As I bring our time together in Genesis to a close, I want to revisit the original questions I have been asking throughout the series. I have asked them a few different ways, but here they are:
Does the plain reading of the text in Genesis 1 & 2 make you think more about companionship or leadership? Is the focal point of Genesis 3 about challenging headship or dividing companionship? And, is it about overturning God’s order or the loss of harmony in His blessed union?
In my study, I have concluded that the HC/Complementarian interpretation of these passages has fallen short of expectations. And still, as I ended last week’s post, I asked how HCs/Complementarians arrive at these interpretation choices. They do not derive them from thin air. Both positions are committed to the Scriptures, so why the divide?
It comes from utilizing other passages, often in the New Testament, to examine the creation account through those passages.
This is a common way to handle scripture. One passage helps us interpret another. It is a method of reconciling the apparent contradictions within the Bible. If we believe it is God’s word, and God does not contradict Himself, then we need to understand these paradoxes as best we can by allowing clearer texts to help us understand cloudy ones.1
Where the debate rages is which texts are the primary scriptures to guide us in the secondary portions of scripture. Does text A serve as the lens to look at text B, or vice versa?
Out of this, HCs/Complementarians will use texts in the New Testament to come back to the creation accounts. In the future, I will continue to examine the texts in this debate; however, for now, the ones most often cited are as follows: Ephesians 5:21-33, 1 Corinthians 11:2-12, 1 Timothy 2:12-15, and Romans 5:12.2
With those passages serving as your lens, it is possible to arrive at their interpretation in the Genesis text. But they are just that. Interpretations that are not explicit in Genesis itself. The “creation order” argument must be supported by the use of these other verses in the Genesis story. I, and many others, argue that, in the text itself, the overarching idea is not about leadership or creation order.
In fact, in Genesis 1-3, there are only two expressly written places where “rule” and “authority” are discussed.
To quote Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ,
If we look for what the early chapters of Genesis say expressly about anything connected with ideas of human rule, authority or leadership, we find only two points:
In 1:26-28 God makes mankind, male and female, to fill the earth, subdue it and rule over the other creatures. This is joint rule by man and woman.
In 3:16, after the fall, God pronounces to the woman that the man will rule over her.
And I think Bartlett hits the nail on the head when he summarizes this observation,
These scriptures present a contrasting picture: before the fall, mankind’s rule over creation was joint, by man and woman together; after the fall, man will rule over woman, at least in the marriage relationship.3
This, I believe, allows the text to speak for itself. Unity to disunity. Harmony to disharmony. Peace between the sexes to the battle of the sexes. From this initial interpretation of Genesis, an MC/Egalitarian reading would then approach the later passages secondarily, to be understood in the light of the creation story.
For example, Paul’s reference to household codes and structures, including submission in Ephesians 5. An HC/Complementarian would use that as a lens to understand the Genesis account better. An MC/Egalitarian would use Genesis to gain a deeper understanding of these passages.
Another challenge that MC/Egalitarians will raise against this HC/Complementarian interpretation of Genesis is that it is a form of proof-texting.
Proof-texting is the practice of using isolated Bible verses or passages to support a specific belief, doctrine, or argument without considering their original context, intended meaning, or the broader teachings of Scripture.
A common phrase around this is, “A text without context is just a proof text.” This means that we need to be very mindful of taking a verse to use for interpreting another passage, especially if the use of that verse does not bear in mind the context that it is coming from.
As a silly example, what if I told you that Christians should prioritize lavish parties and wealth accumulation because the Bible says money solves all problems and feasting brings joy. After all, Solomon wrote, “A feast is made for laughter, wine makes life merry, and money is the answer for everything.”
I would imagine red flags are flying high and alarm bells are ringing loudly. This is an easy one for us! But it illustrates the challenge for both positions. We must take into account the context, or the surrounding text, of the verses used to form our theological beliefs.
Returning to our Ephesians 5 example from above. MC/Egalitarians do a better job of understanding these passages in light of the context in which Paul is writing, from understanding Greco-Roman culture to the influence of Plato and Aristotle on household structure.
Dr.
recently wrote about how every scholar, great or not, takes biblical backgrounds into their study.…Appeals to culture are not unique to “liberals.” Every great Bible teacher appeals to “culture” to some degree.
And so this is a challenge for both positions because we all want to think we are not doing this. And there is nothing more capable of shutting down discussion than when someone accuses another person of just proof-texting other verses to get to what they want the text to say.4 To counter this isn't easy.
I am not saying either position is using verses to get the text to say what they want to say. As I have said, perhaps too many times now, both positions hold the Scriptures in high regard and strive to be as faithful as possible to the text.
And yet, we can get that position wrong. If I can return to the Ephesians 5 reference one more time. In Chapter 6, Paul begins to write about the master-slave relationship. In the West, at least, we no longer interpret that passage plainly and literally. I bet that in your lifetime, any sermon you've heard on these verses was focused on the employer-employee relationship. The text is being reinterpreted in a different context.
It is not as if Paul knew nothing about business; he was, after all, a tentmaker. They had “employees” in his day. He is explicitly talking about masters and slaves. Now, HCs/Complementarians are quick to say, well, chattel slavery and his slavery were different. Yes, that might be true. However, the passage is still not applied literally; instead, the principle is taken and applied. Paul nowhere signals that he is doing this or that we can.
However, before the Civil War, there were prominent bible scholars and pastors who used these verses to support the structure of slavery. An excellent piece on that can be read here, by Jane Anne. They were using a more literal, plain reading of the text. However, they were missing the broader narrative that abolitionists were highlighting.5
With that said, I do think the HC/Complementarian falls more prey to proof-texting in their interpretation of Genesis. When using other passages to read back into Genesis a created order, there is far less understanding of the context from which these other verses originate.
One of the most telling examples that comes to mind was an interview I heard between Dr. Bill Mounce and Preston Sprinkle on an episode of Theology in the Raw.
When discussing this topic and the very challenging passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, Dr. Mounce summarized his reason for not being an MC/Egalitarian as,
“If verse thirteen were not there, I would be an egalitarian. I mean, I would have other issues putting other things into context. But for me, this verse is the determining verse.”
Now, he did say he would have other issues. Still, it is telling that the few words, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve,” are enough to be the primary influence on applying a creation order reading to Genesis and every marriage and church from then until the kingdom comes.
Why did Paul say this? Was it a statement on everything, all-time? Or situational? Was it descriptive of the current situation unfolding in Ephesus? When is something applied to all time, or not, and a principle might be extracted?
In his mind, as well as that of many HC/Complementarians, it is because Adam and Eve have been invoked that it has a trans-cultural application.6 But did you realize that many do not follow that interpretative rule consistently?
Adam and Eve are also referenced in 1 Corinthians 11, when Paul discusses head coverings. Debate aside, whether it is about keeping hair up or wearing physical head coverings, I know of very few who enforce head coverings because Paul referenced the creation account. This is understood as cultural.
I plan to write more on that at a later time. My point here, though, is that I think the MC/Egalitarian position has a more consistent hermeneutic for many of these passages. In addition to considering the Genesis passages for what they explicitly say and do not say.
And yet, in the end, I also admit a degree of proof-texting. Regardless of the camp, a degree of using other texts as evidence for your position must be done. The question is what makes the best sense of the whole of scripture and fits the narrative arc we see from Creation to Fall to Reconciliation to Restoration.
In my mind, the questions that arise are as follows: Are those texts being appropriately used in their context? Does their original context lend itself to being used to understand the creation story? We will continue to move forward by looking at those passages and how both positions interpret them.
All along the way, remember, this is a matter of interpretation, not orthodoxy, not biblical fidelity, and not a salvation issue. This does not mean it is not essential; among the many secondary issues, I believe this one is of higher priority because it profoundly affects individuals, relationships, and organizations.
You can read a piece I wrote earlier about this topic. In my study, I found it fascinating how both positions claim to employ the same hermeneutical tools, yet they are led to different conclusions. It turns out that it's not just about having the tool but also about how you use it. Ultimately, my purpose was to demonstrate that this entire topic is not a matter of biblical fidelity—a charge often leveled at MC/Egalitarians—but rather a matter of interpretive choice.
I admit that it may feel unfair to reference these verses without providing a more detailed explanation to accompany them. I find it challenging to write without these posts getting too long. Yet here we are, nine total posts on the Genesis chapters. In these other passages, we must examine the common arguments used in the debate, as they all contribute and play a part. Those interpretations also then influence the Genesis story.
As an anecdote, I recall a discussion where someone tried to argue that even if it is a mark of the fall, it should still be in play in some capacity. They were trying to say that while we are still influenced by the fall, perhaps it is not a bad thing for men to lead. I say anecdote, because it is not a standard position or argument, it was an attempt to grasp at straws. And still, I see it as a telling example of how difficult it can be to change one’s beliefs and be willing to let go of a commonly held belief and practice.
The technical term for this is eisegesis. It is reading into the text, rather than exegesis, reading out of the text. As mentioned above, this is a common charge leveled at MC/Egalitarians. But to be fair, some MC/Egalitarian writers will say hyperbolic statements about HC/Complementarians, too. And perhaps some of my writing has verged on that. I have one story where I was accused of eisegesis in my reading of Genesis 9 and the Noahic Covenant. I was making the argument that God’s “permission” to Noah to eat animals, found in 9:3, was a concession. After all, the text before that, 9:2, says that the “fear and dread of you will fall on all the [animals].” Fear and dread are not blessing-oriented words; they are curse-oriented words. Ultimately, my point in the discussion with this individual was that both are subjecting the text to interpretation. In reality, both are “eisegeting” an understanding of how to view this moment.
There is a common HC/Complementarian counterargument to this illustration. It goes something like this: the marriage and slavery examples are not equal or are not a one-for-one. This is because marriage was in the garden before the fall, salvery was not. This is true. However, notice that if you choose to interpret Genesis 1-2 as co-rule and shared leadership, marriage is still present, but not in their interpretation of marriage. It still misses the overall point that there are biblical beliefs we no longer apply literally, but still seek to understand and apply the principles. In the coming weeks, I will reference Paul’s call to pay elders to teach in 1 Timothy 5. He uses an old agrarian reference in the OT. He is taking the OT verse and no longer applying it literally, but instead applying the principle.
A short footnote regarding this verse: realize that both camps have to use a degree of interpretation on the text itself. Does “first” mean in authority structure? Or, does “first” mean in a manner of time? Is “first” being referenced like a line-leader? Or is “first” being referenced in that Adam was on the scene “first?” So much, of course, has been written on this, and I am going to add my understanding in light of my study.
“This does not mean it is not essential; among the many secondary issues, I believe this one is of higher priority because it profoundly affects individuals, relationships, and organizations.”
Thank you for this. There’s been many people studying this topic and I often hear them say something along the lines of, “I don’t have a stake in my findings either way.” A good faith understanding is that they are trying to show a lack of bias, but i find it frustrating. It’s a privilege not to have a stake in the outcome of the findings in regards to this topic; for many of us that is not the case.