Are biblical gender roles still relevant in today’s culture, or have we misunderstood their purpose?

Marriage
21

@BobEstey
Yes, of course He was.

“Submission” is a mark of every believer, a testimony to the truth, a demonstration of the relationship between Jesus and His church, a reflection of Jesus’s humble submission to evil as His means of overcoming it. So, we all submit to God; we submit to authority, to leaders, to elders, to each other, Children to parents, Wives to husbands, husbands to the needs and care of His wife and family, all of us to the needs of others, we even submit to being “slapped on the cheek”, or killed for the testimony of The Gospel. Submission is modeled for us, by Jesus, for us to welcome and embrace as a testimony of His character, and as a demonstration of His ultimate strenghth. We can submit because the Strongest submitted.

Here are a few places where we receive this admonition.

Let all that you do be done with love. I urge you, brethren–you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints-- that you also submit to such, and (submit) to everyone who works and labors with us. 1 Corinthians 16:14-16

…speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of God.
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Husbands, love (submit to the needs of ) your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave (submitted) Himself for her, > that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5:19-27

Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant (submissive), and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled (submitted) Himself and became obedient (submissive) to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Philippians 2:4-8

Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 1 Peter 5:5

Yes, it is an honor and a privilege to submit to those whom God has placed in our lives. We do not count it as a burden, as the world does, but as a glory:

Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, (in submissions) for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. 2 Corinthians 12:10

God did not give women a lower role, but a Christlike role in which to live.

Submitting to you,
KP

22

These predictions are not commands but instead parts of God’s curses on Adam, Satan, and Eve (the rest of chapter three). Male dominance over women is part of that curse, but before the fall, God gives Adam the responsibility to name the animals, and Adam names Eve “woman.” Naming means having a measure of authority as a leader.

Gen 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.
Gen 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

23

In Genesis 2:20-23, Adam names the animals and calls the woman 'ishshah (“woman”), derived from ‘isk saying "she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Bruce suggests that naming implies authority, as Adam’s naming of animals reflects his God-given dominion (Gen 1:28)..we need to talk abt this.
The Hebrew word qara’ (“to call” or “name”) in Genesis 2:23 does not inherently denote authority. For animals, Adam’s naming fulfills his role as steward, exercising dominion as God’s image-bearer (Genesis 1:26-28), a role shared with the woman, as both are commanded to “have dominion” (radah) over creation. The naming of Eve, however occurs in a poetic declaration of unity as
“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”
We can interpret this as an expression of mutuality, not subordination, reflecting the equality of male and demale in God’s image (Gen 1:27). Unlike the animals, Eve is not under Adam’s dominion (@kpuff,@Bruce_leiter) but is his 'ezer kenegdo (Genesis 2:20) a “helper fit for him” where 'ezer connotes strength and partnership (refer God as 'ezer in Psalms 33:20, @BobEstey ) and kenegdo implies equality not inferiority

Bruce_Leiter’s inference that naming implies leadership draws from cultural assumptions where naming signifies authority, however Genesis 2:23’s context is distinct, the woman is not Adam’s creation but God’s, formed from his rib to underscore their unity. The Hebrew word 'ishshah from 'ish mirrors a linguistic complementarity, not hierarchical act. Later Adam names her Eve (chawwah, "life) in Genesis 3:20, post-Fall but this too reflects her role as “mother of all living” not subservience. St. Irenaeus see Eve’s creation as fulfilling Adam’s need for communion, not establishing his rule.
For info on this:

The prelapsarian state lacks any hint of domination (@BobEstey) as Genesis 1:28 grants both man and woman dominion over creation. not each other The “rule” of Genesis 3:16 as St. Thomas Aquinas notes arises from sin’s distortion, not God’s original intent. To project authority into Genesis 2:23 risks anachronistically applying post-Fall dynamics to the prelapsarian order, thus contradiction the evident primordial equality
One might object saying that Adam’s naming mirrors God’s naming of creation, implying authority..Brother, God’s naming establishes His sovereign act of creation, whereas Adam’s naming of Eve acknowledges God’s prior act (Gen 2:22)
Another might object and cite cultural norms where implies leadership but biblical text prioritize theological intent over cultural analogy, emphasizing unity
Exegetical analysis (@kpuff @BobEstey, @Johann)
Gen 3:16 states
To the woman he said,
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” (RSV)
As previously established, the Hebrew w’hu yimshol-bakh (“he shall rule over you”) uses Qal imperfect yimshol indicating a future consequence, not an imperative command. Following St.John Chrysostom (Homilies on Genesis 17) and St.Augustine (On the Literal Interpretation on Genesis 11) interprets this as a prophecy (@BobEstey ) of relational discord due to original sin, not a divine mandate for male dominance The “curse” (better termed as “consequences” as the Hebrew ‘arur’ is used for the serpent and ground, not directly for Eve) describes the penal effects of the Fall i.e. pain, toil and disordered relationships. These are not God’s prescriptive will but His consequent will, permitting distortions in human freedom’s wake.
If i were to say in one line @kpuff and @BobEstey, and those who don’t want to take the pain to read, i would say
God was not commanding woman to be subservient to men in Genesis 3:16, but prophesying the relational discord caused by sin..i hope u understand now @BobEstey

24

I completely agree, @BobEstey, that Adam and Eve are fully equal in status before God. However, they have different roles. Other Bible passages confirm my statement. I’ll quote a couple of them:

1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (In the rest of I Corinthians 11, Paul applies his principle of verse 3 to his culture, but we can’t throw out the principle with the bath water 🙂. Later in that same chapter, Paul grounds his principle in God’s creation of Eve from Adam.)

1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Husbands are called to serve their wives’ needs, while wives are called to submit to their husbands’ servant leadership. What is breaking up so many marriages these days is that individualism dictates that we must seek our own good instead of serving each other. But someone has to provide direction to the family’s life. God has delegated the male’s role to be that person for whatever reason. It’s servant-leadership, not male domination, which is part of God’s curse in Genesis 3.

May God bless you and make you a blessing, @BobEstey!

25

@Bruce_Leiter, we agree that Genesis 3:16 prophesies the relational discord of sin, not divine command for male domination (@BobEstey). However 1 Cor 11:3-9 and Eph 5:22-27 read in their first century context emphasizes mutual submission, not unilateral male leadership. Being an Orthodox, as well as if we read the scriptures, we can affirm the equal dignity of spouses with marriage as a partnership reflecting Christ’s sacrificial love. Your servant-leadership model risks projecting post-Fall dynamics onto God’s original design.
1.Servant-Leadership
@Bruce_Leiter
Cites Ephesians 5:22-23 and 1 COr 11:2 to argue for male servant-leadership. However Ephesians 5:21 “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” sets the context for verses 22-25. The greek hypotassō (submit) applies mutually, as the verb’s participle form links to the broader exhortation. Eph 5:25 commands husbands to “love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” emphasizing self-sacrifical love, not directional authority. The analogy of Christ and the Church (5:23) highlights love and unity not hierarchy as Christ’s headship is salvific, not domineering (Philippians 2:5-9)
In 1 Cor 11:3 kephalē (“head”) likely means source as in 11:8
man was not made from woman, but woman for man
reflecting Genesis 2:21-23’s creation order.
Yet 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 clarifies
Nevertheless, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
This underscores interdependence, not male authority. Appeal to 1 Cor 11:7-9 must be read with Genesis 2:18’s 'ezer kenegdo (“helper fit for him”), where 'ezer kenegdo denotes strength (Psalms 46:1, God as 'ezer). Scripture portrays Eve as Adam’s equal partner, NOT SUBORDINATE, as BOTH BEAR GOD’S IMAGE (GENESIS 1:27)
Husbands’ love mirrors Christ’s sacrifice, not directional authority, aligning with Scripture’s call to unity (John 12:21)
2. Individualism
@Bruce_Leiter
argues that individualism, seeking one’s own good, disrupts marriages, requiring male leader, as “someone to provide direction”. Scripture, however counters individualism through mutual love, not gendered roles. 1 Cor 12:25-26 teaches that the body of Christ (including marriages) functions so “that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together.” This communal ethic, rooted in Christ’s love (John 13:34-35) applies to marriages without mandating male direction
Genesis 1:28 grants both man and woman dominion over creation, implying shared stewardship, “God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply..and have dominion’” No scirptural text assigns directional authority to men pre-Fall. Post Fall, Romans 12:10, “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor” reinforces mutual service in relationships. Bruce’s assumption of a necessary “leader” lacks biblical grounding, as Scripture envisions marriages as a partnership (Gen 2:24, “they become one flesh”)
3. Genesis 3:16
@Bruce_Leiter
has rightly recognized Genesis 3:16’s “he shall rule over you” as curse, not God’s design. The Hebrew yimshol (Qal imperfect of mashal, “to rule”) describes A CONSEQUENCE OF SIN (@BobEstey) paralleled by pain in childbearing and toil. This “rule” disrupts the equality of Genesis 1:27 where “male and female he created them”, both bearing God’s image. Your claim that God delegates men to lead “for whatever reason” lacks scriptural support. as
No pre-Fall text assigns men authority over women. Genesis 2:23’s naming of Eve (“she shall be called Woman”) relfects mutuality (“bone of my bones”), not domination, as the Hebrew 'ish and 'ishshah denote linguistic complementarity.
Scripture’s redemptive arc reverses this curse. Galatians 3:28 proclaims “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” restoring prelapsarian equality through baptism.
Colossians 3:18-19, while echoing Ephesians’ submission language, pairts it with “Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them” emphasising mutual care.

26

You say that those passages should be read in their first century contexts? In other words, are the principles in those verses no longer applicable to any situation in our context? If you say, “yes,” you are on very dangerous ground, since you can explain away any verses that don’t agree with our culture, as many professing Christians have done to approve “living together” without getting married, gay marriage, and other unbiblical notions and actions.

Gen 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

In your comments, you confuse equality of status (Genesis 1:27) and difference of role in the male-female relationship. Men and women are equal before God since they are both made in the image and likeness of God, whereas they are different in assigned roles within their relationship (Genesis 2:18).

Male domination was the curse God put on women on the one extreme, but on the other God made them equal in status. The middle way of male servant-leadership, the real meaning of “headship,” involves men serving their wives’ needs in every way and then God lifting them to have the final say in the family’s direction (Ephesians 5:22-27).

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Please don’t try to explain this one away by limiting it to its first-century culture, because it has the principle that I have described.

27

Think you are responding to the wrong person @Bruce_Leiter.

J.

28

Yes, we must be mutually submissive in constantly communicating our desires and thoughts within that marital relationship, but the following verses show how the male is given the “buck stops here” final decision, because when push comes to shove within the relationship, in any decisions that might tear the relationship apart, someone has to be the leader. That position is the man’s. Take it from me, because the marital relationship between me and my late wife lasted 56 years. I tried to follow the biblical model, and God blessed my efforts and prayers.

There were times when I felt it was time for us to move when I was a pastor, when Winnie objected, but I could not share with her the content of private elders’ meetings.

I was thankful that she submitted to my decisions. God confirmed them with calls to churches to which God wanted me to go.