"At last, at last Bones of my bones and flesh of my flesh, at last!
You were the brightest shade of sun I had ever seen Your skin was gilded with the gold of the richest kings And like the dawn you woke the world inside of me You were the brightest shade of sun when I saw you..." - Like the Dawn by The Oh Hellos
For those that haven't, last time I made a post about the Aristotelian influence I have noticed coming from those who are part of the complementarian camp. If you haven't had a chance to read it, I recommend you do so. I will likely refer back to that post in this one.
This post turned out to be quite long, as this turned out to be a massive undertaking. I tried to organize it out into sections so that it does not have to be read all in one go.
Here is something important to note. Many of my good friends and family hold to complementarian theology. This post is in no way to point fingers or claim people are silly for holding to such a thing. To do so would would at least in part reflect badly on me too, since for the majority of my life, I considered myself to be complementarian.
I write with the hope to inspire edifying dialogue and thoughtful consideration.
The goal of this post is to look at the theological framework of complementarianism. I hope to portray complementarian theology as accurately as possible and without any misrepresentation.
To do that, I think it's important to look at where complementarianism as we know it today got its start.
Note on bible translations: I will be drawing from different versions of the bible when I quote Scripture. I will be drawing from the NIV due to its familiarity and the NASB when I want a more literal word-for-word translation.
History of Complementarianism
Complementarianism as we know it today is fairly recent. Proponents of complementarian theology like to say the idea has been around throughout church history. That said, let's take a look at how we even came to have this term "complementarian" and the theology we've come to associate with it.
It all started with the formation of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) in 1987. A group of concerned leaders and scholars in the church came together. They were united in their concern about what they perceived to be a spread in unbiblical teaching concerning men and women. The names involved in this group's formation include John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Wayne House, S. Lewis Johnson, James Borland, Susan Foh, and Ken Sarles. (Interestingly, Susan Foh wrote an article in 1975 which proposed a particular translation of Genesis 3:16 which became important to the complementarian position, and later on was adopted by the ESV 2016 translation.)
One of the first things this group of people did was to draft up the Danvers Statement.
This statement was highly influential. This statement lays out the basic affirmations of what would become coined as "complementarian" theology. The Danvers Statement is, as Denny Burk (current president of the CBMW) remarks, "mere complementarianism":
"Complementarianism is first and foremost a theological position rooted in a long history of exegesis of biblical texts such as Genesis 1–3, 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, etc. Complementarianism also has deep roots in natural law, as it reflects a “created order” that 'should find an echo in every human heart' (Danvers Statement, Affirmation 2). In this sense, Danvers complementarianism is mere complementarianism."
In 1991, John Piper and Wayne Grudem's Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism was released (abbreviated here on out as RBMW).
Although the term "complementarian" was first decided on by members of the CBMW in 1988, it was officially coined when Piper and Grudem used the term in the preface of this new book:
"A brief note about terms: If one word must be used to describe our position, we prefer the term complementarian, since it suggest both equality and beneficial differences between men and women."
This book was also highly influential and it became the book to read to get the proper conservative evangelical understanding of men and women.
The book also laid out many of the concerns shared by members of the CBMW about the sort of teaching that was proliferating in the church. A huge concern was (and still is) the authority of Scripture.
This concern is starkly laid out in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:
"At the core of this topic lies the fundamental issue of biblical authority. If we write off, ignore, or distort the Bible's teaching on gender roles, then we are bound to do so with everything the Bible teaches. Indeed, the Bible is so clear on male-female distinction that ministers find it challenging to uphold biblical truth from the pulpit, knowing what kind of reaction they may provoke in hearers who have been steeped in a feminist culture. This is where the manhood-womanhood issue becomes an issue of scriptural authority...
If we deny biblical teaching about manhood and womanhood, the possibility of a definitive interpretation is lost. If we can wrest egalitarianism from the Bible, we can pervert it to say anything we wish....
Egalitarianism must always lead to an eventual denial of the gospel."
Here you can see that much was perceived to be at stake here. This isn't just about recovering biblical manhood and womanhood. This is about the authority of Scripture.
The argument being made here is if you deny what is put forth in the Danvers Statement, you might as well be denying the gospel itself.
Recent Criticism of Complementarianism
I am not the first or last person to offer up a critique of some of what is asserted by proponents of complementarian theology.
What may come as a surprise to readers is that not all criticism of complementarianism is coming from those who identify as egalitarian and/or LGBT+ affirming. There are plenty who do not consider themselves of either camp who are finding problems with complementarian theology. These are typically people who used to call themselves complementarian, but now do not. Some like to refer to themselves as simply "confessional".
A recent example of such a person providing criticism would be Aimee Byrd and her most recent book Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose.
In this book Aimee challenges her readers to ascertain how much influence the church has received from the culture and from people as opposed to Scripture when it comes to the discipleship of men and women in the church.
This book sparked quite a controversy and ended up getting her dropped by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) which had formerly been her platform where she was a co-host on the podcast The Mortification of Spin.
Another example of similar criticism of complementarian theology is Rachel Green Miller's book Beyond Authority and Submission, where similar concerns are addressed. Rachel has also come under fire for the publication of her book. The Theology Gals podcast which is headed by Coleen Sharp joins in with these women's voices and offers such criticism as well which can be seen in some of their episodes.
Of course CBE International has been offering plenty of criticism of complementarianism since its start. Interestingly, CBE International was formed in 1988, around the same time as the formation of the CBMW.
After talking to many self-professed egalitarians who love Jesus and uphold the authority of Scripture, it makes me wonder about the concern stated by those who started the CBMW.
Is this really an issue of Scriptural authority we are seeing when so many critics are people who by all accounts uphold and point to the authority of Scripture?
Are we really losing the gospel, or are we as the church in a historical period of re-examining the traditional beliefs we have long held in order to reclaim the gospel and put it at center?
I cannot help but wonder if proponents of complementarian theology have alienated people by making out complemetarian theology to be a doctrine so inextricably tied to the gospel that perhaps we ought to add the basic affirmations of it to the Apostle's creed or the Nicene creed.
Interestingly, the trend of reclaiming the gospel is one I have seen from critics of complementarian theology from all sorts of camps, whether they be "confessional", egalitarian, and/or LGBT+ affirming.
Let us move on to examine some of the theological claims made by proponents of complementarianism. I will be drawing these directly from the Danvers Statement and the CBMW's summary of the complementarian position.
In the beginning...
Men and women are equally made in the image of God, yet they have distinct God-ordained roles defined by headship (leading, providing, protecting) and submission (yielding, nurturing, receiving) respectively in the home and the church (and many would say in society as a whole) that we can see existing from Scripture even before the Fall.
This is truly complementarianism in a nutshell.
This statement that these distinctions were there even before the Fall is absolutely fundamental, and much of complementarian theology hinges on this fact. This is true especially since proponents of complementarian theology place a large degree of importance and emphasis on the "created order" as we can see it before sin messed everything up.
This emphasis and large degree of importance placed on this idea of "created order" (ie. nature) is something that I believe hearkens back to that Aristotelian influence we examined in my last post.
The first three, especially the second and third, chapters of Genesis are the bedrock foundation for complementarian theology. If it is true that these roles are there before the Fall, we should be able to see them quite clearly in Genesis.
The framework of the first three chapters can be broken down as such:
Chapter one in Genesis gives us the creation of the world and tells us how the world and all the creatures in it came to be. It also shows us how humanity, male and female, are uniquely set apart from all other creation in that we are made in God's image.
Chapter two is a re-telling of the creation narrative, but also gives us narrative on the first marriage, in fact even giving us some commentary on marriage itself (verse 24 "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh").
Chapter three tells us the story of the Fall, but it doesn't leave us there. It also gives us a sneak peak at God's redemptive plan for humanity.
In my last post on Aristotelian philosophy we looked at Genesis one.
Genesis one provides a more concise narrative of God creating the world. In this one we do not get separate accounts for the creation of Adam and Eve. He creates humanity after he is done creating everything else. In this we can see humanity is like the crown of creation:
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1:26-28 (NIV).
Here we see God charges all of humanity, male and female, with ruling the whole of creation. Here we see nothing that lends weight to the complementarian position.
In Genesis two, we get more detail. This time, it is honing in on two people who we come to know by name: Adam and Eve (though she is not named as such until chapter three). Both names carry significance. Adam means, simply, "the man". Eve means "life" or "living".
God forms the man from the dust of the ground and breathes life into him. God puts the man in a garden he has planted and instructs him to work it and take care of it.
But all is not well in this creation where everything else was "very good".
The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18 (NIV).
The problem we see here is primarily Adam's aloneness. It is not good that he is alone. He needs a companion.
God parades the animals before Adam. He names them. Yet no "suitable helper" is found. God then puts Adam to sleep and uses one of his ribs to form a woman. Then the man wakes up and God brings the woman to him. We read:
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man."
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. - Genesis 2:23-25 (NIV).
Chapter two of Genesis might be the most important to the complementarian position. Here we get the most detail before the Fall.
Then comes chapter three, the story of the Fall.
In chapter three of Genesis, we are introduced to the character of the serpent, who we learn is the craftiest of all the beasts of the field God made. The serpent goes to the woman. He asks her if God has prohibited her from eating from any tree in the garden. Eve replies and says they may in fact eat from any tree in the garden, but they may not touch or eat the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden lest they surely die.
We know what happens from there. The serpent tells Eve they will not surely die. Eve eats the fruit and Adam does too. Both realize their nakedness and hide from God. God pronounces the curse, and we can see something truly horrible has happened.
Yet hidden in the pronounced curse, we read this:
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel. - Genesis 3:15 (NASB).
Only after the pronouncement of the curse does Adam, curiously, name his wife "Eve".
Only after we get this message of hope pointing to this mysterious person who will be of the woman's seed and be born of woman do we learn of Eve's name, which means "life" or "living". Surprisingly hopeful given that we just read of the cataclysm which was the Fall.
So what is happening that is so fundamental in these second and third chapters to proponents of complementarian theology?
Which brings us to the next point.
The Genesis of Divinely Ordained Roles
Here are a few important interpretive things that proponents of complementarian theology will point out about the first three chapters of Genesis.
We can see God ordaining the headship of men and the corresponding submissive/supportive role of women in that:
1) Adam is created first.
2) Eve is a "suitable helper" made for Adam. That she is made for him and to help him in his work supports this idea of roles.
3) Adam has the responsibility to relay God's prohibition to eat of the fruit of the one tree to Eve since we never read she is directly told by God.
4) That God goes to Adam first shows how he primarily is being held responsible for his wife's decisions, thus pointing to his headship.
However, let's look at these claims individually.
That Adam is created first does not on its own lend weight to this idea of divinely ordained gender roles. We can only get there by assuming being first carries with it this weight.
Yet in the Scriptures, sometimes it is the things that are created last that are most significant. Consider the first chapter of Genesis, where humanity is created last, after all other creation - yet they alone are made in the image of God.
We cannot get from this alone the idea of divinely ordained gender roles.
Much is made about how Eve is a "helper" who is uniquely "suited" to Adam.
Here proponents of complementarian theology see both divinely ordained roles where the woman supports and helps the man in his work, but we also see their complementarity in this idea of "suitability".
I've long sat under sermons where pastors speak of how beautiful it is that the women in their lives are just so good and wired for nurturing, just how amazing it is that women seem to complete men where they are weak, just how perfectly different they are, sometimes paired with an anecdotal story about an interaction they've had with their wives. The story might be funny and have something to do with how their wives stopped a disaster from happening to one of their kids due to a seemingly reckless decision they had made or something.
While all of this is well and good, it's important to realize we may be reading something into Scripture that isn't there.
While we are clearly being pointed to difference in the relationship between Adam and Eve, the idea of kinship and similarity is also present. Consider how all the animals were all quite different for Adam, yet none would do.
Consider how it was only when Eve was made from his own flesh that she was "suitable".
Consider this passage:
So when Laban heard the news of Jacob his sister’s son, he ran to meet him, and embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his house. Then he related to Laban all these things. Laban said to him, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” And he stayed with him a month. - Genesis 29:13-14 (NASB).
Or this one:
“Speak, now, in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?’ Also, remember that I am your bone and your flesh.” - Judges 9:2 (NASB)
Or this one:
Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh. - 2 Samuel 5:1 (NASB).
We could go on. But surely that Eve was bone of Adam's bone and flesh of his flesh has quite a bit to do with her being "suitable". Not just her "difference".
What of her being a "helper" then? Does that not imply that she is just supposed to go along supporting Adam in his work?
Not necessarily. No more than it would imply Adam is just going along and supporting Eve in her work. We know that both in chapter one were charged with ruling the earth, and that Eve is joining in with this work does not imply an inherently submissive role.
This argument honestly seems quite weak. We could just as easily say that because Adam needed a helper thereby implying weakness, Eve must have authority over him. I do not think this is a good argument at all, and for the same reason I do not think Eve being made for Adam is a good Scriptural argument for the "headship" of man in either marriage or the church if all we're looking at is Genesis.
What then, of how God never directly tells Eve of the prohibition, implying how Adam has a responsibility that he messes up to tell this to her and then to stop her from eating the fruit when the serpent speaks to her? What about how Eve seems to add the extra prohibition we never read God saying of not to touch the fruit?
This is all quite the stretch.
We are never told in the text how Eve learns of this information. This would be assuming something we are never told. To use this to construct a theology of gender roles provides a shaky foundation. It is not an honest interpretation of Scripture.
Similarly, that Eve supposedly "adds on" to the prohibition does not really say anything about Adam or his headship.
Indeed, we cannot really assume one way or the other, and using this to construct a theology of gender roles, again, provides a shaky foundation. Nor is it an honest treatment of Scripture.
What about any of these points thus far gives us the fleshed out intricacies proponents of complementarian theology have of the role distinctions between men and women that we are supposed to see before the Fall?
But before moving on to the other passages that are important the complementarian position, we must address what is my primary criticism.
Here I will make an important theological observation.
For the foundation of the complementarian position to stand, we must assume that Adam is primarily Eve's representative in Genesis, thus illustrating headship.
But does the overarching narrative in the first three chapters of Genesis and indeed the overarching narrative of Scripture support this view?
Adam: the Archetypal Representation of all Men?
This is probably my biggest concern with the complementarian position. For all of it to work, we must assume Adam is a sort of picture of all men in that he represents Eve, his wife, illustrating the headship of men.
I would like to argue that this is untrue and contrary to what we learn in Scripture.
The point of the passage is not that Adam was Eve's representative.
We are all supposed to see ourselves in Adam as he represents all of humanity and ultimately points us to the perfect Son of Man, Christ.
Eve is not primarily the representation of all women. She points to the life that will come with the birth of the Messiah, the Son of God. Consider how even her name, Eve, means "life" or "living" in Hebrew. Proponents of complementarian theology will sometimes point out that Adam naming Eve implies his headship (even just this claim alone does not seem to make sense). I think this is missing the point of the passage.
Consider how Adam names her Eve right after God is done pronouncing a curse upon all creation. Perhaps most significantly right after we've heard of the mysterious promise of the woman's seed crushing the head of the serpent.
When we read the first three chapters of Genesis, we should all see ourselves in Adam. For it is in Adam that we all fell. Adam is representative of all of us.
Given that it does not follow that he has supposed "headship" (?) over us all as a result, I do not think we can read this passage as saying he had "headship" over Eve either.
Consider this passage:
Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! - Romans 5:14-15 (NIV).
Here we can see that "many died by the trespass of the one man". We all died with Adam. He represented all of us, men and women alike. Primarily, he also points us to the perfect Son of Man: Jesus Christ.
Consider this passage as well:
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. - 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (NIV).
This points us to an amazing truth. Adam is no longer our representative. Jesus is.
No man living on this earth has the representative capacity of Adam. No man will. Jesus is now our representative.
1 Timothy 2 and Genesis
We have now seen that we cannot get to a complementarian framework if we look at the first three chapters of Genesis, which are supposed to be most foundational to complementarian theology.
So where do we really get all of this?
Proponents of complementarianism will point here to a particular interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and of 1 Timothy 2, since in both Paul points us back to Genesis.
The interesting thing about this to me is that everyone from all camps qualifies or places limitations on these passages in some way or another. Indeed, I think some proponents of divinely ordained gender roles have noticed this and are tightening up on how these passages are interpreted. We see the modern head covering movement and some more overtly patriarchal backlash especially in the conservative reformed world.
Point being, proponents of complementarian theology do not, for example, advocate that women wear head coverings or assert a man cannot learn from a woman or that a woman can never have positions of authority over men.
Instead of the limitations or commands towards women in these passages being taken as applying to all contexts, it is restricted to being binding only in certain circumstances.
Even some proponents of complementarian theology do not necessarily agree on the why behind the supposed prohibitions. Indeed, a big surprise to me was when I tried to find some statement somewhere either in the WCF or the PCA's BCO (book of church order) that stated why women ought not be elders. There wasn't any. I did find a PCA report on women where even the report admitted that these verses including 1 Timothy 2 are only applying the command partially.
It is these passages, too, that proponents of complementarianism will say, "Look, Scripture says this quite plainly," and then insists upon qualifying these passages by talking of the necessity of both the Scriptural and historical contexts of both.
This is exactly what other camps do as well when we take a look at these passages.
This is a good thing to do, because something we all can acknowledge is that these were both letters Paul was writing to a church in a particular time in history. Brushing aside the historical context or ignoring the Scriptural context would be a bad way of gleaning what it has to say.
Although I could get into the nitty-gritty details of these two passages, so many people have already spent much time arguing back and forth on the matter that I only want to highlight them a bit.
What I want to do here is to show how even proponents of complementarian theology are not interpreting these passages literally or "plainly".
For example, in 1 Timothy, Paul is writing to Timothy who is leading at the church in Ephesus. In chapter one we get the introduction. Paul extends him greetings before moving on to speak of the false teachings starting to come into the church. Paul ends chapter one by encouraging Timothy to hold fast to the faith and names some false teachers.
In chapter two, Paul urges that entreaties, prayers, and petitions are made one behalf of all and for kings. He says he wants men to pray "in every place" (verse 8) by lifting up holy hands. He says he wants women to adorn themselves with "good works". He says a woman must learn in a quiet or calm manner. It is then he says:
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. - 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NASB).
There are so many things we could get into here. But what I want to point out is proponents of complementarian theology interpret this verse as somehow referring to the ordained office of elder (the qualifications of which we do not get until a bit later) or women teaching in some way that is authoritative.
The command is being interpreted here by proponents of complementarian theology as being partial and not holding in all circumstances.
Here I will quote from the PCA's report on women that I linked to:
"Paul sometimes lets women teach men. He permitted female prophets to speak in Corinth and listed female coworkers, who must have said something as they toiled. He declared that all Christians have gifts they must exercise for the common good, knowing one must speak to exercise most gifts. How is Paul's prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 reconciled with his permission elsewhere? There are two possibilities: the prohibition may be temporary or it may be partial...
Complementarianism suggests Paul's prohibition is permanent but partial. Thus, women may teach privately, informally, and occasionally, as Priscilla and others did, but they should not present the doctrines of the faith as authoritative church leaders in the assembly of the saints..."
I hope we can see, then, that this is something that isn't so "plainly" there in the text. We still have to contend with women praying and prophesying (not authoritative?). Coming to the conclusion Paul has a problem with women teaching "authoritatively" is difficult, both theologically and in practical application. You have to be able to sort through all the different kinds of prayer, prophesying, testifying, preaching, etc and classify which ones are "authoritative" and which ones are not - a game that can become quite subjective.
What we do see are some interesting textual oddities:
The seemingly parenthetic character of verse 12, which is grammatically awkward in the Greek
The strange switch from singular to plural from verse 12 to verse 15
The use of the Greek word authentein (here translated as "to exercise authority over") which has a sketchy history to say in the least and is the only time Paul will use this word, indeed is the only time this word is used in the whole of Scripture. All other times Paul or anyone else for that matter speaks of authority, he uses the Greek word exousia.
Whether it's one ("teaching authoritatively") or two things being prohibited (exercising authority or teaching) in verse 12
The fact that the discussion of Adam and Eve relates not to the woman teaching, but to the woman learning, with the emphasis of how Eve was deceived, which should draw our attention back to verse 11 where Paul states a woman must learn in all submissiveness.
The chiastic (a sort of poetic rhetorical device used throughout the bible) structure of what he is saying in verses 11-14 (if verse 12 in indeed parenthetic):
A: 11 Let a woman in quietness learn in all submission...
B: 13 For Adam was formed first,
C: then Eve,
B': 14 and Adam was not deceived.
A': But the woman, having been deceived, has come into transgression.
The possibility of this having a chiastic structure is something I happened upon when reading an article entitled "What Eve did, what women shouldn't do: the meaning of auqentew" in 1 Timothy 2:12" by A.C. Perriman. Since then, I've read more articles with scholars noticing this about this passage.
You could read it like this, then:
A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
(But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. - 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (NASB).
When looked at it this way, it's as though our attention should be going to women being obedient to authoritative teaching being contrasted with going against or subverting authoritative teaching.
It's almost as though Paul is exhorting the women in the Ephesian church to learn submissively so that they will not be deceived.
All this in the context of a letter where great attention is going to false teaching.
Proponents of complementarian theology may not agree with all of this. To my friends who hold to this position, you may still think this is the more correct interpretation.
But what is important to note is that even proponents of complementarian theology do not interpret this verse "at face value" (and for good reason - the text warrants such treatment). So is this really an issue of Scriptural authority?
1 Corinthians 11: Glory, Shame, and Custom
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. - 1 Cor. 11:7-9 (NASB).
If I got a dollar for every time someone used this passage to provide the foundation of a theology where divinely ordained gender roles is being proposed, I would rich.
I have read many commentaries on 1 Corinthians 11, and a hugely frustrating thing is that all of them differ, and often on very key things. Some people point to this passage to say that women are only indirectly made in the image of God, directly contradicting what we read in Genesis. An example of this can be found in the Matthew-Henry commentary:
"Another reason against this conduct is that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v. 7): she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is God's representative too, but it is at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but the woman out of the man, v. 8."
A good point to keep in mind is that Paul is not contradicting Genesis here. Male and female are made in the image of God. Not one more than the other.
The one thing that remains acknowledged by almost all commentaries and thoughts on the passage, though, is that Paul is addressing a very culturally specific issue going on in the Corinthian church.
Even my overtly-complementarian-leaning ESV study bible talks about that at length in the notes, making sure to talk about how Roman men sometimes practiced the custom of pulling their togas over their heads when worshiping pagan gods, as well as mentioning how women leaving their heads uncovered likely brought shame instead of glory to their husbands.
Despite the somewhat confusing nature of the passage ("because of the angels"?), there are some things we can glean.
Paul addresses this matter right after he's spent a long time talking about how just because all things are permissible, it doesn't mean they are beneficial. He encourages the believers at the church in Corinth to do all that they do for the glory of God.
Then he transitions to talking about the matter of head coverings and addresses both men and women.
He seems to be speaking to married people (indeed, most adult men and women at the time would have been married), and to me the passage seems to be more about honor, shame, and custom and making sure the church is being a good witness to the world than anything else.
Please note just how much attention Paul brings to things that are shameful and things that bring honor or glory in the passage as a whole ("disgraceful" or "shameful" and"dishonor" being contrasted with "glory" and "honor").
It's also important to note that in those days and times, men were indeed the paterfamilias of the house, the head of the entire household. This is why Paul brings this up. Wives, slaves, and children were underneath them.
It is in this context that Paul points to Genesis two. If we recall, Genesis two is a narrative focusing on the first marriage in human history and how Eve glorifies not just God, but her husband Adam as well.
She brings glory to Adam since she was made out of Adam by God.
She is pointing to God's creative genius in not just the creation of her but also her husband.
How backwards would it be, then, in this particular time and culture for wives to dishonor their husbands by leaving their hair uncovered when that no doubt had a specific meaning to the people then?
Remember that people in the Corinthian church also were feeling like freedom in Christ meant dissolving some of their earthly relationships. (You can see here how this passage is still applicable today! Freedom in Christ doesn't mean we can just do whatever.) Paul is saying that's not the way to go.
So yes. Paul is pointing back to Genesis, but he is doing it to apply to a very specific problem happening at a very specific time. He is using honor/shame language even as he speaks of Adam and Eve.
Even proponents of complementarian theology will agree here at least partially, in that you won't see too many advocating for women to wear head coverings. Interestingly, even Piper and Grudem agree with me that when Paul uses the word "nature" here, he is referring to the customs of the time.
People assert that when Paul hearkens back to Genesis, he is trying to say something about male headship and female submission and is rooting it in the created order itself, which makes it more ultimate and less limited to that particular culture.
Paul is being a very good shepherd here in how he is using Scripture to address what is going on around him at the time. How many pastors do that now when they are helping guide their congregations?
This does not diminish the message or mean we cannot learn from it. Nor does it diminish how this letter is a part of our Scriptures and is therefore authoritative.
Even proponents of complementarian theology acknowledge this when interpreting Scripture, because when we lose this context, we lose so much of the intended meaning.
As for the notion that we can use 1 Corinthians 11 to lend weight to this idea of "created first = hierarchy", look at how Paul quickly turns that on its head just afterwards:
However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. - 1 Cor. 11:11-12 (NASB).
We cannot speak of 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 without also contending of Paul's meaning here in verses 11-12.
Household Management and Household Codes
The last place we could find this idea of authority, submission, and biblical roles divided by gender would be in the "household codes".
The household codes appear numerous times in the epistles. They all follow the same structure. They all say pretty much the same things with more or less detail.
Growing up, these household codes were framed to me as being "the godly family". A Christian family looks like the husband who is the head of the house with the wife being the one primarily called to submit.
Many scholars have studied what the basis of these codes were, since it seems less like Paul and Peter are drafting up something entirely new and unheard of, but drawing on something, whether it's from the culture or elsewhere, and putting it into a new Christian perspective.
Yet that these codes have some basis in history is of no doubt.
When I was studying the section of Aristotle's Politics, I was struck at how similar his section on household management lined up with these household codes. I thought this surely must be happenstance, though, as Aristotle lived and died long before Paul, and he hadn't (or so I thought) had time to become so influential as he did in the Middle Ages.
I knew that the Hellenistic Jewish philosophers and thinkers (such as Philo and Josephus) were influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy, so I figured that the codes were drawing upon works from Stoic philosophers of the day. This is something many scholars have proposed as well.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that Aristotle's works were re-published by a man named Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century BC (c. 60 BC). It's actually these publications which form the basis of Aristotle's works which survive to this day.
"Household management", as it turns out, was a hot topic in the first century BC and did indeed influence Hellenistic Jewish philosophy.
Even closer to Paul's time, a man by the name of Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle's household ethics for Augustus Caesar. This is only just prior to the birth of Christ. He also was an important figure who would continue to influence Caesar.
Indeed, the categories Aristotle lays out - slaves, wives, and husbands - were a big legal deal in Rome at the time. The husband was the paterfamilias. He carried with him the legal power of the judge of those under him. This was a small picture mirroring the larger one of Augustus as the paterfamilias of Rome.
This was the way society and families in Rome were structured. And this was all mixed up with the politics of the time.
It is in such a historical and culture context we see the NT writers bring up the household codes which do indeed mirror the ones we see from Aristotle.
Yet they add commentary. More than that, instead of rooting everything in nature, it is all framed with the person of Jesus at center. Instead of, "You must do this because of your telos which we can see by looking at nature," it is, "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
Still, here are some important interpretive points that are key to the complementarian view of these "household codes":
The husband is called the "head" of the wife, thus showing us that husbands have a moral responsibility to take on this role over their wives. It also implies authority.
The wife is directed to submit, yet the husband is never directly commanded to submit, implying her role is to be the one primarily called to yield. She is also told to submit to her husband as to the Lord and that her head is her husband.
We know these roles are universal and not tied to a particular time in history since in Ephesians 5, Paul grounds these roles in marriage to the picture of Christ and the Church.
These interpretive points for me brings up some questions.
The word "headship" is never used in any of the household codes, so where are we getting it? Does naming the husband the "head" imply this idea of authority and "headship" (a term that goes undefined)?
All believers are told to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. Why do people assume some of these spheres in society carry with it a sense of divinely ordained authority while some do not? Are we perhaps reading these household codes through the lens of Aristotelian philosophy?
Let's analyze these things in the Ephesians 5 passage, where we get the most fleshed out version of the household codes.
Something important to note is that the wife is never directly told to submit to her husband either. The word submit is implied from verse 21 the verse directly before which reads:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. - Ephesians 5:21 (NIV).
It is then we get verse 22, which literally reads as, "Wives, to your husbands as to the Lord."
We cannot get out of how everyone addressed in the passage here including husbands, wives, masters, slaves, and children are all being told to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
My question is why proponents of complementarian theology do not address this. Or why some relationships are assumed to be more inherently authoritative in some divine way more than others.
Husbands, too, then, are also to submit to their wives. Indeed, Paul spends most time on husbands, telling them to love their wives as their own body.
It is primarily for this reason that Paul uses the head/body metaphor. Many people argue about the meaning of the Greek word kephale. I actually do not agree at the moment with the proponents of egalitarian theology who argue this word means "source". However, in general, in Scripture kephale is mainly used to refer to the literal head of something, and generally when Paul is using it, he is using it as a part of a head/body metaphor.
The main reason I believe Paul is using the head/body metaphor and making the marriage relationship analogous to Christ and the Church is not to say one party is somehow to be inherently more submissive than the other, but to point to the unity and "one flesh" aspect of marriage. In fact, he even says this outright:
After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body.“ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. - Ephesians 5:29-32 (NIV).
Indeed, both spouses in the marriage relationship are a picture of Christ to the other at different points - even proponents of complementarian theology say as much, talking about how the wife is like Christ when she submits. Proponents of complementarian theology, even Grudem and Piper in RBMW, will point out that not all aspects of the Christ/Church relationship are analogous to the marriage relationship. At some point, it breaks down.
The question is what aspect of this relationship Paul is pointing us to, and I believe he is pointing us to the unity of Christ and the Church as members of one body.
He states husbands are the head, but this does not necessarily imply a husband morally must have greater authority in the relationship. Indeed, the words "headship" and "authority" are not used here.
The husband in that time did indeed have greater power in that society as the paterfamilias.
Therefore, as the "head", they ought to love their wives as their own bodies. They do have a unique responsibility - but it is not a responsibility that comes from their maleness. It is a responsibility that stems from their role in society.
What Paul is doing here is not trying to say, as Aristotle does in his codes, that people must step into divinely ordained spheres that they are uniquely suited to due to their innate nature. This is something I see proponents of complementarian theology reading into this passage.
Not at all. He is encouraging believers to submit to one another - including fathers, husbands, and masters. He still encourages those in lower roles in society to submit to those in positions over them. Yet he does not make this argument from nature, but roots it all in the person of Christ.
Why? Why would he do this?
Because the early church was in a state of confusion (much like today). They were free in Christ. Christ had risen, and they had new life in him! Yet... they still lived in this world. Paul would say in Galatians that in Christ, there is no male, female, or slave. Yet the believers still lived in a world where people were husbands, wives, and slaves living in a particular historical and cultural context.
Some new Christians reacted by throwing off and dissolving their earthly relationships and subsequent responsibilities.
Paul and Peter in the household codes are trying to show these new churches how to live in this almost there but not yet time.
The household codes are not meant to illustrate what Aristotle was attempting to illustrate in his idea of household management.
Rather, they are a way of helping believers navigate life while keeping Christ at the center of everything, including their earthly relationships.
Hence my biggest point of criticism with proponents of complementarian theology in their interpretation of the household codes in the NT is that they read them with what seems to be a very Aristotelian lens, which we can see with how often they will use arguments from nature to support their Scriptural interpretation.
To me, this loses the Christ-centered-focus all of these household codes have in Scripture.
Conclusion: A Problem of Biblical Authority?
I by no means think this post will persuade proponents of complementarian theology that they are wrong. That is also not the point of this post.
I hope what it has successfully done is more clearly fleshed out the history of complementarian theology and what it is. The CBMW was the start of the complementarian movement. It was formed primarily as a backlash against the sexual revolution in the 70s, and in many ways it got tied up in politics. It comes as no surprise that as complementarianism was taking the conservative evangelical world by storm, so was purity culture.
The affirmations of comeplementarian theology can be read in the Danvers Statement, and I think many people who have grown up in traditionally complementarian churches may be surprised to realize they do not agree with all of what they read there or even most of what they read there.
The book RBMW edited by Grudem and Piper is also worth a read, as I think many will find arguments that are made less from Scripture and more from nature. Indeed, a huge part of the book actually looks at gender from the lens of church history, psychology, biology, and sociology. It includes some old psychological studies that have not aged well, in fact, and since been overturned.
In the Danvers Statement, we read:
"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."
A pretty strong claim. Indeed, as I was reading RBMW, I was struck at how often I was pointed to nature or at how intuitively we know this since it is part of our very nature and ingrained in us.
I cannot help but see that comeplementarian theology and the complementarian movement is not primarily concerned about biblical authority, though that is there.
The concern comes from looking at the US culture, particularly the political situation. I can see this concern in how in 2017, the CBMW came out with the Nashville Statement, two years after the legalization of gay marriage in 2015. The concern comes from looking at what used to be a culturally and nominally Christian nation shift.
The worry is that people are feeling too free to do whatever they want. The traditional roles of men and women are fading away. We look back on them with nostalgia. We long for the days before the sexual revolution. Before feminism. Before we have these liberal young millennial and Gen-Z social justice warriors seemingly throwing the bible away.
As men and women, we still bring unique experiences, skills, and talents as men and women. But that is not good enough. To move away from these divinely ordained roles that we can see in nature is devaluing and throwing out the beauty of God creating us male and female.
But is it?
To my fellow complementarian brothers and sisters in Christ, I hope this post was gracious and not insincere. My point is not to point fingers and ask, "How could anyone believe this?"
A question I do hope you ask yourself is how to live in unity with me, your sister in Christ, who holds such different views, and others like myself.
I hope if anything that this post becomes conducive to having thoughtful and edifying conversations about Scripture and what we see going on in society.