Genesis, Submission & Modern Wives

By Georgia Purdom. © Answers in Genesis. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

Common Misconceptions

The verses most commonly quoted concerning the wife’s role in relation to the husband’s role are Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22).

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord (Col. 3:18).

Many women struggle with the concept of submission in marriage because they mistakenly equate being submissive with being inferior. From Genesis we know that men and women are equal in God’s eyes because everyone, regardless of gender, is made in God’s image. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”

Eve was made from a rib from Adam’s side (Genesis 2:21), which also infers equality with Adam. I really enjoy the way the famous seventeenth–century Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, writes about Eve’s creation from Adam:

Not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.1

Galatians 3:28 also makes clear that both men and women are equal in their personal worth before God. Jesus Christ came to save all people who put their trust in Him, regardless of their gender, nationality, or place in society.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Here’s another way to think about it. John 6:38 and many other passages throughout Scripture show Christ’s submission to God’s authority. If being submissive means being inferior, then Christ, in being submissive to the authority of God the Father, is inferior to God.

However, Scripture makes it clear that the Father and Jesus are both equally God. Jesus claims, “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). Jesus and God the Father have different roles within the Trinity, but in their personhood they are equally God. Likewise, a wife and husband have different roles in marriage, but they are equally loved by God and equally bear His image.

Another common misconception is that the role of Adam as leader and Eve as helper was a result of the Fall and not part of God’s original created roles for husbands and wives. Many evangelical feminists, such as Rebecca Groothius, assert this blatant misreading of God’s Word.

In fact, there is no mention of either spouse ruling over the other—until after their fall into sin, when God declares to the woman that “he will rule over you” (3:16). This is stated by God not as a command, but as a consequence of their sin.2

However, a plain reading of God’s Word makes it clear that Adam’s original created role was to be a leader in the family and Eve’s original created role was to be a helper to her husband and family.

God created Adam first and gave him the authority to not only name the animals (which he and Eve were to have dominion over) but also to name his wife (he first called her woman [Genesis 2:23] before the Fall and then later Eve [Genesis 3:20] after the Fall). In Old Testament times, this was considered a sign of authority for the person doing the naming.

God signified that He was going to make a “helper comparable to him [Adam]” (Genesis 2:18). The role of helper would be understood as someone who helps the person doing the leading. Paul considered the order of creation of Adam and Eve significant and used it as a reason for insisting on male leadership in the church (1 Timothy 2:12–13). Paul affirms male headship in the home in 1 Corinthians 11:9 by reminding readers of Genesis 1, “Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”

The original created roles of husband/leader and wife/helper can also be understood from the curse on Adam and Eve as a result of the Fall. God said to Eve:

I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule you. (Genesis 3:16)

What does it mean that Eve would “desire” her husband? The same grammatical construction is used in Genesis 4:7 when God says to Cain:

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.

God is saying to Cain that sin will want to rule him (“desire is for you”) but that Cain should rule over sin instead. Applied to Genesis 3:16, Eve will want to rule over Adam (“your desire shall be for your husband”) as a part of the curse. So, if the curse is that Eve would want to rule or lead Adam, then that must not have been Eve’s role before the Fall and she was originally created to be a helper not a leader. Otherwise, it’s not much of a curse—Eve originally led and she’s to keep on leading? In response to Eve’s wrong desire to lead, Adam would react sinfully by leading harshly instead of lovingly. Eve would desire to reverse roles of leader and helper, and Adam would react by wrongly distorting his leadership role.3

Another important support for the original created roles of husband/leader and wife/helper is found in the attribution of sin to Adam not to Eve. How many times have you heard someone say, “It was all the woman’s (meaning Eve) fault,” or, “We wouldn’t be in this mess (cursed world) if it weren’t for a woman”? I always cringe when I hear statements such as that because they are not biblical!

It is true that Eve was the first one to sin but whom did God question first after Adam and Eve sinned? Adam was questioned first because he was the leader of the family. To whom is sin attributed throughout all of Scripture? Adam (see 1 Corinthians 15:22, 15:45; Romans 5:15). Why? Because as the leader, Adam was responsible for his wife Eve; he shirked that responsibility by following her leading in disobedience to God and eating the forbidden fruit.

Interestingly, when God tells Adam and Eve His plan to redeem mankind (Genesis 3:15), He says the Redeemer will be “her Seed.” So, even though Eve was the first to sin, through her descendants would come mankind’s Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Sin is attributed to Adam (because of his leadership role), and so spreads to all people, men and women. Redemption comes through the offspring of Eve: the Messiah.

Scripture makes it clear, beginning in Genesis, that Adam was created to be the leader, and Eve was created to be the helper in the marriage relationship. Both men and women are equal before God as His image-bearers. But they have different roles in marriage, much like the differing roles yet equality within the Trinity.

Why Do Modern Wives Struggle with This Issue Today?

The number one reason is sin. Through Eve, all women bear the weight of the Curse in this specific area, so we will always struggle with this issue to some extent. The passages in Ephesians and Colossians instruct husbands and wives on their original created roles in marriage to bring restoration to marriage that has been marred by sin.

How many of you have seen the TV show Jon and Kate Plus Eight? I’m sure many of you have, and even if you haven’t, you’ve perhaps heard about it. The show is part of the reality TV genre depicting the life of a married couple, Jon and Kate, and their children comprised of a set of twins and a set of sextuplets. Jon and Kate decided to divorce in 2009, and there was a lot of speculation as to why they were having problems and made this decision. In an episode aired earlier that year, Jon and Kate discuss whether to continue the show for another season.

Kate: “I’m loving what we’re doing so we just have to figure it out.”

Jon: “Yeah it’s really difficult, for me, on my end.”

Kate: “And I’m very happy.”

Jon: “So there you go, there’s your conflict.”4

The conflict in and of itself is not bad, but how they are handling it is. Kate makes it clear (in this episode and others) that she wants to be the leader in the family and will not submit to Jon’s authority. Jon tends to be very passive and doesn’t take the leadership role. They have reversed their roles, and as a result they are miserable. Instead of seeking divorce, they need to read God’s Word and understand the cause of their problem and the solution.

Another reason women struggle today with submission to their husbands is the differences between the role of women in the workplace and in the home. More women today work outside the home than ever before, and often they are in male-dominated fields like science, engineering, and business.

I know the struggles these women face. I was the only woman in my class to complete a PhD. I was the only female biology professor at the Christian college where I taught. I am one of very few female creation scientists and the only one in the U.S. who I am aware of speaking and researching on creation full-time.

Women often feel that they have to work hard to be seen as equal to men in many professions. Women have achieved success and leadership roles. However, some of us tend to view life as a continuum and don’t separate our professional and personal lives like men do. The leadership mentality in the workplace tends to carry over into marriage and problems arise. Women (including myself) need to do a better job at recognizing and separating their roles in the workplace from their roles in the home.

Wifely submission is not an indication that women are inferior to men, nor is it a result of sin and the Fall. Instead, husbands and wives are equal as image-bearers of God with distinct roles in marriage as leaders (husbands) and helpers (wives). When we accept the authority of God’s Word and fulfill those roles, our marriages can thrive and—for those that need it—can be restored.

Notes

1 Matthew Henry, “Notes on Genesis 2:21–25,” Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. I, (Genesis to Deuteronomy).

2 Rebecca Groothuis, Good News For Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1997), p. 123.

3 Some people interpret this passage differently.

4 Jon and Kate Plus Eight, “Family Outing,” Aired March 23, 2009 (Season 4, Episode 41).


Georgia Purdom specializes in cellular and molecular biology and has a PhD in Molecular Genetics from Ohio State University. Following graduation, Dr. Purdom served as a professor of biology for six years at Mount Vernon Nazarene University in Ohio. She has published papers in several scientific journals as well as numerous lay-friendly and semi-technical articles in Answers magazine and on the AiG website. She is a regular speaker in the Creation Museum Speaker Series and has spoken at many AiG conferences.

Discussion

I don’t think there’s much to reasonably disagree with in what Hannah’s talking about in post 14. I don’t see the distinction between “created order” and delegated authority as amounting to much in itself (the vested/delegated authority is expressed in the created order), but she’s right that the difference matters from the man’s pt. of view.

Where it matters is that “I call the shots because I’m a man” is a different attitude from “I call the shots because the One in authority over me has given me that responsibility.” Worlds apart. The latter recognizes (a) that authority is always a means to an end and it goes with responsibility and (b) that there is truly accountability for the use of authority.

I think it would be impossible to make the case from Scripture that the husband-wife authoritative-submissive relationship would continue in the eternal state. Jesus gives us reason to believe marriage itself is a non-eternal phenomenon.

At the same time, though, if we understand that there is no devaluing or demeaning or oppressing inherent in being under authority, there is no reason to object to there being authoritative-submissive relationships in eternity.

There will have to be some, if the passages referring to reigning with him mean anything (unless those passages are limited to Millennium or some other non-eternal aspect of the kingdom).

But this is too much to conclude…

Since this doctrine is based on pre-fall conditions, I don’t see how you can say it will one day be obsolete. It is part of God’s design of the universe.

We aren’t told that even pre-Fall conditions in the creation are necessarily eternal. And it’s also not obvious that Paul’s creation-order argument means “created submissive-authoritative.” He may well mean that the created order foreshadows the leadership of men in the church (and that Eve’s being deceived foreshadows the teaching role of men in the church). It would be hard to prove that this is what Paul means but is equally hard to prove it is not what he means.

In any case, we’re just speculating when we get into how relationships will work after the eschaton.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Hi Hannah,

I think there are some questions we just can’t know the answer to. We don’t have revelation on some points so it is best to leave our questions open.

In this discussion, I think we are talking about two things: 1) Male authority in church and home 2) Male headship in creation.

Male authority in church and home are derivatives of headship. I was thinking about the Ephesians passage after I made my last post and thought that there is a link between Paul’s teaching in Eph 5.23 and his teachng in 1 Cor and 1 Tim on headship when he says “the husband is the head of the wife”.

But when we talk about headship in general, we don’t mean that every man is the authority of every woman, we mean something different. In the home, the husband is the authority because he is the head in the home. In the church the men are in authority/leadership because of headship also. But the authority aspect is limited to those two contexts, as far as I can recall.

Headship in general means men will lead in general. Female leadership is not the norm in most societies through history. That is because of the way God made men and women, I believe. Our egalitarian society is unusual in history and unlikely to ultimately succeed, in my opinion. Exceptions to male leadership (Deborah, Athaliah, etc) tend to prove the rule rather than to establish egalitarianism as a natural or biblical concept.

Now to your questions:

  1. Male/female souls - haven’t thought about it much, I suppose you could infer an affirmative from some passages: “male and female created he them” - I think the Galatians passage clearly refers to individual salvation - within the body of Christ, human distinctions have no value, but they don’t cease to exist. I am a Gentile, not a Jew, but a Christian, which, as far as my Christianity goes, my racial makeup has nothing to do with it. But I am still a Gentile.
  2. I think that I disagree on the physicality issue. As I see the passages, the male/female roles and authority relationships are rooted in creation order and the will of God, nothing else.
  3. Headship is a reflection of eternal truths in the trinity (1 Cor 11.3), a distinction in the notion of image and glory of God vs. glory of man (1 Cor 11.7) [not entirely sure all the meaning of this concept] , the creation of woman out of the man rather than vice versa (1 Cor 11.8), the creation of the woman for the purpose of completing the man (1 Cor 11.9) and the fact that Adam was created first in time (1 Tim 2.13). An additional factor is the fall (1 Tim 2.14) but the fall is quite clearly not all there is to it.<

    The caution to the man in 1 Cor 11.11-12 is a check on male pride, which some of us are subject to, once in a while(!!!). But as such, it doesn’t negate any of the factors Paul discusses as being related to headship.

    So… I understand headship to be much more than time, it is all about the significance of the other factors mentioned - Paul treats them as “signs” to us. At its most basic, I think it reflects the order in the Godhead and God intends to reflect it in creation. That’s why non-sentient beings were also created “male and female”, I believe, but that would be my speculation.

Ok, don’t want to write an essay! So I’ll stop there.

I think most of this is somewhat related to Aaron’s points as well, so I’ll not try to answer his comments. As he says, I don’t think that anything we have said here is that far apart.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

and I’ll add one additional thought and then be done unless either of you disagree with it.

I encountered the idea recently that the significance of headship (as a general concept) needs to be tied more directly to Christ’s headship—specifically His ability to represent and atone for the sins of mankind on the cross. The concern was that as much as headship does teach us about the Trinity, it’s more essential that we understand it in terms of our salvation. Here’s the crux: if headship began with Adam (humanly speaking), it is fulfilled in Christ. And that is why we mirror and model it through marriage.

FWIW

Personally, I am suspicious of theology that tries to relate everything to the cross. I can sort of see where this idea is coming from, but it really seems to me to be conflating two distinct doctrines, the Federal Headship of Christ and the Eternal Subordination of the Son.

Perhaps there might be a link, but??? At some point one wonders what is gained by trying to make the whole of theology “gospel-centric”. I think it skews our understanding of the whole.

However, I think the idea would take us off on a different path.

I first studied these issues when I was preaching through 1 Corinthians, quite a few years ago and had to have an answer for 1 Cor 11. I discovered a whole world of theological discussion and read hundreds of pages in preparation for those messages.

The biggest thing I took away from that was the downgrade that seems to follow compromise in an egalitarian direction. You can see example after example among various proponents where the willingness to accept egalitarian theology is either a symptom or harbinger of worse errors to come.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

This particular argument didn’t come from a “gospel-centered” or egalitarian source. I too am suspicious of the (often) convoluted attempts to make everything “gospel-centered”—I have a running joke with my husband that if you put “gospel” in front of anything, conservatives will accept it blindly. (Gospel-centered potlucks, gospel-centered building programs, gospel-centered ipads, and the list goes on…)

No, what was at stake for me was giving a little more footing to something (gender dynamics) that can seem somewhat arbitrary. You yourself admitted that there’s no specific reason why God would place men in position of headship over women, except that this was His design. And while I’m quite willing to accept that the hidden things belong to God, I also know that many of our core doctrines came from pressing into things that once were considered “unclear.”

For me, it’s not a matter of rushing to egalitarianism—I think we must be careful not to categorize new ways of looking at gender as automatically inconsistent with the old, and thus liberal. The reason this approach stuck in my mind was because it took all the pieces of the puzzle (both federal headship and headship in authority structure) and gave them a way to relate. I recognize that they are not necessarily the same thing, but I wanted to tease out the elements that both shared in order to gain a fuller understanding of headship as a general concept. Because if we don’t understand what headship is in the first place, we can’t understand how to apply in marriage, the church, or society.

I’ll pose your question to some folks I know who are more knowledgeable on this subject than me, and get back to you.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Post title sounds like some kind of barber shop thing…

Oh well. I’ve read of several views of what headship means. Some of them are obviously trying way, way too hard to avoid simpler solutions. One argues that “head” is also the word for the source of a stream and therefore headship is about provision and nurturing, not authority. Several others that I don’t remember now were similarly unconvincing because they all relied—one form or another—on a false disjunction. That is, they took aspects of headship and tried to say we have to choose between the aspect and the main idea: either-or.

My own view is that the headship concept is complex (in the nuances) but that authority is never absent from it and is probably the “main” idea. Still, Christ, the head of the church gives Himself to redeem her. And a reference to the husband’s headship is in the same text (the Eph. 5 one). So there’s a protection/provision idea there, clearly. It’s just that this aspect doesn’t in any way conflict with the simplest explanation: that a head makes decisions for its body. It’s not either-or, but both-and.

(I think a similar weakness applies to the federal headship idea: they’re over thinking it. It’s simpler than that.)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Here are two articles on the Gk word for kephale, one a shorter discussion of the lexicons, the other a Wayne Grudem article from Trinity Journal that is pretty thorough. There really is no real good reason to make kephale mean ‘source’ anywhere in the NT, or anywhere in ancient literature, unless you have a feminist agenda.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Or Aaron, to avoid the barbershop thing, you could go with a medical aphorism, such as “When you hear hoofbeats, don’t think zebras”.

I’m not sure how we moved to a discussion of kelaphe as source—that was never a concern in my mind. I readily accept that kelaphe is best understood as “head” in a physical sense, of ordering and directing the body.

And yet, the head’s authority exists for a reason, to fulfill a greater purpose. Because the head cannot exist without the body (anymore than the body without the head), the most important thing that the head accomplishes is the union and proper functioning of the body as a whole.

So I agree that authority is an essential part of a proper understanding of headship but no more (or less) than recognizing that headship means providing for the protection and good of those under you. I guess what I’m getting at is this: won’t we reach a better, fuller understanding of headship and submission if we include these other ideas (representation, protection, service) as much as the concept of authority?

This approach also explains why we have limitations on authority—if you are not using your authority for the intended purpose, you can legitimately be approached by those under your authority and in extreme cases, it can be revoked. (Divorce for abuse, unfaithfulness, loss of ordination for ministers, etc.)

Personally this fuller definition is essential to my embracing why a good, just, kind God would establish a hierarchical framework in the first place. The authority is in place in order to accomplish the end goal—loving relationship and the proper working of the body as a whole. Authority was never a goal in itself.

… I don’t think I can disagree with anything there.

Since the biblical view of authority is that it’s something that arises from responsibility, and the responsibility is truly a service… the serving involved and headship and the authority involved in headship sort of disappear into eachother.

Mk 10:42–45 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[handerson]

Hi Hannah

I’m not sure how we moved to a discussion of kelaphe as source—that was never a concern in my mind. I readily accept that kelaphe is best understood as “head” in a physical sense, of ordering and directing the body.

I think we got there because Aaron mentioned it in his last post but one.

[handerson]

And yet, the head’s authority exists for a reason, to fulfill a greater purpose. Because the head cannot exist without the body (anymore than the body without the head), the most important thing that the head accomplishes is the union and proper functioning of the body as a whole.

Here I think you might be overstating the case a bit. Usually metaphors (like parables) are meant to convey one thing and one thing only. We are not meant to try to draw more implications from the metaphor than the author intended.

To test the way you are taking it — “the head cannot exist without the body” — let me ask one question. Can Christ exist without the Church?

The answer is obvious, correct? So is Christ the head of the Church or not? Well, yes he is. But the relationship between Christ and the Church is not like the relationship between a body and a head in every respect, only in some respects. I would argue that it is primarily or only in one respect.

Whatever way Christ is related to the Church as head, in the same way (and, as far as I can see, in no other way) the husband is the head of the wife.

I fully appreciate your concern that men not take their headship to an extreme beyond that which the Scripture gives them. But I think by pressing the metaphor the way you are doing causes you to lose sight of the main point the metaphor is meant to convey, at least to some extent.

[handerson] Personally this fuller definition is essential to my embracing why a good, just, kind God would establish a hierarchical framework in the first place. The authority is in place in order to accomplish the end goal—loving relationship and the proper working of the body as a whole. Authority was never a goal in itself.

Do you see a hierarchy as essentially “ungood” or “unkind”? “Unjust”? Just wondering why you are framing it that way. I agree that authority was never a goal in itself, but is the end goal of marriage “a loving relationship and the proper working of the body as a whole”? Or is it something else, like “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it”? Is the loving relationship and proper function of the relationship a means to the end or the end itself?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

i am generally complementarian, though, like many calvinists, i would have to explain personally what i mean by that.

a few things i don’t like about how complementarianism is sometimes presented or lived out:

1. that marital status marks your usefulness or status in the church. I don’t think it’s everywhere, but there are churches where this is really a big issue—that a woman, for example, is more accepted when she is married. I remember reading someone’s blog and she was thinking how she was longing to be married so she could feel more a part of the church. That’s way sad.

2. I think that the reality of what Paul was addressing in his letters is that being a wife and mother is the normal calling/role for women, just as being a husband/father is for men. It’s not special or “high” in that sense. it’s just the normal condition women will find themselves in. Our reaction to the feminist movement has blown that way, way out of proportion scripturally.

3. i think that in different cultures, the level of felt hierarchy/submission in marriage can be vastly different. In a culture where women have few personal freedoms and are married off very young, maybe not even that educated, the hierarchy would probably be much more felt. in western cultures, in a normal marriage, i don’t think the submission/hierarchy thing is very felt. In fact, the patriarchy camp is trying really hard to change their culture so women are more dependent, less educated and mobile so the hierarchy thing is more “real.”

this also depends on the individuals. I know several men “called” to be missionaries, but their wives couldn’t deal with it. So they’re not missionaries. Where’s the hierarchy there? Vitaliy, my husband, deals with this, too. We’re planning on moving out to a village, but he’s not going to do it if I drag my feet or can’t handle it. Some of it is a choice to submit, maybe more to God’s will than Vitaliys, but other parts of it is just who I am and my background. Can I hack living in a Ukrainian village? We’ll see :D I hope so.

I porbly have more thoughts, no surprize, but that’s it 4 now.

I don’t mean to denigrate authority as a negative thing, simply trying to emphasize that authority by itself is pointless. So if we don’t carefully articulate the goal of authority, it CAN make your submission seem pointless as well. This is what I meant by my need to see the bigger picture as a woman.

If God’s glory is truly on display in male/female dynamics, then let it be on display in all of its grandeur from His wisdom to His love to His meekness and yes, even His authority. It’s not that authority is not part of the equation but if we reduce it to this alone, we diminish the beauty of God Himself.

And the reason that I believe that union and loving relationship is the goal of male/female hierarchy is because love is the goal of all of human existence. To love God, to love others. Christ said that love first and foremost is what marks us as his disciples—not hierarchy. This does not mean that hierarchy is obsolete but simply that hierarchy must be understood in terms of the greater goal—loving relationship. Hierarchy and authority serve the greater goal.

I completely agree with your about addressing men as fathers as strongly as we are addressing women as mothers. These are both holy occupations and it seems that we have emphasized one as an exclusive occupation while not the other.

And yes to your third point as well. In my marriage, I don’t chafe or wrestle under hierarchy or submission—it’s simply not a question most of the time. As I don’t think it would be when two people are honestly seeking to love and sacrifice for one another as we are called to in Scripture. We’ve been in similar situations about having to make difficult decisions and at times, ones that I haven’t agreed with. But I have always loved my husband and when something is significant to him, of course I submit to his leadership. (Although I do follow it with the caveat, that we both know that he is responsible for the decision however it turns out. :-)

I get frustrated when I see godly women—who by and large are doing a fantastic job—being pressured and burdened by strict patriarchal positions. These women are already sensitive to the Holy Spirit so when someone speaks in “God’s name” and questions the details of how their home operates, they feel inordinate and unnecessary pressure. This is when husbands really need to stand up and protect their wives from this kind of manipulative influence. An ideal opportunity to exercise headship in my mind and a wonderful chance for a women to submit herself to her husband’s leading, despite her emotions that may tell she is somehow not spiritual enough because of xyz behavior.