From the Beginning

Let’s talk about the ‘created order’. A very good subject for today. ‘Today’ meaning not, like, today today, but today’s age. This era. Our current culture. In today’s age with the insanity of open, celebrated Sodomy and transgenderism, and all of the other open perversions, it is a very good time to speak of the created order.

Introduction

For some strange reason (which may make perfect sense to someone, I just don’t know what it is) I received a post in my notes feed which pointed to an article with the title ‘Complementarianism: A Gateway to Misogyny?’. Now, I happen to be against Comp (that word is too long to type, and I never get it right anyway. Indeed my computer says that title is misspelled, and I pasted it in!) but that title seemed to be just click bait so, of course, I clicked on it.

The author was an ‘Egalitarian’ proponent (hereafter Egal) and waxed most upset about all of the nasty things that those Comps were saying about Egals. Among the hundreds of theological errors in her post, one that really stood out to me was this one:

So let’s talk about “created order.” There was no subjugation of women in Eden…

So I thought I would write a post about it. Because, you know, that’s what I do. I also here and now extend an invitation to her to have a long form discussion.

Bait and Switch?

Now one thing I’m not completely sure on is whether she is saying this as a bait and switch. Whether she is using the word ‘subjugation’ not to speak of the ‘created order’, but in order to, later on in the discussion, say ‘Ha, ha, Scripture is always against subjugation, so it obviously isn’t in The Garden either!’

But for the rest of this post I will be acting as if her use of the word ‘subjugation’ here was in direct response to ‘created order’, and that she is speaking of the word :

G5293   (Strong)

ὑποτάσσω

hupotassō

hoop-ot-as'-so

From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

Total KJV occurrences: 40

That she is saying that ‘from the beginning’ there was no human subordination, and that it came in only with the fall. Which she seems to imply later in her article.

From the Beginning

So, in refutation, I am going to post, and discuss, a series of verses. Each and every one of these verses speaks of events and status before the fall. Which is a very good place to start, and she is wise to insist that we start there.

The Fall

Now a quick definition of ‘the fall’, as far as timing.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

And the eyes of them both were opened,

Genesis 3:6-7a

That’s what I am calling ‘the fall’. Everything before that, pre-fall, everything after that, post-fall. Naked pre-fall, knew they were naked post-fall. Why is this important? It means that Eve was tempted pre-fall. It means that Adam named the animals pre-fall. It means that… well, you’ll see.

Order

Now, I have a quick confession. I don’t actually believe that the original poster was being honest. I am open to believing that she was, but it is really, really, hard. Because it would require me to believe that she is really, really ignorant. Or illogical. And her article makes the first belief difficult. And she would get really mad at me if I said she was illogical so…

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him…. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Genesis 2:18-30, summarised

If I was writing this post solely on my own reasoning as a believer in patriarchy, I might tempted to speak of the hundreds of ways in which Scripture uses order as an indication of authority. But since I am trying to focus on Scripture here I will post Paul doing the same thing:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

I Timothy 2:11-15

In the middle of this horrible example of patriarchy Paul gives a reason for his teaching… ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve’. He speaks of women being silent, being under authority, ‘with all subjection’, not to teach, even calls them to bear children! …and he gives for his reason ‘For Adam was formed first’.

(He also speaks of ‘the woman being deceived’ but I fear to mention that, because in her article she goes all incandescent about all of those horrible comps saying that women are emotional, illogical, and easily deceived.)

Subordination

When we come to the New Testament passages on the subordination of the wife to the husband (or, indeed, the subordination of children to their parents) we have to ask ourselves, is this a fault of the fall, or part of the creation order?

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Genesis 2:18

Let me very quickly state that I am NOT posting that verse as a proof of the subordination of women to their husbands. I believe it is such a proof, but I am not bringing it forward as such a proof. I am bringing it forward as a time stamp. Let us look at a similar set of verses:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:27-28

Here we see God relating the creation of man and woman. And not just creating them, but giving them a mandate or, if you prefer, several mandates: be fruitful and have dominion. We could dive down into ‘subdue’ and ‘fish of the sea’ and all that but, at the top level, ‘be fruitful’ and ‘take dominion’.

Now let us notice that there is no mention made of how this ‘fruitful’ was to occur. We don’t get any indication of that until after the fall:

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Genesis 3:20

In Genesis 2 we get the whole ‘one flesh’ thing, and we read certain things into that (as have every commentator before us) but it isn’t until Genesis 3, after the fall, before we get the ‘mother’ business.

So do we believe that Adam and Eve were created androgynous, without reproductive organs, and these suddenly appeared at the whole ‘realised they were naked’ scene? (It would be rather shocking!) Or do we believe (as in, like, everyone that I have ever read ever, and all of the artists, etc.) that Adam and Eve were created as fully functioning male and female, with all of their bits in place and working? That when Adam said ‘one flesh’ he meant… [edited for modern Conservative Christian sensibilities]?

So going back to ‘help meet’, how are we to read it… pre-fall? Are we to read that Eve, like her daughters after her, was designed to be in a relationship of hierarchy? That she was to bless her husband, keep the house, and raise the children? Or was their relationship androgynous in that sense until the fall? That the first thing Adam did (right before telling her to sew them some fig leaves) was to yell at her to get him a sandwich?¹

Naming

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Genesis 2:23

Now here we have our first passage that is not interpreted or defined in the New Testament. Here we have to look more vaguely at how the Scriptures treat a given event. Scriptures pre and post fall.

One of the first acts that Adam did when ‘taking dominion’ of the animals was to name them. We see, all throughout Biblical history, those in authority using that authority to bestow names on those under their authority: Pharaoh, the king of Babylon, parents, and God.

Naming is an act of authority. The child doesn’t grow up and have the parents say, “So, what are you going to call us?” The child is taught that this person is to be called ‘Mother’ and this one ‘Father’ and when the ‘Mother’ one yells, “John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt!” you had better come running! Cause that’s your name. Cause they say so.

Conclusion

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

I Corinthians 11:7-10

Contra the authoress of the

Honest To Goodness

substack, Mrs Kaeley Harms, the plan of God for male and female roles begins… from the beginning. Indeed, from before the beginning. From the beginning God made them male and female. From the beginning they were different physically. From the beginning they were different socially. And from the beginning they were in hierarchy. And this was all in God’s plan from even before the beginning.

Substack Etiquette

It is totally off the subject of this post, but I consider it very bad etiquette, to the point of lying, to screen shot someone’s response without providing a link. Thus making sure they don’t get notified that you posted about them. Very bad etiquette.

So if Megan Bashan didn’t hear that Mrs Harms was posting screen shots from Mrs Bashan, she will hear it from me.

---

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

Links

Complementarianism: A Gateway to Misogyny?

Wives Submit?

1. For those not up on your social media, the term ‘get me a sandwich’ and similar ones are code for ‘wife in her place and obeying her husband’, and are used by both sides of the debate. ‘I eat bacon’ is also code for ‘real men’ and the like.