After only two chapters, we come to the part of the story where things begin to unravel. Enter the one who brings division to the oneness, the completeness, found in the unity of man and woman.
Over the past four articles, I have tried to keep before the reader the following question: In Genesis 1-2, is the focal point headship or companionship? I hope by this point you have seen that there is a primary focal point. And the text says nothing explicit about leadership or headship.
As we enter the unraveling of Chapter 3, the question must shift slightly to account for the unraveling, or the fall, as we call it.
Is the focal point about challenging headship or dividing companionship? To ask it slightly differently, is the core struggle about overturning God’s order? Or about the loss of harmony in His blessed union?
The HC/Complementarian reading would have you focus on the chaos created by the enemy’s aim to usurp God’s rightly ordered and good created roles. Attention would be drawn to arguments like:
The serpent subverted God’s order and aimed to lead the woman astray. (Vs. 1)
Eve failed in her role by leading Adam. He failed in his role by being led by Eve. (Vs. 6)
God called out for Adam first as the spiritual leader and head. (Vs. 9)
The “rule over you” now becomes a harsh rule rather than a loving and service-oriented leadership. (Vs. 16)
Adam gave up leadership responsibility because he listened to Eve. (Vs. 17)
As we move forward and examine Genesis 3, ask yourself: Does the text itself provide these reasons? Or, like I referenced in last week’s post, do you see them because they have been suggested interpretations?
The Fall
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
We come to one of the first assertions that what was happening here had to do with the Serpent bypassing and looking to subvert God’s created order by attacking the woman, by aiming to deceive her rather than Adam.
Dr. Thomas Schreiner, in Women in the Church (Third Edition),1 chooses to interpret the passage this way,
In approaching Eve, then, the Serpent subverts the pattern of male leadership and interacted only with the woman. Adam was present throughout and did not intervene. The Genesis temptation, therefore, stands as the prototype of what happens when male leadership is abrogated. Eve took the initiative in responding to the Serpent, and Adam let her do so. [Emphasis added]
Does it really stand as the prototype when men don’t step up to lead and women do instead? Where is that interpretation and emphasis given in this passage? I would argue that it is not; it has to be inferred from the passage. At the bare minimum, it is inferred through the use of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 as a lens to examine the creation story.2 A lens that is not as clear as we would think.
I really appreciate Andrew Bartlett’s rebuttal, found in his book Men and Women in Christ, to Ray Ortlund Jr.'s position on this argument,3
[Ortlund] argues that the Serpent addressed Eve first in order to strike at Adam’s headship. But this is mere assertion, with no basis in the text. It would be as easy to say that the serpent addressed Eve first because she was the more dominant character, and if she could be led astray, Adam was likely to follow her; this would be equally without any basis in the text. Moreover, it was not Adam’s authority that the serpent challenged, but God’s. [Emphasis added]
Did you notice the “emPHASis on the wrong sylLABle” again?
Many HCs/Complementarians focus on the usurping of male headship. However, the text does not say this. The attack is concentrated on questioning God.
“Did God actually say…”
“You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
And in the end, she ate because the Serpent stirred desire up in her for the ability to be wise like God. That is far clearer in the text than the desire to bypass Adam’s leadership.
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise…
The temptation is about us desiring to be like God. To determine for ourselves what is right and wrong. To live as though we know what is best for us, for our neighbors, and the world.
At the bare minimum, you could interpret that the Serpent tempts them to push against God’s authority in their lives, and by extension, this is our own sinful struggle. But the text does not draw any implications that this push against authority also includes a push against male leadership.
Genesis 1 and 2 highlight the sacred union and communion between God and humanity, as well as between man and woman. In contrast, Genesis 3 reveals the fracture of this unity and communion.
This simple observation carries profound weight: it points to the mission of Jesus, Emmanuel, "God with us." Through Him, God draws near, restoring our connection with the Father, Himself, and one another. In His final moments with the disciples (John 13-17), Jesus emphasized this renewed communion, declaring it as the witness to the world.4
Let’s return to the simplicity of this truth. Doesn’t the world yearn for relational union and communion—to belong, to love, and be loved? Yet, we often become so focused on perfecting our interpretations that we lose sight of this longing.
If I could turn the Danvers Statement5 on its head, which states,
Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart.
I would argue that what finds an echo in every human heart is the longing for union and communion. Found in human relationships and divine relationships. This, I believe, is the aim of these passages. And this, I believe, paints a far more beautiful picture of what Jesus aimed to accomplish in walking amongst us.
In a previous article, I highlighted the differences between the second and third editions. It was fascinating to see the changes made, especially in the removal of an appendix by complementarian scholar Dr. Daniel Doriani, who essentially admitted that the current complementarian explanation is not the historical position. You can read more about that in my series, titled 'When the Why Behind the What Changed.'
I have not yet covered my study on 1 Timothy. However, I will briefly state that it is not as clear as some would have you believe. And the arguments used to make 1 Timothy 2:12-14 proof-texts for how to interpret the Genesis accounts are not as strong or agreed upon as you may think. For now, I would encourage you to glance at those verses and see how many HCs/Complementarians will use a few verses to expand their arguments for Genesis 1-3. Using the 44 words, in Greek, of 1 Timothy 2:12-15 to interpret three chapters necessitates considerable interpretive inference.
I highly recommend Bartlett’s work. It is detailed and thorough. He draws on his years of experience as a judge and arbitrator to address the topic. He also acknowledges he has no “dog in the hunt.” He has no prior commitment to one position or another, so while there might be some loss in his life for choosing one position over the other, it is not nearly the same for those who have found their livelihoods tied to a theological position. Additionally, he and Terran Williams have done excellent work responding to Mike Winger’s videos on this topic.
So often I have heard the argument that distinct roles for men and women in marriage are the picture to the world. Based on their arguments from Ephesians 5. I think this is still a misguided interpretation of these passages, but even more importantly, Paul does not mention this as the reason for his discussion on husbands and wives.
In short, the Danvers Statement is an attempt by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood to declare its beliefs, ground them in Scripture, and claim that there is no other biblical interpretation. Sadly, it has been weaponized in many circles, requiring pastors, staff, professors, etc., to sign off on the document as a litmus test for orthodoxy. Ultimately, it has cost people their jobs.
I agree with you - they failed to communicate and support each other’s union with God.
Great post!