For those interested, this is the paper I wrote for class about a month ago. It's not lengthy as far as papers go, but it is lengthy for a blog post. Read it if you'd like. Comments are always appreciated.
-----
The Divine Design: Gender, Marriage, and Authority
Few issues have consistently sparked as much controversy over the course of human history as has the topic of human gender rights, roles, and responsibilities. Hesiod, a Greek poet and foundational source of Greek mythology, gracefully recorded his two cents worth concerning the matter when he wrote, “Trust a woman – you might as well trust a thief” (Theogony 375). In more recent history, famed author and journalist Rebecca West wrote, “I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is. I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.” (219). Indeed, such matters that flow from the heart of human sexuality and relationships are of pressing concern - especially in the 21st century world of sex-saturated media, growing global divorce rates,1 and the rising popularity of so-called gay marriage.
The topic of gender roles was addressed heavily, yet in my opinion insufficiently, in the first week of class and in more roundabout ways in the ensuing weeks. Therefore, I would primarily like to explain more fully my understanding of YHWH’s design for the male and female marriage relationship as established before the fall of man in Genesis 3.2 Included in this explanation, I will contrast YHWH’s and Zeus’s motives for creating the genders; and I will juxtapose Genesis’s outlook on gender equality with Aeschylus’s depiction as presented in The Oresteia.
The Bible makes it clear that the creation of the first male and female was “exceedingly good” in YHWH’s eyes and that the purpose of the woman was to be man’s helper (The Five Books of Moses, Gen. 1.31; 2.18). This stands in shocking contrast to Hesiod’s account of the creation of the first woman. In his Theogony, Hesiod speaks of woman as being “an evil for men” (45). He speaks again of this mythical event in Works and Days when Zeus says, “I too will give them a gift, an evil one…in which all will delight in their hearts, as they embrace their own evil” (73). Whereas YHWH creates the woman to be a helper to the man, Zeus creates the female as a punishment to the male.
Not only does Genesis record the creation of male and female as being “exceedingly good,” it also implies an equality of essence as manifest through the fact that male and female are uniquely and equally created in the image of God (Gen. 1.26-27, 31).3 Consequentially, neither gender is to be celebrated as intrinsically better. This equality differs greatly from the explicit favoritism shown toward the male gender in The Oresteia. One such example is found when Clytemnstra announces the victorious end of the war in the beginning of Agamemnon. Whereas she claims that in her boldness and honesty she “speaks as a woman,” the chorus responds with the compliment, “She speaks like a man.” (Hughes 22). The attributes considered virtuous in the text continue to be identified as masculine throughout the trilogy.
In addition to these similarities, the Genesis account presents clear distinctions between YHWH’s intended purposes for the two genders – specifically as it pertains to the marriage relationship. As stated in the previous paragraph, these distinctions do not serve to present one gender has being superior to the other but rather to present the genders as necessary4 compliments for one another.
One primary distinction worth addressing is the headship5 of Adam within the marriage relationship. This is evidenced in the text both before and after sin entered the world. First, Adam is said to have named Eve (Gen. 2.23). Regarding this point Wayne Grudem says, “The original readers of Genesis and of the rest of the Old Testament would have been familiar with this pattern, a pattern whereby people who have authority over another person or thing have the ability to assign a name to that person or thing, a name that often indicates something of the character or quality of the person” (28). It is important to point out that this act of authority happened before Adam and Eve had sinned.
A second evidence of Adam’s headship in the marriage was his accountability before YHWH for the moral behavior of both him and his wife, Eve. The Genesis account makes it clear that even though Eve was the first person to transgress the law of YHWH by eating fruit from the Tree of the Knowing of Good and Evil, Adam was the first person confronted by YHWH about the sin (Gen. 2.16-17; 3.6; 3.9). If there was not an elevated status of moral responsibility for Adam within his marriage to Eve, one would find it peculiar that YHWH initially confronted only Adam about the sin (Gen. 3:9-11). Moreover, the entire account of the fall of man demonstrates an inversion of the divine design for authority in that an animal addressed only the woman, who then proceeded to address the present, yet passive, Adam (Gen. 3:1-6). This progression is juxtaposed with the account of YHWH’s confrontation of the man, woman, and serpent regarding the sin. YHWH here addressed the man first, the woman second, and the serpent third (Gen. 3:9-14).
Lastly, an important part of the curse placed on mankind in Genesis 3:16 involved a sinful inclination of both genders to both pervert6 and invert their God-ordained relationship roles. As a result of sin, Eve now possessed a natural desire to rule7 in her relationship with Adam, while Adam was now naturally inclined to be passive in his involvement and abusive in his headship through physical domination. A relevant objection to this point would be that the consequences of the curse don’t require the pre-fall headship of Adam. I would agree with this objection and echo the words of Wayne Grudem when he says, “…Genesis 3:16 should never be used as a direct argument for male headship in marriage” (35). I am not intending to use the curse to independently establish Adam’s headship in marriage, but rather to make it most clear that a dramatic shift towards relational conflict happened as a result of the fall. Consequentially, I would argue that the first three points (naming, moral accountability, and dialogue progression) establish what the previous roles had been; and that in partnership with those points, the consequences of the curse assist in presenting a strong argument for the pre-fall and post-fall headship of Adam in his marriage relationship with Eve that would have been understood by the Hebrew people.
Based upon this brief surveying the depictions of gender as presented in Genesis, The Oresteia, Theogony, and Works and Days, it is safe to say that, of the four works, Genesis provides women with the highest degree of dignity and value. Therefore, in a world characterized in large part by the objectifying and devaluing of women, it is imperative that those who submit themselves to the authority of the Bible put forth great effort in preserving this dignity and value and showcasing it to an unbelieving world.
Notes:
1 http://www.womenofchina.cn/focus/marriage_and_family/5166.jsp.
2 Because of the limited length of this paper, this explanation will be far from exhaustive in its support of this argument. Hopefully, however, it will be sufficient in presenting a solid case.
3 The creation of mankind is unique from the rest of creation. Its uniqueness is expressed literarily in various ways. One such way is seen in Genesis 1:26 when God says, “Let us make…” when referring to mankind (Ware 72). For all other created things God said, “Let there be.” Both the creation process and the product are seen as unique.
4 I include the word “necessary” in an effort to emphasize YHWH’s recognition that “it is not good for the human to be alone” (Gen. 2.18).
5 Although this exact term, “headship,” is not used in the Genesis account, for sake of consistency and for lack of a better word, I will use the term “headship” when referring to Adam’s authoritave role in his marriage with Eve.
6 Grudem’s comments regarding this point were helpful when he said, “…Genesis 3:16 should never be used as a direct argument for male headship in marriage. But it does show us that the Fall brought about a distortion of previous roles, not the introduction of new roles. The distortion was that Eve would now rebel against her husband’s authority, and Adam would misuse that authority to rule forcefully and even harshly over Eve.” (35).
7 In order to best understand the meaning of the Hebrew word for “lust” in Geneis 3:16, one must look to Genesis 4:7 where the word is also used. In Geneis 4:7 the text speaks of sin’s “lust” to control Kayin. It can be assumed, then, the word “lust” does not speak of the sinfulness of a wife’s sexual desire for her husband, but rather a desire to “rule” or “dominate” in her relationship with him.
