The issue of gender is usually viewed by Bible scholars either from the position of rights (so called egalitarian approach – emphasizing equal rights) or from the position of roles (complimentary approach – emphasizing mutual complimentarity) of man and woman in God’s design. The result usually leads to some kind of “golden middle” between extremes of mail chauvinism and liberal feminism. Nevertheless it is quite difficult to make the Holy Scripture fit any version of human classification without sacrificing essential aspects.
The very discussion between egalitarian and complimentary approaches points the insufficiency of both – Biblical approach is more egalitarian from the complimentary point of view and more complimentary from egalitarian perspective. Scripture initially speaks neither of rights nor of roles but of value of the human being – man and woman, and brings them up to such axiological level that neither chauvinists nor feminists could not imagine in their wildest dreams! Truly an eye has not seen, and ear has not heard and heart of man could not imagine what God had prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. 2:9).
However we have to admit that not only modern worldly gender relationships but even the ones prescribed by the Law of Moses do not correspond with the initial God’s plan: the fall substantially affected gender relations as well as all other aspects of created world. That is why Jesus, when was asked about the Law, replied: Moses allowed you, but initially it was not so (Mt. 19:8). Thus, Jesus states the priority of the initial design over the legislation, since the later is called to regulate rights and responsibilities in world which is fallen. Not surprising than that ontology of gender is a key to any honest research of this issue.
That is why the lack of thorough examination of the first chapters of Genesis becomes the weak side of researches often claiming that Eve was initially subordinated to Adam in certain sense. This understanding comes from inaccurate interpretation of the word ezer (helper) in Gen. 2:18 (It is not good for the man to be alone, let’s create him a helper suitable for him) as “apprentice” or even “servant”, because this word can also mean “enabler” or “the one giving strength”. In many cases the Scripture apply that very toward God (see Deut 33:7, 26,29; Psalms 20:2, 33:20, 70:5, 89:19, 115:9-11, 121:1-2, 124:8, 146:5). Thus Bible speaks on synergy of man and woman when a cumulative effect from unity is incomparably bigger of the simple sum of the components.
Then the word “adam” in first two chapters of Genesis may be mistakenly taken for the personal name of the husband, and it is totally wrong to call the wife “Eve” there. The word “adam” (“human being” in Hebrew ) up to the end of chapter 3 can not be understood as a male person exclusively, and in no way as a personal name. The term is initially applied both to man and woman (Gen. 1:27) and is a collective name both of them (Gen. 5:2).
The enthusiastic hymn in Gen 2:23 (she will be called wife [Heb. ’ishshah] for she is taken from husband [Heb. ’iysh]) does not speak about the role (complimentary) or the rights (egalitarian) of the wife but about her being of the same nature with him. Not having the right yet to give a name to a fellow human being, the husband accepts God given (Gen 2:22) definition “’ishshah” (a female spouse) acknowledging himself as her “’iysh” (a male spouse) – a husband and a wife are given exactly same title “spouse” used in male and female form. And this definition is not unconditional – one can not be a spouse by himself or herself but only in relation to other person. Gen 1:27 implies that creating of a human being as one essence in few persons is one of the aspects of the divine image in human being. The author concludes: this is why a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife; and two will become one flesh (Gen 2:24).
The husband who earlier gave names to all the animals (Gen 2:22) gives the name to the wife only in 3:20, i.e. right after the God’s declaration of the consequences for disobedience. Giving name (Hebrew “shem” – also means “fame”, “glory”, “reputation”) is a sacred act of authority. Only the higher one gives a name to a lower one: parents give names to children, masters to slaves, owners to animals. The Bible mentions changing of name on several occasions (Gen 17:5, 32:28, Dan 1:7, etc.), but Gen 3:20 says nothing about rename – the husband specifically gives the name “Eve” to his wife, and as a result “Adam” automatically turns from cumulative term into his personal name. That means conjugality is no longer sufficient definition of their essence, because as a result of the fall the desire to own receives priority over desire to belong, individuality overpowers the unity. On the other side this is the beginning of gender hierarchy in which husband takes higher position.
The most likely, the submission of a wife to a husband is proclaimed in Gen 3:16 “And you will have desire to your husband but he will rule over you”. Same as other parts of God’s verdict it is not the sentence, but stating of the fact: departure from the Creator’s design inevitably leads to certain consequences. The supposition that the word “desire” above means sexual desire does not fit the full picture of Biblical gender ontology. Humans (both man and woman) were given sexual desire initially for fulfilling the first of the commandments they got (Gen 1:28 — Be fruitful and multiply).
The light to the meaning of this combination “desire to / rule over” is lit by the other passage of Scripture (the only one, but in the same first chapters of Genesis), where in Hebrew original this same phrase is repeated literally. In Gen 4:7 God speaks to Cain: “If you do not do good sin lies by the door; it draws you but you rule over it”. Thus the combination is parallelism (repeating of the same concept twice in different words) indicating the conflict of desire to control. The sin figuratively “strives” to control Cain, whose challenge is not to yield and to control his own sinful aspirations instead.
In a similar way the spouses initially designed to belong to each other and own the earth started to want to own each other as well (and accordingly — to protect themselves at least by fig leaves from an unauthorized misusage). In order to avoid unceasing confrontation, God solves the conflict by establishing hierarchy. According to the chronology (Adam created first and then Eve; and not Adam yield unto temptation, but Eve being tempted committed transgression – 1 Tim 2:13-14) the husband gets the dominate position which he immediately exercises by giving his wife a name.
Thus it can be concluded that God’s initial design to which the Savior refers in Mt.9:18 had nothing to do with equality of rights or warranties of complimentarity. Being equal in glory, both man and woman belonged to each other, willingly submitting to each other in love. True love has nothing to do nor with rights nor with warranties (1 Cor. 13:4-7). Present headship of man is emergency measure, a result of the fall, but initially it was not so, and apparently in resurrection of the dead and the future life the initial anarchic system of mutual submission in love will be restored.
Partly this plan has being already restored in the Body of Christ, the Church, where man and woman, clothed in Christ are again equal in glory - there is neither … male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:27-28). But the equality in glory (not in rights!) is achieved not through emancipation of the women – Paul is clear in instruction: wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord (Eph 5:22). Restoration of the initial order in God’s household comes not through gender deliberation or equalization of rights, but through the mutual subordination, submitting to one another in the fear of God (Eph 5:21).
In the ancient Greek the word translated as “submit” had several meanings that allowed the Apostle to play with it. As military term this word meant to be arranged under the command of a leader. In a civil use it means a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden. So this directive is associated to another Apostle’s instruction “Carry each other’s burdens and this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2)
In the following verses of Ephesians (5:22 – 6:9) Apostle instructs us how exactly to exercise this “already” universal submission to one another in the context of “not yet” removed effect of the fall in the relational doublets wives/husbands, children/parents, slaves/masters. This principle of “already”/“not yet” is specific for the “last days” when the Kingdom of God has being already restored by the risen Jesus Christ, but he kingdom of this world has not yet being destroyed. It is revealed in such ministry of women in early church as prophecy (whatever we mean by this word).
Paul mentions prophecy among the four spiritual gifts specially given by God for equipping the saints for the work of ministry for the building the Body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13) and determines it as speaking to people edification, admonition and encouragement (1 Cor 14:3). Acts mention at least one but multiple precedent of women exercising this ministry (Acts 21:9). The Apostle does not even questions the fact of this ministry by women, but gives instructions on how it should be exercised – with the head covering (1 Cor 11:15), i.e. in an appropriate decent way. (In Roman Empire appearance of the married woman in public with uncovered head was so obscene that politician and poet Sulpicius Gall have expelled his own wife, who had dared to show in public with no covering). Thus the Apostle’s instruction in 1 Cor 14:34-35 (women should remain silent in the churches … ) usually understood in the context of the women’s role in the church, is apparently related to listening women, not to prophesying or praying ones, to whom instructions are given in the 11th chapter of the same epistle.
The example with the head covering indicates the spread of the submission principle even further than “to one another”. The Apostle teaches the same thing he himself practices: “Being free from everybody I enslaved myself to everybody in order to gain more… For all I became all in order to same at least some. I do this for the sake of the Gospel to be a partaker in it” (1 Cor.9:19,22-23). Thus in Christ who died equally for men and women God’s initial design of their equal value is restored. But that kind of equality is to be achieved not through emancipation of women, but via submission of all to all; not via fighting for rights but via voluntary refusing one’s rights. Refusing their gender rights, Christians restore the ontological gender unity – in the same way like Christ restores the unity of the Creator and creation, with voluntarily giving up His own divine rights (Phil. 2:6-11).
Translation by Yana Katsova