Talking heads - male headship in marriage as part of creation?

I believe that 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.

Further I think Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin.

In a marriage lived according to these truths, the love between husband and wife will show itself in listening to each other's viewpoints, valuing each other's gifts, wisdom, and desires, honouring one another in public and in private, and always seeking to bring benefit, not harm, to one another.

Now is this belief in different roles from creation proven in Scripture? Here are 10 indications which I would ask you to consider.

1. The order

Adam was created first, then Eve (Genesis 2.7, 18-23) We may not see that as a big deal, but Paul sees it as important (1 Timothy 2.13). It is the basis for his teaching on how men and women relate in church. He begins with creation.

2. The purpose

Eve was created 'for Adam,' not Adam for Eve (Genesis 2.18). 'Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man' (1 Corinthians 11.9).

Paul sees this as important, too. It supports his teaching that men and women should dress differently in church.

3. The naming of woman

Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called (q r ') Woman, because she was taken out of Man.' (Genesis 2.23).

In the Old Testament the act of naming would have been seen as a leadership function.

4. Naming the human race

God named the human race 'man,' not 'woman'. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man (' d m) when they were created. (Genesis 5.2).

R. C. Ortlund says in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood that this name 'whispers male headship'.

5. The primary accountability

God spoke to Adam first after the fall (Genesis 3.9). For example, when a group of children cause a mess in a room, we would first ask the oldest child: 'What happened?'

6. The representation

Adam, not Eve, represented the human race. Remember who sinned first? Eve. We would think that we inherit sin because of Eve's sin. But biblically, that is not so.

'For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Corinthians 15.22).

7. The conflict

The curse brought a distortion of previous roles, not the introduction of new roles: (Genesis 3.16): 'To the woman he said, 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'.' (NIV)

Here are two Hebrew words: t shžq h ('desire') and m shal ('rule').

t shžq h means 'desire to rule' as it means in Genesis 4.7. We could translate, Genesis 3.16 therefore, 'Your desire will be against your husband . . .'

m shal means to rule by virtue of greater strength or power. This word is used of God ruling over the universe, also of Philistines ruling over Israel.

The conclusion must be, that in the curse, God gave pain to Adam's special area of responsibility. He brought thorns to the ground, in sweat of face he would eat bread. And he brought pain to Eve's special area of responsibility, pain in childbirth and then brought pain to their relationship. Eve would try to rule over Adam, he would respond with greater force and would rule over her.

The rest of the Bible is the story of God working to remove the results of the curse (ultimately, death) from the people whom he would redeem.

Another reason why this interpretation seems to be correct is that the New Testament removes the wife's desire to usurp leadership, and the husband's harsh rule by his greater power, and restores the creation order of equal dignity with differences in role.

8. The restoration

New Testament salvation in Christ reaffirms the creation order: 'Wives, be subject to your husbands', (reversing Genesis 3.16, t shžq h), as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them', reversing Genesis 3.16, m shal (Col. 3.18-19, RSV).

9. The mystery

The relationship between Christ and the church: 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church . . . Ephesians 5.1-32).

When Paul wanted to find an OT pattern for marriage he went all the way back to Genesis 2, before the Fall and quoted Genesis 2.24, then said 'this is a great mystery'. Mystery in Paul is something not well understood in OT, but that Paul now makes known. In other words, Adam and Eve represented Christ and the church in their relationship.

They may not have known it at the time. But they were created to represent relationship between Christ and the church, and that is what all marriages are supposed to do.

Now that relationship is not culturally variable. And it is not reversible. There is a leadership role for the husband that the wife does not have.

10. The Trinity

The equality and differences between men and women reflect the equality and differences in the Trinity.

This is at the heart of the controversy and shows why much more is at stake than the meaning of a few words, or verses, or even than how we live in marriages. Here, we are talking about the nature of God. 'Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God' (1 Corinthians 11.3, NIV).

The idea of headship and submission did not begin with a few patriarchal men in Old Testament times. It did not begin with Adam and Eve's fall into sin (Genesis 3). It did not even begin with the creation of Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-2).

The idea of headship and submission began before creation in the relationship between Father and Son in the Trinity. The Father has a leadership role, an authority to initiate and direct, that the Son does not have (Ephesians 1.4; Romans 8:29 (etc.); 1 Corinthians 15.28; John 3.16 (!). Their roles are different in creation (John 1:2 etc.), and in redemption.

The idea of headship and submission never began! It has always existed in the eternal nature of God himself and in this most basic of all authority relationships.

This authority is not based on gifts or ability. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equal in attributes and perfections. It is just there. Authority belongs to the Father, not because he is a wiser or more skilful leader, but just because he is the Father.

Authority and submission between the Father and the Son, and between both Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the fundamental difference between the persons of the Trinity. They don't differ in any attributes but in how they relate to each other, and that relationship is one of leadership and authority and voluntary, willing, joyful submission.

We can learn from this that submission to a rightful authority is a noble virtue, a privilege and something good and desirable. It is the virtue that has been demonstrated by the eternal Son of God forever. It is his glory - glory of the Son as he relates to his Father.

We tend to think, 'If you are in authority, that's good. But if you submit to an authority, that's bad.' But that's the world's viewpoint. It's not true.

Submission to a rightful authority is a good and noble and wonderful thing. It reflects the interpersonal relationships within God himself.

This allows there to be interpersonal differences without judgment as to who is better or worse, more important and less important.

I am deeply troubled by the anti-authority trends in Western culture. Even in the Christian world there are those who seem to have a deep dislike of authority.

Brothers and sisters, when we begin to dislike the concept of authority and submission (not distortions and abuses, but the very idea), we are tampering with something very deep. We are beginning to dislike God himself.

Egalitarianism?

Now this creates a problem for egalitarian friends within the church. They say 'If we accept male headship, then men and women can't be equal, or, if men and women are equal, you can't have male headship'.

But I say that you can have both. Look at the Trinity.

To get round the argument I have presented, some prominent egalitarians have taken a very troubling direction.

Gilbert Bilezikian and Stanley Grenz have proposed 'mutual submission' in the Trinity. They say the Father also submits to the Son. But no Scripture passage says this, and this has never been the orthodox teaching of the church through 2,000 years. It seems that so deep is their commitment to egalitarian roles of men and women in marriage, that they will tamper with the doctrine of the Trinity if necessary to maintain it.

So here are at least 10 reasons (some 'whisper,' some 'shout') showing what I believe in the complementarian view of men and women. We are equal in value but have differing roles and this goes back before the Fall.

Practical postscript

How does this work in practice, in my own marriage?

Margaret and I talk frequently and at length about many decisions. I often defer to her wishes, and she often defers to mine, because we love each other. In almost every case, each of us has some wisdom and insight that the other does not have, and we have learned to listen to each other and to place much trust in each other's judgment. Usually we reach agreement on the decision. Very seldom will I do something that she doesn't think is wise. She prays, she loves God, she is sensitive to the Lord's leading and direction, and I greatly respect her and the wisdom God gives her.

But in every decision, whether large or small, and whether we have reached agreement or not, the responsibility to make the decision still rests with me. It is not because I am wiser or a more gifted leader. It is because I am the husband, and God has given me that responsibility.

In the face of cultural pressures to the contrary, I will not forsake this male headship. I will not deny this male headship. I will not be embarrassed by it. It is something that is God-given, it is very good, it brings peace and joy to our marriage, and both Margaret and I are thankful for it.

Now how does it work? It's a challenge, because we can err on one side or the other, either abusing power or refusing to take responsibility. You know your own personalities and tendencies. Some tend to err in one direction, some in another. We need to keep in God's Word, praying day by day, for God's grace to maintain the biblical balance.

These are notes of a lecture given by Dr. Grudem at a conference sponsored by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Woman-hood, held at the King's Centre, Chessington, in June 2000.