# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2023_S216
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

216

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

Adam that they might be his helpers, and Adam named them (GEN. 2:18–20).4 Finally, God formed Eve out of a rib taken
from Adam’s side that she might be what the animals could not be: “a helper fit for him” (GEN. 2:18). Together as man
and wife, Adam and Eve were given dominion over all creation, and the relationship between them had no parallel
within that creation.5 This orderly design, however, became disfigured through the fall in Genesis 3. Eve was deceived
by the serpent, ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and gave the fruit to Adam, who ate of the fruit
(GEN. 3:5–7), which God had specifically commanded him not to eat (GEN. 2:16–17). As a result of their disobedience, sin
entered the world and, along with it, God imposed certain clear consequences. He tells the woman, “Your desire shall
be for [or, contrary to]6 your husband, but he shall rule over you” (GEN. 3:16).7 He declares that man’s own stewardship
of creation and daily labor shall become onerous “because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten
of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it’” (GEN. 3:17). While the exact practical implications of
Genesis 1–3 for a fallen — or redeemed — creation may be uncertain, St. Paul finds in them precedent for the specific
submission of wife to husband in the home and for the proscription against women publicly teaching and exercising
authority in the church (see 1 COR. 11; 14; 1 TIM. 2 above).
An explanation of the term “order” is merited. The meaning of “order” is not always altogether clear when
describing the order of creation and can lead to misunderstanding in its own right.8 Order translates the Greek
word taxis, which has the sense of an “arrangement.” It is used to classify objects, such as one might find in the
sciences with the term taxonomy. Likewise, it is the root of the forms often used in the New Testament to describe
“submission” (hypotage) or its verbal analogue, “to submit” (hypotasse). Thus, one will often find these Greek words
translated “subordination” or “to be subordinate,” because the root is “order.” The “order” in the order of creation,
then, has primarily to do with the classification of living beings in accordance with God’s created design for them
— men, women, husbands, wives, parents, children, animals, vegetation. In the case of human beings, the first and
primary distinction made by God Himself in creation is that of men as men and women as women. All humans fall
into one of these two classifications, and the proper relationships between all humans are fundamentally shaped by
that divinely instituted distinction.

4
“Because they alone were made in God’s image, they were not simply another category of earthly creatures but were given dominion over the birds, fish, and land
animals. Although the word ‘image’ itself does not mean ‘to rule over,’ this unique status given the human creatures resulted in their having dominion over the animals.
In order to exercise this dominion as responsible stewards of the earth, they were given wisdom and the capacity to make judgments,” CTCR, The Creator’s Tapestry:
Scriptural Perspectives on Man-Woman Relationships in Marriage and the Church (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2009), 9. “The image of God
appears closely tied to the commission to exercise dominion. The narrative of Genesis 1 moves in this direction. First, God gives them the same command as He does to
other creatures, namely, to ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.’ He then gives them the additional commission to ‘subdue it [kabash] and have dominion [radah]
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (v. 28). The first word, kabash, carries with it an element of
forcefulness when used elsewhere in the Old Testament. Before the fall, human beings reflect and pattern themselves after God’s own relationship to the world. In that
regard, kabash may refer to the setting of boundaries even as God did so during the first three days. Dominion, radah, means among other things, the gracious rule of
a shepherd king. Humans are given the responsibility of protecting and guiding creation in order to maintain shalom. Psalm 72 describes the rule of a righteous king
under whose rule everything flourishes, from the human realm to the nonhuman creaturely realm,” CTCR, Together with All Creatures, 40.
5
For whatever differences exist between them, man and woman in their common humanity bear the image of God, which distinguishes them from all other created
beings. The concept of the image of God — what it is and precisely what it entails for man and woman in contrast with one another or the rest of creation — has long
been a contested subject and one that is beyond the scope of this document.

7
“With the perfect harmony of marriage destroyed, competition and conflict now corrupt the husband and wife relationship. The painful effects of sin will be evident in
her vocation as mother and wife,” CTCR, Creator’s Tapestry, 19.
8
“Order” in English can denote a rank — one over the other. It can mean a classification — one fits here, another there, almost in a sense of orderliness. It can indicate
a command — that of giving an order. We can speak of a “church order” [Kirchenordnung in German]. Order can also imply a sphere or realm, and this seems to be
the most accurate representation within Lutheranism historically. The official introduction of the term into the Missouri Synod in 1956 defines it as a “relative position
in a series,” that is, as one thing relates to another in a succession. For these considerations, see Carl Braaten, No Other Gospel: Christianity among the World’s Religions
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 119. See also Edward H. Schroeder, “The Orders of Creation — Some Reflections on the History and Place of the Term in Systematic
Theology,” Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 169.

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

Though man and woman have definite roles in this creation and though the curse of sin has indelibly damaged
the perfect exercise of these roles, nonetheless men and women in marriage are not independent of one another, nor
is their relationship defined in terms of opposition, control or manipulation. As St. Paul says, “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”
(1 COR. 11:11B–12). Likewise, through the marital union of man as man and woman as woman, the two become united in
one flesh sexually, and they are no longer independent agents operating as they please. “For the wife does not have
authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body,
but the wife does” (1 COR. 7:4). While the order of creation clearly distinguishes between man and woman and the complementary roles they play in marriage, those roles do not exhaustively define man and woman and they also do not
encompass the entirety of marriage.
Similarly, the sense of the term “submission” or “to submit” does not express a relationship of power. It is not the
husband who compels or requires submission; he freely receives it. The direction to submit is given to the woman, not
the man. Nor does the man coerce submission of the woman.10 As the CTCR report on Women in the Church stated
in one of its summary principles: “Subordination, when applied to the relationship of women and men in the church,
expresses a divinely established relationship in which one looks to the other, but not in a domineering sense. Subordination is for the sake of orderliness and unity.”11 This relationship and the proper understanding of divinely ordered
submission has, however, been affected by sin. The curse pronounced upon Eve in Genesis 3:16 means that the godly
practice of the order of creation has been tragically twisted and complicated by sin. Man sins by exercising his domestic authority coercively or abusively, just as he sins by failing to exercise it properly and lovingly, or by abdicating
it to another. This is why the New Testament urges him to carry out his divine responsibilities in the home faithfully,
caring for his wife spiritually (EPH. 5:25–29) and treating her respectfully (COL. 3:9; 1 PETER 3:7). Woman, for her part, may
militate against the authority of man or seek to exercise that authority herself. Thus, the New Testament urges her to
submit to her husband spiritually as the church submits to Christ (EPH. 5:22–24) with a gentle and quiet spirit (1 PETER 3:4).
Any and all misuse or rejection of these divinely ordered roles is a direct consequence of sin.
9
This is not meant to imply that single men or women are somehow acting contrary to the created order. St. Paul himself is explicit about the role of singleness in the
life of the Christian and the ministry of the church: “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please
the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious
about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your
own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 COR. 7:32–35).

The English Standard Version (ESV) changed the translation of the Hebrew preposition “el” from “for” to “contrary to” when it codified its permanent text in 2016. In
doing so, it adopted a minority position among English and other translations. Though “contrary to” had previously been an alternate translation in the ESV footnotes,
the change was ostensibly made to parallel a similar Hebrew construction in Genesis 4:7, where God questions Cain for fearing that his offering would not be accepted
and says, “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” For a discussion of this parallel, see Victor P.
Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 201–2. In 2009’s Creator’s
Tapestry, the CTCR used the ESV’s then-current translation of “for,” but included a footnote explaining how the translation choice might affect the interpretation of the
passage: “That she will physically desire her husband, even though he ‘rules her’ (oppressively) or that she will desire to dominate her husband, but instead he will rule
over her (compare GEN. 4:7),” 19 n4. While the grammar and exact translation of this construction are not certain, the reality it reflects in either case is the same: the sin
that entered with the fall fundamentally disordered the relation between man and woman God instituted at creation, and, because of that sin, man and woman thus act
against their orderly design in relation to one another.
6

THE ORDER OF CREATION

That is not to say that the relationship between men and women as individuals, let alone their union as husband
and wife, can simply be reduced to their designation by God in creation as “male” or “female.” Indeed, the purpose
for such an orderly creation of men and women is ultimately the marital union — and through it, the propagation of
children.9 It is for this reason that God designed man and woman biologically in the way that He did. Man and woman are designed to form a union of self-giving love with one another. Adam describes his wife as “bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh” (GEN. 2:23). God commands man that he “shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his
wife, and they shall become one flesh” (GEN. 2:24; MATT. 19:5–6; MARK 10:7–8). Through this union, man and woman shall “be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (GEN. 1:28). Together in this union, they are to “subdue” the earth and exercise
dominion over plant and animal life (GEN. 1:28–29).

10
CTCR, Creator’s Tapestry, 26: “The original Greek verb for ‘submitting to’ is appropriately translated ‘subject yourself to’ another. The word (hypotassõ) is a combination of the Greek preposition hypo (‘under’) and the verb tassõ (‘to arrange’), signifying an ordered place or arrangement. Foreign to this good and common word
in the Scriptures are negative thoughts of inferior human ability or worth, of lesser intelligence or competence. Still more foreign are ideas of oppressive bondage or
coerced servitude — as if to make of someone a mere doormat or slave. Rather, viewed in its full biblical context, and particularly when it describes Christian conduct
in life’s callings, the word signifies willingly yielding to the other, ‘an attitude of looking to another; of putting first the desires of another, of seeking another’s benefit.’”
Cf. CTCR, Women in the Church: Scriptural Principals for Ecclesial Practice (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1985), 31: “There are also differences in
the way subordination and governance are conducted. Governance in a subordinate relationship can be oppressive — a relationship that works for the benefit of the
ruler and to the detriment of the subordinate. This relationship is characterized by obedience to command, a ‘lording-it-over-the-other’ attitude. But a person can be
subordinate without ever having to obey a command. Nowhere in Scripture is it ever said that power or authority (exousia) or rule (arche) is given to the man over the
woman. All of the passages which speak of the subordination of the woman to the man, or of wives to their husbands, are addressed to the woman. The verbs enjoining
subordination in these texts are in the middle voice in the Greek (reflexive). The woman is reminded, always in the context of an appeal to the grace of God revealed in
Jesus Christ, that she has been subordinated to man by the Creator and that it is for this reason that she should willingly accept this divine arrangement. The Scriptures
never tell the man that he is to ‘keep his wife in subjection’ (unlike the exhortation concerning children in 1 TIM. 3:4) by the issuance of commands. People can be subordinate by serving others, by cooperating with another’s purposes, or by following another’s teaching. The more love and commitment to the interest of others (PHIL. 2:4)
are present in the relationship of the man to the woman, the more this subordinate relationship conforms to the Scriptural ideal.”
11

3

THE ORDER OF CREATION

This also raises the question of whether this natural arrangement referred to by the order of creation is eternal
and will be maintained in the new heavens and new earth. The New Testament does not fully define what our created,
human relationships will look like after Christ’s return, only that all things that exist will be utterly transformed. That
could mean that the order of creation itself will be transformed and ultimately replaced by a different arrangement.
At the same time, it could mean that the creation as it currently exists will be transformed through the eradication of
sin and its effects. The point is that we cannot know with certainty since Scripture does not straightforwardly depict
post-resurrection anthropology but employs much metaphor and symbolism. The same holds true for images of the
natural realm in the life to come, such as the wolf and the lamb, calf and lion, cow and bear, cobra and adder (ISAIAH
11:6–9). Scripture includes them in prophecy regarding the new heavens and new earth, yet that does not necessitate
that these species, let alone every individual animal or species, will share in the eternal kingdom. On the contrary,
such passages evoke for us the restoration of innocence and complete transformation of life as we know it using
memorable, symbolic images. Biblical prophecy does not necessarily describe in actual detail the composition of the
universe after the Second Advent. While we cannot say with exact certainty how the beings and relationships God
ordered at creation will exist after Christ’s return, this does not affect the ordering of that creation as we experience it
now and as we live in accordance with God’s design for it.
Just as the term “order of creation” is not explicitly found in Scripture, but is a concept used to make sense of biblical passages that appeal to the narrative of creation and fall as precedent for conduct in the church and home, so, too,
Luther and subsequent Lutherans did not necessarily use the term “order of creation,” choosing instead analogous
terms to express the same idea of authority structures inscribed on the created order. That came in numerous forms
for Luther. Under the heading of the Fourth Commandment in his Large Catechism, Luther describes the honoring
of father and mother as applying to submission to three sources of authority, or “fathers”:
12
CTCR, Human Sexuality (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1981), 31: “It will always be inappropriate to ask for some special reason why the man
ought to exercise headship over the woman, other than the reason that God ordained the hierarchy which exists in marriage.” This comment implies that the function
of headship and submission within marriage is a consequence of an explicit Scriptural command rather than a logical deduction from observable traits independent of
God’s Word.

The Athanasian Creed notes that the persons of the Trinity are in “glory equal,” and “coeternal with each other and coequal,” while the Son is “equal to the Father with
respect to His divinity, less than the Father with respect to his humanity” (LSB, 319–20).
13

14
CTCR, Creator’s Tapestry, 32. See also Peter Brunner, The Ministry and the Ministry of Women (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), 30: “Despite individual
differences of various forms of subordination, the subordination of the woman to the man is mysteriously bound up with the subordination of the church to Christ and
Christ to the Father. What is ‘subordination’ for the Lord Jesus Christ is reflected in the subordination demanded of the woman, and she may see it in the light of the
relationship between the church and Christ and between the Father and the Son.”

2023 Convention Workbook

4

In a similar manner, Luther speaks of three “orders,” or “estates,” as spheres of authority that correspond to these
three “fathers”: the political (politia), the ecclesiastical (ecclesia) and the domestic (oeconomia).17 Luther explains
them several different ways. He expressly calls them “orders” in his 1528 Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper: “But
the holy orders [die heiligen Orden] and true religious institutions established by God are these three: the office of
priest, the estate of marriage, the civil government.”18 Later, in his 1539 On the Councils and the Church, he uses the
term “government” (Regiment) for all three:
The first government is that of the home, from which the people come; the second is that of the city, meaning the
country, the people, princes and lords, which we call the secular government. These embrace everything — children, property, money, animals, etc. The home must produce, whereas the city must guard, protect, and defend.
Then follows the third, God’s own home and city, that is, the church, which must obtain people from the home
and protection and defense from the city. These are the three hierarchies ordained by God, and we need no more;
indeed, we have enough and more than enough to do in living aright and resisting the devil in these three.19

For a wife to submit to her husband or for woman to submit to man in the church in these New Testament passages is to reflect God’s design inscribed upon creation as it pertains to those relationships. Submission does not degrade
the female, nor does it elevate the male, but rather reflects the Creator who established this order in creation.

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

Not only domestic heads of households, but civil rulers and pastors of the church count as “fathers,” with the
latter two deriving their authority from the institution of the family in the Garden of Eden and the resulting parental
responsibility for children (“For all other authority is derived and developed out of the authority of parents”).16

At a first glance, we may think that Paul is lining up some kind of power structure, an organizational chart with
God at the top, woman at the bottom, and man as Christ’s comediator in the middle. This hierarchical understanding of “headship” — a superior over an inferior — will not mesh with God’s design, for even Christ has a
head. Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son, willingly submitted Himself to God his Father for the sake of His body
the church. … The relationship between God the Father and Christ demonstrates that submission to a head must
not be seen as something servile or degrading but as a calling to willing and joyful service (HEB. 12:2; 1 COR. 15:28).14

|

|

So we have introduced three kinds of fathers in this commandment: fathers by blood, fathers of a household,
and fathers of the nation. In addition, there are also spiritual fathers—not like those in the papacy who have had
themselves called “father” but have not performed a fatherly function. For the name of spiritual father belongs
only to those who govern and guide us by the Word of God.15

Moreover, this divine ordering of relationships between men and women in the church and in the Christian
home cannot possibly be ascribed to any superior or inferior quality inherent in males and females.12 Were that the
case, St. Paul could not apply the same argument to the relationship between the Father and the Son, as he does in
1 Corinthians 11. The term Paul uses for the husband (kephale) as head of the wife is the same term he uses for God
the Father as head of the Incarnate Son (1 COR. 11:3). To regard the one submitting as inherently inferior is essentially to
deny the equality of the Son with the Father which Scripture (PHIL. 2:6) and the creeds expressly teach.13 As the Commission stated in its report, Creator’s Tapestry:

THE ORDER OF CREATION

CTCR, Women in the Church, 32.

5

While Luther does not directly identify creation or fall as precedent for these orders in the present, he nonetheless clearly sees the domestic, civil and religious spheres as having a divinely instituted order with divinely instituted
authorities implying submission on the part of others within those spheres.20
When Luther addresses the account of creation and the fall in his lectures on Genesis, he explains the emergence
of each of these three orders in sequential order. The first institution of creation for Luther was the church, by which
he means God’s Word calling forth faith and worship from Adam already in the Garden of Eden before the formation
of Eve.21 The domestic estate followed, though the civil estate would have to await the fall. Commenting on Genesis
2:16, Luther says,

15

LC IV 158; Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert eds., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 408.

16

LC I 141, KW, 405.

17

Luther’s view can be found as early as his 1519 treatise on the Sacrament of Baptism, LW 35:39.

18
Luther may be using the term “orders” here as an alternative to the monastic or religious orders of the day. He follows this with a further description: “All who are
engaged in the clerical office or ministry of the Word are in a holy, proper, good, and God-pleasing order and estate, such as those who preach, administer sacraments,
supervise the common chest, sextons and messengers or servants who serve such persons. These are engaged in works which are altogether holy in God’s sight. Again,
all fathers and mothers who regulate their household wisely and bring up their children to the service of God are engaged in pure holiness, in a holy work and a holy
order. Similarly, when children and servants show obedience to their elders and masters, here too is pure holiness, and whoever is thus engaged is a living saint on
earth. Moreover, princes and lords, judges, civil officers, state officials, notaries, male and female servants and all who serve such persons, and further, all their obedient
subjects — all are engaged in pure holiness and leading a holy life before God. For these three religious institutions or orders are found in God’s Word and commandment; and whatever is contained in God’s Word must be holy, for God’s Word is holy and sanctifies everything connected with it and involved in it” (LW 37:364–65).
19
LW 41:177. Luther also uses as a synonym the term “hierarchy,” which he inherits from the Middle Ages, where it had less to do with ranks of authority than with a
mystical ascent toward the divine. The meaning is altogether different for Luther, who uses it to refer to the existing church and domestic and civil structures. On this,
see Wilhelm Maurer, Luthers Lehre von den drei Hierarchien und ihr mittelalertlicher Hintergrund (Munich: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1970), and F.
Edward Cranz, An Essay on the Development of Luther’s Thought on Justice, Law, and Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), 173–78.
20
The Lutheran Confessions, like Luther, make no direct reference to the order of creation as a topic in its own right. However, in addition to Luther’s own discussion of
the three “fathers” in the Large Catechism, the German text of the Augsburg Confession does speak specifically of the “estates” (German Stand, or “walks of life”), which
refers to the domestic, ecclesiastical and political spheres, as true “orders” instituted by the Creator: “The gospel does not overthrow secular government [Regiment],
public order [Polizei], and marriage [Ehestand] but instead intends that a person keep all this as a true order of God [Gottesordnung] and demonstrate in these walks of
life [Ständen] Christian love and true good works according to each person’s calling,” AC XVI 5, KW, 50.
21
It is in this sense that Lutheran theologian Oswald Bayer refers to “the church as order of creation” (status ecclesiasticus, Kirche als Schöpfungsordnung), Oswald Bayer,
Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Application, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 126–39. For Luther’s explanation of Adam hearing the
Word, obeying God’s law and worshiping the Creator in the innocence of Eden, see LW 1:104–6.

THE ORDER OF CREATION

|

THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD

6