If a patriarchal chain of command is wrong, according to the scriptures, why do the scriptures say of the woman: “He (the man) shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16)? This scripture is often the go-to verse in the word of God for men, who desire to suppress the role of the woman in society—whether public or family (cp. Romans 1:18). The claim is that the woman overstepped her authority by taking the lead in the rebellion. The doctrine is that she believed the serpent and gave the forbidden fruit to her husband (Genesis 3:6), and the effeminate, Adam, obediently took the fruit from his wife and ate of it, thus, joining her in the rebellion. Nevertheless, this reading doesn’t do justice to what the word of God actually tells us.
Keep in mind that Jesus tells us that the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). In other words, we must not read one scripture in a manner that causes us to contradict the word of God elsewhere in the Bible. God’s word is its own interpreter, and we need to submit ourselves to what it claims. For example. The idea that the woman took the lead in the rebellion is false. This is illustrated in two ways. First, Adam lied to her![1] We are able to understand this is so, by reading how the woman replied to the serpent in Genesis 3:2-3 – “…neither shall we touch it, lest we die!” God never said anything about touching (cp. Genesis 2:16-17). Where did she get that idea? Evidently, Adam set the woman up for a fall by lying to her. Secondly, we have Romans 5:12 to consider. Here, we are told that sin entered the world through one man, and the text is speaking of Adam’s rebellion (Romans 5:14). How could the woman have been taking the lead in the rebellion, if sin entered the world through Adam’s transgression/rebellion? Moreover, if the woman misunderstood what Adam told her, why didn’t he correct her, since he was there, beside her, when she partook of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6)? Indeed, the woman was deceived (1Timothy 2:13), in that she believed the lie told her by Adam instead of trusting God.
Consider what the lie produced. All Adam had to do was touch the tree or whatever is represented in the tree to show touching brought no harm. The woman, unaware of Adam’s deception, believed it was God who had lied (cp. Genesis 3:4-5). Therefore, encouraged in the fact that there was no danger in touching, she continued also to eat the forbidden fruit. Once Adam saw that the woman wasn’t harmed by eating—vis-à-vis she didn’t immediately die—then, and only then, did he eat the forbidden fruit, for the context of Genesis 2 & 3 shows he didn’t trust God.
It is, also, in this context that we are able to understand the woman’s punishment. She would have increased trouble and sorrow bringing children into the world, and this trouble would extend to her love for her husband. He would rule over her. This was never God’s ideal. Rather, it was God’s judgment upon the woman for believing Adam instead of believing God. What the Lord did was simply predict how the consequences of her sin would be experienced. God created both the male and the female as equals, but now their relationship would be unequal.[2] He, the male, would rule over her, the female. Nevertheless, this judgment is undone in Christ, for in him, there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28). That is, it makes no difference, whether one is male or female (Jew or gentile etc.). In this context, therefore, the patriarchal chain of command, so prevalent in and embraced by modern Christianity, is exposed for what it truly is, an evil and false doctrine.
_____________________________________________________
[1] Sin, per se, is not what drove Adam and Eve from the presence of God. Rebellion did that, because rebellion seeks independence. One may test the envelop, as it were, by sinning without desiring independence. Independence seeks separation, permanently. Lying is wrong, but not necessarily a sin that seeks independence. So, Adam sinned prior to being expelled from the Garden of Eden. God can and will forgive sins, similar to parents forgiving the lies and disobedience of their children. What cannot be simply forgiven is the rebellious attitude that a child has, when he simply refuses to live by the directives of the parents. That’s rebellion. That’s seeking independence, and destroys the relationship between the child and the parent.
[2] Perhaps this is first expressed in the fact that Adam named his woman Eve. If man was created to rule the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26), and as ruler he named all the animals (Genesis 2:19-20), then, in naming his woman, he seems to be claiming the ‘right’ to rule over her.
Smoodock's Blog 