First Born
Sean wrote an eloquent blog on the good news of our being sons of God, brothers with Jesus Christ, and co-heirs of God’s kingdom because of Jesus. God’s generosity to hostile people – hostile against him and one another – stands in stark contrast to our world in Biblical times as well as today. Women who have faith in Jesus Christ are included in this sonship status, and, as Sean noted in his post, this can be a challenge for us. The blessings of joining the first-born son status in God’s family imply patriarchy and primogeniture. First-born sonship inheritance implies a patriarchal structure (male leadership of women - we are brought into the status of “sonship” not “daughterhood”). As a woman, I’d like to spend the next few posts addressing those challenges. This post will address the Gospel trajectory in light of differing views in Christianity on patriarchy. Part II will take a close look at 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to see how it uses first-born status to convict and then lift women, as equals with men, into their Gospel calling. Part III will show how the grand scope of first-born-sonship throughout the Bible conveys God’s missionary passion and grace for all people.
The implications of patriarchy in the Gospel promise make some of my family members roll their eyes and dismiss the Bible and “organized religion” all together. They challenged me as a woman who felt the call to ordained priesthood, which seems off-limits if patriarchal leadership is God’s intention. They challenged me as a wife (even though my wonderful husband has always partnered with me as his equal) and as a mother our two beautiful, strong-minded girls.
Does God bless and want patriarchy ultimately? Is that why he uses it in this promise of sonship? Is that why he couches his promise in primogeniture language? Primogeniture is the practice in which “the firstborn is granted prominence within the ‘creative order’ of the family…The first within any ‘creative order’ receives special prominence over others in that order.”[1] Does God bless the “first born” ordering in our creation? Is that how he wants us to live?
As a woman, when I look upon the world history of patriarchal abuses, these are difficult implications. They make my heart heavy. We all grieve the girl children who are killed in China because of the favor given towards sons or the girls denied education in Uganda because they favor sons (see the inspiration for the powerful ministry Love Unveiled). Primogeniture troubles younger siblings who have been hurt by favoritism of their parents toward the “first born.” Perhaps now, in reaction to the continual vying for power between men and women, patriarchy and feminism, our society is in the midst of rejecting binary male/female gender distinctions altogether…? The parents have fought too much. Who wants to be like them? There’s been too much oppression. Better to do away with the whole broken system—be gender free. The logic might go. Behind this is profound doubt and despair that we are left alone to figure this whole thing of life out. I would like to speak hope to that valid pause. Jesus is alive and he is healing.
As Sean wrote, God’s promise of first-born son status ultimately undoes patriarchy among humans. Men and women both receive this privileged status. But I still wrestled with the passages in the Bible that seem to contradict that, in particular 1 Timothy 2:11-15. I heard my call to ordained ministry when a friend prayed 1 Timothy 1:16 over me. And then in the next chapter 1 Timothy 2:13 seems to undo that very call! I have listened to women who say they love Jesus but just can’t stand Paul. Yet, it is Paul who outlines that we are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone. It is Paul who calls women co-heirs with Christ. It is the Protestant Reformers (who assumed patriarchy) who uncovered Paul’s message, which also inspired me to preach the Gospel and get ordained!
Faithful scholars have helped me understand there is a biblically grounded way to understand at-first-glance patriarchal passages in a way that raises women up into their calling and gifting as co-heirs with Christ and equal partners with men. This Gospel promise is good news and I have a passion for skeptics and wounded to hear it ring in their heart. I especially care about the ones that roll their eyes when they read passages like 1 Timothy ;) So, I want to show another view of what Paul might be doing in 1 Timothy 2:13. I suggest Paul is speaking God’s two words: Law and Gospel to women (and men) in this passage and is actually being pastoral to women in Timothy’s church, the church in Ephesus. I’ve been blessed so I’d like to share. I hope it helps. So, let’s begin.
First off, let’s make it a bit worse—stack the cards against us, as the Lord likes to do. We’re going to look closely at one of the most contested, difficult passages in the New Testament, perhaps THE most difficult when it comes to male-female gender relations: 1 Timothy 2:11-15. In it, Paul invokes primogeniture: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Here it seems that God DOES bless the firstborn order and does support patriarchy. It seems that God forgives and welcomes men and women as brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ and co-heirs of his kingdom, but then turns right around and still wants patriarchy and primogeniture on earth. Yet. I see it as is a shining example of God’s two words, Law and Gospel, conviction and forgiveness, where a Word from outside our mess intervenes to save and redeem women (and men too). Furthermore, I want to be under Scripture, not above it. So, if we are boasting about the good news of being a son of God and co-heir with Christ then I want to tackle this difficult passage in light of that stunning promise.
The Apostle Paul invokes primogeniture – the privilege of the first born – when describing the creation of Adam and Eve and their fall into sin. He is writing to his young, anxious pastor protégé, Timothy. Paul writes:
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 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. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
From a plain reading, it seems that women should remain quiet, not teach a man (ever?) nor “exercise authority” over a man. Paul roots this in the concept of primogeniture – because “Adam was formed first” then Eve. Thus, Adam is meant to be in authority, not her. Not only that, but Eve was deceived before Adam and she opened the floodgates of hell for all of us! (Stay with me feminists and younger siblings and non-royals and everyone – it get’s better!) On first glance, it seems that Paul validates patriarchy at best, and silences the moms, teachers, sisters, female world leaders, and wives at worst. Most Christian leaders in church history saw it this way (see William Webb’s catalogue of quotes from famous Christians in church history in Appendix A: Man Created First & Primogeniture Assumptions – The Tradition of Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:13 including heavyweights such as John Chrysostom, Augustine, John Calvin, and Martin Luther[2]). Could there be another way that honors the Christians of the past yet also sees Paul being pastoral to women? I think so – by recognizing the priority of the Gospel.
Different Views of Patriarchy within Orthodox Christianity
There are faithful Christians who disagree on whether God blesses patriarchy (often called “Complimentarians”) or whether he blesses the equality of the sexes in all roles from the home to workforce to pastoral office (often called, “Egalitarians” … though neither are satisfied by their names). I have friends I love and theologians I respect on both sides. I am an Egalitarian. I think both sides would agree that, as a society, we have not managed patriarchy well. In God’s eyes, the girls in China or Uganda or anywhere are as important to him as any boy. On this Christians all agree. Both Complementarians and Egalitarians would recognize that the impulse to “rule over” and “dominate” another human being came as a result of the sin we brought into the world (Genesis 3). However, Complementarians would say there was a “good” male headship in creation that is now riddled with sin but ultimately should be upheld in a godly way. In brief, they argue using primogeniture - the man was created first, then woman, and the man was given the job to name the animals, so keep men in charge (Genesis 2). They also note that majority of leaders in the Bible were male.
Egalitarians would say that the impulse to dominate anyone else came as a result of the curse of sin; it is not in the created order. In brief, Egalitarians (myself included) look at the Genesis 1 & 2 creation account and say male and female were both called to reflect God’s image and to have dominion over the earth… and in serve equally in marriage as one flesh (Genesis 1:28, 2:24). The passage on naming the animals underscores the man’s loneliness and need for a partner, fulfilled by the woman (Genesis 2:18, 20). The term “helper” is a term used for God himself and is not an inferior descriptor (Philip Payne notes 16 references of “helper” to God himself including Exodus 18:4, Psalm 20:3; and of a military protector Isaiah 30:5, Dan. 11:34 and more).[3]
Despite the differences, both groups of Christians have given their lives to share the Gospel and have pushed against patriarchal abuses. The Gospel unites Christians despite their views on gender roles. In this Gospel, however, there are seeds of social change. And this is where Egalitarians and Complementarians respectfully disagree. For now, we both employ Romans 14:16: “So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil.”
Gospel Trajectory
The trajectory in Scripture is one of consummation – the best is yet to come. The creation was “good,” God repeats (Genesis 1), but the snake was there (Genesis 3:1). God’s plan before the foundation of the world was to give his Son as a ransom for many saving us from the snake, ourselves, and death (Ephesians 1:4; Revelation 13:8). The goodness in creation before sin and death is now superseded by the “new creation” in Christ. Paul writes in Romans, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18). The new heavens and new earth are promised to us – they are here and yet not yet. We are made co-heirs with Jesus now. Yet we are not in heaven yet. Our new creation “in Christ” unites us with him and one another in endless patient, kind, championing, selfless, joyful love—we taste it here; in heaven it is all we will eat.
“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). No more inequality between Jew and Greek. No more inequality between slave and free. No more inequality between man and woman but rather mutual love, mutual submission, mutual honor. The new creation doesn’t remove the differences; it removes the hierarchies and pain. We get to see the differences in all their intended glory full of Jesus’ life and love through them. William Webb explains, “The new creation community in Christ intentionally replaces the old humanity in Adam. In other words, new-creation patterns should be given prominence over the old-creation patterns.[4] The Gospel has hurdled us into a union with Christ and one another that we can barely comprehend. You are my brothers and sisters and heir with me. And the best is yet to come. That’s the family of Christ, where we are all co-heirs of his kingdom. There is no snake there.
Endnotes
[1] William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 135.
[2] Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals, 257-262.
[3] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 44.
[4] Webb, Slaves, 147.
Recommended Reading
