If God’s design for male-female relationships was unity and interdependence, and if hierarchy in relationships came as a result of sin, perhaps we need to reevaluate teachings on male “headship” in marriage today.
Adam calling Eve “woman” does not indicate Adam’s authority over her; rather, it is an expression of the similarities that they share, as Adam exclaims “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called woman, for out of man this one was taken” (Gen. 2:23).
This contextual reading notes that Jesus’s death on the cross, represented by Eve’s offspring crushing the head of the serpent, frees humankind from sin’s consequences and reorders concepts of male dominion for all time.
I don’t really like reading the creation story. This is partly because I skip ahead to what is often described as the “sin story.” I don’t like being told that “the man shall rule over” me (Gen 3:16). To Christians who do not ascribe to gender equality, this verse is prescriptive. It’s used to explain and justify the hierarchy of patriarchy. It is used to support male headship, and deny women their full inclusion as people of God.
Seguimos fundamentando a través de una incorrecta, sesgada y hasta “convenida” interpretación bíblica estos patrones discriminadores e inequitativos, que a la postre propician una desvalorización de la mujer, relegándola hasta el plano de “cosificarla”. (Spanish)
The term “priest of the home” is an attempt to put more leadership, control, and responsibility on men, stripping women of the equal access Christ died for. This term, which never appears in Scripture, is an attempt to uphold patriarchy, a sad reality women have endured ever since the fall.
Giles, a longtime egalitarian, establishes what the Bible actually teaches by critiquing biblical arguments for the permanent subordination of women; in other words, Giles critiques complementarian theology and methodology.