Complementarians often appeal to Genesis 3:16 for why men should rule over women. This article shows why the Complementarian understanding of this passage is inaccurate.

1. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
Should Men Rule Over Women?
A Closer Look at Genesis 3:16
Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded
you that you should not eat?”
Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field;
on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you
and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His
heel.”
To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your
desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of
which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you
shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat
the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it
you were taken; For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.”
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 3:9-20 NKJV
This statement — Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. — has often
been referenced by Complementarians to support the idea that God wants men to rule over
women — in society, the church, and the marriage relationship. However, as D.A. Carson is
quoted as saying, “A text taken out of context is a pretext for a prooftext.” In other words, if a
passage of Scripture is read in isolation from its surrounding context it can be misinterpreted and
misapplied. The key to understanding any single text in Scripture is to read it within its larger
context.
In order to help us accurately understand what God means when he says the above statement,
we will start by looking at other passages in Genesis 1-3 that outline God’s original design for the
relationship between man and woman.
Man and Woman Are Created as Co-Rulers

2. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
When God creates man and woman he creates them as co-rulers over his creation. Notice the
underlined phrases in the quotation of Genesis 1:26-28 below:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over
the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping
thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created
him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and
multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and
over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:26-28 NKJV
In this passage, God addresses both man and woman together, and commands both of them to
rule over the creation.
It’s important to recognize that this co-rulership between the man and woman comes directly
from God — in fact, it is said to be a blessing from him. Co-rulership is God’s idea and carries a
blessing when expressed according to God’s original design.
Before we move on from this passage, we need to make an important observation: nowhere in
this original creation account is the man told by God to rule over the women, neither is the
woman told to be subordinate to the man. God’s original design for man and woman is for them
to have shared governance over the creation.
Reflective Question: If God wanted the man to rule over the woman and the woman to be
subordinate to the man as a part of the original design of creation, wouldn’t this be a good time
to say this to either the man or the woman at the beginning of their life together?
The Woman Is Created as The Man’s Counterpart
The creation account in Genesis 1 seems to be a generic description of God’s creative activity,
while Genesis 2 offers us a more detailed account of God’s original design for man and woman’s
relationship. The relevant passage for our discussion is Genesis 2:18-22.
And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to
him.”
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air,
and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living
creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of
the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and
closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a
woman, and He brought her to the man. Genesis 2:18-22 NKJV
Unfortunately, people have often read this passage and assumed the word “helper” implied the
first woman (or all women in general) were created by God as subordinate assistants to their
husbands (or all men in general.) Specifically, it is often assumed the“help” that the woman was

3. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
created to offer has often been defined as taking care of the family and the house, catering to
the needs and even the demands of the husband, or somehow supporting the man in fulfilling
his unique calling from God — implying that the woman has no unique calling from God, but was
instead created for the sole purpose of helping the man fulfill his own calling from God.
This understanding of the woman’s role in relation to the husband (or men in general) is largely
due to a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word “help” in Genesis 2:18 and 2:20. The
Hebrew word for “help” in these passages is ezer. This word is always and only used in the Old
Testament for someone who performs vital and powerful acts of rescue and support.1 For
example, out of the twenty-one times the word ezer appears in the Old Testament it is used:
• Twice in reference to the first woman. (Genesis 2:18,20)
• Three times for people helping (or failing to help) in life-threatening situations. (Isaiah 30:5;
Ezekiel 12:14; Daniel 11:34)
• Sixteen times it refers to God. (see references here)
In each instance where the word ezer is used, there is no indication that the person functioning
as the ezer is in any way inferior or subordinate to the one receiving from the ezer. This is made
especially clear for us by virtue of the fact that God is said to be an ezer for humans beings. If
being an ezer somehow requires one to be subordinate or inferior to the one you are being an
ezer to, then we are presented with the rather uncomfortable scenario of God being subordinate
or inferior to humankind.
The word ezer is further qualified by the Hebrew word kenegdo in both Genesis 2:18 and 2:20.
The word kenegdo is often translated as “comparable to him” or “suitable for him.” However, a
more accurate translation of this word would be “corresponding to him” or “as a counterpart to
him.” There is no sense in this word, or in this passage, that the woman is created as a
subordinate to the man.
The phrase ezer kenegdo — “a helper comparable for him” —communicates that the woman is
created to be the man’s counterpart — she is to be distinct in functionality, yet dynamic in
equality. She was created to uniquely partner with the man in fulfilling their joint commission of
co-ruling the creation.
Unfortunately, many people have read already existing cultural norms and understandings about
women’s role into this passage and assumed the woman was created to be subordinate and
subservient to the man.2
1
The word ezer is a combination of two roots, meaning “to rescue/to save” and “strength”.[2] The Hebrew
word ezer is a combination of two roots: `-z-r, meaning “to rescue, to save,” and g-z-r, meaning “to be strong.” R.
David Freedman, “Woman, a Power Equal to a Man”, Biblical Archaeology Review 9 (1983): 56-58. Quoted in Hard
Sayings of the Bible by Walter Kaiser, et al. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 93.
2
For a more in depth look at the implications that the phrase ezer kenegdo has on our understanding of Genesis
chapters 1-3, see Margaret Mowszko’s blog post here: https://margmowczko.com/ezer-kenegdo-subordinate-
helper-eve/

4. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
Reflective Question: If God wanted the man to rule over the woman as a part of the original
design of creation, wouldn’t this be a good time to say this to either the man or the woman at
the beginning of their life together?
Man Rules Over The Woman As a Result of the Fall, Not God’s Command
Now that we have taken a look at some of the relevant passages that surround Genesis 3:9-20,
it’s time to take a closer look at what God actually does and does not communicate when he
says, “Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you.” But first, let’s revisit D.A.
Carson’s observation that, “A text taken out of context is a pretext for a prooftext.” All of us are
vulnerable to reading a text out of context, and then using it as a prooftext for what we already
think is true. This is especially true when it comes to passages that discuss the role of women in
relation to men. Why? Because we all have assumptions about what the role of women should
be, even before we read the text of Scripture. We bring those assumptions with us to the text,
and whether we like it or not, those assumptions can cloud our perception of what the text is
actually communicating. We all read the text with glasses on, and those glasses will shape what
we see — or don’t see — in the text.
Addressing Assumptions
Because the statement, “Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you,” is often
used as a prooftext for Complementarianism, we will start by looking at common assumptions
that the Complementarian view often makes about this passage. We will then show how each of
those assumptions are not grounded in the text of Scripture, followed by an appropriate
contextual interpretation of what the passage means.
Assumption #1 — God Addresses Adam First, Implying Man’s Role Was Already
Superior to the Woman’s
In the narrative, after Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, God comes walking in the garden. They hear the sound of him walking, and out of fear they
hide from God in the trees. God then says “Adam, where are you?” The assumption here is that
God addresses Adam before he addresses Eve because Adam’s role is somehow superior to that
of Eve’s role in the relationships. In other words, God is starting at the top of the hierarchy.
This interpretation of God’s action is built on a previous assumption that the woman was created
to be in a subordinate role to the man. However, notice that nowhere in the text of Genesis 3:9-
20 is there an explicit or implicit statement that would overturn what has already been said in
the previous passages of the creation account. In Genesis 1:26-28 man and woman are created
as co-rulers of creation. They both equally share in the task of exercising dominion. In Genesis
2:18-22, man and woman have a distinct functionality, but this difference is to be expressed in
dynamic equality. Nowhere in the creation account is man described as being over the woman;
neither is the woman described as being subordinate to the man.

5. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
Reflective Question: If the woman is never described in the creation account as being
subordinate to the man, why would we expect the Creator to approach them as if that was the
case?
Assumption #2 — The Woman Wants to Control her Husband, and Therefore the
Man Will Rule Over Her
The passage in Genesis 3:16 says that the woman will “desire” her husband. This has often been
interpreted to mean that, because of the dysfunction introduced by the fall, the woman will have
a desire to go beyond her God given subordinate role and control her husband. Unfortunately,
this interpretation is also built on the assumption that the woman was created to be in a
subordinate role to the man. But as explained in Assumption #1, a close reading of the creation
account will not allow for that interpretation.
In addition to this false assumption, the Hebrew word “desire” in Genesis 3:16 — teshuqah —
does not mean “a desire to control.” In short, the definition of this word does not mean “a desire
to control.” It simply means “to turn towards, or desire.”3
In light of what this word actually means, there are several options for how to interpret what is
said in Genesis 3:16 regarding the woman’s desire for her husband.
1. Even though bearing children will involve pain and sorrow, the woman will still desire to bear
children through sexual union with her husband.
2. Even though the husband will rule over the woman, she will still desire the intimacy and
companionship that comes from the marriage union with her husband.
Either one of these interpretations seem plausible and can account for why these statements are
made back to back to one another.
Reflective Question: Is God being prescriptive or descriptive when he describes how the woman
will desire her husband, and the man will rule over? In other words, is God saying these things
will happen because he wants them to happen that way, or is God merely putting Adam and Eve
on notice about the dysfunctions that will follow as a result of the fall?
Assumption #3a — God Commands the Man to Rule Over the Woman As Part of the
Curse
It should be noted right away that this assumption has absolutely no grounding in the text. First,
God never curses either the man or the woman. The only entities that God explicitly curses in the
text are the serpent and the soil (see Genesis 3:14,17).
Second, God does not command the man to rule over the woman. There is in fact no command
mentioned in Genesis 3:16 at all. There is only a description of what God will do, what the
3
For a more detailed exploration of how teshuqah has been translated by various lexicons, see Margaret Mowczko’s
article here: https://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/

6. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
woman will do, and what the man will do. For those who are familiar with the rules of the English
language, to understand what a text is saying we must pay attention to subjects, verbs, and
objects. In other words, who [the subject] is doing what [the verb] and to whom [the object].
With this in mind, let us look at Genesis 3:16 again.
I [the subject is God] will greatly multiply [the verb/action is being performed by God] your [the
subject is the woman] sorrow and conception. In pain you will bring forth children.
Now let us focus on the next sentence in Genesis 3:16, paying the same attention to subject,
verb, and object.
Your [subject is Eve] desire [this is a noun in the Septuagint, but it implies active desire from the
woman towards the man, so from a narrative perspective it can be treated as a verb] will be for
your husband [object of her desire is the man], but he [subject is the man] will rule over [verb is
being performed by the man] you [the object of the mans rule is the woman.]
Now, imagine we were conducting a criminal investigation, and we discovered someone’s
eyewitness testimony written on paper describing who did what to who. If we want to discover
who is responsible for the crime, we have to pay attention to the subjects, verbs, and objects in
the testimony. With that in mind, in the beginning of Genesis 3:16, God [the subject] says that he
will do something [verb] to the woman [subject]. Notice the man is not the subject — it is not
the man who multiplies the woman’s sorrow and pain in childbirth. Also notice that the woman
is not the subject — it is not the woman who multiplies her own sorrow and pain in childbirth.
God alone is the subject of the verb, and is therefore the sole responsible agent for multiplying
the woman’s sorrow and pain in childbirth.4
In the same way we cannot insert the woman or the man as subjects of the verb for the
statement, “…multiply your sorrow…”, neither can we insert God as the subject of the statement,
“…your desire will be for your husband…”, or “…will rule over you…” God is not the one acting in
these statements. Specifically, God is not commanding the woman to desire her husband, nor is
God making the woman desire her husband. The verse simply says that the woman will desire
her husband. The subject is the woman, not God.
4 In this text, God says, “I will multiply your sorrow…” Presumably, God does not actively inflict every pregnant
woman throughout history with sorrow and pain, as if he actively makes something happen during each woman’s
pregnancy that, if he did not actively make it happen, it would otherwise not happen. Rather, the sorrow and pain
during pregnancy seems to come as a natural consequence of the woman being exiled from God’s presence — the
Source of Life — with a corrupted human nature. In fact, it’s not just bringing forth life from the womb that will be
more difficult, bringing forth life from the soil will also prove difficult for the man as well. Distance from the Source
of Life always make producing life more difficult.

7. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
The same can be said of the man ruling over the woman. The man is the acting subject, not God.
Also, to state the obvious, the woman is not the acting subject, she is the object of the man’s
rule.
To say that God is commanding the man to rule over the woman is to say something the text
does not say. We cannot insert God as a subject where the text does not insert him. We cannot
assign actions to God that the text does not assign to him.
By way of contrast, Genesis 4:7 is a good example of what it would look like for God to command
someone to rule over someone. After Cains offering is rejected, God says to Cain:
“Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And
if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Genesis 4:6-7 NKJV
This wording in this passage is actually quite similar to the wording in Genesis 3:16. In fact, both
passages use the same word for “desire” — teshuqah — and “rule over” — mashal. But there is
one important difference between the two passages – one contends a direct command, the
other doesn’t. In Genesis 4:7 God gives a direct command for Cain to rule over sin. In this
instance, there is no question about what God wants because God give a direct command to be
obeyed. However, in Genesis 3:16 we do not see God giving a direct command to be obeyed.
Rather, God is telling the man and woman what will be as a result of the fall, not what should be
as a result of the fall. God is being descriptive, not prescriptive.
It is because some have mistakenly seen God as the acting subject in the latter part of Genesis
3:16 that God has often been mistakenly charged with commanding the man to rule over the
woman. However, God does not command the man to rule over the woman. Neither does God
command the woman to subordinate herself to the man.
Reflective Question: Why do we assume the text is saying that God wants the man to rule over
the woman, when the text does not in fact say that this is what God wants?
Assumption #3b — Because God Wants the Man to Rule Over the Woman, the
Woman Should Be Subordinate to the Man
There are some Complementarians who reject the idea that God is being descriptive in the latter
part of Genesis 3:16. Most Complementarians see God as being prescriptive in this text. As such,
it is helpful to address other assumptions, and the logical inconsistencies, that flow out of a
prescriptive understanding of the text.
First, we need to define what we mean by prescriptive. When we say prescriptive, we mean that
God is giving us a direct command — he is telling us how he wants things to be. In other words, if
God is being prescriptive in the latter part of Genesis 3:16 then God not only desires that man
rule over the woman, he is in fact commanding the man to rule over her.

8. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
The consequences that come out of a prescriptive understanding of Genesis 3:16 are clear and
simple. If God is being prescriptive in this text, then man would be disobedient to God if he does
not rule over the woman. By implication, the woman would also be disobedient to God if she
does subordinate herself to the man’s rule. In short, if God is being prescriptive then he is giving
a command that has to be obeyed by both the man and the woman. Stated more directly, if
either the man is not ruling, or the woman is not being subordinate, then either the man or the
woman respectively is being disobedient to God and therefore sinful.
With this observation being made, let’s see what happens if we apply this same “prescriptive
logic” to the other parts of Genesis 3 where God outlines various consequences of the fall. For
example:
• What about a woman’s pain and sorrow in child bearing? If God is being prescriptive in
this text, would a woman be disobedient and sinful if she took pain medication to
decrease her pain and sorrow during her pregnancy?
• What about man sweating while he works the ground? If God is being prescriptive in this
text, would man be disobedient and sinful if he produced life from the soil without
sweating?
• What about the thorns and thistles that would come out of the ground? If God is being
prescriptive in this text, would man be disobedient and sinful if he removed the thorns
and thistles from the ground in order to make it easier for him to bring life out of the
soil?
The assumption I am making here is that the reader would answer “No” to each of the above
questions. A woman is not being disobedient and sinful when she actively tries to remove the
sorrow and pain of childbirth through medication. The man is not being disobedient and sinful
when he goes out early in the morning to plant seeds in his garden to avoid sweating in the heat
of the day. Likewise, the man is not being disobedient and sinful when he removes the thorns
and thistles from his garden to make it less “toilsome” to reap a harvest.
If one takes a prescriptive approach to God’s statement about the man ruling over the woman,
then one must also take a prescriptive approach to God’s other statements about the
consequences of the fall. As such, if one thinks it is not disobedient or sinful for men and women
to actively remove those consequences of the fall from their life, why would it be disobedient or
sinful to remove hierarchy that shows up in the relationship between man and woman? For
some reason the Complementarian view thinks it is acceptable to reverse or remove every one
of the consequences from the fall except for the one that deals with the man ruling over the
woman.
The irony of this double standard is captured by the following poem from Carmen J. Bryant.5
5
Bryant, Carmen J. (2003). Command or Curse? Women’s Position: A Look at Genesis 3:16 in the Light of Abuse
http://www.languageinindia.com/march2009/commandorcurse.html

9. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
God said to man, “The earth will bring forth thistles.” Man replied, “I’ll weed them out. I’ll develop weed
killers and make my garden a paradise.”
God said to man, “You will work by the sweat of your brow.” Man replied, “I’ll invent tools that will make
my work easier: the plow, the hoe, the tiller and the John Deere tractor [now equipped with air
conditioners!!!].”
God said to woman, “You will have pain in childbirth.” Man responded, “Yea, so be it, let her suffer so my
quiver can be full. It is God’s will. My work was made hard because of her.”
God said to woman, “Your husband will rule over you.” Man responded, “Of course that’s the way it should
be. I am to be her master. I was created first.”
And woman bowed her head and said, “I am indeed under a curse.”
By now it should be clear that one cannot take a prescriptive approach to God’s statement, “Your
desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you,” without digging oneself into an
interpretive hole.
Assumption #4 — Man Ruling Over the Woman is an Intensification of Mans Already
Existing Hierarchical Role from Creation
Some Complementarians see the phrase, “…but he will rule over you” as an intensification of the
hierarchical position that God had already established for man before the fall. In other words, as
Tim Archer explains in his article that supports this position:
Reproduction wasn’t new; God had already told men and women to multiply. But now childbirth would
involved pain. Agriculture was already a part of their lives. But after the Fall, the earth would no longer
work with them; food would be produced only through intense labor. It would only make sense that male
leadership also existed before the Fall.
A better understanding of Genesis 3:16 recognizes that man was already supposed to be leading his wife;
after the Fall, he would do so through domination. Servant leadership would be replaced by a dictatorial
approach.6
Mr. Archer is correct in his observations that human reproduction and agriculture existed before
the fall, and that after the fall these things become more difficult and dysfunctional. But Mr.
Archer makes an incorrect assumption about the nature of man’s role before the fall. As we
addressed in Assumption #1, nowhere does God say in the creation account that man is to rule
over the woman, or that the woman is to be subordinate to the man. Man and woman were
created as co-rulers over the creation, and while they were both created with distinct
functionality, they were intended to express that distinctness in dynamic equality.
Furthermore, not everything that comes as a result of the fall is an intensification of something
that already existed before the fall. For example, in Genesis 3:15 it says there will be a mutual
hostility between the serpent and the woman. This mutual hostility between the woman and the
serpent did not exist before the fall; the fall brings it into existence. In the same way, the fall did
6
See Tim Archers article here http://wineskins.org/2015/01/06/he-will-rule-over-you-three-views-of-what-god-was-
telling-eve-in-the-garden/#more-2912

10. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
not intensify an already existing hierarchy between the man and the woman; it brought that
hierarchy into existence.
Reflective Question: If Jesus actively reversed death — a consequence of the fall — through his
resurrection, would he not also want to actively reverse and remove hierarchy — a consequence
of the fall — from relationships between men and women?
God Is Being Descriptive, Not Prescriptive
If we are aware of the assumptions that we are bringing to the text when we read it, it can help
us avoid drawing inaccurate conclusions about what the text is saying — or not saying. After
looking into some of the inaccurate assumptions that Complementarians can bring to the text of
Genesis 3:16, a more accurate interpretation of the phrase, “Your desire will be for your
husbands, but he will rule over you,” is that God is being descriptive about what will happen as a
result of the fall, not prescriptive about what he wants to exist between man and woman going
forward.
Jesus’ Assumption: God Wants To Restore the Original Design of Creation
An important question to ask ourselves at this point is: How does Jesus see the marriage
relationship? Fortunately, there is an episode in the Gospels where Jesus talks about his view of
marriage. Listen in:
“Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to
the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife
for just any reason?”
And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made
them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore,
what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but
from the beginning it was not so.” Matthew 19:1-8 NKJV
When Jesus says, “but from the beginning it was not so,” he is revealing one of his foundational
assumptions about marriage: God wants to restore marriage to its original created design. For
Jesus, the standard for determining what God wants is not found in conditions created by the
fall. It is found in God’s original design for creation.

11. ©2019 Tim Catchim. The ideas and information in this document are the intellectual property of Tim Catchim and are not to
be shared, copied, sold, etc. with other parties without his expressed permission.
When you read through the rest of the New Testament you will notice that other writers express
this same view: God is actively working, through Christ, by the Spirit to restore all things to the
way he always wanted them to be. The language for this is new creation theology.7
Participating In God’s Work of Restoring All Things
As those who participate in Christ, we are called to actively participate with God’s in his work of
restoring all things to the way they were originally created to be. If God’s original design for
marriage is for man and woman to be co-rulers over creation, whenever we encounter hierarchy
between men and women as a result of the fall, we should stand with Jesus and say, “From the
beginning it was not so…” God has a vision for relationships between men and women, and that
vision is for men and women to operate out of their distinct functionality, while expressing that
distinctiveness in a relationship of dynamic equality.
Egalitarianism as a Reflection of The Trinitarian Relationship
This way of approaching relationships between men and women is called Christian
Egalitarianism.8 However, this is not a new approach. In reality, this way of understanding
relationships between men and women is but a mere reflection of the Trinitarian relationship
between the Father, Son, and Spirit. For example, each person in the Trinity has a distinct
functionality. The Father sends the Son, and both the Father and the Son send the Spirit. But the
Spirit does not send the Father or the Son, and the Son does not send the Father. They each
have distinct functions, but those distinctions do not in any way require the Father, Son, or Spirit
to be in a relationship of hierarchy or subordination to one another. Their distinct functionality
expresses itself in dynamic equality, which is why the church has said through the centuries that
each person in the Trinity is God and does things that only God can do.
That God would design the relationship between men and women to function in similar ways to
the way he functions within himself should not be surprising. After all, we are created in God’s
image.
7
For more on new creation see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_creation_(theology)
8
For a general description of Christian egalitarianism, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_egalitarianism