John Piper titled this sermon Manhood and Womanhood Before Sin. In the beginning of this sermon he said,
"The other reason I think this is a good question (i.e., God's
intention for manhood and womanhood before sin) is that in the New
Testament Jesus and Paul, when they use the Old Testament to answer
questions about how man and woman should relate to each other, go
back to what things were supposed to be like before the fall. They
don't take the messed up relationships of Genesis 3 and make them
normative. They come back to Genesis 2 and talk about how it should
have been from the beginning."
He makes a valid point that both Paul and Jesus refer back to Genesis 2:24 when speaking of marriage. The rest of the sermon focuses on events that occurred after sin, which according to his own statement this messed up relationship of Genesis 3 should not be taken as normative. This means that his entire argument hinges on what we have explored in the last two posts- man was made first (maybe) and God only gave his instructions to man (probably not.) Even though there is nothing *in the text* to indicate that either of these statements, if they are even true, have any significance to the intended relationship between man and woman, this is what complementarians use as their foundation for "biblical" marriage roles.
The Man is Interrogated First
Piper says:
"Make no mistake: God does hold the woman accountable for her
actions. She is a personal, morally accountable being in the very
image of God. And what man does or fails to do relieves her of no
personal, individual responsibility to know and to obey God. But in
their relationship to each other God looks to the man and says,
"Have you been the moral and spiritual leader you ought to have
been?"
Is that what God said?
In Genesis 3:9-11 God asks some pretty straight forward questions:
Where are you?
Who told you that you are naked?
Did you eat of the tree that I commanded you not to?
Basic, clear, personal questions. No hint of anything about leadership or any responsibility for Eve's actions.
Why did God talk to Adam first? I don't know, because it doesn't say!. Maybe he flipped a cosmic coin.
Does it matter who God spoke to first? I think if it did, he would say so.
Let's assume for a minute that Piper is correct and the order in which God spoke to Adam and Eve has some meaning.
God goes on to deliver the serpent's consequences before Eve's and Eve's before Adam's.
God continues to show no discernible pattern throughout the Bible, and here is one example:
In Luke 1:27 an angel comes to Mary to tell her that she will give birth to Jesus.
In Mathew 1:18-1:20 an angel tells Joseph about the baby, after Mary is already pregnant.
Yeah, it's pretty amazing when you think about it, isn't it? Mary accepted the responsibility for raising the Messiah, a decision that would directly affect Joseph and their relationship for years to come... without even consulting him! As an egalitarian, I think I'd feel uncomfortable doing that - I can't imagine how a comp would justify it, really - surely God should have given the message to Joseph first?
ReplyDelete