passages: “In demonstrating the permanent validity of a command, we would try to show from its context that it has roots in the nature of God, the gospel, or creation as God ordered it.” Thomas Schreiner also takes a similar view.

I agree with them—I just think they fail to heed their own words when it comes to this passage. All of them, in some way or another, attempt to hold the principle of male-headship intact without holding its symbol intact as well, with the reason given being that the custom of headcoverings was the cultural norm in Corinth at that time, while it isn’t today. Here’s why I don’t think we can do that:

• It’s inconsistent to hold to the physical symbols of baptism and the Lord’s Supper without holding to the physical symbol of the headcovering. Our culture also doesn’t recognize or practice water baptism, or the physical consumption of food and drink during the Lord’s Supper. Does that mean we may abandon those as well?
• Any appeal to cultural background ultimately takes the ability to understand biblical truth out of the layman’s hand and places it in the hands of “experts.” I’m not saying that we should never seek to know what cultural was like to better understand the Bible, but I am wary of using some offhand reference to “that’s just how things were back then.” In doing so, we subtly began to interpret inspired words based upon our scattered, faulty knowledge of uninspired words, rather than vice-versa. Note R.C. Sproul: “It is one thing to seek a more lucid understanding of the biblical content by investigating the cultural situation of the first century; it is quite another to interpret the New Testament as if it were merely an echo of the first-century culture.”
• Appeals to culture are often used simply as a guise for people who don’t want to do what a text calls them to do. The question may be raised, if you put so much emphasis on cultural understanding of that era, would you be willing to change your lifestyle tomorrow if your understanding of that era changed? The unspoken answer for many is simply no.
• Appeals to culture always assume that one’s own culture is “better.” They did things that way, but that was only because their primitive, uncivilized culture dragged them down. Here, in enlightened America, we do things this way—our culture is “better.” We understand things better. (In actuality, might it not be American culture that needs a “kick in the pants,” so to speak?)
• Neither Paul nor any of the other biblical writers ever appeal to culture when it comes to gender issues. Ever. Think about that. How ironic is it that the vast majority of American Christians assign to the biblical writers the one reason that they never give on this issue? Particularly here, none of the six reasons Paul gives in this passage for this physical symbol (divine authority structures, male-female glory, creation order, angels, nature, and universal church practice) have any relation whatsoever to culture. We patronize Paul when we assign his reasoning to cultural custom, and we extrapolate his meaning and intentions.
• Further, it would seem that Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians actually went against Corinthian custom. Milton Vincent (TMS) notes that “The overwhelming evidence is that Roman men would cover their heads just as Roman women would do when they ... were involved in a very active religious exercise” (Corinth was a Roman colony). Bruce Terry affirms this: “In the first century among the Romans, both men and women worshiped with the head covered; among the Greeks, both men and women worshiped with the head uncovered; and among the Jews, men covered their heads and women uncovered theirs when they worshiped. Thus Paul is introducing a new Christian tradition, which he grounds, not in the social customs of his day, but in theological arguments.” In his research article The Importance of Roman Portraiture for Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, (yes, it’s a long title!) David Gill notes that: “As Paul seems to have been encouraging men not to appear capite velato [literally ‘with covered head’], yet asking women to do the opposite, there might be different reasons for the two pieces of guidance [other than culture].” If this is indeed true, then Paul’s command for women to cover their heads and men to uncover would have been just as counter-cultural then as it is today.

Finally, I appeal to the testimony of church history. Drawings on the catacombs show Christian women with headcoverings on. One hundred and fifty years after the Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, early church father Tertullian writes this: “In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.” The veil was worn by Christian women in Northern Europe during the fifth through the eleventh centuries. The Catholic Church has long held to the tradition of wearing the veil, as have many Protestant streams, including Anabaptism. From the first century up until now, many theologians have affirmed a current practice of the headcovering, including, but not limited to:

Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Severian of Gabala, Basil of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Guillaume Durand, Heinrich Von Langenstein, Hugh Latimer, Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin (for the young, restless, reformed crowd), David Dickerson, John Cotton, Anthony Sparrow, George Gillespie, William Quelch, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Johnathan Edwards, John Wesley, Roger Williams, Petrus Nakskow, Frederick Godet, A. R. Fausset, M. R. Vincent, G. G. Findlay, Joseph Beet, William Tyndale, C. C. Walker, A. T. Robertson, William Barclay, John Murray, Thomas Wall, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Ryrie, Charles Spurgeon, John Darby, Albert Oepke, Bruce Waltke, Robert Culver, Henry Morgan, Charles Coates, Watchman Nee, John Phillips, Milton Vincent, R. C. Sproul, R.C. Sproul Jr., Bruce Terry, and K. P. Yohannan.

This quote from R. C. Sproul to sum up:

Sproul | The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church...?

Translation and the cringe factor

Yes. I get it.

It’s weird. It’s not normal to have a piece of fabric on top of your head. And for many women, it would make them cringe in public. Who am I, a guy who never has to worry about this, to say women should do one thing or another?

Fair enough.

So, some have asked, can we translate the physical symbol of the headcovering into something more meaningful in our culture? Wallace, for example, writes this:

Daniel B. Wallace | The early church practice of requiring the women to wear a head covering when praying or prophesying would not have been viewed as an unusual request. In the cosmopolitan cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were everywhere ... Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women—even biblically submissive wives—resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

He has valid points. By definition, physical symbols allow some flexibility. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we cannot partake exactly in the manner that Jesus and His disciples did, nor can we baptize people in the Jordan River exactly like John did with Jesus. Also, nobody wants to humiliate women. Wallace suggests that perhaps a modest dress could function as a translation for the head covering; others have suggested that perhaps a wedding ring could stand in place of the head covering. However, while I sympathize with this view, I also would raise some issues:

• It doesn’t seem that the symbol of the head covering is meant to be meaningful to the culture around us; only to those in the church. Paul does not seem concerned with the effect the covering will have on unbelievers, but on believers.
• There seems to be a lack of suitable alternatives. The wedding ring option a) is hardly visible, b) would require all men not to wear wedding rings, and c) wouldn’t account for single women. A modest dress seems closer to the spirit of 1 Corinthians 11, but Paul seems pretty clear that something needs to be on the head, especially because the head is analogous with authority.
• It would need to be a visible symbol immediately recognizable to Christian men and women, and to be uniform to all churches (11:16).
• While it sounds harsh, humiliation is not always avoidable for Christians. Additionally, that which feels humiliating isn’t always. Growing up, the family rule happened to be that little Driver boys were not to wear shorts. Also, while swimming, we were often required to wear shirts as well in order to be modest. I remember feeling very humiliated when I was the only who wore pants while my friends were wearing shorts, or the only one wearing a shirt while swimming. But I soon came to realize that I was only humiliated because of my own self-consciousness—my friends weren’t teasing me, I just felt odd. I’m not saying that women would never receive humiliation from any outside sources, but I am saying that I think we as Christians have the power to stand graciously in the face of humiliation.

Nevertheless, there is always the ever present danger of requiring too much from the biblical text. Paul doesn’t specify the size, length, color, transparency, texture, shape, etc. of the head covering. Is it possible to have different types and styles of head coverings? Certainly, I think. Would a headband make a suitable headcovering? What about a handkerchief? Or a hat? Perhaps even a modest dress?

I leave it to the discretion of the reader.

Why the kiss is not the covering

Perhaps the most common question that is raised in response to an applicable view of the headcovering is the question of the holy kiss: which is mentioned four times in the New Testament:

Romans 16:16 | Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send you greetings.
1 Corinthians 16:20 | All the brothers greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
2 Corinthians 13:12 | Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you.
1 Thessalonians 5:26 | Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.

The question is this: If you hold the headcovering to be applicable today, than why do you not also hold the holy kiss to be applicable today? Both are New Testament commands given to believers by Paul. It would seem inconsistent to hold to one without also holding to the other. Additionally, if you use cultural arguments to avoid practicing the holy kiss (which is mentioned four times in the Bible), than aren’t you simply failing to hear your own words spoken against cultural arguments when it comes to the headcovering (which is only mentioned once)?

However, I think there are several indications that come from the text itself and not from an extraneous knowledge of surrounding culture:

• First, however, even though I do think there are textual indications, just for the record, it seems much more likely that a kiss of greeting was a more common cultural practice than the practice of simultaneous female-head-covering/male-head-uncovering.
• Second, if a Christian brother sincerely wished to greet me with a holy kiss, I would not turn him down. The burden of proof always lies with the one who holds that a mandate given is not applicable today, rather than the one who holds that it is.
• Thirdly, though the holy kiss is mentioned four times, the sum of the statements is only four verses, much different than the cohesive, unbroken fifteen verse prose given for the head covering.
• Fourthly, Paul actually gives a logically ordered argument with six reasons for the headcovering (none of which are rooted in culture), which strongly suggests that he did not, in fact, primarily ground his reasoning from culture there. Meanwhile, he gives no reasons for the holy kiss, which suggests that he may have, in fact, primarily ground his reasoning in culture.
• Fifthly, Paul always gives the command to greet one another with the holy kiss and the end of his letters (yet before his benedictions, which are often universal), while the outline for the headcovering is laid out right in the middle of his letter. This accords with how we naturally understand teaching to be communicated to us, whatever the medium, (whether through letter, sermon, or recorded audio). For example, think of a pastor preaching a sermon. The meat of his content is in the middle of his sermon, and he probably intends it to be applicable to all audiences everywhere. Now imagine if at the end, he says: “Let’s pray now for the fellowship meal. I want you to form four orderly lines when you go downstairs.” Even a child understands that the pastor is not saying that everyone everywhere has a moral obligation to form four orderly lines whenever they happen to go downstairs, but rather, his directive is only applicable to the here and now.
• Sixthly, along this similar vein, the context which surrounds the directives to practice the holy kiss suggests that Paul means for his message to be received by his immediate audience. For example, note some verses which appear close to the holy kiss directives at the end of Paul’s letters: “So you should welcome her [Phoebe] in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help” (Rm 16:2a). “Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them” (Rm 16:5). “The report of your obedience has reached everyone” (Rm 16:19). “On the first day of the week, each of you is to set something aside and save in keeping with how he prospers, so that no collections will need to be made when I come” (1Co 16:2). “The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, along with the church that meets in their home” (1Co 16:19). “This is why I am writing these things while absent, that when I am there I will not use severity” (2Co 13:10a). “Brothers, pray for us also” (1Th 5:25). “I charge you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brothers” (1Th 5:27). It is clear that none of these verses directly apply to us today.
• On the flip side, the similarly sustained arguments found in the middle of 1 Corinthians, surrounding the argument for the head covering, suggest that Paul intends his message in a more universal manner: The need for church discipline of immoral members (1Co 5). The prohibition against lawsuits among believers (1Co 6:1-11). The directive for sexual purity (1Co 6:12-20). The mutual interdependence and honor given in marriage (1Co 7:1-16). Directions for single Christians (1Co 7:25-40). The right of church leaders to take a wife and a salary and their call to be an example (1Co 9). The warning against idolatry (1Co 10:1-13). The physical symbol of the headcovering (1Co 11:2-16). The physical symbol of the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:17-33). Spiritual gifts (1Co 12). Love (1Co 13). Prophecy (1Co 14). The necessity of the resurrection (1Co 15). These sections do apply to us today.

Of course, there will be commands that we take as universal next to the holy kiss directives (see Rm 16:17-18, 20, 24; 1Co 16:13-14, 22-23; 2Co 13:11, 13; 1Th 5:12-24, 28). And there will be sustained arguments which contain cultural elements (like food offered to idols: 1Co 8; 10:14-33), but on the whole, we recognize solely from the text that Paul’s directive to greet one another with a holy kiss is much different than his directive to practice the covering or uncovering of the head.

Why is it all important?

Ok, Josiah. You’ve covered a very large span. You’ve gone from a high-profile Christian music artist to an agnostic feminist to divine fiction to the Garden of Eden to Junia to Lebron James to the headcovering to the holy kiss. And while women and men are being oppressed everywhere, and social injustice is happening on a national scale, and people are sick, cruel, and depraved towards one another—you’re worried about making sure women put a piece of fabric on their heads?

I do not deny that many of the world’s women have suffered sometimes terrible abuse at the hands of men. I do not deny that men have selfishly used their physical strength and often greater rank to hurt and even humiliate women. And of course I do not deny that we should try to help these women.

But I do deny that feminism is the answer. I am concerned about the philosophy we employ when doing so. Because, you see, I am convinced that to rescue women and children out of abusive patriarchy and into feminism...

...is only to take them out of one form of slavery and place them in another.

It is only to rescue them from the abuse of male-headship in order to place them into the abuse of femininity. Rather than to bring healing and wholesomeness, it is to reinforce their conclusions that there are no men whom they can trust to protect them, to lead them, to love them. It is to reinforce their conclusions that they cannot, at whatever the cost, be vulnerable—they must be strong, independent, unbreakable. It is to tell them that they cannot enjoy the delicacy, gracefulness, and muliebrity that so mysteriously distinguishes their gender from its opposite and makes them unique, but rather must seek to attain power, authority, and prestige at all costs, even if it means sacrificing that distinction which is so inherently valuable in them.

It is to release them from enslavement to others, only to enslave them to themselves.

R. J. Rushdooney | The alternative to submission is exploitation, not freedom, because there is no true freedom in anarchy. The purpose of submission is not to degrade women in marriage, nor to degrade men in society, but to bring to them their best prosperity and peace under God's order. In a world of authority, the submission of the wife is not in isolation, nor in a vacuum. It is set in a context of submission by men to authority; in such a world, men teach the principles of authority to their sons and daughters and work to instill in them the responsibilities of authority and obedience. In such a world, interdependence and service prevail. In a world of moral anarchy, there is neither submission to authority nor service, which is a form of submission. (emphasis mine)

In a culture where civil-rights is king, and “equality” is increasingly becoming the mantra under which to stand, the Bible’s words have also become increasing prevalent. Among all the differences among humans today and in history, we are reminded that there was only one difference ordained by God at creation:

The difference between a man and a woman.

And it is only when we abide by biblical role distinctions that we will know true freedom as men and women. Our culture has long endured the erosion of these differences. One generation has chinked away the ordinance of the headcovering; never in a million years intending to undermine the foundation for male-female role distinctions. The next generation chipped away a little more; doing away with male-female role distinctions, never intending to open the door to same-sex marriage. Our generation has knocked away the distinction between men and women sexually, though we would never intend, of course, to open the door for bestiality or “intergenerational love” (pedophilia). Do we really think that the generation following us will be “responsible” with how we’ve treated the Bible, and not let it “get out of hand?” Do we really expect the following generation not to learn from our example?

(Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument. I don’t care. Our culture is sliding, scrambling, and tumbling down a slippery slope, only catching our breath long enough to yell: “Slippery slope argument! Slippery slope!”)

Taylor Cadwell notes: “The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women.”

This is why it’s so important.

And just to show that I’m not against women, I’ll end with two quotes from a very talented, spiritual, and gracious one:

Elisabeth Elliot | It is a naive sort of feminism that insists that women prove their ability to do all the things that men do. This is a distortion and a travesty. Men have never sought to prove that they can do all the things women do. Why subject women to purely masculine criteria? Women can and ought to be judged by the criteria of femininity, for it is in their femininity that they participate in the human race. And femininity has its limitations. So has masculinity. That is what we’ve been talking about. To do this is not to do that. To be this is not to be that. To be a woman is not to be a man. To be married is not to be single - which may mean not to have a career. To marry this man is not to marry all the others. A choice is a limitation. (emphasis mine)

Elisabeth Elliot | To me, a lady is not frilly, flouncy, flippant, frivolous and fluff-brained, but she is gentle, she is gracious, she is godly and she is giving. You and I have the gift of femininity... the more womanly we are, the more manly men will be and the more God is glorified. Be women, be only women, be real women in obedience to God.

Continue reading →

A Rather Boring "Brief" on a Rather Controversial Topic (Part 3 of 4)

< Back to Part 2

In church leadership

1 Timothy 2:8-15 | Therefore, I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument. Also, the women are to dress themselves in modest clothing, with decency and good sense, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive apparel, but with good works, as is proper for women who affirm that they worship God. A woman should learn in silence with full submission. I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority [authentein] over a man; instead, she is to be silent. For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with good judgment.

Paul does not have faulty logic here; He is not deceived. His appeal to the Old Testament is not “poor exegesis”—since it is God himself who is making this connection through Paul (2Tm 3:16), and thus this passage is not for our enslavement, but for our good.

Though Paul gives directions to men that apply to both genders (prayer), and gives directions to women that apply to both genders (modest dress, with a few indicative examples), yet he also gives commands specifically to women that are not general—that are not reciprocal, since he details the female role as it interacts with the male role (v. 11); they are “not to have authority over a man.” Women are to learn in silence with full submission. This is not a command given to men. The word for silence here, hesuchia, means “quietness, stillness, tranquility, or peacefulness.” It differs from sige, which refers to speechlessness (Thus, in 1 Thessalonians 3:12, for example, hesuchia is translated, “work in quiet fashion”). Paul affirms that women are to maintain a peaceful, submissive demeanor in the presence of male leadership. (Interestingly enough, the two prohibitions for women here, teaching and authoritative leadership, are two things required of church elders that are not required of church deacons. See 1Tm 3:2,5; 5:17; Ti 1:9; Ac 20:28).

It is also argued that the word authentein means “assume or usurp authority [wrongly]” as opposed to the simple exercise of authority—thus, Paul would only be prohibiting women from taking authority for themselves. This argument presents problems, however. First, it is doubtful that this is what the word means, partly since this meaning is derived from looking at two separate parts of the Greek word (try looking at the two separate parts of ‘butterfly’ to make a conclusion as to what the word means), and also since similar Greek word usage around that time doesn’t seem to indicate that nuance. Second, even if the word were to mean that, it would be an argument from silence, since it quietly assumes that Paul was okay with women being granted authority. In actuality, with straight-faced honesty to the context, might not Paul have considered all female authority here, whether “taken” or “granted”, to be usurpation?

It is true that there was false teaching occurring at Ephesus (1Tm 1:4-6; 6:4-5), and that women were being deceived by this false teaching (1Tm 5:15; 2Tm 3:6-7). Some might argue that because of this, Paul’s prohibition only applies to the women in this particular church, since they were tainted in some way or another by false teaching. But Paul never gives this as a reason. Paul lays down this ordinance with an appeal to creation, not the current winds of culture. We find further evidence that this is not a church-specific command in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church:

1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 | As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, they should ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church meeting. Or did the word of God originate from you, or did it come to you only?

This passage speaks so strongly against an evangelical feminist view that many commentators have simply opted to call it an interpolation—or an editorial addition that was not part of the inspired text. While it is true that this section is found in different places in the original manuscripts (for example, after verse 40), this argument conveniently forgets to mention one rather potent fact: Not a single known manuscript omits this text. Every single manuscript that we have repeats Paul’s directive here to women. If there were such a manuscript with the omission, rest assured we would hear about it.

It is also argued that the text up to verse 35 is simply a quote or saying of the Corinthian church that Paul refutes in verse 36 with: “Or [or what!] did the word of God originate from you, or did it come to you only?” The first problem with this argument is that it is extremely volatile and dangerous. Might, then, anybody just argue that anything they don’t like in Paul’s letters is simply a “quote” which Paul then disproves? Regardless, the participle used for “or” here, é, does not disprove what comes before it, but simply offers another thing for the reader to consider, should they deny the first part (for example, 1 Corinthians 6:8-9: “you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. Or [i.e., if you deny the truth of that], do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?”).

Paul (and therefore God) is sincerely promoting this teaching. What type of silence are the women to observe? The words translated “silent” in this passage, sigato, mean “to keep silent, to hold one’s peace.” Additionally, we read that the women “are not permitted to speak.” How are the women to hold their peace? Is all “audible participation” (for lack of a better term) prohibited?

Probably not. It seems likely that instead there are specific things, or areas in which women are not to speak. Attempting to let Scripture interpret itself, we read in 1 Corinthians 11:5 that not all “audible participation” is prohibited for women; rather prophesy and prayer are valid options. Another helpful verse in which sigato is used is verse 28: “But if there is no interpreter, that person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.” Here, the prophet is also told to keep silent and not to speak, but one could hardly suggest that he was never to make verbal noise in church (singing, praying, etc.), since in verse 27, speaking was a viable option for him. Rather, we understand that he was to keep silent about that particular thing of which he was going to speak; he was to keep silent in a particular area.

And this is the question we ask of women as well: In what area are they not to speak? What types of speech are prohibited?

First, in verse 34, Paul directly contrasts “they are not permitted to speak” with “but should be submissive”, indicating that women are not to speak in a manner that jeopardizes their own submission; i.e., by speaking in the authoritative arena. Secondly, in verse 35, they are not to speak with the raising of objections or questions, but rather to learn with a spirit of stillness. This affirms 1 Timothy 2:11: “A woman should learn in silence with full submission.” In opposition to much feminist scholarship, Paul does not promote male headship out of a belief that women are unintelligent or uneducated; rather he affirms the intelligence and learning ability of women, but along with that, holds that the women are to learn in a manner becoming to them—in a manner that graces them, not disgraces them.

In familial leadership

Perhaps the clearest, most eloquent text on male-leadership in the home is found in Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus:

Ephesians 5:21-33 | Submit [hypotasso] to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, submit [hypotasso] to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of the body. Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, since we are members of His body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church. To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband.

Paul’s general command of submission among the body of Christ (cf. Php 2:3-4) does not negate the unique command he gives to women. In a similar fashion, Paul commands young men to be subject to elders: “In the same way, you younger men, be subject to the elders. And all of you clothe yourselves with humility toward one another” (1Pt 5:5). We understand that young men are to be subject to the elders in a way in which the elders do not reciprocate, even though all are to act humbly toward one another.

Likewise, wives are to submit to their husbands in a way that husbands do not reciprocate. Of the word hypotasso, Wayne Grudem says: “the term ... always implies a relationship of submission to an authority. It is used elsewhere in the New Testament of the submission of Jesus to the authority of His parents (Luke 2:51); of demons being subject to the disciples (Luke 10:17-clearly the meaning “act in love, be considerate” cannot fit here); of citizens being subject to governing authorities (Romans 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13); of the universe being subject to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27; Ephesians 1:22); of unseen spiritual powers being subject to Christ (1 Peter 3:22); of Christ being subject to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28); of church members being subject to church leaders (1 Corinthians 16:15-16 [with 1 Clement 42:4]; 1 Peter 5:5); of wives being subject to their husbands (Colossians 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:5; cf. Ephesians 5:22-24); of the church being subject to Christ (Ephesians 5:24); of servants being subject to their masters (Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18); and of Christians being subject to God (Hebrews 12:9; James 4:7). Note that none of these relationships is ever reversed; that is, husbands are never told to be subject to wives, nor government to citizens, masters to servants, disciples to demons, etc. In fact, the term is used outside the New Testament to describe the submission and obedience of soldiers in an army to those of superior rank” (emphasis mine).

Wives are commanded to “submit themselves.” Men are not called to make women submit. We were not created for that. We were created to love women and to lead them to spiritual holiness. Again, the analogy between the relationship of a husband and wife and that of Christ and the church is undeniable; and again, this analogy displays that the commandments Paul is laying out here are not just cultural compromises but universal principles based on divine relationship structures. Christ is clearly in authority over the church, and Christ just as clearly loves the church with His whole being, since He “gave Himself for her to make her holy.”

Again, true biblical headship does not give men a free, easy pass. Paul spends more time commanding the men to love than he does the women to submit! In sum, Paul identifies the unique facets of the marriage relationship: The man is to sacrificially love his wife as Christ loved the church, and the woman is to respectfully submit to her husband as the church respects Christ. This summation Paul affirms in Colossians:

Colossians 3:18-19 | Wives, be submissive to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and don’t be bitter toward them.

Paul was not the only apostle who affirmed the holiness of female submission and male leadership:

1 Peter 3:1-7 | In the same way, wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, even if some disobey the Christian message, they may be won over without a message by the way their wives live when they observe your pure, reverent lives. Your beauty should not consist of outward things like elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold ornaments or fine clothes. Instead, it should consist of what is inside the heart with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very valuable in God’s eyes. For in the past, the holy women who put their hope in God also beautified themselves in this way, submitting to their own husbands, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You have become her children when you do what is good and are not frightened by anything alarming. Husbands, in the same way, live with your wives with an understanding of their weaker nature yet showing them honor as coheirs of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

In verse 1, Peter says “in the same way.” In the same way as what? In verses 13-14 of the previous chapter, we are told “Submit to every human authority because of the Lord, whether to the Emperor as the supreme authority or to governors as those sent out by him to punish those who do what is evil and to praise those who do what is good,” and in verses 18-19: “Household slaves, submit with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. For it brings favor if, mindful of God’s will, someone endures grief from suffering unjustly.” The question is raised: If the church does not tell slaves to submit to their masters today, why should we tell wives to submit to their husbands today? But this negates the broader context of the issue: Paul and the other writers of the New Testament didn’t assume that the institution of slavery was good, but only gave instructions to individuals on how to act in and among the institution of slavery.

Paul and the other New Testament writers, however, do assume that the institution of marriage is very good. In fact, it has its roots in creation, while slavery does not. It is instructive to note that the word used for “in the same way,” or “likewise,” is not kathos, which means “just, or exactly as”, but homoiós, which means “in a similar manner.” Paul, after giving instruction on individual submission in one institution—that of slavery—then starts in on a related (in some aspects but very different in others) matter: submission in marriage.

Far from only being applicable in the New Testament era, this passage answers many questions pertinent in today’s world about male headship:

• Is male-headship just a guise to force all women to have to obey anything any man says? No, wives are to submit “to your own husbands.”
• Is female submission in marriage based on a belief that men are spiritually superior to women? No, wives are to submit, “even if some disobey the Christian message.”
• Isn’t telling women to live in a quiet manner shutting off their opportunity to be a witness? No, rather, speech is not always to most effective way to evangelize: “they may be won over without a message by the way their wives live when they observe your pure, reverent lives.”
• Doesn’t submission make women ugly and undesirable? No. In our culture today, most female beauty “consists of outward things like elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold ornaments or fine clothes.” But this beauty is false. True beauty “consists of what is inside the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very valuable in God’s eyes.” The example of Sarah is very pertinent—Peter knew what he was doing when he picked her as an example: Sarah evidently had physical beauty, to say the least, attracting the eye of a king (Gn 20:2) and arousing Abraham’s fear multiple times that he would be killed by men who desired her. Yet it is revealing that Peter does not refer to this beauty. Rather, he says that her beauty came from her submissive spirit—from the way she submitted to her husband.
• Doesn’t submission make women wimps? No, rather “you have become her children when you do what is good and are not frightened by anything alarming.”

Again, male-headship requires men to act honorably as well. Husbands are to “live with your wives with an understanding of their weaker nature.” The woman’s weaker nature is evident in that they are placed in a disadvantageous position: The husband can more easily domineer the wife than the wife can domineer the husband—first, because she is often physically weaker than he is, and secondly, because his position of authority can be more easily abused towards domineering than hers can.

Additionlly, Paul makes sure to mention that even though women have a functional role difference with men, yet they are ontologically equal with men—they are “coheirs of the grace of life” (7). The parallels between this verse and Galatians 3:28-29 are strong:

Galatians 3:28-29 | There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.

When it comes to ontological worth and equality, neither gender is more than the other. Just because the husband has a position of real authority over his wife does not mean that he can treat her as a lesser Christian—as somehow less in God’s eyes. Rather, he must show her honor as a joint heir of salvation. The door to salvation is open to her just as it is open to him. In fact, you don’t have to be Jew, you don’t have to be Greek, you don’t have to be male, you don’t have to be female, you don’t have to be a slave, and you don’t have to be free. All receive salvation as joint heirs equally.

On to Part 4 >

Continue reading →

A Rather Boring "Brief" on a Rather Controversial Topic (Part 2 of 4)

< Back to Part 1

What about female ministry?

Whoa. Before you go any further, dude, what about all the fine examples of women leaders in the Bible? Or did you just miss them while reading through your thick, male-focused glasses?

I know it’s a strawman, but I think there are three implications in the previous question that are revealing:

• First, nobody is saying that there are no women in the Bible. Sometimes I wonder if biblical headship is equated with the belief that women only show up in the Bible when they a) sin, b) have children, or c) seduce men. Of course, this isn’t true. Women are in the Bible in all their full humanity and worth. But it seems that somewhere along the way, biblical headship has become mischaracterized by a feminist culture as a desire to suppress the remembrance of even the existence of women, whether good or bad, in the past. Thus, today we have such a heavy focus on women’s studies; on “rediscovering” women of note in history and theology; on focusing on the “ignored” gender, the “forgotten” gender, the “voiceless” gender, etc., etc. It’s why you see bumper stickers today like: “Well-behaved women rarely make history.”
  But when you mischaracterize a belief or conviction people hold, it becomes all that much easier to “disprove” it. Such has been the case with biblical headship. By redefining biblical headship as the desire to sweep the remembrance of women under the rug ... all that becomes necessary to do is to show that women did exist. That they were there all along. But to do so is to completely miss the point.
• Second, nobody is saying that there are not female leaders in the Bible, or women involved in ministry. The question is: are there females involved in certain types of ministry that are only valid for men?
• Finally, even if there were women involved in certain types of ministry that are only valid for men, the battle is not won for the evangelical feminist. It must be shown that a woman’s existence in such a role is sufficient reason to negate the very clear biblical commands against woman participating in such a role. In other words, it seems it has too often been assumed that we can negate the male headship commands if we can prove that women were in the very positions that were prohibited. But this ignores a very important principle that any Bible student must hold: We judge the actions, positions and roles of characters in the Bible based on the commands of the Bible, and not vice-versa. Just because Lot’s daughters slept with him (Gn 19:30-38) doesn’t mean we negate the biblical prohibition against incest (Lv 18:6-18). Just because Rachel (Gn 31:19) and Micah (Jdg 17:5) had idols does not mean we negate the commandment against idolatry (Lv 19:4). Just because Rahab was a prostitute (Jos 6:25; Hb 11:31) does not mean we lay aside God’s strong warning against sexual sin (1Co 6:13-20). And so on and so forth.

With these three points in mind, however, the Bible is not shy on the topic of women. In fact, au contra feminism, there were many well-behaved women who made history. There are whole books devoted to women (Ruth and Esther). Song of Songs is about a love story between a man and a woman. The book of Proverbs, in which wisdom is personified as a woman, ends with this illustrious poem praising the capable woman:

Proverbs 31:10-31 | Who can find a capable wife? She is far more precious than jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will not lack anything good. She rewards him with good, not evil, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with willing hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from far away. She rises while it is still night and provides food for her household and portions for her female servants. She evaluates a field and buys it; she plants a vineyard with her earnings. She draws on her strength and reveals that her arms are strong. She sees that her profits are good, and her lamp never goes out at night. She extends her hands to the spinning staff, and her hands hold the spindle. Her hands reach out to the poor, and she extends her hands to the needy. She is not afraid for her household when it snows, for all in her household are doubly clothed. She makes her own bed coverings; her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known at the city gates, where he sits among the elders of the land. She makes and sells linen garments; she delivers belts to the merchants. Strength and honor are her clothing, and she can laugh at the time to come. She opens her mouth with wisdom and loving instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the activities of her household and is never idle. Her sons rise up and call her blessed. Her husband also praises her: “Many women are capable, but you surpass them all!” Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who fears the LORD will be praised. Give her the reward of her labor, and let her works praise her at the city gates.

We have already encountered Eve in the Garden of Eden. Job valued his daughters so much he gave them a portion of his inheritance:

Job 42:14-15 | He named his first daughter Jemimah, his second Keziah, and his third Keren-happuch. No women as beautiful as Job’s daughters could be found in all the land, and their father granted them an inheritance with their brothers.

Sarah (Gn 17:15), evidently a beautiful woman (see Gn 20:2), had faith in God (Hb 11:11) and performed the remarkable feat of giving birth to Isaac at ninety (Gn 21:1-3), creating an entire nation. Though she was a capable woman, she honored her husband Abraham and submitted to his leadership, even calling him “Lord” (1Pt 3:6). The Egyptian midwives Shiphrah and Puah are singled out for honor because they feared God over and above Pharaoh, being willing to spare the lives of the Hebrew children (Ex 1:15-22). Zipporah saved her husband Moses’ life from God’s anger with her quick thinking (Ex 2:24-26). Zelophehad’s daughters, Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah boldly requested their dead father’s inheritance (they had no brothers), resulting in the establishment of a permanent ordinance that a dead man’s daughters were to be preferred over his brothers for the inheritance (Nm 27:1-11). The prostitute Rahab showed faith in God by housing the Israelite spies (Jos 2:1), thereby saving her family from destruction (Jos 6:17-25), gaining mention in the genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1:5) and the “hall of faith” (Hb 11:31). Achsah was given land in the Negev to own from her father Caleb (Jdg 1:15).

Ruth loyally accompanied Naomi back to Israel (Ru 1:22), bravely provided for Naomi (2:2-3), and graciously and humbly won the heart of Boaz with her wisdom and foresight. Hannah spoke boldly to Eli the priest (1Sm 1:15); and her heartfelt prayer was heard by God (1Sm 1:19), so that she gave birth to Samuel; and as his loving mother, influenced the entire nation. Intelligent, beautiful Abigail was a model of wisdom, submission, and discretion, making peace in a dispute between two hot-tempered men, and directing her servants to save her life and the lives of her household (1Sm 25). Bathsheba (2Sm 11:3) won the heart of a king and mothered the crown prince, again influencing the entire nation. Esther was used by God to save her nation in a way that no man could; she was raised to her “royal position for such a time as this” (Est 4:14). Shallum’s daughters helped him repair part of the wall surrounding Jerusalem during the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:12).

Of all the people in the world, it was a woman, His mother Mary, who probably had the most influence on Jesus and spent the most time with Him (Mt 1:16; c.f. Jn 2:1-5). God revealed His will to Mary through an angel (Lk 1:30-38). Likewise, Mary’s relative Elizabeth (Lk 1) mothered and influenced the great John the Baptist, whom “among those born of women no one is greater” (Lk 7:28). Dorcas (or Tabitha) a disciple of Christ, was known for her charity. Through her resurrection from the dead, many believed in the Lord (Ac 9:36-42). Priscilla aided her husband Aquila in teaching the great Apollos (Ac 18:26), and she and her husband were counted among Paul’s fellow workers (Rm 16:3). (Some choose to find meaning in the fact that Priscilla’s name is mentioned before Aquila’s sometimes—this seems like grasping at straws; I call my parents “Mom and Dad” sometimes, and “Dad and Mom” other times, but I am always aware that my dad is our family’s spiritual authority). Rhoda was the first recorded person to see Paul after his escape from prison and granted him entrance to the house (Ac 12:13). Lydia was one of the first converts in Macedonia (Ac 16:14), and persuaded Paul and Silas to accept her hospitality (15). Mary worked very hard for the Roman church (Rm 16:6). Lois and her daughter Eunice raised up Timothy in the Christian faith (2Tm 1:5).

Many women were also involved in the ministry of Jesus (and to Jesus). His own mother, of course, influenced Him. Other women ministered to Jesus, helping Him and following Him around (Mt 27:56; Mk 40:41). Peter’s mother-in-law ministered to Christ and His apostles (Mk 1:30-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39). Christ honored many women through healings and teachings. One example might be the woman at the well. Jesus’ disciples “were amazed that He was talking with a woman” (Jn 4:27), yet Jesus treated her intelligently and fairly—He taught her about spiritual things (13-14, 21-24), and held her responsible for her sin (16-18). She spread the word in her town about Jesus (28-30, 39). And Jesus treated women in this way all throughout His ministry. Suzanna and Joanna were two of the women who supported Jesus and His disciples financially (Lk 8:3), Martha and Mary of Bethany ministered to Jesus, welcoming Him into their home, and He did not shy away from teaching them spiritual truths (Lk 10:38-42; c.f. Jn 12:2). Martha and Mary both exhibited strong faith, perhaps even stronger than that of Jesus’ male disciples (Jn 11:22, 24, 27; Lk 10:39). He cared so much about them that He came and raised their brother Lazarus from the dead (Jn 11). Mary Magdalene, also, ministered to Jesus by anointing His feet (Mt 26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Jn 12:2-8). Finally, it was Christ’s female disciples who were privileged with discovering His resurrection first (Mt 28:5-8; Mk 16:5-8; Lk 24:2-9; Jn 20:1-2).

Yet, though these women were very active and involved in Christ’s ministry, when it came to leadership roles, Christ did not choose any female apostles. He chose twelve men. This is highly significant. If Christ had wanted to promote equality of men and women in leadership roles, why didn’t He select six men and six women? A common response is that Christ didn’t want to upset the social order of that day and raise unnecessary suspicion by travelling with women. But this is unsatisfactory for two reasons: 1) Christ never compromised with social order when a moral issue was at stake (not afraid to eat with sinners, cleanse the temple, publicly rebuke the Pharisees, etc.), and the patriarchal society of first-century Israel would have been a rather large moral issue for Jesus if we are to see Him as a feminist, and 2) Jesus did in fact travel with women (Lk 8:1-2).

In many ways and in many different varieties, these women in the Bible ministered to men: to their fathers, to their husbands, to their sons, and to their brothers in Christ. They ministered to women also, and to children. And they even ministered to our Lord Jesus Christ! To state that female ministry is not in the Bible would be like saying that sin isn’t in the Bible. It’s there.

But, it also argued, there are other women in the Bible that minister in a different way. In a more authoritative way. In a way that seems to go against biblical headship.

For example, prophetesses. Miriam is called a prophetess (15:20), who identified herself as one the Lord spoke through (Nm 12:2). Deborah was not only a prophetess but also a judge of Israel (Jdg 4:4), to whom men went for judgment (4:5). The prophetess Huldah was consulted by Hilkiah the priest and other male leaders during Josiah’s reign, and gave these men the word of the Lord (2Kgs 22). The prophetess Anna received the news of the Messiah with gratitude and praise (Lk 2:36-38). In Acts 21:9, we that read Philip the evangelist had four virgin daughters who prophesied, and we see this prediction in Acts:

Acts 2:17 | And it will be in the last days, says God, that I will pour out My Spirit on all humanity; then your sons and your daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams.

Finally, we see in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that prophecy appears to be a more important gift than teaching: “God has placed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, next miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, managing, various kinds of languages.”

But these examples of women are not actually as potent as they might seem. First, Miriam, as far as we know, confined her ministry to women (Ex 15:20-21), which is perfectly compatible with biblical headship. Additionally, God made the distinction between being a prophet and being a leader of God’s people like Moses very clear to Aaron and Miriam (Nm 12:6-8).

Secondly, there is a clear difference between the male prophets in the Old Testament like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel and female prophets like Deborah and Huldah. The male prophets proclaimed the word of the Lord openly and publicly, in the city square, but Deborah and Huldah prophesied privately (Jdg 4:5; 2Kgs 22:14) in a way that was compatible with male leadership. Additionally, Deborah was not a leader of Israel like the other male judges were. Other judges would lead the Israelites into battle, but God’s word to Deborah was that this was for Barak to do (Jdg 4:6-7). Rather than asserting her own leadership, she deferred to him. The fact that Barak wasn’t willing to shoulder this leadership on his own is grounds enough for God’s giving the honor of killing Sisera to another—a woman. But note the honor is not given to Deborah, but to Jael (17-21). Finally, it is unstable, to say the least, to take a story from the book of Judges, of which the main theme seems to be: “everyone did whatever he wanted” (17:6; 21:25), as the model of what godly headship should look like. The book of Judges outlines, in sometimes painful detail, the moral confusion and ethic bankruptcy of the nation of Israel during those times. (Perhaps we might also like to take the Benjaminite bride-kidnappings in Judges 21:20-24 as a model of good courtship?).

In the New Testament, while Anna, the four virgin daughters of Philip, and various other eschatological women prophesy, and while 1 Corinthians 12:28 holds prophecy as more important than teaching, New Testament female prophesy actually supports male headship rather than disproves it. In 1 Corinthians 11:3-10, Paul specifies that female prophets are to be adorned visibly in a way that symbolizes their submission to male leadership. Thus we may assume that these prophetesses prophesied in a way that openly acknowledged their support of male leadership.

There is another woman in the Bible who is called a servant, or deaconess, of the church: Phoebe:

Romans 16:1-2 | I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant [diakonos] of the church in Cenchreae. So you should welcome her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints and assist her in whatever matter she may require your help. For indeed she has been a benefactor [prostatis] of many—and of me also.

The Greek word diakonos means “a waiter, servant; one who performs any service, an administrator.” It is often used to refer to deacons in the church. If this is what the word means here, than it does not necessarily make a very strong case against male headship. Thomas Schriener notes: “Even if women were appointed as deacons, they were not appointed as elders (1Tm 3:1-7; Ti 1:5-9). Two qualities demanded of elders—being apt to teach (1Tm 3:2) and governing of the church (1Tm 3:5)—are not part of the responsibility of deacons (cf. also 1Tm 5:17; Ti 1:9; Ac 20:17, 28ff).” The other word, prostatis, means “a female guardian, protector, patroness”. Some contend it should mean “leader” here. It seems more likely that this refers to Phoebe being a helper or benefactor to Paul than to being his leader, since the only one Paul places in authority above himself is Christ, and not even the male, Jerusalem apostles (Gl 1:6-7, 11). It would not be unreasonable to assume that Phoebe was the one who carried the letter to the Romans for Paul.

Finally, there is the mention of Junia:

Romans 16:7 | Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me.

It is fairly certain that Junia is a woman. Though the phrase can be translated as it is here: “noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles”, some claim that it is more naturally translated “outstanding among the apostles.” Which would make Junia a female apostle. If this is the case, however, it does not mean that Junia was an apostle in the right of Paul or Peter or the rest of the twelve. The Greek word apostolos can simply mean “envoy, or messenger” (2Co 8:23; Php 2:25). In John 13:16, Jesus uses the word apostolos when he says, “I assure you: A slave is not greater than his master, and a messenger is not greater than the one who sent him.” It is plausible that Andronicus and Junia were sent out as missionaries, much like we send out missionaries today.

In sum, even a cursory sweep of the women in the Bible seems to enhance, rather than detract from, the biblical ordinance of male headship. It is not surprising to the complementarian to find that biblical women tended to act according to the purpose for which they were created after all—to glorify God as man’s complement. In no way is this demeaning or patronizing; rather, Jesus affirms that the greatest Christians are not necessarily those with the most authoritative roles (see Mt 20:25-28). These women exemplified greatness through their loving, intelligent service and ministry.

Men only (ouch)

Childhood. That wonderful, nostalgic time when the block was the entire world, candy was to die for (maybe it still is), bikes were transformed into motorcycles with a simple piece of cardboard of a sturdy leaf...

...and boys made forts with big “No girls allowed!” signs on the front.

A few years ago, I pulled my car into a parking space, congratulating myself on how close to the building it was. I wasn’t that late, but it would be nice not to have to walk so far. I was just opening my door to get out of the car when I noticed the little sign in front of me: “Reserved for President.”

Oops.

In many ways, exclusivism has become a dirty word in our society. We react against the word “only.” We dismiss the “boys only” sign in front of the fort, because they will grow up; we dismiss the “president only” parking space because, well, you have to work really hard to gain that position. But we don’t dismiss the “men only” sign hanging on the pastor’s office door. Christian men should know better. They shouldn’t be so exclusive.

And in the face of societal pressure, how does one answer that charge? How does one show that they are not, in fact, an evil, chauvinistic, arrogant, selfish male looking to create a glorified “boys only” club?

I have three answers, I’m not sure if any will really satisfy you if you are so inclined not be satisfied by them, but here they are:

First, exclusivism does not always make you unhappy. Here is a list of “only” signs that I rather suspect would not immediately offend you if you happened to be excluded by them:

• A “Jews Only” sign in front of a Nazi gas chamber (you might and should be offended that Nazis were killing Jews, but you wouldn’t be offended particularly at your own exclusion).
• A “Women Only” sign in front of a female restroom.
• An “Employees Only” sign on a back storeroom door.
• A “Professionals Only” sign in front of a sewer system.
• A “Children Only” sign in front of a bouncy castle (okay, maybe this one does!).

While these signs refer to different types of exclusivism in different contexts, still they make my point that universally, exclusivism is not always bad.

My second answer is that God is not interested in full equality.

How does that statement strike you? Of course you might say God is very interested in full equality among humans. And you would be aligning yourself with many in our culture to do so. But if you hold that view, then I have some very serious questions for you.

Why hasn’t God given me the body of Lebron James (Lebron haters: insert name of other favorite player here)? With a body like that, I could really bring God glory through my gracious athletic movements (and crazy dunks!). Why can’t I be “equal” with Lebron? Even if I spent all my time in the gym, I would never attain his height or his strength. Why? Because God wasn’t interested in giving me the same genes as Lebron. You might say that my desire to be “equal” with Lebron James is immature and selfish. But rather, I respond, it would be a great avenue for me to be a public witness for Christ, both through my gracious temperament on court when things get heated and through my spoken personal testimony in interviews and the like.

Again, why doesn’t God allow children to be pastors? That’s easy, you say. They’ll get their chance when they’re older. Actually, some won’t. Some will die before adulthood. Some will become seriously mentally or emotionally disabled for life. Some will get started on another career track and lose their opportunity. Some might lose their faith before adulthood. If God is interested in full equality, He should let them be pastors now. But, you say, we don’t let children be pastors because they are immature, inexperienced, and incapable, not because of something innate about their nature. Then you obviously have not seen some kids. I don’t care how spiritual you are. Some kids are more spiritual than you. Some kids have insights into the Bible that you don’t. Some kids can preach (yes, preach. I’ve seen them) better than you can. Plus, Jesus said we must have faith like little children. It seems they could best exemplify a simple-trusting faith. But you say, the vast majority of children are not capable of fulfilling all the duties required of the pastorate. But why should we discriminate against the children who are capable? Why should we stereotype those children because of the rest?

But you say, they’re too short to look out over the pulpit. Well, now you’re just being mean!

The fact is that God seems more interested in human distinction and difference than in human similarity. God is more interested with what we do with the distinctive body, talents, looks, intelligence, and roles that we have been given than making sure that everyone has equal outcomes or even equal opportunity.

My final answer is very simple. I think the Bible says so. Certainly we need to examine our beliefs. Certainly we need to ask why. But at the end of the day, if the Bible says so, than that is all the answer we need.

On to Part 3 >

Continue reading →

A Rather Boring "Brief" on a Rather Controversial Topic (Part 1 of 4)

I’m not meant to just stay quiet, I’m meant to be a lion.

Whatever popular Christian artist Francesca Battistelli meant by these lyrics, they find themselves a decent indicator of culture’s popular perspective on women. Many women, Christian women, are asking: Why should I be quiet? Why shouldn’t I give my gender a voice? Hasn’t God made me to roar?

I sympathize with these questions—yet I cringe at them too. I sympathize because I sense a sincere desire to be part of the ministry that “proclaims His deeds among the peoples,” and “tells about all His wonderful works” (Ps 105:1-2). Yet I cringe because of the mutual exclusion assumed in these words. I cringe at the suggestion this statement brings.

Because, you see, it assumes that quiet women cannot have the heart of a lion.

It assumes a woman must have one without the other. But in fact there are women—strong, godly women—who believe in being quiet. Ironically, their voice is not heard in our culture because...well, they are quiet (though their actions hopefully have had more influence on our culture than any of us yammering bloggers will ever have). Frank O’ Conner noted: “No man is as anti-feminist as a really feminine woman” (he said it, not me!). I would like to give these quiet women a voice.

I would also like to be a voice for (or add my voice to those of) many godly men. Men who, in our culture, care deeply about women and yet are silenced because of their views on men and women. Men who are expected to play Twister with their eyes because they are not to care about women’s clothing styles. Men who are expected not to hurt women yet not to protect them, to love women yet not to lead them, and to cherish women yet not to get in their way. While some might not see the plight of these men as valid (as women and children worldwide are being raped, abused, mutilated, enslaved, etc.) still I would like to be a voice for/with them.

And while I’m being presumptuous, I might as well go ahead and say that I would like to speak for God too—or rather to attempt to reflect accurately the words He Himself has already powerfully spoken on this topic.

How we got here (the boring part)

We live a confused culture. It’s hard to believe that a civilization this advanced, this progressive, and this enlightened (if you will) would be so confused about the fundamental aspects of our nature, but we are. It’s hard to think straight about these things in our culture. More than ever before, women are asking: What does it mean to be a woman? And men are asking: What does it mean to be a man? What does my gender mean? What does my sexuality mean?

Our culture is not so much a feminist culture anymore; rather it might more accurately be described as a “post-feminist” culture. We have inherited the feminism of our mothers. It is important to clarify terms. What do I mean by feminism? Everybody will define it differently. At the risk of a vast oversimplification, when I think of feminism, three points come to mind:

1. A twentieth-century socio-political movement advocating for increased legal, political and social rights for women, that has since ebbed somewhat.

2. A strong loyalty to other feminist women for support, the “sisterhood.” For example:

   Gloria Steinem | Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That’s their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood.

3. Not necessarily an urgent desire to reconcile its statements and beliefs with the biblical text. For example, we compare Stanton’s letter to Susan B. Anthony with the Bible:

   Elizabeth Cady Stanton | Women's degradation is in man's idea of his sexual rights. Our religion, laws, customs, are all founded on the belief that woman was made for man.
   1 Corinthians 11:8 | Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

More recently, early feminism has been called into question. Why might this be? I think the following quote is revealing:

Rosalind Coward | One of the reasons for the failure of feminism to dislodge deeply held perceptions of male and female behavior was its insistence that women were victims, and men powerful patriarchs, which made a travesty of ordinary people's experience of the mutual interdependence of men and women (emphasis mine).

Attempts have been made to soften the original thrust of feminism. Instead of hearing statements like the famous “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle,” today you might hear something more like “I’m anti-feminism, pro-equality.”

Yet the effects of feminism still reign in our society. Strong feminists accuse anti-feminist women of being disloyal traitors. Anti-feminist men are accused of being tyrants, sexists (with whatever definition of “sexist” the accuser sees fit to use), and not caring about the plight of women and children under abuse. Meanwhile, feminist men are accused of being traitors as well, and feminist women are accused of being irrational. The two genders still regard each other with suspicion, and still treat the other as the enemy rather than the ally.

And above all, the cry “equality, equality!” rings louder than ever; yet everybody seems to mean something different by it, and often those who disagree about definitions are silenced as not really believing in “equality.”

A parable on equality

When I say that two things are equal, what comes to your mind? When I say that a father is equal to his son, what do you think I mean? Or that a mother is equal to her daughter? How about when I say that a cup of flour is equal to a cup of sugar? Or that 5 + 16 = 7 × 3? In computer science, variables of differing type can store the “same” information. Sometimes, variables of differing type yet storing the “same” information can be considered equal; sometimes the variables must be of the same type and store the same information to be considered equal.

Yet a father is not equal to his son in every way; a mother is not equal to her daughter in every way; a cup of flour is not equal to a cup of sugar in every way, and even the two sides of a mathematical equation are not really equal because they use different paths to arrive at the same number.

My point is that true equality is a myth. The only way for two things or persons to be truly equal to each other is if they are in fact one and the same. The question we must ask is not: How equal is one thing or person to another? but: How different is one thing or person from another? When we say two separate things or persons are equal, what we really mean is that they are equal in some aspects, and different in other aspects.

The same is true with man and woman. They are equal in certain ways, and different in certain ways.

---

The knock on the door breaks the afternoon silence, ringing, echoing through the great stone halls. The Father looks up: “Come in, beloved Son.”

“Thank you Father.” The Son sits down to the Father’s right. A pause. “I’ve come to talk with you, Father, about this matter of the humans.” The Father’s grave face grows graver; he waits for the Son to finish. “They are wretched. They’ve transgressed our laws. They deserve hell. But...I...you...we love them. And we’ve determined that we’re going to save them.” The Father looks up at the Son: “Yes, the Plan...what about it, Son?”

“Well—Father, do you love me?” The Son interrupts his own sentence.

“Of course I love You, Son. My love for you is not like the love of humanity. My love for you is not even like the love the angels display. My love for you is divine—the love of the eternal Source of love for His eternal Son—a love unblemished; unbroken; unfathomable; unchangeable. That is my love for you. You know that.”

“And, Father, am I worth as much as you are?”

“Son! You are worth every bit as much as I am. If possible, I would hold you up as worth even more than me, as even more valuable than I am. Son, you and I are one; we are the same being; you are my equal. Of course you are worth as much as I am!”

“Then Father, if you love me, and if I am your equal, I’d like to make some modifications to the Plan.” The Father’s face puzzles ever so slightly. “How’s that, Son?”

“Well, I’d like to split the task of going down there fifty-fifty. Maybe you could incarnate yourself on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and I can take the other days (I don’t mind having an extra day). Maybe you could submit to me sometimes instead of my always submitting to you. And maybe we could both go to the cross together. And while I’m at it, I guess it’d be nice if you’d let me sit in your throne sometimes, and bear your title sometimes.”

And so, because the Father loved his Son, his equal, he traded shifts with the Son on earth; he practiced mutual submission with the Son; they died side by side on two crosses, each pouring out wrath on the other; they raised themselves up; and they exalted each other—together.

---

We understand that there is something fundamentally wrong about this story (and not that God lives in a great stone palace in the sky!) I felt uneasy writing it. I might guess that you felt uneasy reading it. Why? Because that is not how God did it or does it.

John 3:35 says, “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hands” (cf. Jn 5:20; 15:9; Mt 3:17; 17:5). The Father loves the Son. And the Son is the Father’s equal. As the Word, He was not only “with God,” but “was God” (Jn 1:1). As God, He had equality with the Father, not only before His incarnation (Php 2:6; Jn 1:3; 17:5), but also during (Jn 10:30; Jn 5:18) and afterwards (Col 2:9).

And yet Jesus submits to God. Prior to the incarnation, Jesus submitted to His Father’s authority in sending Him—He says in John 8:42, “I came not of my own accord, but He sent me.” During His time on earth, He told the Father “not as I will, but as You will.” (Mt 26:39; c.f., Jn 5:19; 6:38; 8:49; 14:28, 31; 15:10; Php 2:8). Seated at the right hand of God (Rm 8:34), Jesus will submit to His Father for all eternity:

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 | Then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when He abolishes all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be abolished is death. For God has put everything under His feet. But when it says “everything” is put under Him, it is obvious that He who puts everything under Him is the exception. And when everything is subject to Christ, then the Son Himself will also be subject to the One who subjected everything to Him, so that God may be all in all.

I think the relationship between the Son and the Father is the Achilles heel of evangelical feminism. It shows that it is indeed possible for two equal partners to have a loving relationship in which one partner submits to the other in a way that the other does not reciprocate.

And not only is it possible. It is divine.

It was as if God knew ahead of time the complications and the mystery that would be involved in the union of two vastly different genders. It was as if God knew the questions we would ask; the difficulties we would face; the objections that would be raised—and for an answer...

...He gave us Himself.

In the beginning

Why “in the beginning?” Why is that phrase used so much? Why does it matter? Why is so much attention poured into the first two chapters of Genesis when it comes to the issue of how men and women relate to one another?

Because here “in the beginning,” we are outside of culture.

Here, “in the beginning,” there is not yet the curse of the fallen world in which we live. We are not yet affected by sin here. Raymond Ortlund, Jr. writes, “As Genesis 1-3 go, so goes the whole Biblical debate.” And it is here, in the garden—where especially after the creation of man God saw “that it was very good” (Gn 1:31)—that we learn that male headship was not a sinful conspiracy invented by power-lustful men, but a divine institution. And we learn that male-female equality is not a product of feminism, but of God’s design.

Gloria Steinem | A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.
Marie Shear | Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

I’ve got news for Steinem and Shear: Somebody’s already beaten them to the punch:

Genesis 1:26-30 | Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule [root: radah] the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Rule [root: radah] the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth.” God also said, “Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the surface of the entire earth and every tree whose fruit contains seed. This food will be for you, for all the wildlife of the earth, for every bird of the sky, and for every creature that crawls on the earth—everything having the breath of life in it. I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Note the structure already found in this chapter. God has created the earth for the benefit of the plants, for the benefit of the animals, for the benefit of women, and for the benefit of men. God has created the plants for the benefit of the animals, for the benefit of women, and for the benefit of men. God has created the animals for the benefit of women, and for the benefit of men. And, as we see the story unfolding, God has created women for the benefit of men.

Man as male and female are the apex of God’s creation. Man are the only creatures that are made Imago Dei, in the Image of God. What does it mean for man to be made in God’s image?

First we recognize the ontological equality of men and women asserted in this simple fact. Both are made in the Image of God: neither is worth more, nor more important, than the other—just as God is not worth more, or more important, than Jesus, and Jesus is not worth more, or more important, than the Holy Spirit. As equals, the two sexes were to rule over the rest of creation. The world for rule here comes from the Hebrew word radah. It is not the same word used in the curse of Genesis 3:16. It means “to have dominion or authority over.” This dominion and authority of humanity over the rest of creation is God-given, proper, and wholesome.

We also notice the “specific/whole” paradox here. Man is used to refer both to a specific part of humanity: males; as well as to the whole of humanity: males and females. In a similar fashion, God is used to refer to a specific part of the Godhead: Father, Son or Spirit; as well as being used to refer to the whole of the Godhead: the Trinity.

Finally, we recognize the real structure of authority here. Man as male and female reflect the authority structure of the Image after which they were patterned: the Godhead, in which the Son submits to the Father and the Spirit submits to both. Man reflects this image in that the female submits to the male.

I’ve got another “radical notion.” My radical notion is that the best way to give dignity and worth to any created thing or person is to treat them according to the purpose and intent for which they were created. It does not dignify a child to be given authority over her parents. We do not dignify animals by treating them like humans or by spending fortunes on them (sorry, pet lovers!). We do not dignify angels by giving them worship. We do not even “dignify” the Holy Spirit by treating Him in a way that usurps the Father’s authority. Likewise, we do not dignify women by treating them in ways only meant for men, and we do not dignify men by treating them in ways only meant for women.

So how do we dignify men and women properly? What was the intent and purpose for which man and women were created?

I believe God created man with the purpose in mind of loving, humble headship, leadership, and protection of the woman. God created woman with the purpose in mind of intelligent, respectful following, nurturing, and complementing (not complimenting, though that is nice, too!) of the man. In opposition to evangelical feminism, I do think that there are very clear signs of these roles and authority positions before the fall. Several points in the biblical narrative display the headship of man:

1. Woman was created after man (2:7, 22). We might not think this indicates too much, except that Paul (and therefore God) affirms this as a valid reason for male headship in 1 Timothy 2:13: “For Adam was created first, then Eve.” It might be objected: wouldn’t the fact that the animals were created before Adam invalidate the order of creation as a serious indicator of headship? For an answer, I might ask if a firstborn son’s right to inheritance in the Old Testament was invalidated if his father happened to own cattle prior to his birth. Rather, just as with firstborn sons, we understand the context here to be concerned with humans. The order of creation considered here is confined to these two. (Additionally, God also wanted to create woman out of man, and to do that, man necessarily had to have been created for this to take place).
   Our God is a God of order—concerned about order. His institution of the firstborn son was not based on preference but on order (Dt 21:15-17). Again, the importance of order is seen in that the phrase “firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) is used to refer to our supreme authority, Christ.
2. Woman was created for man. Genesis 2:18 reads: “Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.” It’s become popular in recent decades to argue over whether the word ezer here means “helper” or “rescuer” (i.e., implies a certain rank, whether lesser or greater or equal) but the fact is that ezer is a generic word, used to describe a person of any rank giving aid to another person of any rank. Funny that we argue so much about this word when the biblical writers never trouble themselves with it. The biblical argument for male headship is not that the woman helps the man, but that the woman was created for the benefit of the man (i.e., man was not created for the benefit of woman). 1 Corinthians 11:9 notes: “And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.”
   There is no doubt that we men need women. And we need them badly. We don’t need them to fight us, or to be our rivals, we need them to help us; we need them to complete us.
3. Woman was created from man. Genesis 2:22-23 reads: “Then the Lord God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. And the man said: ‘This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken from man.” God created Adam and the land mammals from the dust of the ground (1:24; 2:7). Eve’s total worth and importance are indisputable considering the fact that she was the only creature made out of another living creature. Think about that. Yet Paul (and therefore God) underscores this unique facet of her creation as another reason for male headship. 1 Corinthians 11:8: “For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man” (Note: the fact that man now comes through woman (1Co 11:11-12), which shows the mutual interdependence of the sexes, does not negate the point that Paul makes here from creation).
4. Adam named the woman, both before the fall (2:23), and after the fall (3:20). Over and over again in the Bible, we see that the privilege of naming is given to the one in authority. God named the day and the night (1:5), the sky (1:8), and the land and sea (1:10). He named the human race “man” (1:26) Adam named the animals, thereby actualizing his God-given dominion over them (2:19-20). Cain named the city he had built (4:17). Parents name their children (4:25-26; 5:29; 16:11, 15; 19:37-38; 21:3; 25:25-26; 29:32-35; 30:6-24; 38:3-5). God renamed Abraham and Sarah (17:5, 15). God renamed Jacob (32:28; 35:10). Isaac’s naming of the wells he built shows the reader his true authority over them even though others claimed authority over them (26:20-22). And that’s just in Genesis! God the Father named Jesus (Mt 1:21; Lk 1:31). Jesus gave Simon a new name: Peter (Mk 3:16). He gave James and John a new name: Sons of Thunder (Mk 3:17). Finally, upon Jesus’ resurrection, His own authority, His Father, “highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Php 2:9-10).
5. God named the human race “man” (1:26). Our current cultural sensibilities sniff discrimination here. Why couldn’t God name the human race “woman” or even something neutral like “people”? Yet God named us man. Ironically, that our feminist culture recognizes the full impact of what this signifies is shown by our recent disapproval of women taking their husband’s last name as their own upon marriage. (This is also why it is not discriminatory to use a masculine word to refer to both genders).

So what happened?

The nature of the curse

Three more reasons for the headship of man are found in the story of the fall:

1. Before the fall, Satan approached Eve, not Adam, reversing the headship role God had put in place (3:1). Paul (and therefore God) uses this as an argument for male headship in 1 Timothy 2:13: “For Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.” Although it is true that Eve was seduced by Satan’s clever arguments (2Co 11:3), I do not think that Paul is asserting a universal female gullibility as the reason for male headship here in 1 Timothy, but that the reversal of male headship comes from Satan and not from God. Note the points:
   • Adam was created first.
   • But Satan did not go deceive Adam (Thus, Adam was not deceived by Satan).
   • He went and deceived Eve (Thus, she was deceived by Satan and sinned).
   I believe Paul affirms male headship in 1 Timothy here by noting who did not: Satan.
2. After the fall, God approached Adam, not Eve, affirming the headship role He had put in place. Even though both Adam and Eve were hiding, “the LORD God called out to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” (3:9). Our human (cultural?) intuition would tell us that the serpent ought to be called out first, since he was the primary instigator, than Eve, than Adam (who would’ve had the “least” amount of guilt in the situation). But God holds Adam responsible as the head of his family.
3. Adam, not Eve, represented the entire human race. Interestingly enough, we as a human race are counted sinful at birth (Original Sin) not because of Eve’s sin, but because of Adam’s sin. Romans 5:12 asserts, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Again in 1 Corinthians 15:22, we read “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”

If you suspect that men read male headship into the Bible out of a desire to gain an unfair, immature advantage for themselves, then I have a very serious question for you: Do you think men consider it advantageous to be held responsible for the sin of another person in addition to their own? To bear shame and dishonor before God for a sin that seemingly would be another’s responsibility? Do you think men enjoy that part too?

Because it’s part of the package for men who embrace male leadership.

Unfortunately, Adam failed to shoulder this responsibly for the sin, preferring instead to blame Eve (3:12). Unfortunately, Eve failed to take responsibility for the sin, preferring instead to blame the serpent (3:13). Fortunately, the serpent apparently had nobody handy to pin the blame on, so God started with him (3:14-15), then moved to Eve (3:16), and finally to Adam (3:17).

The nature of the curse was one of corruption. Because of sin, the once good things that God’s creatures had enjoyed now became corrupted. They became tainted things. Work, for example. God, in an explosion of divine creativity, formed the earth out of nothing—the stars, sun, moon, skies, land, seas, plants, animals, and humans. He describes all that artistic energy as work (2:1-3). Good work. In addition, Adam worked the ground in the Garden of Eden (2:5, 15). This was fulfilling, satisfying, wholesome work. Yet it became tainted in the fall, becoming “painful labor” for Adam (3:17, 19). The land was good as well, producing pleasing vegetation. Yet it was also tainted in the fall, “cursed because of you” (3:17), producing “thorns and thistles for you” (3:18). The reproductive ability of the woman was good and healthy. She was to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28). Yet, this reproductive ability became cursed and tainted, so that she would “bear children in anguish” (3:16). Other good things became tainted by the fall: the serpent’s mode of transportation (3:14), its food (3:14), the relationship between females and snakes (3:15), the man’s composition of dust (2:7, 3:19), and the humans’ nakedness (2:25) which became a source of shame for them (3:7, 10).

Likewise, woman’s desire for man was tainted, as was man’s rule over woman. Verse 16 is of particular interest:

Genesis 3:16b | Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.

We might ask: why is it bad that the woman desires her husband? Isn’t that a good thing? The word for desire, teshuqah, is only used two other places: Genesis 4:7 and Song of Songs 7:10. It means “to long for, to stretch out after.” In Songs 7:10, the desire is obviously sexual (read verses 1-9). Sexual desire can be good and wholesome, but it can also be domineering: a desire to have, to grasp, to control. The word for rule, mashal, does not have to mean a harsh, draconian rule (Gn 1:18; Jdg 8:22-23), but it can (Dt 15:6; Pr 22:7). A good verse to understand how these two words interact together is Genesis 4:7, where God is warning Cain about sin:

Genesis 4:7 | If you do what is right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.

Sin’s desire was to dominate Cain. To control him. To conquer him. Yet, in the face of that desire, Cain was to rule over it, to stamp it out, to defeat it.

In the same way, woman’s desire for man became twisted; became corrupted. This type of controlling desire is not a good thing. Likewise, the man’s rule now becomes tainted. Rather than the humble, loving, servant-hearted rule found pre-fall, this rule is a rule that seeks to stamp out; to crush; and to defeat.

We are still living under the results of this curse.

On to Part 2 >

Continue reading →