This is what we finally concluded in Part 2 of this series:
Although, the woman was created equal but opposite to a man (Part 1), as part of the punishment, God decided that the woman will desire to control her husband but she will not succeed because, the man will have dominion or authority over her (Part 2). If the woman succeeds in controlling her husband, then God’s punishment would have failed. God changed the equal dynamics that were there by making the man an authority figure over the woman and making the woman not to like it as part of the punishment. This is God’s will. So, it is not by creation that a woman was made unequal to a man but it was by God’s sovereign decree.
1- Was this punishment between a husband and his wife only or was it between a man and a woman even outside the marriage institution?
2- Since Jesus paid a ransom for our past, present and future sins, does it mean this punishment is no longer applicable?
These are now the questions that we need to answer.
1- Was this punishment between a husband and his wife only or was it between a man and a woman even outside the marriage institution?
It is clear from the context of Genesis 3 that Adam and Eve were a married couple, joined together by God. I don’t think there is much debate in this in the Christian world so I am also not going to spend time on it. The punishment given to the woman regarding wanting to rule her husband and her husband being an authority over her, was given in the context of the marriage. So, one can conclude that the punishment applied between a husband and his wife. This is confirmed by Paul in Ephesians 5:22
Ephesians 5:22-24 (ESVST)
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 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. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
The question we need to answer is does this authority of a husband over his wife, extend to the church and/or to the workplace?
In Verse 22 Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands as they do to The Lord. In Verse 23, Paul tells us the reason why and in Verse 24, Paul tells the wives how to submit. This is repeated implicitly or explicitly in a lot of verses like Col 3:18, Tit 2:5, 1Cor 11:3 and 1Peter 3:1. So, in a family setup, a wife must submit to his husband. Remember I am only concentrating on the wives’ side at this moment, this does not mean that husbands don’t have any duties to their wives.
A) Church
There are there passages that come to mind when discussing this issue and that is 1 Cor 11:1-12, 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. These verse clearly show the responsibility of a woman in church. In 1 Cor 11:1-12, Paul starts in verse 3 by making the following statement:
1 Corinthians 11:3 (NIV)
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
There are those that argue that the word “head” in this verse might not mean “authority” but rather the word might mean “source”. They base their argument on verse 8:
1 Corinthians 11:8 (NIV)
For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
I do not beleive that this is the case because if one reads the context were this verse is found, one can see that verse 8 and 9 are actually the explanation or the reason why Paul made a statement in verse 7 and not explaining head in verse 3. So, verse 8 explains verse 7 and not verse 3. Paul in verse 8 and 9 is simply arguing why he said that the woman was the glory of a man.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9 (NIV)
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
So, in verse 3 Paul makes a stament that a man is the head of a woman. The word used by Paul “realise” in verse 3, in the Greek, is in a PRESENT INFINITIVE .The present infinitive pertains to continuous or repeated action, without any implications as to when the action takes place. So, Paul is saying that he wants the Corinthians and us by extension to always realise, to always know. This is not something that was specific for that day but, something that Paul wants us to always realise. Paul wants us to always realise or know that the man is the head of a woman.
Then from verses 4-6, Paul says women must pray or prophesy with their heads covered, in verse 7, Paul says that a woman is the glory of a man and in verse 10, Paul says that this head covering is a symbol of authority. In the context of the passage, it means that this head covering is the symbol of authority a man has over a woman since he said that in verse 5, if a woman does not wear a head covering, she dishonours her head which is the man.
Now Paul says that the head covering is a symbol of authority and that is why a woman must have it on because of the angels. So, the women must have this symbol of authority because of the angels. I don’t know why it is because of the angels. Most commentaries I read all make speculations but none give a concrete explanation. One commentary I read says:
The “angels” have been interpreted as (1) the angels who (according to ancient Jewish interpretations of Gen 6:1- 3) lusted after women and so fell; (2) the angels present in divine worship, who would be offended by a breach of propriety or affront to the husbands (cf. the Dead Sea Scrolls); and (3) the angels who rule the nations but who will ultimately be subordinate to all believers, including these women (6:3; i. e., as a future ruler a Christian woman or man should exercise wise choices in the present, even regarding apparel).
All we know is that the head covering is a symbol of authority the man has over the woman in church and the woman must always have this head covering on because of the angels.
Paul’s argument that a man does not have to wear a head covering but a woman must wear it, is based on the creation, i.e. Genesis. Paul says that the woman is the glory of man because a woman was made from a man and not a man from a woman and secondly, a woman was created for a man and not a man created for a woman. This we find in verse 8-9.
Although I have concluded that creation of a man and a woman in itself did not make the women unequal to a man, Paul is using the fact that a woman was created for or made from a man, as a reason why the woman is the glory of a man and not the reason why the man has authority. Paul is simply saying that the order of creation is the reason why the woman is the glory of man and for this reason in verse 10, that is why she must have the symbol of authority on her head. Paul is not saying that the order of creation gives a man authority over a woman, he is simply saying that the order of creation makes a woman the glory of a man.
We can therefore conclude that from this passage, 1 Cor 11:1-12, that in the church, where we pray and/or prophesy, men are still seen as having authority over the women. The reason being, as Paul indicates, the reason is the order of creation of man and woman as read in Genesis and not the creation itself. The creation itself made a woman equal but opposite to a man but, according to Paul, the order of creation, makes a woman the glory of a man and since the man is the head of a woman, the head covering is a symbol of authority a man has over the woman.
The reason as you can see is not based on culture. It is based on Genesis. To say that this was because of culture would be to add to the passage your own words.