Thursday, September 03, 2009

Gender and the Fall

There some passages of Scripture that are just hard to get around. They are fundamental to our understanding of Christianity and are foundational to all of our doctrines. Without them or in diminishing them many other underlying doctrines fall apart. One such passage is the account of the fall. Found in Genesis 3, it explains why man is not in perfect fellowship with God, why the world is full of pain and suffering and ultimately why Christ had to become human in flesh and die on the cross. Without the Fall, man is not lost in sin and Jesus had no need to make propitiation for sin. I was thinking about this issue when Dr. Mark Talbot was dealing with the curse of God on man at the Fall and how that applies to us in a post-cross world. This is the passage in question, one of the most familiar events in the Bible but one that doesn't get nearly enough attention (perhaps because it is so well known):

Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (Gen 3:13-20)

So here is the curse in a nutshell: God tells the serpent that an offspring of the woman will be his enemy and ultimately will crush his head (i.e. Christ). The woman is going to bear children in pain and be ruled over by her husband. The man is going to have to struggle and sweat to coax food out of the ground, which implies that prior to the Fall the ground yielded up food without effort. For the serpent, his fate is sealed. It would take four thousand some odd years but ultimately the Son of God would crush His head at the cross. For the man and woman, they were being cast out of the perfect fellowship with God and into a world where nature itself was at odds with them. The world they inhabit and we inhabit is tainted with sin, groaning under it until the time when it will be made anew.

So what does that have to do with gender roles?

Not trying to be a misogynist but the curse is clear. God cursed the serpent for his deceit of the woman. God cursed the woman for eating the fruit in direct and willful disobedience of what God has said. God cursed the man for listening to his wife instead of obeying God. One sin, three curses but most of the church recognizes the one sin but only recognizes 2 1/2 of the curses. The result of the curse is demonstrated in a couple of passages in the New Testament having to do with gender roles and directly applying to the first three chapters of Genesis.

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2: 11-14, emphasis added)

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. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. (1Co 11:7-12, emphasis added)

The covering of a woman's head and the prohibition against leading/teaching are a direct result of the events of the first three chapters of the Bible. Let’s be clear. Headcovering is entirely about the Fall and the creation order and has zero to do with culture and the church in Corinth. Paul's restrictions on women leading and teaching in the church and home tie back to the Fall and the order of creation. Man was created in the image of God from the dust. Woman was created out of man. The woman is cursed to be ruled over by her husband and suffer pain in childbirth. You don't have to like it but you can't ignore it.

This speaks to the broader issues of gender roles in the church and the home. Women not teaching or having authority over men is not a cultural issue from the first century. It goes back to the very beginning. God told the woman that her desire would be for her husband and that he would rule over her. That is precisely what is being repeated in the gender role passages.

Well, one might argue a couple of things here. One is that the curse was upon Eve and not upon all women. The other is that the curse was lifted at the cross and therefore that curse is not applicable in a post-cross world.

I only have one follow-up question to that: have you ever been in a maternity ward?

All women, Christian or not, suffer great pain in childbirth and it is not some random evolutionary adaptation. It is a curse. Even if you dull it with drugs, it still looks pretty painful from where I was watching it take place eight times. People will deny that husbands rule over their wives until they are blue in the face, stomping their foot because it is not fair but those same people would not be so silly as to claim that childbirth is not painful. The pain in child birth and the rule of the husband are inextricably linked. Pretending that the gender roles don't exist makes as much sense as pretending child birth doesn't hurt.

So here is the deal. I will say it is OK for women to pray with their heads uncovered and to lead in the church and home just as soon as the ground gives up food without work and birthing a baby stops hurting. Fair enough?




Bookmark and Share



11 comments:

Debbie said...

Arthur,

You said, " Headcovering is entirely about the Fall and the creation order and has zero to do with culture and the church in Corinth." But that doesn't match the passage you quoted: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head...." Woman was made from man before the fall, not after. The headcovering passage refers to creation, not sin.

Also, the curse to women was that "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children." To multiply something, it has to be there to start with. After all, zero times anything is still zero.

I know you want to be careful how you present what the Bible says, so you may want to rephrase some of this.

By the way, do you really think it is a curse for women to be ruled over by man ("The woman is cursed to be ruled over by her husband....")? I've always thought that was supposed to be a blessing, that it went along with the husband loving his wife like Christ loves the church, which He rules over.

Gonna go tomorrow to check and see if the wild blackberries are ready to pick.... ;)

Bethany W. said...

Arthur,

Good post.
One question - you have said before that Eva covers her head "every time she prays", does that mean she covers full-time? I tried to cover only for prayer, but it drove me to madness, and I ended up covering full time (as you know).

There are many who cover for "stated worship services only." But, I do not see that distinction in the Bible.

My trouble is that I can't see a way around covering full-time (if you are going to cover at all), and I did not like the stigma that comes along with that.

So, as you can see, I am struggling. I do still believe that the cover is more than hair, but I am not currently acting on that belief.

Anyway, what does your wife do?

Bethany

Arthur Sido said...

Bethany,

Eva covers whenever she prays, whether "at church" or not. Before we eat, when we pray as a family, at Bible study, in the gathering of the church. I wouldn't say she wears it all day but most days she wears it most of the day. We do stop before praying as a family for her to cover her head and she of course wears her headcovering when we gather with the local assembly.

Arthur Sido said...

Debbie,

The Fall applies to headcovering in the overall idea of the authority and headship of the husband (see my quote re: 1 Tim 2:11-14) I am trying to draw the linkage that the whole idea of headship ties together throughout the Scripture. The reason that the man is the head of the wife is both creation order (as stated in 1 Cor 11) and because of the transgression of the Fall (stated elsewhere).

I am not sure that the Greek word for multiply has the same meaning we think but I don't know. There were no children that we know of before the Fall, so Eve never had any child birth pains to multiply.

As far as the curse, look at the wording God uses in speaking to the serpent and to Adam:

-Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field

-cursed is the ground because of you

Since Eve is the one who ate, I would think that it would be odd for God to curse the snake and to curse Adam but to bless the woman! The word curse is not used but it certainly is implied. That doesn't mean that God does not use that for good. Child bearing is a great blessing as is a godly husband (or wife!). But I also think it is clear that the ground is cursed, child bearing is painful, husbands rule over wives (there is more to look at there when dealing with who was culpable).

There is not a hint of headship in the Garden but it is a theme in the post-fall world. In glory, it will also not appear because we will no longer be married. The Fall impacts everything that happens from the Garden to the new heaven and earth including the relationship between men and women.

Debbie said...

Arthur,

I understand the connection you are trying to make. But you took a passage that directly says something and said it says something else. The headcovering passage directly (and only) refers to creation, not the fall. Please don't say that it says wives should cover their heads in prayer because of the fall.

Do you really think there is no hint of headship in the garden? Woman was created to be a helper for man. Isn't a helper under the authority of the one she helps?

Notice, too, that both men's and women's curses were related to things they already were told to do. Man was to tend the garden before the fall, and women were to bear children. The fall and subsequent curse meant that both jobs were going to be much harder to do.

'Nuff for now....

Arthur Sido said...

Debbie,

I know it is a strained connection, but at least I have you convinced that women should cover their heads because of the creation order. Mission accomplished!

I am the Clay said...

Arthur,

Do you think that God originally planned for man to rule over woman? Something I have thought off.. I personally do think so.... the "fall" of adam and eve brought pain in child bearing and yes, women under the headship of men... ie; her "husband".

I personally do not believe it was originally meant to be that way.

That is one thing that Christ did on the cross -- he overcame the fall...sin and death.. but the earth is still fallen and women are still under the headship of men....

Do you think this will change when we are in heaven?

I ask because in the NT Paul declares that we are neither male nor female, greek nor jew but the same in Christ Jesus.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this,

gloria

Debbie said...

Arthur,

Um, mission not accomplished.... I still don't agree with your interpretation of some of this....

Arthur Sido said...

Debbie, is it that you disagree with the interpretation or the application?

Arthur Sido said...

Gloria,

First, I do think God planned it that way because I believe the Bible teaches that nothing happens that is not the intent of God.

I think the male-female relationship will be very different in eternity. There will not be marriage and I don't see where there will need to be male headship. The headship of the husband is a result of the Fall and the relationship is a reflection of the Christ-church relationship but in eternity we will all be directly under the headship of Christ. My wife and I will spend eternity with Christ as brother and sister, not as husband and wife.

It is hard to get out of the mormon marital mindset sometimes!

Debbie said...

Arthur,

It's the interpretation.