Genesis 3:16 is the main theme of this issue of Priscilla Papers. In the pages that follow, five authors lend their expertise to understanding this verse of Scripture and its ramifications. The issue also includes a sermon from Proverbs on marriage. Here in the editorial, I (Jeff Miller, a former editor, standing in for the editor, Havilah Dharamraj) will also contribute to an egalitarian understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, though not 3:16 specifically.
I recommend, “The Genesis of Confusion: How ‘Complementarians’ Have Corrupted Communication,” an article by Dr. Kevin Giles published in the winter 2015 issue of Priscilla Papers. Kevin states his point boldly:
Carefully choosing words to conceal what is actually being taught and to surreptitiously further one’s own agenda, I believe, is morally wrong. One important responsibility of theologians is to bring clarity to the issues they address, in part by carefully defining and consistently using key terms. To write theology in order to conceal seems to me perverse. Should not Christians communicate with each other openly and honestly? (p. 22)
The article then focuses on the terms “role,” “equality,” “difference,” and “complementarian.” In a similar vein, I will comment on the use of “order” in phrases such as, “order of creation” and “created order.” Complementarian teaching sometimes subtly switches meanings of “order.”
First Timothy 2:13 says, “Adam was formed first, and then Eve” (CEB). The author, Paul, is clearly speaking of the sequence of creation as recorded in Gen 2. Moreover, Paul refers to only two of God’s creations, man in Gen 2:7 and woman in Gen 2:22, and not to light, land, animals, or anything else in God’s grand creation.
However, when using 1 Tim 2 in support of complementarian doctrine, the meaning of “order” shifts from “sequence” to “design,” in the sense of “schema, purpose, intention.” The 1988 “Danvers Statement,” a foundational complementarian document, provides a ready example. Its second Affirmation states, “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 (Gen 2:18, 21–24; 1 Cor 11:7–9; 1 Tim 2:12–14).” This Affirmation invokes the sequence of creation mentioned in 1 Tim 2 but describes it as “the created order.”
Egalitarian authors frequently demonstrate that the sequence of creation does not point to a hierarchical design. Kevin Giles, for example, plainly states, “Chronological order does not imply subordination” (“The Genesis of Equality,” Priscilla Papers 28/4 [Autumn 2014] 6). But such statements fall on deaf complementarian ears, for their use of “order” does not mean “chronological order.”
May Priscilla Papers continue to bring clarity, rather than confusion, to the translation, interpretation, and application of Scripture.