I haven’t been able to blog lately. My computer, which has been causing trouble for quite some time, completely bailed out on me. My good husband spent hours trying to make amends, but the Toshiba was bent on self-destruction and we had to get a replacement. Now that I’m back online, I can finish up chapter three.
In the first part of chapter 3, Raymond Ortlund shows that male/female equality, as well as male headship, was established at Creation. If male headship was not a result of the Fall, then what was decreed at the Fall?
Genesis 3 is one of the most important chapters in the Bible. Without chapter 3, life and the message of Scripture do not make sense. Chapter 3 explains all the pain, heartache, and confusion in our lives and in the world; it shows us how Satan convinced Eve that “obedience is a suicidal plunge, that humility is demeaning, and that service is servility.”
God again validates Adam’s headship by calling him to the carpet first and by indicting him partly on the fact that he listened to his wife.In Romans 5, Paul names and blames Adam as our federal head who sinned, even though Eve sinned first. When God gives the curses, He tells Eve her desire will be to her husband, but that he would rule over her. Ortlund gives two plausible explanations: 1) Eve would now want to rule over husband (unlike before), but Adam must be sure this doesn’t happen, or 2) Even would want to control her husband, but he would now “dominate” over her. With either interpretation, it’s clear that male headship we a pre-fall condition and that Christ’s redemption should be to move us back to the male-female harmony before the Fall.
In conclusion, Ortlund makes an earnest appeal for us to understand that “there is no necessary relation between personal role and personal worth.” The gospel teaches us that our personal worth is found in our identity with Jesus Christ and not with our role in life. To deny this brings us all into a relentless struggle for power and position. Finding our identity in Christ allows us to experience peace and freedom in resembling God in His ordained purpose for our lives.
I really like your summary in paragraph three and in your last paragraph Dana! The author seems to have the right perspective on the big picture.
However, I want to clarify if the author is saying that listening to Eve was one of the faults that God accuses Adam for. I believe that Adam’s fault lies not in whom he was listening to, but rather what he was hearkening to (ie: false information gathered from a creature that was scheming against God–namely the Serpent). The real problem was that Adam was undiscerning. Adam was also accused of eating from the tree because Adam believed and acted upon the false information that Eve brought him. If we think that God was telling Adam he should not listen to his wife, than we have communication problems and no marriage. What we can conclude howver is that men will be held acountable for not being wise and discerning with the decisions they make for themselves and for their family.
I can see why the author argues that Adam ruling over Eve was instated before the curse. If Adam’s headship was not pre-curse than neither was Eve’s desire for her husband and that could lead to further confusion on the matter.
I also think there are more conclusions that could be had of the “he shall rule over thee” statement from God than the two the author provides. Another far more convincing conclusion I believe is that because of Eve’s passing the blame to Adam when confronted by God, God determined that the Adam would answer for Eve’s actions as the head of the household and in this way would have to “rule over her”. In other words, the concept of Adam ruling over Eve is partly positive because it is a protecting role. As a result of Gen. 3:16 Eve is better protected from future ensnaring and enticement from Satan, and Eve’s desire to please her husband will help her put her own will in check.
Jamie,
Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, let’s be clear that Adam wasn’t in trouble simply for listening to his wife! I think husbands and wives should be making decisions together; the husband bears the responsibility for the final decision.
It’s our responsibility to give our husbands another perspective. On the other hand, I try to be very careful in the advice I give. There’s the bully approach (if you don’t choose my way—you’re going to be sorry!) and the manipulative approach (if this doesn’t happen, I will be so sad!), but all advice should be given with a good attitude that I trust his final decision.
While some men feel that they are whimps if they listen to their wives, others feel helpless to do anything other than what their wives demand. Both of these ideas are wrong.
I’ve heard other explanations of the curses in Genesis 3 as well. I think the two Ortlund gave may be the most common, but I heard an OT professor explain that the “desire” is a desire to please, which seems plausible just from my own human experience. Although there can be differences of opinion on that interpretation, the point that Ortlund was trying to make was that male headship in itself was not part of the curse—that was a good part of Creation. The good news is, that however the Fall marred our marriage relationships, we can, through Christ, find a measure of redemption and restoration in all our human relationships.
This chapter also had some great rebuttals to feminist arguments. Why do feminists want so badly to be out from under the headship of men? Because they associate “headship” with “domination”. What Ortlund argues is that while domination does take place, headship was not meant as a controlling tool. “But male domination is a personal moral failure, not a Biblical doctrine…Adam welcomes Eve as his equal (‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’), yet he also names her (’she shall be called Woman’)…Indeed, he sees in her his very own flesh…[God] allowed Adam to define the woman, in keeping with Adam’s headship.”
A great point: “Christians, of all people, have a reason to live with paradox. After all, God exists as one Godhead in three Persons, equal in glory but unequal in role.”
“[W]hat Biblical headship requires and what slave-holding forbids is that the head respect the helper as an equally significant person in the image of God.”
Ortlunds clarifications of the meaning of “desire” on pages 108-109 were helpful. The comparison of Gen.4:7 and Gen 3:16 as parallel statements lead me to believe that the true meaning is “control” rather than the “wanting to please”. Looking more at the context of the passage, I’m wondering why it would mean “desire to please”? I’ve never heard of this interpretation before. Why would that be listed in Eve’s punishment? Desiring to please one’s husband is not a bad thing. Can you lend some light?
Crystal,
Hey, I’m not a Hebrew scholar, but I think the “desire to please” could be the strong desire that wives have to be loved and accepted by their husbands. As Doug Wilson points out, stories written by men and for men generally revolve around the “mission.” If a beautiful woman happens to get involved, she is part of the “mission.” On the other hand, in stories written by women and for women—the relationship IS the story (Think Jane Austen here). If an anniversary is forgotten, who is upset? And who forgot?
Some would explain that strange phenomenon with Genesis 3:16. Husbands and wives have a desire to please each other (1 Corinthians), but wives, in my opinion, have a much stronger and controlling desire to have an intimate and fruitful relationship.