Roberto Badenas
Scripture presents marriage as a unique relationship intended by God to be a blessing to the human race. Within marriage males and females take on new roles, that of husbands and wives. But these roles cannot be reduced to a mere question of gender and sex. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, and therefore whatever roles these two per-sons may assume they will be necessarily affected by their personalities, history, background, and culture.
Since some roles traditionally assigned to husband and wife are debated,1 and others seem determined by culture, it is important, in the context of a theology of marriage, to search for biblical guidelines on the issues of gender roles. The aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between husband and wife in marriage, in the light of the Bible.2 We will survey the basic biblical texts on marital roles following as much as possible the canonical order.
The interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis has played a decisive influence, both in Jewish and Christian traditions, on the theological un-derstanding of gender roles in marriage. “No other text in the Bible or in any other sacred writings has influenced the image of the woman in Chris-tianity as much as the first three chapters of the Bible.”3 There is agreement on the point that Genesis 1 and 2 provide the first and essential revelation of God’s purpose for the couple. However, there is disagreement regarding God’s original plan for gender roles.
The idea of a hierarchical superiority of males over females is affirmed by some on the basis of a supposed superordination of the man and a subordina-tion of the woman in the creation account (Gen 1:26, 27),4 and on God’s state-ment to the woman after the Fall (Gen 3:16).5 Others see in the creation pas-sages a divine project for equality and mutuality in the marriage relationship.
The text of Genesis 1:26–31 broadly describes the creation of the first two human beings. It states that both man and woman were equally created in God’s image, although sexually different; “male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27; Matt 19:4–6).6 The text continues by declaring that God blessed both of them and gave them the same assignments: procreation and dominion over creation, without making any difference between man and woman. Only plural pronouns are used. No roles that are specific to male or female are described at this moment. Besides the biological distinctiveness and complementary functions naturally related to their sex, both the male and the female are given equal status, rights, and tasks: sharing jointly the responsibilities of bearing and rearing children, and having dominion over the created order as co-regents. The so-called “cultural mandate” is the same for both.7
Genesis 2:7–25 describes the creation of the first couple in more detail. A number of scholars see in this passage a divinely ordained hierarchical subordination of women to men invoking four main arguments: that man was created first, that the woman was created for the sake of man, that she was created from man’s rib, and that she was named by the man.
Many commentators of Genesis 2 see the fact that man was created first as an ordinance of divine creation for the submission of wives to husbands, and therefore of women to men.8 It has been inferred from this fact that to be created first gives an undeniable priority, at least chronological, to man, together with a sense of responsibility and protection over what comes after.9 On the broad basis of several Jewish and Christian traditions, these scholars have passed on the idea that the woman, created after the man, as the epilogue of Creation, is destined to serve her husband and submit to him, even before the Fall.10
But taking advantage of the weakness of this argument (if the fact of being created first was to give by itself any special superiority, then the logical conclusion would be that humans should submit to animals), some modern commentators see the creation of the woman as the culmination and “crowning conclusion” of Creation and, therefore, a proof of superiority of women over men.11
A careful study of the literary structure of Genesis 2 reveals that the main subject, the creation of man and woman, is presented at the beginning and end of the chapter as an inclusio. The story of the creation of man at the beginning of the pericope (Gen 2:7) is completed with the narrative of the creation of the woman at the end (Gen 2:21–23). The creation of man at the beginning and the creation of the woman at the end form a chiasmus, in which both beings are put in parallel. This disposition does not put less value on the woman.12 The context of the whole narrative speaks of equality and partnership rather than “culmination” or “crowning.” “The movement in Genesis 2 if anything is not from superior to inferior, but from incompleteness to completeness.”13
Another argument invoked to affirm the subordination of women to men is the word “helper” (‘ēzer) applied to the woman in Genesis 2:18. While man is still alone, God announces His project of giving to him a “helper” (Gen 2:18–20). To this end, while the man sleeps God takes a rib out of his chest and makes the woman (Gen 2:21–23). From this narrative it has been inferred that if the main role of the woman is to be the helper of man then her status is subordinate to that of the man, “because the very nature of a helping role presupposes submission.”14
But we observe that the Hebrew word for “helper” (‘ēzer) appears twenty-seven more times in the Old Testament15 and that in seventeen of these references, this help and support is ascribed to a superior, even to God Himself.16 In none of these references does ‘ēzer indicate subordination. The term describes a relationship, where the “helped” one is the object of a benefit. Rather than subordination of woman and superiority of man, this phrase evokes the advantages of complementary help. Both man and woman need assistance and support from each other, not only for reproduction, but also for the control of nature, and for personal fulfillment.17 “Man has been created by God in a way that requires both to give and to receive help, to the point that helping becomes an integral part of humanity.”18
At the same time, the intended “help” is qualified by the term kĕnegdô (preposition k plus the term neged plus suffix ô), an expression that may be translated by “similar to him.” Since the term neged means “vis-a-vis,” or “counterpart,” it would be correct to translate kĕnegdô as “as his equivalent,” or “as his partner.”19 Without the partnership of the woman, man’s happiness would never be complete, for nothing else would satisfy his needs of affection, intimacy, and company. God gave him a partner perfectly fitted for him. The woman responds to a double desire: God’s and man’s. No other being would be able to provide to the man the kind of love he needed. “To the mutual help corresponds the mutual equivalence … in all that constitutes a shared life.”20 Since the term ‘ēzer may also express the notion of “strength,” in a phrase meaning “a force (or a capacity) equivalent to his,”21 it becomes difficult to conclude from this argument any ontological difference between man and woman.
A third reason advanced in favor of a subordinate status of the woman with respect to man is the fact that the woman was created out of the man’s rib.22 This view would argue on the basis that, since the existence of the first woman depended on an existing man, the existence of women is forever dependent and subordinate to men.
That the creation account states that the woman was created from the man cannot be denied, but nothing in this fact implies that she is subordinate to him. The man’s rib was the basic material out of which God “built” the woman23—as a piece of clay was the basic material out of which man was made. This means that human beings share the very same flesh and nature since they were created to live as partners. As it has been rightly explained, the woman was created from a rib of the man because she was not intended to dominate him or to be oppressed by him. She was intended “to stand by his side as an equal,” to be protected and loved.24 Therefore it would seem that the creation of woman from man is meant to stress once more their equal status, underlining the fact that both share the same human substance.
A fourth reason invoked in the discussion about the superiority of man over woman is based on the fact that Adam named the woman as he also named the animals (Gen 2:19, 20).
This argument operates on the assumption, supported by some cases in the Bible, that individuals who name others take authority over them. For example, Pharaoh Neco establishes Eliakim king of Judah and changes his name to Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 23:34). In this case, through this process of naming, the defeated enemy somehow becomes the property of the suzerain. There are other historical examples showing that a change of name may be linked to dependence and dominion (cf. Dan 1:7 and Num 6:27). The individual who received the new name was placed under the authority of the name giver.
In Genesis 2:23, however, we observe that at this stage the woman does not receive a new name. She is just called ’iššâ, “woman,” a gender designation in acknowledgment that she was the female of man (’îš). Only later, after the Fall, will Adam call his wife Eve (“living”), because she would be “the mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). The naming of the woman by the man comes after the Fall, in an already changed relationship, where the name given designates not who the woman was (an equal partner in the dominion of the earth) but delimits her role as “mother.”
A closer study of the grammar of our text reveals that the verbal form used in the phrase “she will be called woman” is passive (Niphal in Hebrew). It should be observed that Genesis 2:23 contains two “divine passives” in parallel: “she shall be called Woman” and “she was taken out of Man,” implying that the one who names the woman is God and not the man.25
On the basis of these observations we may conclude that Genesis 2 does not contain any conclusive argument in favor of a hierarchical view of the sexes at Creation, before the Fall. No indications are given for submission of woman to man, not for headship of the husband over the wife, and even less for any form of superiority of men over women.
The creation account provides additional hints on the original equality between man and woman. In Genesis 2:23, when the man sees his wife for the first time, he exclaims: “This at last is bone of my bones [‘eṣem] and flesh of my flesh [bāśār].” This type of sentence with paired phrasing is frequently used in Hebrew poetry to express the totality of an idea.26 Both ‘eṣem and bāśār have a double meaning, which may be interesting for the interpretation of this text. The first term, ‘eṣem, essentially means “bone, skeleton” (cf. Exod 12:46; Hab 3:16) but also “durability,” “force” and “efficiency.”27 The bones stand for what is stable (cf., e.g., Isa 58:11).28 The second term of this twin phrase, bāśār, also has a double meaning. Besides “flesh” (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 5:14) and “body” (cf., e.g., Ezek 11:19; Eccl 12:12), bāśār also designates that which is “vulnerable and fragile.”29 The phrase “bone of my bones (‘eṣem), and flesh of my flesh (bāśār)” highlights, therefore, in the context of Genesis 2:23, two essential characteristics of the human being that are shared in marriage: “durability” and “fragility,” embracing the complete spectrum of human relationships with their strengths and weaknesses.30 In other places in the Old Testament, the dual phraseology of “bones” and “flesh” is used in the context of a covenant in which two partners express their total engagement, their putting together their similarities and differences in gifts and capacities for mutual help and support.31
The covenantal character of marriage as a partnership of equals is also affirmed by the wording of Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The Hebrew word for “cleaving” (dābaq) is used in covenantal contexts, both for human relationships and for the relationship between God and man.32 The term “one flesh” stresses the oneness of the new situation of the two spouses in marriage.
We may conclude this part saying that the project of God at the beginning, according to the creation narrative, put man and woman in marriage as equals, with the same privileges and value. Nothing is said about one of the two partners having authority over the other. Nothing is said on role distinctions. In this covenant relationship husband and wife were intended to complement each other (“to become one”) and to enrich each other mutually by their differences, allowing them to give life to a new family.
__________
1 While the discussion on gender issues has often focused on the ordination of women to the ministry, this paper will not discuss the ordination of women. For Adventist perspectives on the subject see The Welcome Table: Setting a Place for Ordained Women, eds. Patricia A. Habada and Rebecca F. Brillhart (Langley Park, MD: Team Press, 1995); Nancy Vhymeister Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, ed. Nancy Vhymeister (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1998); Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry, ed. Mercedes H. Dyer (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Affirm, 2000).
2 Literature on this is so abundant that we will limit our quotations to a few significant contributions. See among others: W. Peter Blitchington, Sex Roles and the Christian Family (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1980); Diana S. Richmond Garland and David E. Garland, Beyond Companionship—Christians in Marriage (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003); R. M. Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997); P. Gundry, Heirs Together (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980); M. Harper, Equal and Different: Male and Female in Church and Family (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1994); John C. Howell, Equality and Submission in Marriage (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1979); Donald M. Joy and Robbie B. Joy, Two Become One: God’s Blueprint for Couples (Nappanee, IN: Evangel, 2002); G. W. Knight, The Role Relationship of Men and Women, rev. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1985); W. Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective, trans. G. J. Wenham (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1990); V. N. Olsen, The New Relatedness for Man and Woman in Christ: A Mirror of the Divine (Loma Linda, CA: University Press, 1993); Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, eds. J. Piper and W. Grudem (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991); Christian Perspectives on Sexuality and Gender, eds., E. Stuart and A. Thatcher (Leominster, MA: Gracewing, 1996).
3 Helen Schungel-Straumann, Die Frau am Anfang: Eva und die Folgen (Freiburg: Herder, 1989), 5; cf. C. Dohmen, “Theologische Frauenforschung als Faktor der Erneuerung christlicher Sozialethik,” Jahrbuch für christliche Sozialwissenschaften 34 (1993), 152. On the structure and basic content of this part we follow mainly Friedbert Ninow, “Die Stellung der Frau: Gedanken zum ursprünglichen Design in Genesis 2,” Aller Diener III (1995), 4–17.
4 This position was traditionally advocated by the Catholic Church, Calvin, and his followers, among many others. Cf. John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses called Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 217–218.
5 This second position was preferred by Luther and some of his followers, among many others. See Martin Luther, “Commentaries on 1 Corinthians 7,” in Luther’s Works 28, ed. H. C. Oswald (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1973), 276.
6 Bible texts are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) if not otherwise indicated.
7 See a very stimulating study on the translation of “the adam” here as “the human species” and not as a proper male name, in Donald M. Joy, “On splitting the Adam,” in Bonding: Relationships in the Image of God (Nappanee, IN: Evangel, 1985), 20–31.
8 E.g., Carl. F. Keil, The First Book of Moses (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmann, 1949), 1:89.
9 The argument that “Adam was formed first, then Eve,” invoked by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14, implies for some that the order of creation has to be understood in the sense of subordination of woman to man (e.g., Douglas J. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11–15: Meaning and significance,” Trinity Journal (1980): 65–67. For others however, it refers to the “importance for men and women to remain and work together as they confront deception.” (A. M. Rodríguez, Jewelry in the Bible [Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1999]), 87–88.
10 According to the Talmud, during the ceremony of presentation of a girl, the father was taught to pronounce the blessing “Praised be Thou, Adonai our God, King of the universe … because you have not made me to be born woman … nor slave.” TB Menahot 43b; cf. Arthur F. Ide, Woman in Ancient Israel Under the Torah and Talmud (Mesquite, TX: Ide Hause, 1982), 1ff. According to another Talmudic tradition, only through marriage may the husband transform his wife into a “useful vessel” (TB Sanhedrin 22b).
11 See P. Trible, “Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41 (1973): 36.
12 John McKenzie, “The Literary Characteristics of Gen 2–3,” Theological Studies 15 (1954), 559.
13 Richard Davidson, “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture,” in Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives, ed. N. Vyhmeister (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1998), 261; cf. “The Theology of Sexuality—In the Beginning: Gen 1–2,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 26 (1988), 14–15.
14 S. Bacchiocchi, “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture,” in Prove All Things: A Response to Women in Ministry
15 See Koehler & Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon, 3rd edition (Leiden: Brill, 1983).
16 Example: “My father’s God was my helper (‘zr); he saved me from the sword of Pharaoh” (Exod 18:4b NIV); “Oh house of Israel, trust in the Lord! He is their help (‘zr) and shield” (Ps 115:9). Five times ‘zr is a proper name (e.g., 1 Chr 4:4) and five other times the term is used for people who are the object of help (e.g., Isa 30:5).
17 The book of Ecclesiastes (4:9–12) expresses this idea of mutual help in the following terms: “Two are better than one … For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone?”
18 Claus Westermann, “Genesis,” Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament, vol. 1/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974), 309.
19 Francis Brown, The New Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, 1981), 617. In the New American Standard Bible (1973), the text has “suitable for him,” and in the margin it has the alternative reading of “corresponding to him.”
20 Westermann, 309–310.
21 See R. Freedman, “Woman. A Power Equal to Man,” Biblical Archaeology Review 9:1 (1983), 56–58.
22 See Bacchiocchi, “Headship,” 74–76, and The Marriage Covenant, 31.
23 The Hebrew word used in Gen 2:22 is bnh. The woman was not just formed, but “built” like an architectural masterpiece. The use of bnh implies intellectual and aesthetic values, conveying the ideas of beauty, stability and permanence. Cf. Samuel Terrien, Till the Heart Sings (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1985), 12.
24 According to Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1958), 29, “Eve was created from a rib taken from the side of Adam, signifying that she was not to control him as the head, nor to be trampled under his feet as an inferior, but to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him. As part of man, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, she was his second self, showing the close union and the affectionate attachment that should exist in this relation.” In Patriarchs and Prophets, 52, the same author adds, “In the Creation God has made her [Eve] the equal of Adam.”
25 See Jacques Doukhan, “The Literary Structure of the Genesis Creation Story,” AUSS 5 (1978), 46–47.
26 See Stanley Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963).
27 See James Muilenberg, “Introduction to the Exegesis of Isaiah 40–66,” Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1984), 5:683.
28 See Othmar Keel, Die Welt der Altorientalischen Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament (Zürich, 1972), 57.
29 This idea is particularly underlined in statements where the vulnerability of the human beings is compared with the immutable essence of God, e.g., Jeremiah 17:5; Psalm 56:5.
30 Some observe that the mention of “bones and flesh” in Genesis 2:23 may already forecast a certain shadow on the marriage formula “for better or worse.” The relationship between man and woman will indeed be affected by the Fall with decisive consequences. Cf. Walter Brueggeman, “Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen 2:23a),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970), 532–542.
31 See, e.g., 2 Samuel 5:1, 2: “Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said: ‘Behold, we are your bone and flesh. In times past, when Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel. And the Lord said to you, <You shall be shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall be prince over Israel>’” With the formula “we are your bone and flesh” as a conclusion to the covenant, the Israelite tribes express their will to acknowledge the authority of David in any circumstances “for the better or the worse” (See also 2 Sam 19:13, 14; Jud 9:2; Gen 29:14). The context shows that this formula does not imply any blood link, but a collective solidarity between brothers.
32 See Deuteronomy 10:20; 11:22; 13:5; Josh 23:8; 1 Kings 11:2; cf. Brueggeman, 538.