Genesis 2:18
“Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
Complementarians find several points in Genesis 2 that they believe point to male authority. The first is that the woman was created to be a “helper” for the man. Complementarianism asserts that this means a wife is to serve her husband and be a sort of “assistant” to him; the wife should have no mission or pursuits of her own, but should adapt herself to her husband and support his pursuits and mission. However, the Hebrew word for “helper”, ezer, is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself as a helper to humanity (see, for example, Exodus 18:4, Deuteronomy 33:26, Psalm 33:20, Psalm 121:1-2, Psalm 146:5, Hosea 13:9). Clearly, then, “helper” cannot imply inferiority or subordination. In fact, a helper often possesses greater ability than the one being helped! Therefore, this verse does not declare women to be assistants to their husbands, but shows that men and women are to share the same mission equally and support each other.
Another claim is that the man’s authority over the woman is indicated by the fact that he was created first and named her. But what does either of these facts have to do with authority? Besides, the animals were created before the man; does this mean they have authority over him?
Complementarians also find significance in the fact that God confronts the man first for eating the fruit, and then the woman. Again, however, there is no reason to assume any hidden meaning behind this order of confrontation. And it’s worth noting that God spoke to each of them individually, rather than just the man, as we would expect if a husband were his wife’s “spiritual covering” and somehow responsible for her.
Finally, one fact misunderstood (or ignored) by the complementarian position is that God’s declaration that the man would rule over the woman was part of the curse. Complementarianism attempts to argue that male authority was in place from the beginning and that the fall merely caused it to become overbearing, but this is simply wishful thinking. There is nothing in the text to indicate this. In fact, there is nothing in the entire Genesis account of the first man and woman that would indicate male authority! If complementarians have no problem with using weed-killer to overcome the curse on the ground, or pain-killers to overcome the curse of pain in childbirth, then they should have no problem with full equality in marriage as an antidote to the curse of husbands ruling over their wives, something Genesis makes clear God never intended.
Titus 2:3-5
"Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home....”
1 Timothy 5:14
“Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach...”
Despite the fact that these are the only two verses in the entire Bible that would seem to instruct women to be homemakers and not work outside of the home, this view of the role of women is a significant pillar of the complementarian position. However, the main point of the text is not that women should stay at home, but that they should be self-controlled and pure rather than lazy and wandering around gossiping and wasting time. In that culture and time, it was already expected that women would not have careers and would keep the home, so they would not have had any other option. To interpret these verses as offering a countercultural command is to act as though Paul were writing in 21st century America. Paul’s instruction to keep the home (or be “busy at home” according to some translations) didn’t mean all women for all time must be homemakers. Rather, he was contrasting working at home to not working at all (being idle). The underlying principle is that women ought to be productive. In today’s culture, having a career or pursuing an education are valid ways of fulfilling this command.
After all, let’s not forget that when Mary sat down to learn from Jesus, while Martha busied herself keeping the house, it was Mary whom Jesus praised!
1 Cor. 11:3
The idea that husbands are in authority over their wives is based entirely on the assumption that “headship” that means “authority.” Because of so much popular teaching on the subject, it’s likely many people really do believe the Bible teaches that husbands have such authority.
But the most important point we must understand about this verse is that those who see it as establishing the authority of men over women are reading the Bible as if it were written in English and in the 21st century. We are accustomed to “head” meaning “leader” or “boss”, but this is not what it meant to the Greeks. To read it in this way is to assert that no one was able to understand what Paul really meant until 1,500 years later when the Bible was finally translated into English! In fact, the Greeks did not even consider the head to be the part of the body responsible for thinking, reasoning, and making decisions; they believed it was the heart that was responsible for these functions. In Greek, the word for “head”, kephale, was used as a metaphor for “source” or “supplier of life.” This is clearly the way the word is used in Ephesians 4:15:
“Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.”
and in Colossians 2:19:
“They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.”
The point here is that men, who in that culture had greater social status and privileges, were to use those privileges to care for their wives and treat them as equals, rather than taking advantage of those privileges to rule over them. In this way, this command is actually part of Paul’s command to husbands to love their wives! The verse may also be referencing to the fact that woman was made from man in the Genesis creation account (but, as I argued above, there is nothing inherent in that fact that implies men have authority over women).
The order in which each relationship appears in this passage also indicates that “source” rather than “authority” is the sense in which “head” is being used. If Paul were trying to indicate a chain of command, it would have made more sense to say that God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the head of woman. Instead, it appears in chronological order: man (and everything else) was created through Christ (see Colossians 1:16), then woman was made from man, and finally God sent Christ to the world.
In fact, there is no mention of authority in this entire chapter, except for verse 10, which speaks of the woman’s own authority (“Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”). Some modern translations add the idea that this has to do with man’s authority over her, such as the Living Bible (“So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under man’s authority”). But the literal rendering of the verse is “For this cause ought the woman to have power on (her) head.” Once again, any reference to male authority is not found in the original text but has been added later by those who wish to twist the Bible to say what they think it should say.
In the following verse (11:11), Paul says “However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.” Paul then says that while woman originally came from man, since that time man has always come from woman, and we all come from God anyway. It could not be more clear that he is saying we should not make too much out of all this headship stuff, and keep in mind that men and women need each other, while both are dependent on God. The full equality of men and women could not be more explicit.
Eph. 5:22-24
“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”
There are multiple points to be made about this verse. The first is that submission does not mean obedience! But, for a moment, let’s assume the command to submit does mean to obey. If this were so, it would be important to note that both Roman and Jewish law already required wives to obey their husbands. Therefore, to the original audience theses verses would have been nothing new. In this case, they would make the most sense as a command to Christians to live as respectable members of society by following social customs (to the extent possible) in order to avoid turning off the unsaved by their behavior. In fact, Paul’s instructions to wives to submit are fairly watered down for that time and place. While the Roman laws instructed men on how to rule or govern their wives, Paul focuses on telling husbands how to love them(and spends far more time on this than on the brief instructions to wives). He never tells husbands to rule, exercise authority over, or make decisions for their wives. Instead, husbands are commanded to lay down for their wives not only their social privileges and status but their life, as well as to love, honor, and care for them. I can’t think of a greater example of submission than this!
Also, just a few verses later in Ephesians 6:5 (as well as in Colossians 3:22), slaves are told to obey their masters. If telling wives to submit to their husbands is approval (or a command) from God that husbands have authority over their wives, then for the sake of consistency we would also need to interpret the verses about slaves must be interpreted as approval (or a command) from God that people own slaves! But, of course, in this case complementarians suddenly become more open to the idea that Bible verses must be understood in light of the culture in which they were written and being applicable not directly, but according to their underlying principle.
However, as I said, submission is not the same as obedience. More extreme versions of complementarianism teach that wives are to obey their husbands’ commands (in the same way children obey their parents), but no command is ever given to wives in the Bible to OBEY their husbands. Children are told to obey their parents, and even slaves to obey their masters (Eph. 6:1-9; also Col. 3:20-22), but wives are never told to obey their husbands.
Submission has a different and deeper meaning (and wider application) than obedience. To submit is to give up having your own way for the sake of others, to prefer others over yourself, to place the needs of another above your own and take a deferential position. Of course, all believers (not just women) are given these commands throughout the New Testament. For example:
Romans 12:10: “Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor…”
Philippians 2:3: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves…”
Matthew 20:25-28: “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.’”
Ephesians 5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Are we really supposed to believe that these commands usually apply to all believers, but must be dropped when it comes to husbands in relation to their wives? The Christ-like way to live is in submission to others, and there is nothing more contrary to the spirit of what Jesus taught than the idea that a certain class of people should rule over others simply by virtue of who they are.
Not only that, immediately following these verses is the command for husbands to love their wives. If complementarians insist that the command to submit applies only to wives (and husbands do not have a similar obligation), would they also suggest that only husbands should love their wives, and wives have no similar obligation? Obviously they don’t suggest this. So why do they assume love ought to be mutual, but submission ought to be one-sided?
Another reason these verses support mutual submission (and reject unilateral submission) is the fact that the word for “submit” does not even occur in verse 22. In Greek, it literally says “wives, to your own husbands…” It borrows the word “submit” from the previous verse, in which all believers are told to submit to each other. Clearly, this kind of submission has nothing to do with authority or obedience, since would not be possible for people to submit to each other in that sense.
Finally, there are verses that clearly command mutual submission between husband and wife. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:4 says, “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” The Greek word for “body”, soma, generally was used in the first century to encompass an individual’s entire personhood, and was not necessarily limited to the physical body. I’m not sure how much more explicitly mutual submission could be communicated.
In light of all this, it would seem there is no biblical basis for anything other than complete equality between husbands and wives in marriage. Both have equal authority, equal access to God, and equal roles in decision-making. And, as I argued in part 2, this is good news, since I believe such a marriage will be far more healthy than one in which the man rules over the woman for no reason. For any who would continue to insist on a hierarchical marriage, what exactly is this idea based on?
Conclusion
Though it wasn’t possible to cover every possible argument, I believe I have presented the essential points in support of biblical egalitarianism. Too often, the gender roles issue is viewed through modern eyes; it is assumed that the complementarian position must be correct because it is so counter to our modern culture. But we must understand the reason behind the commands that seem to support complementarianism. The primary concern of the early church was not to be as different as possible, but to fit in wherever possible (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). The church leaders urged Christians to conform to cultural norms (as long as this did not entail sin) to avoid creating a stumbling block for people who may be open to the Gospel but would be turned off by what they considered to be subversive behavior. This is why Christian slaves were told to obey their masters, and all Christians were told to obey the government. If the early Christians were seen as law-breakers and socially disruptive, it would have reflected poorly on the Gospel and Christianity may never have gotten off the ground.
Now, however, our culture is very different from first-century Rome. These verses urged obedience to existing authorities and customs but did not establish who those authorities and what those customs ought to be. This is the ultimate irony of the complementarian position: they believe they are rejecting secular culture and obeying the Bible, when in fact they are not obeying the Bible but are following the societal structure and laws of 1st century Rome!
In the end, the case for gender roles comes down to nothing more than a few isolated verses and a lot of “we’ve always done it this way.” A doctrine that subordinates an entire class of people to another must be required to have more support than four or five proof-texts containing translational and contextual ambiguities, especially considering that the rest of the Bible clearly teaches the equality of men and women.
Besides the potential harm to members of the body of Christ, insistence on traditional gender roles also may cause non-believers to be turned off from Christianity unnecessarily. We must take great care not to create such obstacles when they are not even part of Christianity in the first place.
I have argued that it is impossible to restrict women from certain roles without declaring them to be inherently of lesser value or ability than men; that families and churches will be healthier if men and women work together instead of men arbitrarily ruling over women; and that unbiased study of the Bible reveals that the few verses used to support gender roles have been twisted and misused. Men and women equally reflect the image of God. All believers are “priests” before God (regardless of gender). Jesus is the only mediator between God and humanity. Under the new covenant, there is full spiritual equality for men and women. In light of all this, there is no room for universal hierarchies or principles of male rule. The egalitarian position simply is a much better fit with the entire Bible and the Gospel. We have left discrimination based on social class and race in the past where they belong. It’s time we do the same with discrimination based on gender. God does not command or approve of it, and neither should we.
(Note: If you would like to know more about this topic, I highly recommend the book Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. It is a well-researched, well-argued case for complete equality for women and men in the family and in the church. I relied on it heavily for this blog series, particularly when discussing cultural backgrounds and the original Greek and Hebrew.)
