Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the blog or about the author.

Thursday February 16, 2006

Submission - Does It Precede The Fall?

I have been challenged recently on the subject of submission and how it relates to the role of women in a marriage relationship. In particular, I have been challenged to understand and then prove that the submission prescribed by Scripture is inherent in God’s created order. In other words, the fact that women are to submit to their husbands is not merely the product of the Fall of the human race into sin, but is a product of God’s creation. Even if sin had never entered the world, a wife would still be expected to submit to her husband. Having studied this issue I believe that is a fair statement and today I will attempt to prove it.

I have discussed this topic with several women and have been a little bit surprised by their reactions. It seems to me that women would be glad to know that the idea of submission precedes the fall. This shows us that the headship of the husband is not rooted in a punishment, and perhaps even an unfair punishment where woman was given the harsher penalty of having to submit, but is rooted in the very purpose and creation of mankind. Yet women have told me that they prefer to think that submission is a product of the Fall. Perhaps this shows just what a poor job the church has done in teaching this subject and what a poor job husbands have done in making submission joyful.

Strange though it may seem, submission is a good and beautiful and godly thing. The most perfect relationship in the world, the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, displays a perfect example of submission. The Son submits Himself to the Father. They are, to echo the Shorter Catechism, “the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” Yet the Father demonstrates headship. We speak of Jesus’ mission to the earth in two ways. We speak of Jesus being sent by the Father. And this is true. From eternity it was decided by the Father that man would have to be ransomed by a perfect substitute. The Father tasked the Son with this responsibility. But we also speak of the Son willingly giving up his life. These are both true. The Son’s perfect submission to the Father’s will meant that a command of the Father is indistinguishable from a decision of the Son. Christ was perfectly willing to submit to His Father’s will. This relationship within the Trinity provides us many clues as to the nature of the relationship between husband and wife.

So let me provide ten proofs that submission precedes the Fall and is part of God’s natural order. We will follow the structure outlined by Wayne Grudem in his thorough study on the subject, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth.

  1. The order of creation: Adam was created before Eve. This may seem to be weak grounds for an argument yet it was strong enough for Paul to mention in 1 Timothy 2:12-13 where he does not “permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man…For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Inherent in the order of creation is the foundation for the order of human relationships.
  2. The representation of the human race: It was Adam who had a special role in representing the human race. Though Eve was the first to sin, it was Adam who was considered most culpable for their combined disobedience. In Corinthians we read that, “as in Adam all men die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Christ is the second Adam, not the second Eve as we might expect if the Bible held Adam and Eve as being equal in representation and leadership.
  3. The naming of woman: Adam was given the honor and responsibility of naming his wife. “She shall be called woman,” he said, “because she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23). Within the Scriptures we see that the person who names something is always the one who has authority over it. This parallels the account of creation where God named the night and the day, the expanse, the earth and the waters. By naming them He showed His authority.
  4. The naming of the human race: The human race is named after Adam, not Eve. Neither is it named after both Adam and Eve. God named the human race “man.” “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created” (Genesis 5:1-2). While this does not provide a cut and dry case, it points again to the headship and leadership of the man in the created order.
  5. The primary accountability: God held Adam primarily accountable for the Fall. While Adam and Eve hid from God, God called “to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’” (Genesis 3:9). God did not call to both Adam and Eve, but called to Adam alone. Dr. Grudem draws an analogy of a parent who, upon entering a room where several children have been misbehaving, will summon the oldest and demand answers. It is the oldest who bears greatest responsibility. In the same way God summoned Adam and demanded an account of both his sin and that of his wife. Notice that Satan reversed this order, approaching Eve before Adam in an obvious (and successful) attempt to disrupt the God-given pattern.
  6. The purpose of women: Eve was created as a helper for Adam, not Adam as a helper for Eve. While feminists have made much of the term “helper,” the fact remains that in any given situation, the person doing the helping necessarily places himself in a subordinate role to the person needing help. Yet helping does not remove accountability. While I may help my son with a paper route, the ultimate responsibility is still his. Eve’s role, from the beginning of creation, was to be a helper for Adam. This does not by any means indicate a inferiority, but a helper who was Adam’s equal. She differed in ways that would complement Adam.
  7. The conflict: A dire consequence of the Fall is the conflict it has introduced into the relationships of husbands and wives. In Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” This desire is to interfere with or distort the role of her husband. The roles God gave to the husband and wife have been distorted through the Fall. Eve would now rebel against the God-given authority of her husband and he would abuse the authority to rule poorly, forcefully and even harshly.
  8. The restoration: When creation is restored through the work of Christ we do not find an undoing of the marriage order. Were submission a consequence of the Fall we would expect Christ to “make all things new” in this manner. Instead we find that Christ provides power to overcome the sinful impulses of a wife against her husband and the husband’s response of ruling harshly over her. But Christ does not remove the order of a husband being in authority over his wife.
  9. The mystery: When the Apostle Paul wrote of a “mystery” he was describing something that was understood only faintly in the Old Testament but became clear in the New. In Ephesians 5:31-32 Paul shows that the ultimate purpose in marriage is to mirror the relationship between Christ and the church. “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” Dr. Grudem says, “Although Adam and Eve did not know it, their relationship represented the relationship between Christ and the church. They were created to represent that relationship, and that is what all marriages are supposed to do. In that relationship, Adam represents Christ and Eve represents the church…”
  10. The parallel with the Trinity: The triune nature of God provides the perfect example of submission. “The equality, differences, and unity between men and women reflects the equality, differences and unity of the Trinity.” We are blessed and honored to be able to represent that relationship in our marriages.

The ultimate reason a wife is to submit her husband may not have been clear to Adam and Eve. It was not clear to God’s people until after the writing of the New Testament. The ultimate reason a wife is to submit to her husband is that the marriage relationship is to mirror that of Christ and His church. Just as Christ is head of the church and we submit to Him, in the same way man is the head of the family and the wife should submit to Him. A husband is to lead in the same was as Christ: lovingly, tenderly and always seeking the greatest good for his wife. A wife is to mirror her relationship with Christ in her relationship with her husband. She is to trust him, be loyal to him and help him. This can only be done in a relationship of humble, loving, godly submission.

Amazon

Comments (21) »


1. Paul Martin
February 16, 2006
10:26 AM

“The ultimate reason a wife is to submit to her husband is that the marriage relationship is to mirror that of Christ and His church.”

This is the absolute key of it all, isn’t it? It all points to Christ!

Great post, Challies.


2. Kristina
February 16, 2006
10:32 AM

Excellent, Tim.

And just so you know, I am one woman who believes that submission is not just a result of the fall ;)


3. matthew
February 16, 2006
11:22 AM

Tim-
I appreciate your post. I’m not sure I see the difference between #2 and #5. Also, #7 might be read (uncharitably) as question-begging. The creation-egalitarianist (for lack of a better term) would say that Gen. 3:16 introduces submission as punishment; your argument #7 says, essentially, “no it doesn’t. It distorts the pre-existing submission relationship.” I suppose #7 depends on the other 9 for its persuasive or apologetic value.

As a suggestion, you might look at the other punishments or curses — some seem to be newly introduced (the serpent goes on its belly, eats dust, and assures its final defeat/bruising; possibly thorns and thistles for adam). But other elements seem to distort qualities already present in the creation-order: to the woman, “I will greatly MULTIPLY your pain in childbirth.” Also, the enmity between Christ and the serpent surely preexisted the fall, right? So the imposition of sanction does not imply newness. (This still isn’t a strong positive argument that the submission pre-existed, but it tends to make that position more believeable. Or so it seems to me.)


4. Wendy West
February 16, 2006
11:51 AM

Tim,
Good post. Your argumentation and logic flow well. I, too, am a woman who believes that submission was God ordained prior to the Fall—mainly for all the reasons you’ve listed. It wasn’t until after the fall of man that the relationship between man and woman was tainted with power struggles.


5. dawn
February 16, 2006
12:20 PM

Make that three ladies who believe submission was pre-fall.

Our pastor has recently touched on this in his Colossians “series” (which is a couple of years old now, I think). He preached on Col 3:18 and is now working on v19.

If you listen, listen to “Submission: Caricatured versus Correctly Understood” before “Wives Submit to your husbands”


6. Brian Thornton
February 16, 2006
1:45 PM

I have heard some say that Adam was right there with Eve when she was talking to the serpent, and did nothing to protect her. Whether he was there during Eve’s conversation with the serpent, or she had to go find him to give him the fruit to eat, either way Adam did not protect his wife. He allowed her to usurp his position of authority by not leading.

I see Adam having the authority of naming his helpmate (woman) as strong evidence that he was in a position of authority and leadership prior to the fall. I believe God reinforces this authority after the fall when He allows Adam to name her again (Eve). By allowing Adam to name her again - instead of doing it Himself - God shows that the fall has NOT nullified the original plan of Adam being in a position of authority and leadership, and that Eve was to be in a position of submissioon to Adam’s authority.


7. Pastor Phillip M. Way
February 16, 2006
3:01 PM

The very fact that Paul and Jesus go back to creation to teach on roles within marriage make it clear that this was the way it was meant to be. The curse after the fall helps us see why conflict exists - the root of all conflict in marriage is sin and the resultant fight for control! Women who were created to submit graciously now desire to rule over their husbands. And men who were created to lead lovingly now tend to act like dictators.

And yes, Adam was right there with Eve when she was tempted - see Gen 3:6:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

If anyone is interested, I introduced a sermon series on the family by starting with Genesis 3 - “The Source of Family Conflict” is available on our Sermon Audio site under the series God’s Design for the Family.

pastorway


8. Ochuk
February 16, 2006
4:02 PM

Hi Tim, it’s your old pal, Adam the egalitarian, and I want to give you a run for your money. :)

[for those reading: this is not meant to be slam on Tim but a friendly cross-examination.]

1) The order of creation. The operating assumption here is the use of a complementarian reading of Paul’s injunctions in 1 Timothy 2. Is he laying down a universal ordinance of hierarchy in the church for all times and all places or is it a circumstantial injunction that addressed the immediate context? The universal reading is assumed and makes for a question-begging argument. A better way to interpret Genesis 1-3 is to start immediately with Genesis 1-3 and work from there rather than assuming an interpretation on a highly disputed text and then move it back on to our reading of Genesis. Second, the logic of priority in creation implies that animals would have authority over humanity, and calls into question the assumptions made from 1 Timothy 2.

2) The representation of the human race. Is this a mere role or a proposition about identity and ontology? To say about males “represents the human race” goes beyond mere function and calls into question the equality of the sexes. Are men “more human” than women? If we were to give a picture of humanity to an alien race would it be properly biblical to give them a picture of a man? If males are more morally responsible and more representative of humanity it stands to reason that they are greater in human personhood. Moreover, the conclusion that we should expect that “Christ would be the second Eve” simply does not follow if we do not hold to your view on the matters of human representation.

3) The naming of the woman. The issue here is one of creativity and recognizing identity not exercising authority. The idea that the one naming in the Bible “always” is displaying authority is countered by Hagar in Genesis 16 giving a name to the LORD. Obviously, she is not “excising authority” over God, but recognizing who he is, as did Adam with Eve. Certainly, Adam had dominion over the animals and he did name them, but to suggest that this same order is replicated in his relationship to Eve implies that she is on par with the animals. That certainly doesn’t help the case for arguing that women and men are equals.

4) The naming of the human race. It is not at all clear that the Hebrew ‘adam has any “male-oriented aspect” in this context. Certainly, it is used as a name of the first man, but it is being used as a generic which implies no male-orientation. To make such an inference fails to understand the nature of generics. In Numbers 31 we read of the spoils of war brought back by the Israelites were 32,000 women. These women are referred to by the Hebrew generic noun ‘adam no less than six times (28, 30, 34, 40, 46, 47). Therefore, no “male-oriented aspect” should be inferred when ‘adam is used as a generic as it is in Genesis 1.

5) The primary accountability. See point 2) and add that the first sin was not a “role-reversal” where Eve disobeyed Adam, but that Eve’s eating of the fruit was in disobedience to God. Let us not forget the verse that complementarians are so quick to quote (1 Timothy 2:14!) “Eve was the one deceived and not Adam” in their arguments for male leadership in the church. Taken as a whole, Scripture holds Adam and Eve equally responsible for the fall, not one as primary and the other secondary. The analogy of the older brother is also flawed in that it makes the woman more childish and foolish. The reason why the older is summoned is not because “the older rules the younger” (something Scripture does not support, i.e. Jacob and Esau), but because he is expected to be more mature.

6) The purpose of the woman: This is problematic on several levels: 1) In the rest of the Bible ‘ezer (helper) does not refer to a subordinate, 2) it demotes Eve to an assistant human not by virtue of task or ability (as with your son’s paper route) but by the virtue of femaleness, and 3) pays no attention to what exactly the “helper” helps. The Genesis narratives give attention to man’s “aloneness” which is “not good” according to the Creator and forms the woman from the man’s side—not his head nor his feet—as one who corresponds and completes him as he so joyfully recognizes her. Together, they rule creation, not just the man along with his second-in-command.

7) This begs the question and is not an argument for male headship before the fall. It only addresses problems after it.

8) This also begs the question and is not an argument for male headship before the fall. It only addresses the scope of Christ’s redemptive work after it.

9) If what the word “mystery” refers to what Grudem says it does than I should admit that this is a good argument, though I am still perplexed at how one could argue that men and women are equal in being when men are the more “Christ-like gender” and women are the more “church-like gender”.

10) This is our strongest difference. While I see some merit in understanding the immanent Trinity by our knowledge of the economic Trinity I am not persuaded of a male-headship parallel with eternal roles of authority and submission with the Trinity for a variety of reasons, but one will suffice for this comment: it erodes the oneness of the Trinity in that only the Father has the Lordship attribute of authority (see Frame’s Doctrine of God for more details) while the Son and the Spirit do not. Moreover, this is not an argument that establishes headship before the fall.


9. blestwithsons
February 16, 2006
6:51 PM

Make that four women who a)believe that submission was pre-Fall and b)are cool with it.

Great post Tim.

Thanks.

Hmmm, gonna have to get that new Grudem book…


10. SovereignGoodness
February 17, 2006
1:39 AM

I liked the post, except thay I would actually have to agree with Adam. Appealing to the Trinity in that way seems to be a bit of a stretch. Other than that, complementariansim is a beautiful thing.


11. Joe
February 17, 2006
7:12 AM

In my feeble little mind, “The ultimate reason a wife is to submit to her husband is that the marriage relationship is to mirror that of Christ and His church. ” is the key to the whole issue, and is, in fact, what Paul told us he was talking about in Ephesians 5.


12. Josh
February 17, 2006
4:37 PM

A quick question on the helper issue — I had heard that the word “ezer” used for Eve’s relation to Adam is also the one used between God’s relation to Israel, so that God was Israel’s helper. (To be honest, I don’t know Hebrew, I had simply heard that before…) Is that the case? and if so how does that factor into our understanding of the role of a helper?


13. Taty
February 18, 2006
12:14 AM

I am not an egalitarian, but I agree with Adam in one issue…the naming of the woman.
It is true that naming in the hebrew language expresses authority, but this is normally when the past (hebrew preterite) form is used (wayiqera)…”and he called…” Before the fall, this form is not used. Instead, the future passive form is used (yiqare) “she shall be called.” In the OT, the last form is never used to express authority. It is more likely that Adam was recognizing the similarities between both of them. This is why he (ish = man) called her isha = woman.
Again, I am not an egalitarian and I do believe that the authority of men was established before the fall. I simply sumit that the naming of the woman can not be used to support that


14. RosaMarie
February 18, 2006
12:32 PM

I don’t believe that submission, used in the sense in your post, was pre-fall. From what I get out of Genisis, Adam and Eve seem to have submitted to each other. She was a help-mate, not a servant. She gave to her husband, and he ate. I get that their life was a two way street the entire time they were together before they sinned. It was after the fall things changed.

If you look at what Paul wrote, he has Adam being responsible for the fall of the race because unlike Eve, Adam wasn’t deceived. He knew exactly what he was doing, he knew the serpent and Eve were wrong, he knew eating the fruit was wrong, he knew exactly what God had said and that God meant it and yet Adam went ahead and did it. The sin of Adam was greater and it wasn’t mitigated as Eve’s was. The sin Paul sites as being what led to the fall of man isn’t that he let Eve be the boss when he was supposed to be the boss, (that’s not indicated anywhere in scripture) but that he ate the fruit that God told him not to eat all the while knowing full well what he was doing, what he was told and what would happen. He wasn’t decieved like Eve was. I’m not giving Eve a free pass. What she did was horrendous yet if I’m understanding scripture properly, Adam’s sin was more horrendous.

Last but not least, look at the curse. Man’s curse is work, while woman’s curse is to desire her husband (and I think Pastor May alluded to this but the desire here seems to be a desire to RULE, to be the BOSS, not partner or servant) only to be ruled herself by the person she wants to subjegate. If being ruled was the way it was before the fall, it wouldn’t be used as a curse and if wanting to rule (or being the ruler) existed before the curse, it wouldn’t be named as part of the curse. The desire to rule, the fate to submission and the rebellion to it are all part of the curse. Before that, Adam and Eve were partners with all the signs of equality and no signs of antagonism, which is a sign of what Pastor May correctly noted as a control issue.


15. TulipGirl
February 18, 2006
2:23 PM

I believe submission is a beautiful thing, and God has His purpose in giving special instruction to wives to submit to their own husbands.

However, in the discussion of submission, so often we overlook that God’s special instruction to wives is within the context of believers mutually submitting to one another.

Submission implies a voluntary surrender. Very often, when I see wives resisting submission, it is when she is under pressure to “submit”—by a church, pastor/teacher, subculture, or sadly, husband. And Eph 6:21 is being soundly ignored.

In those cases I would say her compliance to outward forms isn’t submission at all.


16. Brian Thornton
February 18, 2006
2:58 PM

“Last but not least, look at the curse. Man’s curse is work”

No, man’s curse is NOT work. Man was working prior to the fall. After the fall, man’s work would be tougher because the ground would now begin to produce thorns and briars along with whatever was being grown.

I think the indication from how the woman was created shows that Adam was to be in authority over her, even pre-fall. In fact, she was called “woman” (ishshah) BECAUSE she was taken out of “man” (Ish). To argue for the position of equal authority between Adam and the woman prior to the fall…that position would be strengthened had God made her out of the dust of the ground just like Adam.

But, alas, she was symbolic of the church, borne out of the side of Adam, as the church was borne out of the side of Christ. So, as the church is in submission to its head, Christ…the woman was to be in submission to her head…Adam.


17. Wordlover
February 21, 2006
1:00 AM

Adam wrote:
If what the word “mystery” refers to is what Grudem says it does than I should admit that this is a good argument, though I am still perplexed at how one could argue that men and women are equal in being when men are the more “Christ-like gender” and women are the more “church-like gender”.

Hi Adam,

These are admittedly slippery terms. Perhaps the following grid will be of some help. I see three tightly interwoven but nonetheless distinguishable places of divinely ordained complementarity.

First, I believe human “beingness” (i.e. ontological essence) requires gendered instantiation as males or females, but is in some sense separate from that manifestation. We are complementary in our physical sexuality, but equal in our innate and eternal humanness.

Second, we also have something that might be termed our “gendered temperament.” This is our masculinity or femininity. Unlike our physical gender (which despite occasional surgical meddling is really locked in), our masculinity or femininity is less compelling, and certainly can be embraced or rejected.

Finally, God has assigned us roles, by virtue of our physical nature and supplemented by our temperaments, that should order our activities and attitudes vis-Ã -vis other gendered beings. This, of course, is the least compelling aspect of our complementarity, requiring deliberate and often difficult opposition to the fallenness of our world and of our own natures.

Of these, the third kind of complementarity is the strongest locus for our spiritual assignment as depicters (mirrors, metaphors) of something beyond ourselves, i.e. Paul’s “mystery” of Christ and the church. It’s the place where authority and submission most fully apply. Here, men (like Christ) are called to be vision-casters, protectors, decision-makers, bearers of responsibility, providers, distinguishers (and defenders) of truth. Women (and the church) are called to be helpers, responders, and ultimately, worshippers.

What do I mean by that? I believe that what God most desires from His church is what a man most desires from a woman: grateful appreciation for what He gives, joyful admiration of what He is, and the full flowering of her own beauty as the manifest glory of His “husbanding” care.

I know I sound as though I live on another planet. But the pervasive minimalizing of all sexual differentiation is to me a diabolical scheme to efface God’s glory, and I believe the church would do well to move as fully as possible in the other direction.

Diane


18. Jeanne
March 7, 2006
7:55 PM

When it comes right down to it, submission in marriage is really all about male dominance. Submission was encouraged in ancient times because women were actually considered to be inferior to men. Nowadays, that’s no longer socially acceptable, so it had to be repackaged as husbands and wives being equal in essence but one having to be in submission to the other.


19. susie
November 13, 2006
7:09 PM

wow

I don’t believe god want women to submit to men but for men and women to live equally in peace….both sexes offer there own pros and cons to life, but a woman’s submission to man is the product of a sexist and patriarchical world view that has dominated the world since the advent of christianity


20. Lance Roberts
November 13, 2006
10:06 PM

No, a woman’s submission to man is the product of GOD.


21. Steve
November 14, 2006
3:00 AM

Hmmm, I have given this a great deal of thought…not only here…but in general. I doubt that most of it will be noticed…but hey…what the heck.
Men…especially in churches often speak of the submission of women. Most times we see this as some woman submiting to our authority…or some idea of our superiority. When that is not the case at all.
God placed us in charge. Men, I mean. Does that mean we are all knowing? Does it mean we are all wise? Nope. Not in the slightest. Does it mean we make the great and good decisions? Again, nope.
No…God decided that He had an order of things…the way things should go. Man would be in charge…oh goodie! Except that, that means we are responsible. Our wives..who we hold in dear conscious, and lead…are suposed to submit to us. Not because our decision are the best…but because they are obeying God in doing so…in letting us BE responsible. They present their arguments, their reasons…their good sense…and if, in the end…we refuse and make our own decision…WE are responsible.
That Proverbs 31 woman we like to look at…she was no slouch. She was doing all that was possible. And her MAN looked good cause of all she did. It is no mistake that Satan chose to speak to Eve first.
On average…women are faster in hand-eye coordination, they live longer, they endure stress better, they give over 80% of the nurture to our children, their endurance is twice that of a man, they have two chromosomes to correct for genetic defects in birth or later in puberty…
God created them…WELL. Men would do well to consider that leading is a privaliage…but a heavy responsibility…that they submit to us..because of obedience to God…not our superiority!