Did Eve Ruin Ordination?

DID EVE RUIN ORDINATION? According to an article by the Theopolis Institute, the answer is no.  But that’s because female ordination never existed in the first place. 

But is the matter as quickly settled as the author makes it out to be? Certainly not. 

For years I joked around on the issue of women’s ordination, claiming I would be egalitarian, “but my wife won’t let me.” The punchline, of course, our marriage is complementarian but a functional matriarchy. Ivey must be obeyed! That generally garners laughter, and the issue is settled. But since being consecrated as a bishop and now charged with ordaining ministers, I need to clarify my position.

I am indeed now open to the ordination of women in ministry, and I’m greatly concerned about continued trends in largely Reformed and a minority of Anglican circles of establishing patriarchy (the belief God ordained distinct gender roles for men and women) as the biblical model.

That may surprise many, given my reformed pedigree and conservative Anglican leanings. But it was precisely that training that led me to my conclusion.

The hallmark of the Protestant Reformation tradition is “Sola Scriptura,” a Latin phrase meaning “Scripture Alone.” God’s Word is the final authority of all matters concerning faith and belief. All other sources of authority, such as reason, tradition, and experience, are subordinated to it and must never be placed on equal footing. That is the Protestant position and must always be held in high esteem.

But what happens when new understandings challenge church tradition, demanding its reassessment? Or careful reasoning through faithful scholarly research sheds new insight on what seems a settled matter? And as a result, what if new light is brought to bear, forcing us to conclude that a traditional understanding of a given subject, which we may believe has biblical merit, is in error? Do we have the courage to follow through with the authority of God’s Word, or do we not?

Today, many Godly, capable women can “rightly divide the word of truth” and teach and lead in local churches. Are all of these women violating God’s Word where the Apostle Paul to Timothy plainly says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man?” (I Tim. 2:12). When they do teach or preach, are they not violating the Apostles’ explicit command to the Corinthians when he says, “Women should remain silent” (I Cor. 14:34)?  Some say yes.  But others, from within our tradition and from the outside, have challenged our understanding and endeavored to examine these and other passages more closely.^[2] 

As a result of their efforts, enough scholarship by competent Evangelical theologians who have studied the topic has now been published and requires folks like me to honestly say, “On the topic of women’s ordination, maybe we got it wrong.”

Patriarchal Interpretation

What prompted me to write this article was a blog post I mentioned at the opening of this article, a book recently published by Philip B. Payne, The Bible Versus Biblical Womanhood, and a senior thesis I had the joy of listening to this past year.

Payne’s credentials and work on this subject are extensive. But the article raises a question that he doesn’t answer: “Did women’s ordination ever exist at all?”^[3] This question seemed absurd because the same could be asked of men’s ordination.

But the author says no and thus concludes, “The pastor — the leader of worship — represents the one husband, the eternal son, Jesus Christ. The pastor must therefore be a son.”^[4]

Admittedly, I reasoned this way for a long time, and the underlining typological method (a form of biblical theological exegesis) led me to similar conclusions. But there are interpretative difficulties with the texts he cites, particularly a dubious reference to the Levitical priesthood, and the reality that this line of reasoning is not in the Bible.

But he doesn’t just stay in Leviticus and begins his argument with the typical example from Paul’s first letter to Timothy (2:12-14). Then reasons from Genesis 2 (rather than Genesis 3) that “God made Adam first” and “this status came with priestly duties.”^[5]

He then observes Adam’s duties “to guard the garden.”^[6] But then, surprisingly jumps to the Aaronic priesthood and attempts to draw parallels between Adam’s charge by God and the Levitical priesthood’s duties (which were limited to men) to demonstrate Adam’s priestly responsibilities and to establish his case that “Eve being made second meant that she was to be led, or to respond, in worship.”^[7]

He further avers, “Adam was to instruct Eve on how to obey God, and Eve was supposed to submit to that leadership.”^[8]

But there is a problem with his line of reasoning. The Apostle Paul says Adam was created first but never said, “This status came with priestly duties” and certainly does not say, “Eve was supposed to submit to that leadership.” Nowhere in the Bible do we find this line of reasoning. Instead, it is a form of exegesis gone awry and reaks of modern ideals of leadership. On the contrary, “the creation of woman is actually its climax.”^[9]

So what does Genesis 2 actually teach?

Genesis 2 never says anything about submitting to leadership.

Nowhere is the woman’s role described as submitting to the man’s leadership. If anything, the original Hebrew implies the very opposite.

Payne observes that the Hebrew phrase ezer kenego is traditionally interpreted as “a helper corresponding” (CSB) or “a helper fit” (ESV) for him.  But the Hebrew word usually translated as helper (ezer) does not mean servant, subordinate, follower, or student. Instead, Payne argues, the Hebrew word ezer conveys the idea of rescuer, mainly when someone is in duress.^[10]

To support his observation, he gives two examples from Exodus and Psalms.

“and the name of the other, Eliezer (for he said, “The God of my father was my help, and delivered me [ezer] from the sword of Pharaoh”).” (Exodus 18:4, ESV)

“O Israel, trust in the Lord! He is their help [ezer] and their shield.” (Psalm 115:9, ESV)

Each time the word ezer appears in the Old Testament, it is never to communicate subordination or servanthood but, to the contrary, a rescuer. Payne observes, “Never in the Bible, however, does the word ezer require the meaning “helper” as in “servant.” Rather, it suggests that the ezer is able to do something for another person which that person is not capable of doing (emphasis added).” ^[11]

Two additional verses to support this idea come from Psalm 121.

In one of the most beloved passages, we read, “I lift up my eyes to the hills — from where will my help [ezer] come? My help [ezer] comes from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.” (Psalm 121:1-2).”

Notice in both verses the Lord is the one who provides the help and hardly communicates any idea of subordination, student, or follower.

If you study the Hebrew word ezer, you would be hard-pressed to find any subordination implied in the word appearing anywhere when used. In fact, the opposite appears true. Contrary to McIntosh, rather than the woman given to Adam to be a helper as a servant or one led in worship, the woman is given to the man as “a saving strength corresponding to him.”^[12]

That begs the question.

Is Patriarchy still viable?

In my opinion, modern patriarchal interpretation will ultimately die the death of a thousand pinpricks. It may take multiple generations, but in the end, it simply cannot stand on its own.

There are many questions left unanswered here. Such as, how do Genesis 1 and 2 fit together? What are the implications for church governance? How does this understanding explain Paul’s word to Timothy? How do we participate in reversing the consequences of the Fall of humanity?

Answers to these questions are not in the scope of this article. Instead, I aim to address what I see as a glaring problem in complementarian exegesis, the tendency to read into Genesis 2 a form of “sanctified patriarchy” that undermines the narrative and harms women.

It’s hard to see how complementarian arguments can extend forward without acknowledging their working presupposition: Men were originally designed to rule over women. But as I’ve attempted to show above, there is nothing in  Genesis 2 that substantiates this claim other than starting with the presupposition derived from suspect readings of Paul and then moving backward to reinforce the reading. Such tautologies must be called out for what they are, pre-existing prejudices that have existed for centuries.

Unfortunately, such methods have resulted in all kinds of abuses by churches and should be criticized as such.  In the article in question, an example can be found in his statement, “Female ordination never existed in the first place.” But neither did male ordination or patriarchy. Instead, men and women were designed to co-rule together, bearing God’s image and bringing him glory.

[1] Adam McIntosh, “Did Eve Ruin Female Ordination?” (Theopolis, May 31, 2022), https://theopolisinstitute.com/did-eve-ruin-female-ordination/.

[2] For an extensive reference list, see The Center for Biblical Equality website under resources, https://www.cbeinternational.org/view-resources/.

[3] Adam McIntosh, https://theopolisinstitute.com/did-eve-ruin-female-ordination/.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Phillip B. Payne, The Bible Vs. Biblical Womanhood: How God’s Word Consistently Affirms Gender Equality (Zondervan, 2023), 3.

[10] Ibid, 3.

[11] Ibid, 3.

[12] Ibid, 2.