Equal in Creation and the Fall

My review of Chapter One, The Bible vs. Biblical Womanhood, Philip B. Payne

Photo by Scott Webb on Unsplash

Philip Payne advocates for the theological position that women in the church are divinely called by God, on an equal footing with men, to undertake roles such as teaching, preaching, and serving as elders. This stance is supported by a number of New Testament scholars. Payne's approachable writing style not only adds clarity to the discussion but also makes the content easily comprehensible, even for those who may not be deeply versed in theological discourse.

And what better place to start than with the creation account in Genesis 1-3. Payne begins by affirming the dominion* both men and women have over the rest of creation by exercising their gifts to care for it. He supports this view by first focusing on 13 words in Genesis 1:26-31 that demonstrate the plural nature of the entire text. Men and women are addressed together as one without favoritism or hierarchy of one gender over another. According to Payne, God is addressing both man and woman as equals who have rights and responsibilities for the creation.

Then, the author delves into the text of Genesis 2, providing a somewhat granular analysis of the Hebrew word “ezer” and its modifier “kenegdo.” This examination sheds light on the role of the woman, moving beyond the traditional interpretation of her as a mere helper. According to the author, the combination of these two words portrays the woman as a source of saving strength, offering a unique form of guidance and support to man. She is not positioned as subordinate to man but rather as his equal, serving as his counterpart, companion, and friend. Together, they are depicted as cultivators and enrichers of the earth and all living creatures. The main point Payne wants to drive home is each reference to their authority is jointly held by both rather than a hierarchy of authority.

The final section of this chapter deals with man and woman’s fall and disintegration of their relationship with God due to their unwillingness to obey what God earlier asked of them. Payne points out several features of the equality of man and woman even in their sin. Together, they…

1. face temptation and disobey God

2. both realize they are naked and hide

3. both pass the blame

4. both are personally responsible for their disobedience.

Last but not least, the author points to a further result of the fall- the man shall rule over the woman (Genesis 3:16). This, according to Payne, is something new and contrary to God’s original desire for creation. It describes and implies that prior, man had not ruled over woman, rather than a prescription of how man is to act towards the woman.

Are the author’s arguments and understanding of the creation account convincing? When working in Genesis, I think it is hard to say. The Hebrew language is more nuanced, with shades of meaning that can produce a variety of interpretations. What the author does well is offer an approach that speaks from the text as it is written (good exegesis) rather than interpreting text in a way that reflects the reader's own biases and reads into it what’s not necessarily there (aka eisegesis).

---

*The Hebrew word for "dominion" used in Genesis 1:26-28 is "radah" which means to rule or have dominion over something or someone. It can imply exercising authority over, yet keeping with God’s character, it often can carry the meaning of protecting the defenseless and offering justice to the oppressed.