Searching the Scriptures - Samuel Pipim

Page 54'firstborn,' it never entered their minds that this responsibility would be nullified if thefather happened to own cattle before he had sons. In other words, when Moses wroteGenesis, he knew that the first readers would not lump animals and humans together asequal candidates for the responsibilities of the 'firstborn.'" See Question #39 of John Piperand Wayne Grudem, "An Overview of Central Concerns: Questions and Answers," inRecovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p. 81.[3] Over the centuries, some scholars have justified the headship principle witharguments which mistakenly assign superiority to the man and inferiority to the woman.Richard Davidson summarized these arguments: "(a) man is created first and woman last([Gen] 2:7, 22), and the first is superior and the last is subordinate or inferior; (b)woman is formed for the sake of man--to be his 'helpmate' or assistant to cure man'sloneliness (vss. 18-20); (c) woman comes out of man (vss. 21-22), which implies aderivative and subordinate position; (d) woman is created from man's rib (vss. 21-22),which indicates her dependence upon him for life; and (e) the man names the woman (v.23), which indicates his power and authority over her" (Richard M. Davidson, "TheTheology of Sexuality in the Beginning: Genesis 1-2," Andrews University SeminaryStudies 26/1 [1988]:14, emphasis added).From our earlier discussion in chapter III (under the subheadings "Equality of Womenand Men" and "Biblical Headship"), perceptive readers will recognize that our positionon the headship principle is not the same as these summarized views. Against thesemistaken scholarly views, and in agreement with Davidson, we maintain that Genesis 1-2teaches an ontological equality between the sexes; consequently, no inferiority orsuperiority exists within the complementary relationship of man and woman. However,we differ with the assertion that the headship principle is post-fall rather than pre-fall (seepart II of his article, "The Theology of Sexuality in the Beginning: Genesis 3," AndrewsUniversity Seminary Studies 26/2 [1988]:121-131). The four evidences given above traceheadship to the time before the fall.[4] The perfect harmony that existed in Eden before the fall may perhaps be likened tothe harmony in heaven before the fall of Satan, when "So long as all created beingsacknowledged the allegiance of love, there was perfect harmony throughout the universeof God. . . . And while love to God was supreme, love for one another was confiding andunselfish. There was no note of discord to mar the celestial harmonies" ( Patriarchs andProphets , p. 35). Though God's law governed everyone, "When Satan rebelled againstthe law of Jehovah, the thought that there was a law came to the angels almost as anawakening to something unthought of" ( Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing , p. 109).The angels responded freely and spontaneously to God. They seem to have been almostunconscious of a "law" to obey God or to worship Christ. These things were their delight.(See Patriarchs and Prophets , pp. 35-37.)[5] It is instructive to note that the "curse" on Adam was no different from the "curse" onEve, as far as role assignments were concerned. Before the fall, God "took the man andput him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it" (Gen 2:15 NIV), a headship