Wineskins Contributor・08/31/19

The most logical place, I originally thought,to start a Bible study on gender roles was the place where gender roles aremost explicitly discussed. We all know those landmine verses of Ephesians 5, 1Timothy 2, 1 Corinthians 11 and 14, and more.

Even leaving the verbiage at the most surface interpretations and traditional translations, I still wondered as many do about their intention. These teachings on gender roles are certainly purposed for their time and place, but what about ours? How universal are Paul’s commands on this topic, really? Given the reputation and rights of women in Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures, how do we apply such instruction in a time and place where it now feels degrading? And how do we maintain appropriate respect for the authority of the Scriptures in seeking to color them with their historical backgrounds? Again, a total minefield.

The strongest evidence of universal maleheadship is found, I think, where Paul references Adam and Eve's creationcircumstances as support for his thinking. And it was here, having foundnothing too clarifying in the epistles and returning to Genesis yet again, thatI realized where we often spin our wheels. When wondering: Why do we understandPaul to mean XYZ about all men and women? The favorite answer is: Genesis saysso. And when wondering: Why do we understand Genesis to mean XYZ about all menand women? The favorite answer is: Paul says so.

Argh.

So let’s get back to where it all started. Thegender role conversation makes most sense to me using the creation account asthe primary text, isolated for now from the NT passages which serve ascommentary. This is far from all my thoughts on Genesis 1-3, but I hope toprovide some fruit for thought in these highpoints.

Up to the middle of Genesis chapter 2, thecreation story rambles on comfortably, giving humanity an introduction steepedin unity and interdependence.  

When wewonder: Who are we? Genesis resonates: You are MINE. You are living, breathing,walking, talking, loving, feeling, thinking idols of the One True God, and youare good. You each are gifted in your own ways, as groups and individuals, andyou’re meant to be a diverse, mutually benefiting body.

When wewonder: Where did we come from, and where are we now? Genesis answers: You arethe purposefully planned works of My hands, formed from My works and from eachother, sustained by My works and by each other, and dwelling with My works andwith each other. You are altogether foreach other, and you and your home are very good.

When we wonder: What are we here for? Genesis says: As higher beings instilled with My breath of life and made as My delegates, you are set as the peacekeepers and perpetuators of My creation. Your authority is given for the population, prosperity, protection, and harmony of the world. And your gifts, strengths, and weaknesses are brought together for the continuation, prosperity, protection, and harmony of humankind.

Alongsidethose big anthropological questions, there’s also a running theme of equalitybetween men and women for questions of gender relations. Men and women areintroduced as:

- Equal in species
- Equal in essence
- Equal in authority over the earth
- Equally blessed for their joint mission
- Equally responsible for guarding and cultivating creation
- Equally necessary for supporting one another in the human mission

Here at 2:15-17,the basic equality of the sexes in essence, purpose, and value scoots over tomake room for a bit of functional hierarchy. This is the moment where God andAdam are depicted alone, and according to complementarian interpretation, Godentrusts the man with the moral law of human life. The central question ofresponsibility I posed in Part 1 finds its answer here: Adam set the pattern ofmen as the spiritual authorities in homes and churches when he is positioned askeeper of God’s law before Eve’s creation.

Factually,there’s no avoiding the plain events. God delivered the command to Adam first,using singular pronouns for him alone. Eve just wasn’t around. For this momentin human history, the man (if you can call the undifferentiated earthling that)had a spiritual equipping the woman didn’t.

Still, it’sthe significance assigned to such circumstances that I’m calling a sour fruitof hierarchical interpretation— so sour that we can’t see straight. Such a lensfor Genesis is one that only focuses on the no-no of 2:15-17. Its mistake isnot in noting Adam’s primacy (a deeper topic for another day) but rather in positioningGod’s rule of limitation as the most important thing He had to give in thatmoment… and glossing over the most lavish gift ever given: all creation as man’splayground and as his mission, and within that, an especially lush garden forhis personal home. There’s that whole first chapter and a half of Genesis, andwe still get hung up on the one place God says no despite the many, grandioseways He says yes.

WalterBrueggeman has our number: “These three verses together provide a remarkablestatement of anthropology. Human beings before God are characterized byvocation [v. 15], permission [v. 16], and prohibition [v. 17]. The primaryhuman task is to find a way to hold the three facets of divine purpose together.Any two of them without the third is surely to pervert life. It is telling andironic that in the popular understanding of this story, little attention isgiven the mandate of vocation or the gift of permission. The divine will forvocation and freedom has been lost. The God of the garden is chiefly rememberedas the one who prohibits. But the prohibition makes sense only in terms of theother two.”

Takingthe three gifts of 2:15-17 as a linked set raises an issue of interpretive soundness…if we’re willing to argue that Adam was anointed the unilateral spiritualauthority over his wife (and more broadly, church brothers over sisters) becauseGod entrusted him alone with the law prior to her creation, per v. 17, then weshould also be willing to argue that he is a higher executive authority overcreation per v. 15 and is primary owner of the garden and its food per v. 16.The gifts of vocation and freedom were also explicitly stated to man withoutwoman present, so shouldn't those too be as weightily interpreted as speciallyentrusted to men and delegated from them to women? The same way acomplementarian approach expects Adam to be Eve’s spiritual leader in teachingand enforcing the law, shouldn’t we expect that it’s also his duty to instructher in cultivating and guarding the earth, and to give her permission to eat ofEden’s trees? But Genesis 1:26-29’s rendition rules out any such delegation asman and woman are blessed and commissioned directly as God’s living idols.

The application issue in tunnel-visioning on 2:17 is the mischaracterization of God as rule master rather than caring counselor. Rules matter, certainly, but not as the maniacal manipulations of a madman deity. God’s limitations on human conduct are protections, not cheap thrills. To Brueggeman’s point, His prohibitions can only be properly understood with equal emphasis on the bone-deep satisfaction of productivity and creativity gifted through humanity’s vocation, and on the pleasure and adventure gifted through a beautifully ordered creation. It’s these things, and the community in which they’re enjoyed, that the prohibition protects. Anything that divorces the law from the lovingly-designed purpose and freedom for humanity that it protects risks centering our relationship to God on fear of misstep and the drudgery of obedience rather than on His fondness and generosity toward us.

Any ideology that highlights Scripture in ways that reinforce legalism rather than balance our checklist-loving humanness with a heaping load of grace is an ideology worth reevaluating. Ruthlessly so. Losing sight of our Papa Bear God will break us down at the core— more a catastrophe to our faith than a stumbling block. Fittingly, it’s precisely that kind of catastrophe that’s set to strike in the creation narrative.

On to Part 3…