For my Seminary Wives Institute classes this first term I am taking a class titled "Embracing Femininity", taught by Mrs. Jodi Ware, and Mrs. Mary Mohler. We are reading an incredible book by Mrs. Jani Ortlund titled "Fearlessly Feminine". I would highly recommend this book (and I'm only in the 3rd chapter!).
In our first week of class, Dr. Bruce Ware spoke on Embracing Femininity by Understanding Biblical Texts. I would like to walk through the handout titled:
Complementarian Vision of Creation
Before I get too far, I'd like to help you understand the two most common views that the church has on the relationship of men and women. The first view is titled Egalitarian. This is defined as "equality", and says that men and women should not be distinguished in their roles in the church and in the home. Some examples of this would be the ordination of women, as well as no male headship. The second view is Complementarian, or "equal". This view says that men and women are equal in essence, but differing in their roles. We will often see this carried out through male headship, as well as the spiritual leadership of men in the church.
Dr. Ware then gave us Ten Reasons for Affirming Male-Headship in the Created Order as seen in Genesis chapters 1-3:
1) The order of
creation, with the man created first, indicates God's design of male headship
in the male/female relationship.
What might seem to have been an ad hoc decision to create one of the
pair first, with no particular reason for the order, is shown to be otherwise
by Paul. 1 Timothy 2:13 declares that
God intentionally created the man first to establish his headship in the
relationship. The principle of
primogeniture—the priority of the first-born—is invoked by Paul.
2) The means of the woman’s
creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship
of the male in the relationship. Rather
than creating the woman likewise from the dust of the ground, independent of
the man, as it were, God intentionally takes a rib from the man and fashions
this into the woman. As Adam declares,
she is “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). Paul's observation in 1 Cor 11:8, then, that
“man does not originate from the woman, but woman from man” once again
establishes male-headship from the manner by which the woman was created, viz.,
she came from the man, not independently from the dust of the ground.
3) While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen
1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image
of God” is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha” (woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)” (Gen 2:23). That
is, she has his nature—the nature of a human being—only as she comes from
him. This is Paul’s point in 1 Cor
11:7. Why should a woman have her head
covered (a symbol of male authority – see 11:10) but a man not? Answer:
man “is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of
man.” Clearly Paul does not mean here
that woman is not in the image of God, but rather that her being the image of
God only happens as she comes from man, who is created as the image of
God. Note: much the same can be said of
Seth, Adam’s son, who is born in the likeness and image of Adam (Gen 5:3), who himself is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). Here, Gen 5 does not say that Seth is the
image of God, but the clear implication is that since he is born in the
likeness and image of Adam, who himself is the image of God, Seth too is made
in the image of God by coming from Adam.
4) The woman was
created for the man’s sake or to be Adam's helper (Gen 2:18, 20). While it is true that this same Hebrew term
for “helper” is often used of God's helping people, it is clear that Paul
understands Eve’s role as helper to require that woman ought to be under the
rightful authority of man—see 1 Cor 11:9‑10 – “man was not created for the
woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head”.
5) Man (not woman)
was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral
command from the man (2:16-17).
Implied in this is Adam’s responsibility to instruct his future wife and
guard her from violating this prohibition (hence, the significance in 3:6 that
the woman gave to the man “who was with her,” showing he failed to guard his
wife as he should have).
6) Man named the
woman both before and after the entrance of sin. Adam’s naming of the woman indicates, in an
OT cultural context, Adam’s responsibility for and rightful authority over the
one whom he named. See, for example,
God’s granting Adam the right to name the animals in the garden, showing God’s
delegation of rightful authority to Adam as he (not God) names them
(2:19-20). And interestingly, Adam named
his wife twice, first when she was formed from his flesh (2:23), and second
after they had both sinned (3:20), indicating that while his rightful authority
over her was established when she was fashioned from him, yet his headship
continued after they both had sinned.
7) Satan approached
the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of
male-headship.
Satan came to the woman specifically, and it was the woman who was tempted,
deceived, and who ate the forbidden fruit, then
giving it also to Adam. Since it was the woman who was approached and
tempted by Satan, this manifests Satan’s disdain for the God-created order of
male-headship that God had established (see 1 Tim 2:14).
8) Although the woman
sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily
responsible for their sin. Paul
clearly teaches that the line of sin in the human race begins with Adam and his
one sin (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22) despite the fact the woman took and ate the
forbidden fruit first. So notably, although
the woman sinned first, God nonetheless seeks out Adam after their sin to inquire why they were hiding (3:8-9). God’s approach to Adam, not Eve, indicates,
then, that Adam is the one ultimately responsible for sin. Adam only rightly
bears the responsibility as the head of the sinful human race, as Paul declares
in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15, if he is viewed both by God and by Paul as having
authority and ultimate responsibility in the garden for what occurred.
9) The curses on the
man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created,
respectively (Gen 3:16-19). The woman’s curse focused on multiplying her
pain in childbearing and allowing her sinful desires to seek to usurp her
husband’s headship (Gen 3:16—note: for help in understanding Gen 3:16b, see the
identical wording in Gen 4:7b). The man’s curse focused on the difficulty
and toil his work would now require in a fallen world (Gen 3:17-19). In these very curses, the fundamental
identities of the woman (as female) and man (as male) are indicated. The woman’s fundamental identity is that of
wife and mother (“pain in childbearing”), under the headship of her husband
(“your desire will be for your husband”), whereas the man’s fundamental
identity is that of worker outside of the home and provider for his family,
even now with great toil due to sin (“in toil you will eat . . . ; both thorns
and thistles it shall grow”). Paul may
have this identity of the woman in mind by his comment in 1 Tim 2:15 that a
woman will be saved through childbearing—that is, she will show she truly is a
saved, Christian woman by embracing her God-designed role, as fundamentally and
generally is the case, as wife and mother.
10) The Trinity’s
equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and
distinction. The Trinity presents a
pattern and analogy for the male-female relationship, as God designed man and
woman, in his image (Gen 1:26-27), to reflect some aspects of his own being. God is one in essence and three in Persons. The three Persons of the Godhead are
absolutely equal in essence. That is, each divine Person possesses equally,
simultaneously and fully, the one undivided divine essence. Their equality—as an equality of identity—could
not be greater. But at the same time,
the three trinitarian Persons are distinct
in function. Notably, this
distinction of function is marked, among other things, by an intrinsic relation
of authority and submission within the very Godhead, by which the Son is
subject to the Father, and the Spirit to the Father and the Son. One of the most vivid biblical examples of
Christ's subjection to the Father is in 1 Cor 15:28 where the exalted and
victorious Son “will also be subject to the One who subjected all things to Him,
so that God [the Father] may be all in all.”
Given this understanding of the Trinity, it makes sense for Paul to say
what He does in 1 Cor 11:3, speaking here of three authority lines that exist: “Christ
is the head [authority over] of every man, the man is the head of a woman, and
God [the Father] is the head of Christ.”
Just as the Persons of God are equal in essence and yet they relate
within a structure of authority and submission, so too men and women are equal
in essence while relating within a similar structure of authority and
submission within the believing community and in marriage and the home.
Dr. Ware gave us a great visual example of this trinitarian view of leadership and submission:
Father Husband/Father
_______________________
Son Wife/Mother
_______________________
Holy Spirit Children
This visual helps us to see that it is as God-like to submit to rightful authority as it is to lead. Submission becomes a glorious thing when you see and understand the submission in the Holy Trinity.
I know this was a very long first blog post, but I hope you will be as encouraged and challenged as it as I was. If you have any questions or comments, please post below and I will do my best to answer them in a Biblical and timely fashion! :-)
Soli Deo Gloria!
~Bekah
No comments:
Post a Comment