Evolution, Creation, and the Bible: Part 9
Before anything on the issue of male headship and other such gender roles are to be discussed, it must be noted that
[w]hen God created man, he created both “male and female” in his image (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-2). Men and women are made equally in God’s image, and both men and women reflect God’s character in their lives. This means that we should see aspects of God’s character reflected in each other’s lives. If we lived in a society consisting of only Christian men or a society consisting of only Christian women, we would not gain as full a picture of the character of God as when we see both godly men and women in their complementary differences together reflecting the beauty of God’s character.[1]
Likewise, if men and women are made equally in God’s image, he considers them to both be of equal worth and dignity. As Grudem continues, “The fact that both men and women are said by Scripture to be ‘in the image of God’ should exclude all feelings of pride or inferiority and any idea that one sex is ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other.”[2] “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, emphasis added). The difference, then, between males and females in Christendom is in the role that each sex plays in the home and in the Church. And this, by the Apostle Paul in particular, is made manifest in Scripture.
These teachings of male headship both in the home and in the Church, as noted, were considered to be important and utterly dependent upon the creation event by the Apostle Paul. In various texts, Paul and other New Testament authors declare that the husband is to be the leader in marriage and in the Church. “For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (Ephesians 5:23). “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands” (1 Peter 3:1). “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:12-14; see also cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34; Ephesians 5:28, 33; Colossians 3:19; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:7).
It is important to note, as Paul does, that male headship is rooted in the creation. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” The Genesis account displays this idea very explicitly in several ways. First, as mentioned, Genesis recalls that Adam was created before Eve (Genesis 2:7, 18-23). This notion is also “consistent with the Old Testament pattern of ‘primogeniture,’ the idea that the firstborn in any generation in a human family has leadership in the family for that generation.”[3] Second, Eve’s role is made explicit: she was created as a helper for Adam. “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’” (Genesis 2:18). Paul concurs: “Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Corinthians 11:9). Third, God spoke to Adam first after the Fall, even though he was, in fact, not the first to sin. “But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ And he said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself’” (Genesis 3:9-10). This indicates that God saw Adam as responsible not only for his own sin, but that of his wife as well. It was Adam’s responsibility to lead his wife in godliness (cf. Ephesians 5:25-27). Fourth and as mentioned earlier, Adam similarly represented the human race in the Fall. Again, even though Adam was not the first to sin, mankind imputes his sinfulness from Adam, not Eve. “For as in Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “[M]any died through one man’s trespass” (Romans 5:15).[4]
So what does all this have to do with evolution? Hopefully, the logical flow is already evident. Evolutionary theory completely undermines male headship because no creation event exists. Such a doctrine cannot exist within such a naturalistic worldview. Unlike the Biblical narrative, in evolution male and female homo sapiens must appear at the same time. As a species, homo sapiens are unable to do anything but appear simultaneously. Without simultaneous appearance in the tree of life, there can be no reproduction, and, thus, no species continuation. Consequently, for a theistic evolutionist, not only does the historicity of Genesis 1-11 come into question, but also the credibility of the New Testament authors. If evolution is true, then Paul and Peter have based their theology of complementarianism on a lie. Their theology is, in such a view, not based on an historical event, but tradition or something else. But this further undermines the general witness of Scripture (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18).
Equally important for the view of male headship is, again, the historicity of the Fall. If man is not in a fallen state but in his natural animalistic state, he has no reason to “love [his wife], as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” or to “sanctify her…by the washing of water with the word” (Ephesians 5:25-26). Without the Genesis 3 narrative, this admonishment is much more nonsensical.
[1] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: InterVarsity P, 1994. 456, emphasis his.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid. 461.
[4] Ibid. 454-471.
Leave a Reply