Introduction

It seems to me that the summary of duties common to both husband and wife present us with a meaningful challenge. Not everyone will be in agreement or like hearing the claim that a loving marriage is one that seeks industriously to fulfill the covenant of lifelong companionship for the glory of God, that seeks to exercise dominion viewing work with a sense of regal dignity, that seeks to have children and labors to raise them in the way of godliness, that seeks to follow the six and one pattern given by the Lord Himself, and that seeks to worship the Lord Jesus as Sabbath king on the Lord’s Holy Day. That sketch is as marvelous as it is helpful in guiding male and female back to the basics of love and marriage.

If many object to all or part of the sketch of duties common to both, many more object to the sketch of duties unique to each that we are covering this morning. We are going to try to walk through some mine fields in what has been called "the battle of the sexes." Our challenge is to do the following things clearly: a) to state the differences of role between husband and wife, b) to show the biblical grounding of these differences, c) to keep a sense of balance so like good swimmers we stay afloat and move forward without drowning.

The helper text is the point of departure. I refer to Genesis 2 again. We will work there on things we did not concentrate on before when we developed the definition of marriage. This text will be a main OT context for some key NT passages we want to consider as well. I will follow this outline: first we will consider the role of helper ("helper-ship") that is assigned to the wife. After that we will consider the role of headship that is assigned to the husband. These are like two halves of the same orange, so the development of one half will inevitably lead to, and overlap directly with, the other half. Therefore, discussing the helper role will include elements of the headship role and discussing the headship role will include elements of the helper role.

1A. The wife is explicitly assigned the role of helper

Without denying what has been said about husband and wife engaging together in the work of the cultural mandate, we must also affirm that there is a basic difference in the way that each spouse is to fulfill their work. The difference surfaces immediately in the reiteration of creation given in Genesis 2:4-25. Let’s look at this text directly and then let’s look at it through the eyes of Paul.

1B. The orientation of this creation account (what it stresses)

If we follow the creation account from beginning to end what stages are evident? Here we do not have the "grand march of days" from day one to day seven (Gen. 1:1-2:3). Instead, we have some expansion and reiteration of what happened on the sixth day (and earlier). The shift is from the creation of the entire world (Gen. 1) to the creation of man and woman (Gen. 2). To be sure, within the creation of the cosmos, man was the apex as God’s image both male and female (1:26f). But now the cosmos is not in view. All attention is on man in the Garden of Eden (there is an evident zooming in from viewing the heavens and the earth to a particular location on the earth). This is the perspective given to us by the narrator.

1) God’s purpose focuses on man.

Thus, our thoughts are directed very briefly to a point in time when "there was no man to work the ground" (2:5). This is apparently a perspective that looks at the earth before day three when dry land appeared and God caused vegetation to sprout from the earth (1:9-13 describes the third day).

This is a difficult text (v. 5) but the main idea seems clear. The reiteration of creation that focuses on man begins back at the point when there was no vegetation on the earth. How does that lead the way to concentration on man? It leads in thought to the garden to which man will be brought. It does so by accenting the purpose of God that at that time was yet to be realized. The existence of vegetation is interwoven with the rain cycle and with man: there is no vegetation because there is no rain and no man.

Now we do not have a scientifically driven narrative before us. It is not that vegetation could not exist without rain since it could exist in a scientific sense by springs, rivers, and irrigation. Likewise it is not that vegetation could not exist without man for it does so exist being created on day three before man was created on day six. Furthermore, in terms of science and the balance of nature, it is not so much that vegetation needs man; it more needs man to leave it alone lest he destroy it all (since the fall and especially since the Industrial Revolution).

The point is that vegetation does depend on rain and man in terms of God’s purpose (as they say, it is a teleological or purposeful dependence). In other words, vegetation will not come to exist on the face of the ground if it were not for God’s purpose of establishing the rain cycle and if it were not for God’s purpose of creating man. So, the perspective we are given is a point in time when these purposes are yet unfilled. To paraphrase we have: "Let’s back up to the time when there was no vegetation anywhere on the earth. What can we say? Vegetation is not yet there because God’s purpose for man remains unfulfilled. It will come into existence along with a rain cycle because of man."

Thus, vegetation is for man and depends on man for its very existence! That seems to be the striking teleological point that is being made. Accent is thrust forward to God’s purpose in creating man and ordaining a relationship between man, the rain cycle, and plants. This is utterly astounding. Everything from the tallest oak to the smallest blade of grass exists on the earth for man. In this context, the creation of man is given. It is because of man that there is a rain cycle that waters the earth to bring forth plants and trees.

2) The term "man" refers exclusively to the male of the human family

This is something so obvious that we may read right past it and not see it. All the attention in this striking account is oriented to man. With the sixth day of creation in mind, we should be struck by this obvious fact: "no man" and "the Lord God formed the man" are references to man as male not man as male and female. Earlier the term man was used in two senses for the male (him, 1:27b) and for both male and female (1:27c, them). Every reference to "man" in Genesis 2 is a reference to the male, Adam, the husband [cf. vs. 5, 7 (twice), 8, 15, 16 (God commanded the man…of every tree…but), 18 (not good that the man should be alone), 19 (twice), 20 (man…Adam), 21, 22 (twice), 23 (twice), 24, and 25]. I count eighteen references to man as male with not one use of man for both male and female (in the whole chapter there are only 25 verses; man or husband is referred to in almost every verse of this reiteration of creation). Therefore, it is a good translation in this context to use the definite article (the) with man (v. 7, "the man"). Reference is being made to man in evident and marked distinction as the male of the human family and the husband of the marriage covenant.

3) Man was created first and commissioned without reference to the woman.

What should jump off the page of this account is the inescapable fact that when man was created he was created alone. Man, the male of mankind and the human family, was created without the female. At first, no woman is even in the picture. This is the focus. Man was created from the dust of the earth and by the breath of God’s mouth he became a living being (v. 7). Man is dust plus spirit; he is a material-immaterial unit. He was created first. He was placed into the Garden of Eden (v. 8). He was put there to work it and keep it (v. 15). Man, the male, was given the commandment regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in relation to all the trees of the garden (Gen. 2:16-17). Hence the fall is attributed to "one man’s disobedience" (Rom. 5:19).

4) It is not until late in the story that the woman is introduced.

The Lord then says that this is not good so "I will make a helper fit for him" (v. 18). This helper will be taken from man’s body literally (v. 22). One of Adam’s ribs was made "into a woman" (v. 22). She is named "woman" by Adam "because she was taken out of man" (v. 23). The woman is made to be "a helper" (v. 18). Her helping role is suitable and fitted to the man; she corresponds to the man and fills his need to not be alone. When created, the woman was brought to the man: God brought her to the man. We are then told that all of these events point to conclusions regarding marriage and the marriage covenant (vs. 24-25). So the process of creating man alone first and then creating women for him is the institution of marriage from the very beginning. In marriage, the wife has the role of "helper-ship." Man is oriented to God and the task God has assigned him. Woman is oriented to the man and to the assigned task of helper to the man.

As a result of the creation order, men and women are oriented to one another differently. They need one another, but they need one another differently. The man needs the help; the woman needs to help. Marriage was created by God to provide companionship in the labor of dominion. The cultural mandate, the requirement to fill and subdue the earth, is still in force, and a husband cannot fulfill this portion of the task in isolation. He needs a companion suitable for him in the work to which God has called him. His is called to the work and must receive help from her. She is called to the work through ministering to him. His is oriented to the task, and she is oriented to him (Reforming Marriage, D. Wilson, Canon Press, 1995, p. 19).

2B. The commentary of Paul (1 Cor. 11:7-12)

The context here is difficult. Paul is expounding on the theme of head coverings in relation to prayer (vs. 4-5). The respected reformed scholar, B. B. Warfield, states that no one really knows what Paul refers to with any precision in 11:5 (Savior, 266). Although we may not be sure of the conclusion that Paul draws, it seems that we can be very clear regarding the basis upon which he draws out the conclusion. He bases his conclusion on the creation of man and woman. In doing this he gives some commentary on the helper text. What he stresses will seem overdrawn in the context of our culture. But the point is a forceful one no matter how you look at it for he tells us that Genesis does not teach some kind of absolute equality of husband and wife or of man and women. As he applies Genesis to the church Paul teaches three basics things: 1) that man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man (v. 7), 2) that man was not created for woman but woman for man (v. 9), and 3) that neither is independent of the other (v. 11-12; there is a mutual dependence since creation).

Woman, by creation, is the glory of the man who is the image of God. We have to get a nuance here that preserves the fact that both male and female were created in the image of God. If we follow the events in Genesis 2, it seems that we can at least say that both are to image God but the man has a preeminent role in doing this because the woman is created to help him fulfill his role. She images God by being helper to her husband. He images God as a task that he has before the first woman was created. He is image in a primary sense and she is image in a secondary or subordinate sense. Both roles are regal in nature; both image God and are to exercise dominion. But the role of the woman is subordinated to the role of the man; woman is subordinated to the man in the sense that she is helper.

How do we take in this text without losing a sense of dignity of womanhood? How not fall prey to challenges that this is a worn out domineering patriarchal model? A short answer to these questions is that we trust in the purposes of the Creator and Sovereign Lord. We have to take in this text in such a way that we do not lose a sense of the dignity of womanhood because this is God’s word on the matter and it is the word to which we are bound as Christian’s on the authority of Christ. We cannot simply see this as a worn our domineering patriarchal model because its essence cannot include the notion of dominance (and as we shall see, God’s order of the male/female relationship has not worn out). Thus in their oneness under the cultural mandate and in a mutual covenant of companionship, the husband and the wife each have a distinct role to fulfill. In keeping covenant, exercising dominion, having children, following the divine six and one pattern, and worshipping on the Sovereign Lord’s Day, each partner has a divinely assigned order to follow. The husband has the duty of leading the way in their common work and the wife has the duty of helping her husband. The wife is to fulfill the cultural mandate in the role of helper to her husband. Of course this does not deny that wives have a personal and direct relationship with Christ by faith. This point is made in the passages that affirm that there is neither male nor female in the family of God.

3B. Therefore we have the NT duty of submission.

This duty arises right out of the creation narrative and is binding for all time.  This needs to be taken up in its true spirit and intent. Many practical aspects and applications have to be worked out in Christian marriage. This is foundational in building a Christian home. The role of submission is stated in Colossians 3:18, "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." The wife is specifically addressed in this text and her duty is stated in the clearest of terms: submit to your husbands. To reinforce this point Paul adds the comment "as it is fitting in the Lord." The word "as" here does not make a comparison (which is the case in Eph. 5:22). It is best to take it as consequential in the sense of "because" due to the allusion here to Genesis 2.

2A. The Husband is explicitly assigned the role of headship

To see this we can look at a couple more NT passages that go in the same direction as our Scripture reading for the day (Eph. 5:21-33, "Wives submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, vs. 22-23).

1B. 1 Tim. 2:12-13

Here the principle of authority is cited by Paul. This is a matter of authority entrusted to the husband that calls for a submissive spirit on the part of the wife (for Adam was formed first, 1 Tim. 2:12-13; attention to first is a simple way to summarize the thrust of Gen. 2). Without going to the left or to the right into extremes and excessive views (like men are superior and have a right to dictate or women are door mats and should not even sing in church), we must try to do justice to the fact of authority entrusted to the husband in relation to his wife. This is the authority of headship that is stated emphatically in the next passage.

2B. 1 Corinthians. 11:3

The principle of authority is strengthened by Paul (he thus comes under much attack) in a remarkable passage on the subjection: "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" (^ESV 1 Cor. 11:3).

We have to be amazed at the bold and forceful way that human relationships are compared with divine relationships. The relationship of Christ to God is one in which God is head (governor, ruler, lord, and king) and Christ has the place of submission to God. Likewise, the relationship of the husband to Christ is one in which Christ is head (governor, ruler, lord, and king) and the husband has the place of submission to Christ. This is striking indeed. But if that is amazing, the next comparison is even more amazing (if for different reasons). We have another likewise: the relationship of the wife to the husband is one in which (dare I say it) the husband is the head (governor, ruler, lord, and king) and the wife has the place of submission to her husband.

We need to wrestle with the truth stated here with care seeking its true spirit and intent. To that we must surely look at the example of Christ. He is the example of headship and He is the example of submission. He is the husband’s supreme example for leadership and He is the wife’s supreme example for helper-ship submission. This may all sound a strange note for modern ears. The church may be impacted by contemporary philosophies of human relations. But we must carefully make our way past some deep pitfalls to a safe understanding and a godly practice of the marriage relationship and the respective duties of husband and wife. The companionship, togetherness, and oneness have a different orientation for the husband from what they have for the wife. It is not an affirmation of absolute equality in all the arrangements of the marriage.

Conclusion

Obviously, these teachings can be sinfully distorted and abused. Let’s keep this in mind as we think through some brief concluding remarks that help us put these unique duties into perspective and balance.

1) The difference between husband and wife is summarized in the notions of headship and helper-ship (headship/submission).

2) These are to be taken up by both as duties to God assigned by the Creator in His wisdom and goodness. This order of things is for our good. There is no one greater in wisdom and goodness who can assign what is best for male and female. These are basics of a loving marriage. They are creation laws that have far reaching consequences.

3) The glory of God is at stake. This is how both in a distinct way do that which is the chief and ultimate goal of creation. The duties unique to each (headship/helper-ship) are to be taken up to the glory of God by avoiding sinful abuse and distortion.

4) Finally and most importantly, we can speak of a key that unlocks the door of love in doing the duties unique to each to get balance and glorify God. The key for both husband and wife is to look to Christ and follow His example. Husband, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and follow His example of headship. Wife, trust in the risen Savior and follow His example of submission. This is the key to a loving marriage that glorifies God. It is to have a Christ-like marriage in performing the duties unique to each.