ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 176

“Roles Within Marriage”

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,

Retired Professor of Theology and Church History,

Andrews University

INDEX OF TOPICS OF THIS NEWSLETTER

* How to Subscribe and Unsubscribe

* Good News on My Liver Cancer Recovery

* How to Contact the Center for Cancer Care

* Roles Within Marriage”

(The Essay of this Newsletter)

* ANNOUNCEMENT OF SERVICES & PRODUCTS

* Introductory offer on Prof. Jon Paulien’s DVD album

on Simply Revelation

* Special offer on the new edition of Prof. Bradford

More than a Prophet, together with a free DVD album.

* Special offer on all the 6 DVD/CD albums

with Dr. Bacchiochi’s lectures and publications

* Upcoming seminars for July, August, and September

* Incredible New Offers on Hitachi Projectors

* The Smallest and most Powerful Remote Presenter

* Does your church or School Need a Screen?

* A New Townhome Community near the campus of

Andrews University

* Bed and Breakfast in London, England

* TAGNET new Web-hosting offer

A THANK YOU NOTE

I would like to express my wholehearted appreciation to all who took time to read the lengthy essay on “Ellen White and the Future of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Your many notes of thanks are greatly appreciated. The essay was distilled from the new edition of Prof. Graeme Bradford’s book More than a Prophet that came out few weeks ago.

Many told me that More than a Prophet was long overdue and will help to restore confidence in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White by helping people gain a balanced picture of her ministry. The responses have surpassed our fondest expectations. Pastors and Bible teachers from different parts of the world have expressed their appreciation for the essay. Some Bible teachers have made the book assigned reading for their classes.

If you or your church have not ordered yet More than a Prophet, you are still in time to take advantage of the special offer. See the details below or by clicking at this link: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/BradfordOffer/offer.htm Note that with your order you will receive also one FREE DVD with Prof. Bradford’s two hours lecture on Ellen White. Thank you for sharing this timely book and the DVD with your church members.

GOOD NEWS ON MY LIVER CANCER RECOVERY

           In previous newsletters I gave an extensive report of the providential recovery from my colon cancer surgery and liver cancer treatments. You may wish to see the image of the last PET/CAT scan taken on May 30, 2007, which shows that over 95% of the cancer cells have been shut down. To see the impressive color images of the three PET/CAT scans that I took, click on this link: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/colon/

Considering that three months ago I was given only a few months to live because my liver was infested with a 3 pounds tumor, it is hard for me to believe that the Lord has restored my health so speedily. I feel like a new man with a new lease on life.

Last Sabbath at the Tottenham West Green SDA church in London, England, I felt a new surge of strength. The meetings were attended by a capacity crowd. The sanctuary was full with about 30 people standing along the walls and so was the fellowship hall downstairs where people could watch the program on a screen. We had many visitors, including a nice couple that flew in from Malta just to attend the meetings. When I asked them if they were visiting friends, they replied: "No we have no relatives or friends in London. We learned about your seminar from the newsletter that we receive and read regularly. We decided to fly to London to listen to you, because this may be the closest place to Malta you will ever come." For me it is of great encouragement to meet fellow believers in different parts of the world who are eager to deepen their understanding and experience of Bible truths.

Thank you for your prayers! Thank you God for healing my body and restoring my health!  Truly I can say that I feel much stronger than before the cancer treatment. Last Saturday I still felt great after speaking from 7:00 to 10:30 p. m. Now I want to dedicate the remaining years of my life fully to His service.

How to Contact the Center for Cancer Care in Goshen, Indiana

           To express my gratitude to God for leading me to the unique Center for Cancer Care, in Goshen, Indiana that offers clinical trials on different forms of cancer, I decided to post the information on how you can contact the Center. Over 150 Adventists have already contacted the Center. The Assistant to the President is Vladimir Radivojevic, who is a gracious and caring Adventist Christian. Feel free to contact him at this address:

Vladimir Radivojevic MS, MBA

Assistant Vice-President

The Center for Cancer Care

200 High Park Ave.

Goshen, IN 46526

Phone: 574.535.2970 Fax: 574.535.2535

Email: vradivoj@goshenhealth.com

Websites: www.goshenhealth.com or www.cancermidwest.com

If you or someone you know has cancer, feel free to contact Vladimir. He will talk with you personally, gather your information, and place you in contact with an oncologist who can examine your situation and give you a second opinion. Vladimir told me yesterday that he wants to help Adventists unable to come to their Center for Cancer Care, by evaluating their medical records to see if their current treatments are adequate or should be improved.

. What is unique about this Center for Cancer Care, is that they have a dozen of on-going clinical trials on different forms of cancer. This means that they use different procedures not available in most Cancer Centers. I contacted a dozen of major Cancer Centers in the USA, but none of them had a clinical trial program for my liver cancer. In my case the combination of chemotherapy and microspheres worked marvels. Chemo alone would hardly have shut down the activity of 95% of the cancer cells in less than three months.

Feel free to contact Vladimir by email or by phone. You will find him to be most helpful. Incidentally, the Center provides free accommodation in a nicely furnished Guest House with several rooms, each with private bathroom facilities. Vladimir will also arrange for someone to pick you up at the South Bend airport, which is about 30 miles away. You will be impressed by the caring and compassionate service the Cancer Center offers.

“Roles Within Marriage”

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.,

Retired Professor of Theology and Church History,

7Andrews University

The Reasons for this Newsletter

The inspiration for this newsletter has come from subscribers who ask me to comment on the first lesson of the new Sabbath School Quarterly (July 1-6, 2007), entitled: "Adam and Eve: The Intended Ideal." The authors and contributors to the lesson maintain that the intended creational marriage ideal was a relationship of perfect equality between husband and wife. They write: "The relationship of equality, mutual love, and respect between Adam and Eve was intended as the ideal for all couples. However, the ideal was marred by sin, and today conflicts plague marriages. We should strive to allow the Holy Spirit to re-create in us the original image of God." (July 6, 2007, p. 12).

According to the Sabbath School Lesson, the relationship of perfect equality between husband and wife was shuttered by the Fall with the establishment of male headship and female submission. Such a functional distinctions are the result of "The Curse on the Relationship" (p. 11). "In one stroke Adam and Eve lost everything—innocence, rulership, immortality, Edenic home, and security. . . . In addition to all these losses they suffered the disruption of their ideal relationship." (p. 11).

Did Ellen White Teach that Headship/Submission Are the Result of the Fall?

A subscriber asks me: "In your book Women in the Church you make a convincing biblical case for the existence of male headship and female submission before the Fall. How then do you reconcile your position the Adult Sabbath School Lesson for July 1-6, 2007, which quotes Ellen White to prove that male headship was the result of sin?"

The statement of Ellen White quoted in the lesson reads: "In the creation God had made her [Eve] the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love—they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 58).

Did Ellen White really believe and teach that the husband headship and wife submission, were the result of sin? It is unfair to answer this question on the basis of the quoted statement alone, because in other places she clearly states that “The Lord has constituted the husband the head of the wife to be her protector; he is the house-band of the family, binding the members together, even as Christ is the head of the church and the Savior of the mystical body. Let every husband who claims to love God carefully study the requirements of God in his position. Christ’s authority is exercised in wisdom, in all kindness and gentleness; so let the husband exercise his power and imitate the great Head of the church.” (The Adventist Home, p. 215).

If the husband headship was "constituted" by the Lord to be "the house-band of the family," and is to be patterned after Christ "the great Head of the church," then it can hardly be the result of sin. God did not constitute Christ as the "great head of the church" as a result of sin, because He is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8).

There is no question that Adam and Eve were created equal in nature and worth before God. They both reflected the image of God and were granted the opportunity to live eternally. If this is what Ellen White means by her statement that "In the creation God had made her [Eve] the equal of Adam," she is absolutely correct. But their ontological equality does not negate their functional distinction. Our Bible study will show that husband-headship and wife-submission were instituted by God at creation for the harmonious functioning of the home and the church. The Fall marks not the origin of man’s headship, but rather its distortion into oppressive domination. Some sinful men would now take advantage of his headship to dominate and oppress their wives.

Importance of this Bible Study

This Bible Study focuses on the biblical teachings regarding roles within marriage, for three important reasons. First, because our Sabbath School Quarterly For Better or for Worse: Lessons From Old Testament Couples, explores the relationship of various OT couples to learn practical truths applicable to our marital relationship today. The effort is commendable, but in studying the lessons we must keep in mind that the authors subscribe to the "partnership view" of marriage promoted today through Adventist TV channels discussions, publications, and articles.

The second reason for the importance of this study is the fact that “role conflicts” are a major cause for the breaking up of marriages today. Some men interpret the principle of “husband headship” as a biblical mandate to boss their wives and children. Some women accept for a time their submissive role until they revolt against a tyrant husband by leaving, divorcing, or looking for another man.

The third reason is the fact that in recent years our Adventist Church has gradually accepted “partnership view” of marriage—a view which is reflected in our current Sabbath School Quarterly. During the past 30 years the "partnership view" of marriage has been promoted in numerous at conference constituency meetings, annual councils, articles and publications. The most comprehensive study is the symposium Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, which was published by Andrews University Press in 1988. The symposium was prepared by a special committee of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan.

Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives

After the 1995 General Conference vote against the North American Division (NAD) request to ordain women pastors, NAD church leaders encouraged the faculty of the Theological Seminary the Seminary to come up with biblical and theological answers to the question “Can a woman legitimately be ordained to ministry?” Some members of the Seminary Faculty accepted the challenge and produced the 439-page book, Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives.

Fifteen other Adventist scholars, church leaders, and lay people responded to the symposium Women in Ministry, by publishing in the year 2000 a book entitled Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry. I contributed chapter 4 entitled “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture”—a chapter which has also been added to my book Women in the Church.

According to the “partnership view” of marriage promoted in Women in Ministry, the husband-headship and wife-submission are not part of the creational functional distinction in marriage, but came about as the result of sin and are to be eliminated by the gospel. Thus, it is alleged that the Bible teaches that husbands and wives are to be mutually submissive to one another and share responsibility in the home on a 50-50 arrangement. Essentially this is the view presented in the current Sabbath School Quarterly. Our study will show that a mutually submissive relationship, does not negate the creational principle of headship and submission.

The Partnership View Is Designed to Promote Women Ordination

The partnership view of marriage is apparently inspired by the desire to find a biblical justification for women ordination. By arguing that the role distinctions of husband-headship and wife-submission originated as a result of the Fall, and are to be eliminated by the gospel, ordinationists wish to prove that women can be ordained to serve in the church to the headship position without violating a biblical principle.

In the light of its far-reaching implications, I feel that the egalitarian or “partnership view” of marriage deserves careful scrutiny. This we shall endeavor to do this in two installments. The present newsletter focuses on the biblical teaching regarding husband-headship and wife-submission. In the next newsletter we shall reflect on the implications and applications of the headship/submission principle.

The material presented in these newsletters is largely excerpted from my two books The Marriage Covenant and Women in the Church, which have been favorably reviewed by scholars of different persuasions. In fact Women in the Church has been adopted as required reading in several theological seminaries.

Some informed sources told me that Women in the Church played a role in the decision of the Southern Baptist Church (the largest in the USA with over 15 million members) to reverse their position on women ordination. During its June 1998 convention the SBC amended their Church Manual, called Baptist Faith and Message concerning the limitations of women in ministry and in marriage. Article VI, The Church reads: " While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. The role of pastor is reserved for men and therefore ordination of women should not be allowed."

You can order online a copy of the new edition of Women in the Church by clicking at this link: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/cart/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=38. If you have a problem ordering online, feel free to call us at 269-471-2915 and we will take your order by phone.

Role Conflicts Within Marital Relationships

The stability of marriage depends largely upon the way the husband and the wife fulfill their respective roles. Marriage counselors often point to “role conflicts” as a major cause for the breaking up of marriages. “Those of us who do marriage counseling,” writes Paul Stevens, “realize that many marriages are struggling desperately at just this point. Some men insist that the Bible makes them responsible to God for the family. They are boss. Some women believe this is true and try for years to submit to a weak man or a tyrant. But there comes a day, almost inevitably, when the woman revolts. She may revolt by having a nervous breakdown, by getting a plane ticket and flying away, or by leaving him for another man.”

Role conflicts within marital relationships largely stem from the different interpretations and applications of the Biblical teaching on husband-headship and wife-submission. The very mention of the terms “headship/submission” is anathema for many who in recent years have made the quantum leap from “Adam’s rib to women’s lib.”

Any one who dares to drop the phrase “submission of the wife” into a conversation with a “woman’s libber” risks the danger of being “categorized as some ignorant weirdo who believes in slave chambers of torture and one who promotes chaining women in a washroom. The very idea! I mean, what thinking person today can possibly imagine squashing a woman under the heels of a man . . . or shoving her in a corner, reducing her activities to changing diapers, doing dishes, checking off a grocery list, and mopping floors?”

The widely publicized misrepresentation and rejection of the Biblical roles within marriage has been largely influenced by the Women’s Liberation Movement which received renewed impetus in 1966 with the founding of the National Organization of Women (NOW). The radical groups in the movement go as far as promoting the abolition of marriage to liberate women from their submissive role. Shelia Cronan, a leader in the Women’s Liberation Movement, unequivocally states: “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”

The more moderate groups take issue with the radicals who reject marriage altogether, promoting instead the “partnership paradigm” within marriage, according to which husband and wife function as 50-50 partners. For the most part, Evangelical Feminists espouse the egalitarian view of marriage, by interpreting the male-headship and women-submission texts in accordance with the partnership position. They believe that the Bible teaches that husbands and wives are to be mutually submissive to one another and share responsibility in the home on a 50-50 arrangement.

Adventist Gradual Adoption of Partnership Paradigm

In recent years an increasing number of Adventist scholars have adopted the egalitarian or partnership view of marriage. This view is reflected in the symposium Women in Ministry, mentioned earlier. It is also found in the recommendations proposed by the 1999 Annual Council to the General Conference Session regarding changes to be made in the Church Manual. Chapter 15 of the proposed recommendations deals with “Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.”

The brief section on “Biblical Teachings on Marriage” proposes the partnership view of marriage—a view which is presented more fully in Women in Ministry. It is alleged that husband-headship and wife-submission are not part of the original functional distinction in marriage, but came about as the result of sin. “The entrance of sin adversely affected marriage. When Adam and Eve sinned they lost the oneness which they had known with God and with one another (Gen 3:6-24). . . . As part of the curse of sin, rulership was given to the husband (Gen 3:16; see also Patriarchs and Prophets pp. 58-59).”

The implication is that prior to the Fall, Adam did not exercise a headship role. This is the view expressed in the Sabbath School Lesson mentioned earlier. Husband-headship and wife-submission are the result of sin and redemption is designed to eliminate these functional distinctions by restoring “marriage to its original ideal . . . of oneness and equality” in Christ. “The gospel emphasizes the love and submission of husband and wife to one another (1 Cor 7:3, 4; Eph 5:21).”

Simply stated, the 1999 Annual Council recommended that the SDA Church adopts at the forthcoming General Conference Session “the partnership view” of marriage. This recommendation was apparently inspired by the desire to find a biblical justification for women ordination. By arguing that the role distinctions of husband-headship and wife-submission originated as a result of the Fall, and are to be eliminated by the gospel, ordinationists wish to prove that women can be ordained to serve in the church in headship position over men without violating a biblical principle.

It is imperative for those of us who find the egalitarian view of marriage unbiblical, to reexamine the biblical teachings on roles within marriage. If, the egalitarian view of marriage is proven to be unbiblical, then our Adventist Church position needs to be modified in accordance to biblical teachings. The Southern Baptist Church and other Evangelical churches like the Missouri Lutheran, the Christian Reform and others, offers us a worthy example to follow.

Objectives of this Study

This Bible Study is divided into two parts. The first part posted in this newsletter, considers the Biblical meaning of “headship” and “submission,” in the light of Genesis 1-3 and of Paul's interpretation of the order and manner of Eve's creation.

The second part of this study will appear in the next newsletter. In it, we reflect on the practical implications and applications of the Biblical principle of headship/submission. Specifically, we shall consider what it means from a practical standpoint for the husband to practice headship and for the wife to practice submission.

The Fundamental Assumptions of the Partnership Paradigm

The fundamental assumption of the partnership paradigm is that the role distinctions of male-headship and female-submission were not divinely ordained at creation, but were introduced after the Fall, and are limited to the governance of the home, not to the community of faith. Thus, Christians are called to return to the creation ideal of “perfect equality”– understood as obliteration of the gender-based role distinctions.

Before examining the specific arguments of used in Women in Ministry to construct this position, two general observations are in order regarding the moral implications of these assumptions. First, the assumption that male-headship and female-submission reflect “God’s plan for fallen human beings rather than an original mandate for the sinless world,” implies that functional role distinctions are intrinsically evil.

Is that true? Absolutely not! The most compelling proof is the fact that functional role distinctions exist within the Holy Trinity. The Bible tells us that “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3) and that the Son Himself “will be subjected to him [the Father]” for all eternity (1 Cor 14:28). If there is nothing morally wrong with functional distinctions within the Trinity, why is it morally wrong for functional distinctions to exist within male/female relationships?

This leads us to the second observation, namely, the assumption that male-headship entails superiority and female-submission inferiority. This is a subtle and deceptive assumption that underlies the whole symposium Women in Ministry. But do functional male/female role distinctions imply superiority/inferiority? Absolutely NOT! This is true in the Trinity and is also true in male/female relationships.

In the Trinity the headship of the Father does not make the Son ontologically or functionally inferior, because of His submissive role. Christ Himself affirmed: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). In human relationship, male headship does not make women ontologically or functionally inferior because of their submissive roles. The reason is that we “are all one Christ,” and consequently there is no male superiority or female inferiority (Gal 3:28-29).

The fact that I am a man called by God to serve as the head of my family, does not make me superior to my wife. In actual fact she is “the boss,” because during the 46 years of our marriage, she has constantly reminded me of my God-given responsibilities to serve as the spiritual head of our home. Functional role distinctions have nothing to do with superiority or inferiority, but only with different and yet complementary roles God has called men and women to fulfill in the home and in the church.

The Real Issue in the Debate Over Women's Ordination

The real issue in the debate over women’s ordination is not whether men were created superior and women inferior. No Evangelical scholar opposed to women’s ordination holds such a view. Rather, the real issue is whether God created men and the women equal in nature and worth, and yet different in function, with the man called to serve in the servant headship role and the woman in the submissive helper role.

It is most unfortunate that the symposium Women in Ministry, fails to address this fundamental crucial issue, choosing instead to set up and knock down pseudo arguments about superiority/inferiority–arguments which are foreign to the Bible and to the whole question of women’s ordination. By trying to build a case for women’s ordination on the basis of faulty assumptions, the symposium fails in its task to help readers understand what Scripture really teaches on the role of men and women in the home and in the church.

Those of us who, for Biblical reasons, oppose the ordination of women to the headship role of elders or pastors, are generally accused of trying to deprive women of the opportunity to minister in the church. Nothing could be further from the truth. I strongly believe that if ever there was a time when the ministry of women in the church was needed, such time is today. The many broken homes, single parents, and abused children inside and outside the church, call today more than ever before for the ministry of women who have been trained theologically and psychologically to meet these crucial situations.

Simply stated, the issue is not, Should women minister in the church? On this point we are all in full agreement. Furthermore, the issue is not, Should women be ordained to serve the church in supportive roles? The answer of Ellen White is clear: "Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessity of the poor. They should be set aside to this work by prayer and the laying on of Hands" (Advent review and Sabbath Herald, July 9, 1895, p. 434)

Rather the issue is, Should women be ordained to serve in the headship role of elders or pastors in order to minister in the church? The answer of Scripture, according to my investigation, is abundantly clear. Both in the Old and New Testaments, women were precluded to serve as priests, elders, or pastors, not because they are inferior or less capable than men, but because these offices entail the headship role of a spiritual father and not the supportive role of a spiritual mother.

This does not mean that the church does not need spiritual mothers. The contrary is true. As a home without a mother lacks that tender, loving care that only mothers can give, so a church without spiritual mothers lacks that warmth, care, and compassion that spiritual mothers can best give. Summing up, my understanding of the Biblical teaching is that men and women are equally called by God to minister in the home and in the church, but in different and yet complementary roles.

To appreciate the Biblical teachings on role distinctions within marriage, we shall now examine, first key statements found in Genesis 1, 2, and 3, and later Paul's interpretation of these statements.

GENESIS 1: MALE AND FEMALE

Genesis 1:26-31 contains three key statements: (1) God created mankind in His own image and likeness; (2) God created mankind as male and female; (3) God gave mankind dominion over all the living things and power to increase and multiply, that is, to become a race. These three statements embody two vital concepts: equality in being and differentiation in gender.

Equal and yet Different

Equality is suggested by the fact that both man and woman are created in the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27 states: “Then God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea . . . .’ So God created man in his own image in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” “Man” is mentioned twice here and refers inclusively to men and women. This is indicated first by the Hebrew word for “man” (’adam) which can be translated equally well as “mankind, humanity”: “Let us make mankind in our own image.” The second indication is the plural “them,” which points to “man” as being a plurality consisting of both man and woman. The fact that Genesis 1:26-27 moves back and forth three times between the singular “man” and the plural “them,” clearly indicates that the term “man” is used collectively to refer to both man and woman.

Genesis 1:27 corroborates this conclusion. The statement, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him,” is clarified by the following statement, “male and female he created them.” Genesis 1 does not say much about the roles of men and women. It simply affirms that man and woman are equally created in the image of God, but they are sexually different. The implications of the gender distinctions are explained subsequently in the Bible, beginning with Genesis 2.

God Designated both Male and Female as “Man—ha ‘adam

The second important consideration is the fact God designated both male and female as “man—ha ‘adam.” We see this again in Genesis 5:2 where the word man denotes both male and female: “He created them male and female; at the time they were created, he blessed them and called them ‘man.’” This striking statement demands an explanation. If radical feminists today were to create this planet with man and woman as the crowning creatures, would they use the name of “man” as a generic name for both? I hardly think so. They would consider the term as a blatant discrimination against women.

Fortunately God was not affected by the feminist agenda when He decided to call the human race “man—ha ‘adam.” Genesis 1 does not give us the reason for God’s decision. The burden of Genesis 1:26-28 is to affirm male-female equality. But by twice calling the human race “man” (Gen 1:26-27), God whispers male headship, which will be explained in chapter two.

Raymond Ortlund perceptively observes: “God did not name the human race ‘woman.’ If ‘woman’ had been the more appropriate and illuminating designation, no doubt God would have used it. He does not even devise a neutral term like ‘persons.’ He calls us ‘man,’ which anticipates the male headship brought out clearly in chapter two, just as ‘male and female’ in verse 27 foreshadows marriage in chapter two. Male headship may be personally repugnant to some people, but it does have the virtue of explaining the sacred text.”

Paul alludes to Genesis 1:26-27 when he writes: “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (1 Cor 11:7). Here Paul is not implying that woman reflects the image of God to a lesser degree than man. The focus of his discussion is not the personal dignity or worth (ontological value) of men and women which is mentioned in Genesis 1:26-28, but rather the headship of man in marriage and worship, which is implied in Genesis 2:18-23. Paul refers specifically to it in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9. It is in this context that man images God and that woman does not. It is obvious that women bear God’s image in other senses, as Paul himself recognizes in Ephesians 4:24 where he speaks of all believers being renewed according to God’s image in terms of “righteousness and holiness” (cf. Col 3:10).

In the light of these considerations we conclude that Genesis 1:26-27 does affirm male/female equality, but it also alludes to male headship by twice calling the human race “man—ha ‘adam” rather than “woman.” Furthermore, by differentiating between man being “the image and glory of God” and woman being the “glory of man,” Paul shows that the ontological equality between men and women affirmed by Genesis 1:26-27 does not negate their functional distinction explained in Genesis 2:18-23.

GENESIS 2: EQUALITY AND SUBMISSION

Genesis 2 contains a considerable expansion on the creation of mankind covered in Genesis 1:26-31. While Genesis 1 affirms that God created mankind as male and female in His own image, Genesis 2 elaborates on how the two sexes were created and the relationship between them. God first created man from the dust and breathed into him the breath of life (Gen 2:7). He stationed man in the Garden of Eden to develop it and guard it (Gen 2:15). He instructed man to eat of every tree except of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17).

God paraded the animals before Adam for him to name them (Gen 2:19-20). This task entailed more than slapping an arbitrary label on each beast. It required considering the characteristics of each animal so that its name was appropriate to its particular nature. From this exercise Adam discovered that there was no creature that shared his nature (Gen 2:20). God, who had already planned to create for Adam a “helper fit for him” (v. 18) even before He brought the animals to Adam, now proceeded to create the woman from the rib of the man (Gen 2:21-22). Adam greeted Eve with rhapsodic relief by acknowledging her as part of his own flesh and calling her Woman because she was taken out of Man (Gen 2:23).

In her equality with himself, Adam perceives Eve not as a threat, but as a partner capable of fulfilling his inner longing. God blessed the blissful union, saying: “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24). The creation account closes with a reminder of the perfection in which Adam and Eve first came together: “And the man and his wife were both naked and they were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). They felt no shame because they had nothing to hide. They lived together in perfect integrity and harmony.

Although the focus of the narrative is on the sameness of nature and the partnership between man and woman, within that equality and partnership there exists a clear sense of the woman’s submission to man. The term “submission” is used here not in its negative connotation of oppression, denigration, or inferiority, but in its positive sense of depending upon another person for direction and protection. Its purpose is to ensure unity and harmony.

Four main elements of the narrative suggest a distinction between the headship role of man and the “helper” role of woman:

(1) The priority of man’s creation (Gen 2:7, 22)

(2) The manner of the woman’s creation out of man (Gen 2:21-22)

(3) The woman’s having being created to be man’s “helpmate” (Gen 2:18-20)

(4) Adam’s naming of the woman both before and after the Fall (Gen 2:23; 3:20).

Let us examine these four elements.

The Priority of Man’s Creation

Does the temporal priority of man’s creation reflect God’s plan that man should serve in a leadership role in the home and the church? The answer suggested by story is yes. Genesis 2 suggests that the creation of woman is the climax and culmination of the story because in her, man found at last the “helper fit for him” (Gen 2:20). This is evident by Adam’s exclamation: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man” (Gen 2:23). The movement of the narrative is indeed “from incompleteness to completeness,” but it is Adam who experiences the completeness as a result of Eve’s creation, and not vice versa.

Paul’s Interpretation of the Order of Creation

Paul’s interpretation of the event is the most decisive line of evidence that discredits the attempts to negate any headship significance to the priority of Adam’s creation. If we did not have the internal witness of the Bible as to the meaning of the priority of Adam’s creation, then speculations would be in order. But since we do have such a witness, subjective speculations are unnecessary. It is unfortunate that ordinationists consistently interprets the critical passages of Genesis 1 to 3 in isolation, without taking into account the inspired commentary provided by Paul.

Paul appeals to the order of the creation of Adam and Eve to justify his injunction that a woman should not be permitted “to teach or have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12, NIV). He writes: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” (1 Tim 2:13-14, NIV). The temporal sequence of man/woman’s creation is strongly marked by “protos—first” Adam and “eita—then” Eve.

The logic of this passage and of the parallel one in 1 Corinthians11:8-9 where Paul speaks of the manner of the woman’s creation out of man and not vice versa, is abundantly clear. Paul saw in the priority of Adam’s creation and in the manner of Eve’s creation a clear indication of the headship role God intended man to exercise in the home and in the church. The fact that the woman was created after man, out of man, and as his helper, meant to Paul that God intends the woman to fulfill a submissive role in relation to man. This role is violated if a woman teaches in the church in a headship position or exercises authority over a man.

By rooting the headship/submission principle in the order and manner of creation, rather than in the consequences of the Fall, Paul shows that he views such a principle as a creational design and not the product of the curse, presumably to be phased out by redemption. Contrary to ordinationists who argues that headship/submission are the consequences of the Fall (Gen 3), Paul grounds such a principle in the pre-Fall order of creation described in Genesis 2.

The local circumstances of the Christian congregations in Ephesus and Corinth may have provided the context of Paul’s injunction, but they do not provide the reason. Paul’s reason is creational, not cultural. This is a most important consideration that makes Paul’s injunction relevant for us today. It is unfortunate that ordinationists choose to ignore the creational reason given by Paul for not permitting a woman to teach in the church as the head/leader of the congregation.

The Manner of the Woman’s Creation out of Man

The principle of headship/submission is suggested in Genesis 2 not only by the order of creation of Adam and Eve, but also by the manner of their creation. God created man first and then made woman out of his rib (Gen 2:21-22). He did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God create the woman first and then man from the woman and for the woman. God could just as easily have created the woman first and made man out of Eve’s rib, but He did not. Why? Because that would have obscured the distinction between the male-headship and the female-submission that God wanted to make clear.

It is impossible to know all the reasons why God created the woman from Adam’s body instead of making her a separate creation from the dust like Adam. However, three reasons suggest themselves. First, the creation of woman from man’s rib suggests the sameness of nature between man and woman. As Adam acknowledges, the woman is the very bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (Gen 2:23). The actual selection of man’s rib from which to create the woman suggests that “she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him.”

Second, the human race, including the first woman, derives from the same source, Adam, who is the head and representative of humanity (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:22). Third, the creation of woman from man establishes the basis for the one-flesh principle in marriage (Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 7:4). This principle rests on a real biological and historical foundation.

Paul’s Interpretation of the Manner of Creation

The decisive line of evidence that undermines the egalitarian interpretation of Genesis 2:21-22 is Paul’s interpretation of the same passage. If we did not have a biblical interpretation of the significance of the manner of Eve’s creation, then it would be proper to seek to interpret the text according to an egalitarian construct. But since Paul does provides us with an inspired interpretation of Genesis 2:21-22, it is futile to submit alternative interpretations.

In 1 Corinthians 11:8, Paul defends his call for women to respect the headship of man by appealing to the manner of the woman’s creation: “For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.” For Paul, the order and manner of the creation of Adam and Eve are the theological foundation of the headship/submission principle. In biblical thought origin and authority are interrelated (cf. Col 1:15-18). A child must respect the authority of his parents because he derives from them. In Adam’s historical situation, Eve derived from him in the sense that God formed her from his body. Thus, Adam was her “source,” and to him was due appropriate respect.

This line of reasoning, though present in Hebrew minds, is not explicit in Genesis 2. What is explicit there is that God entrusted Adam with certain responsibilities. He named first the animals (Gen 2:19-20) and then the woman herself, both before and after the Fall (Gen 2:23; 3:20). By this act Adam exercised the leadership role assigned him by God. Man was also instructed by God regarding the forbidden tree and was apparently held responsible for passing on the information to his wife (Gen 2:16-17). After the Fall, God held man accountable for the original transgression (Gen 3:9). In the light of these facts, Paul’s

The Woman Created to Be Man’s “Helpmate”

In Genesis 2 the principle of headship/submission is also suggested by the central role of man in the account of the creation of woman. God created man first and provided him with a garden, an occupation, and finally a wife to be “a helper (‘ezer ) fit for him” (Gen 2:18). It is true that the word “helper” in itself, whether in Hebrew or in English, does not necessarily imply submission. But the meaning of a word cannot be determined without consideration of its context. In this case, the word occurs within the phrase which says that God created woman to be a helper fit for man. “If one human being is created to be the helper of another human being,” as George W. Knight rightly notes, “the one who receives such a helper has a certain authority over the helper.” This does not mean that woman exists solely for the sake of helping man, but rather that she is a helper who corresponds to man because she is of the same nature.

The woman’s creation from man and for him (“a helper fit for him”—Gen 2:18) suggests a functional dependency and submission. As Gerhard von Rad points out, Genesis describes the woman not in romantic terms as a companion to man, but in pragmatic terms as a “helper” to him. Bible writers speak of human relationships with a certain practicality.