Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood

PREFACE

Since the publication of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem; Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991), the ongoing debate over the biblical understanding of men and women has brought new challenges to the perspective we presented there, as well as new insights from ongoing scholarly investigation of Scripture and of trends in the culture.

Several speakers at a conference in Dallas, Texas, held March 2022, 2000, addressed those new challenges and new insights as they related to manhood and womanhood in marriage. The conference, Building Strong Families in Your Church, was co-sponsored by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and by FamilyLife (a division of Campus Crusade for Christ). The conference was designed to inform and challenge pastors and other Christian leaders regarding recent developments in the manhood-womanhood controversy, and we are grateful to Crossway Books for publishing four volumes with the contents of the messages delivered by speakers at that conference. This volume contains the messages that had a more scholarly focus, messages that thus provided the Biblical Foundations for manhood and womanhood in the home.

In the first chapter I present an overview of the manhood-womanhood controversy, discussing six key issues that need to be kept in mind in present-day discussions: (1) our equality in value and dignity as men and women, (2) our different roles in marriage as established by God before the Fall, (3) the relationship between the Trinity and our equality and differences as men and women, (4) the goodness of our equality and differences, (5) the importance of this issue as a matter of obedience to the Bible, and (6) the deep connections between the manhood-womanhood controversy and all of life.

In Chapter 2 Bruce Ware explores the meaning of our creation as male and female in the image of God. He shows that we were created equal before God, but also different from the moment of creation, different in ways that allow us to complement each other and fulfill God’s purposes together. Finally, he applies these insights to singleness as it finds expression in the fellowship of the church.

In Chapter 3 John Piper shows how marriage is not an end in itself but must always be lived for the glory of God. He argues that God expects us to love Him more than our marriage partners, and that this does not diminish but enriches our marriages. He challenges us by saying that if we want strong marriages in our churches, we need to preach less about marriage and more about the greatness of God.

Then in Chapter 4 Rick Hove summarizes the results of his groundbreaking research into Galatians 3:28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Those on the other side of this question, those who are called egalitarians or evangelical feminists, often claim Galatians 3:28 as the primary biblical support for their position. But Hove, drawing on the results of numerous computer searches in ancient Greek literature, demonstrates that Galatians 3:28 does not teach male-female sameness or the interchangeability of male-female roles, but rather male-female unity in Christ, a unity that assumes and preserves our differences.

After that, in Chapter 5 I return once again to the meaning of the Greek term kephalē (head), especially as it pertains to Ephesians 5:23, "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, and 1 Corinthians 11:3, the head of a wife is her husband. I give three strands of evidence to show that head in these verses has to mean person in authority over": first, a number of previously unnoticed citations from the early church fathers, second, an examination of recently published studies of kephalē, and third, a private letter from Peter G. W. Glare, the editor of the Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon: Supplement and probably the preeminent living lexicographer of ancient Greek. (This chapter is identical to my article in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44/1 [March 2001], with the exception of the added interaction, on pages 194-199, with Anthony Thiselton’s new commentary on 1 Corinthians.)

But what has been the historic position of the church on the roles of men and women in marriage? In Chapter 6 Daniel Doriani traces the history of interpretation of Ephesians 5:22-33. Doriani considers the egalitarian claim that be subject to one another in Ephesians 5:21 teaches a kind of mutual submission that negates male headship in marriage. After a survey of about a hundred commentaries throughout the history of the church, he finds that feminist interpretations of Ephesians 5 begin to appear in commentaries around 1970. He finds that the feminist understanding of Ephesians 5:21 is a historical novelty.

In Chapter 7 I also consider Ephesians 5:21 and argue that it is a mistake to claim that submitting to one another in that verse teaches mutual submission, because neither the context nor the meanings of the words will bear that interpretation.

Bruce Ware takes up recent disputes over the doctrine of the Trinity in Chapter 8, interacting first with feminist claims that we should no longer refer to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but rather with the non-male-oriented terms Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. Then Ware goes on to interact with evangelical feminists who have begun to deny the eternal submission of the Son to the Father and to advocate instead an eternal mutual submission within the Trinity. Ware shows that they are not being faithful either to the Bible or to the historic position of the church, and they are in fact tampering with the Trinity.

In the last two chapters we turn to an examination of broader historical and cultural trends. In Chapter 9 Peter Jones helps us understand why sexual perversion is so common in modern culture. Jones argues that this is the inevitable result of a society turning away from Christian convictions about the nature of God and the nature of reality. In a wide-ranging and alarming study of attitudes toward sexuality and religion in ancient and modern cultures, Jones unmasks the underlying theme of monism (the idea that all is one) and shows how it denies the existence of the God of the Bible and inevitably results in homosexuality, a demand for total sexual license, and an androgyny that demands the ultimate emasculation of men and defeminization of women. Jones sees deep spiritual opposition at work in our culture to destroy biblical teachings on manhood and womanhood.

Finally, in Chapter 10 Daniel Heimbach examines a view popular in secular academic circles, the idea that our sexual identity is not fixed but is plastic, and individuals are thus free to shape their sexual identity in any way they choose. So the idea that someone is a man or a woman is just a societal construct, and any individual who wishes to reject it can do so and choose another sexual identity. Lest we think this is an academic fad, Heimbach warns that it is infecting modern culture, and he sees ominous parallels in the thinking of evangelical feminists. In response, Heimbach argues that manhood and womanhood are grounded in God’s good creation before the Fall, that our sexual identity is something essential to our humanity, and that we will exist as men and women forever.

The focus of our Dallas conference, and therefore of the four volumes in this series, was manhood and womanhood in the family. Though some chapters occasionally touch on related areas such as the church or society, those areas are not treated extensively in these volumes.

I am grateful to Susanne Henry and Sharon Sullivan for excellent secretarial help in producing this book, to Travis Buchanan for careful work in compiling the indexes, to several generous donors (who will here remain unnamed) for providing financial support for the 2000 Dallas conference that gave birth to this book, to Kevin Hartman for competently and graciously overseeing the details of that Dallas conference, and to my wife, Margaret, for her unfading support, encouragement, counsel, and patience in my writing and editing (which always seem to take longer than either of us expects).

Finally, I have dedicated this book to Dennis Rainey, the wise, godly, and amazingly energetic director of FamilyLife. He is a stalwart defender of God’s plan for the family, and he understands deeply how important it is to teach true biblical manhood and womanhood if we want to maintain healthy families in our hostile culture. He and the FamilyLife staff provided outstanding planning, publicity, and event management skills for our joint FamilyLife-CBMW conference in Dallas. I count Dennis’s friendship as a special gift from God, and I hope that this volume will provide additional foundational material that will support and strengthen the good work that is being done by him and the FamilyLife team.

Thanks be to God for the excellence of His wonderful creation! "Male and female he created them . . . . and behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:27, 31, ESV).

Wayne Grudem

April 2002       

1

THE KEY ISSUES IN THE MANHOOD-WOMANHOOD CONTROVERSY, AND THE WAY FORWARD

Wayne Grudem

KEY ISSUE 1: M EN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL IN VALUE AND DIGNITY

Very early in the Bible we read that both men and women are in the image of God. In fact, the very first verse that tells us that God created human beings also tells us that both male and female are in the image of God:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

—GEN. 1:27, emphasis added

To be in the image of God is an incredible privilege. It means to be like God and to represent God.¹ No other creatures in all of creation, not even the powerful angels, are said to be in the image of God. It is a privilege given only to us as men and women. We are more like God than any other creatures in the universe, for we alone are in the image of God.²

Any discussion of manhood and womanhood in the Bible must start here. Every time we look at each other or talk to each other as men and women, we should remember that the person we are talking to is a creature of God who is more like God than anything else in the universe, and men and women share that status equally. Therefore we should treat men and women with equal dignity, and we should think of men and women as having equal value. We are both in the image of God, and we have been so since the very first day that God created us. "In the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). Nowhere does the Bible say that men are more in God’s image than women.³ Men and women share equally in the tremendous privilege of being in the image of God.

The Bible thus almost immediately corrects the errors of male dominance and male superiority that have come as the result of sin and that have been seen in nearly all cultures in the history of the world. Wherever men are thought to be better than women, wherever husbands act as selfish dictators, wherever wives are forbidden to have their own jobs outside the home or to vote or to own property or to be educated, wherever women are treated as inferior, wherever there is abuse or violence against women or rape or female infanticide or polygamy or harems, the biblical truth of equality in the image of God is being denied. To all societies and cultures where these things occur, we must proclaim that the very beginning of God’s Word bears a fundamental and irrefutable witness against these evils.⁴

Yet we can say even more. If men and women are equally in the image of God, then we are equally important to God and equally valuable to Him. We have equal worth before Him for all eternity, for this is how we were created. This truth should exclude all our feelings of pride or inferiority and should exclude any idea that one sex is better or worse than the other. In contrast to many non-Christian cultures and religions, no one should feel proud or superior because he is a man, and no one should feel disappointed or inferior because she is a woman. If God thinks us to be equal in value, then that settles forever the question of personal worth, for God’s evaluation is the true standard of personal value for all eternity.

Further evidence of our equality in the image of God is seen in the New Testament church, where the Holy Spirit is given in new fullness to both men and women (Acts 2:17-18), where both men and women are baptized into membership in the body of Christ (Acts 2:41)⁵, and where both men and women receive spiritual gifts for use in the life of the church (1 Cor. 12:7, 11; 1 Pet. 4:10). The apostle Paul reminds us that we are not to be divided into factions that think of themselves as superior and inferior (such as Jew and Greek, or slave and free, or male and female), but rather that we should think of ourselves as united because we are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).

By way of application to marriage, whenever husbands and wives do not listen respectfully and thoughtfully to each other’s viewpoints, do not value the wisdom that might be arrived at differently and expressed differently from the other person, or do not value the other person’s different gifts and preferences as much as their own, this teaching on equality in the image of God is being neglected.

Speaking personally, I do not think I listened very well to my wife Margaret early in our marriage. I did not value her different gifts and preferences as much as my own, or her wisdom that was arrived at or expressed differently. Later we made much progress in this area, but looking back, Margaret told me that early in our marriage she felt as though her voice was taken away, and as though my ears were closed. I wonder if there are other couples in many churches where God needs to open the husband’s ears to listen and needs to restore the wife’s voice to speak.⁶

A healthy perspective on the way that equality manifests itself in marriage was summarized as part of a Marriage and Family Statement issued by Campus Crusade for Christ in July 1999. After three paragraphs discussing both equality and differences between men and women, the statement says the following:

In a marriage lived according to these truths, the love between husband and wife will show itself in listening to each other’s viewpoints, valuing each other’s gifts, wisdom, and desires, honoring one another in public and in private, and always seeking to bring benefit, not harm, to one another.⁷

Why do I list this as a key issue in the manhood-womanhood controversy? Not because we differ with egalitarians⁸ on this question, but because we differ at this point with sinful tendencies in our own hearts. And we differ at this point with the oppressive male chauvinism and male dominance that has marred most cultures throughout most of history.

Why do I list this as a key issue? Because anyone preaching on manhood and womanhood has to start here—where the Bible starts— not with our differences, but with our equality in the image of God.

And to pastors who wish to teach on biblical manhood and womanhood in their churches, I need to say that if you don’t start here in your preaching, affirming our equality in the image of God, you simply will not get a hearing from many people in your church. And if you don’t start here, with male-female equality in the image of God, your heart won’t be right in dealing with this issue.

There is yet one more reason why I think this is a key issue, one that speaks especially to men. I personally think that one reason God has allowed this whole controversy on manhood and womanhood to come into the church at this time is so that we could correct some mistakes, change some wrongful traditions, and become more faithful to Scripture in treating our wives and all women with dignity and respect. The first step in correcting these mistakes is to be fully convinced in our hearts that women share equally with us men in the value and dignity that belongs to being made in the image of God.

KEY ISSUE 2: M EN AND WOMEN HAVE DIFFERENT ROLES IN MARRIAGE AS PART OF THE CREATED ORDER

When the members of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood wrote the Danvers Statement in 1987, we included the following affirmations:

Both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood.

Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart.

Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin.⁹

The statement adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in June 1998 and affirmed (with one additional paragraph) by Campus Crusade in July 1999 also affirms God-given differences:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.¹⁰

By contrast, egalitarians do not affirm such created differences. In fact, the statement on men, women and Biblical equality published by Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) says:

1. The Bible teaches that both man and woman were created in God’s image, had a direct relationship with God, and shared jointly the responsibilities of bearing and rearing children and having dominion over the created order (Gen. 1:26-28)....

5. The Bible teaches that the rulership of Adam over Eve resulted from the Fall and was, therefore, not a part of the original created order....

10. The Bible defines the function of leadership as the empowerment of others for service rather than as the exercise of power over them (Matt. 20:25-28, 23:8; Mark 10:42-45; John 13:13-17; Gal. 5:13; 1 Pet 5:2-3).

11. The Bible teaches that husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility (1 Cor. 7:35; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Gen. 21:12). The husband’s function as head (kephalē) is to be understood as self-giving love and service within this relationship of mutual submission (Eph. 5:21-33; Col. 3:19; I Pet. 3:7).¹¹

So which position is right? Does the Bible really teach that men and women had different roles from the beginning of creation?

When we look carefully at Scripture, I think we can see at least ten reasons indicating that God gave men and women distinct roles before the Fall, and particularly that there was male headship in marriage before the Fall.

Ten Reasons Showing Male Headship in Marriage Before the Fall

The order: Adam was created first, then Eve (note the sequence in Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:18-23). We may not think of this as very important today, but it was important to the biblical readers, and the apostle Paul sees it as important: He bases his argument for different roles in the assembled New Testament church on the fact that Adam was created prior to Eve. He says, I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. . . . For Adam was formed first, then Eve (1 Tim. 2:12-13). According to Scripture itself, then, the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve has implications not just for Adam and Eve themselves, but for the relationships between men and women generally throughout time, including the church age.¹²

The representation: Adam, not Eve, had a special role in representing the human race.

Looking at the Genesis narrative, we find that Eve sinned first, and then Adam sinned (Gen. 3:6: she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate). Since Eve sinned first, we might expect that the New Testament would tell us that we inherit a sinful nature because of Eve’s sin, or that we are counted guilty because of Eve’s sin. But this is not the case. In fact, it is just the opposite. We read in the New Testament, For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22). The New Testament does not say, as in Eve all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is further seen in the parallel between Adam and Christ, where Paul views Christ as the last Adam:

Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

—1 COR. 15:45-49 (seealso ROM. 5:12-21, where another relationship between Adam and Christ is developed)

It is unmistakable, then, that Adam had a leadership role in representing the entire human race, a leadership role that Eve did not have. Nor was it true that Adam and Eve together represented the human race. It was Adam alone who represented the human race, because he had a particular leadership role that God had given him, a role that Eve did not share.

3. The naming of woman: When God made the first woman and brought her to the man, the Bible tells us,

Then the man said, This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

—GEN. 2:23

When Adam says, she shall be called Woman, he is giving a name to her. This is important in the context of Genesis 1—2, because in that context the original readers would have recognized that the person doing the naming of created things is always the person who has authority over those things.

In order to avoid the idea that Adam’s naming of woman implies male leadership or authority, some egalitarians (such as Gilbert Bilezikian) deny that Adam gives a name to his wife in Genesis 2:23.¹³ But his objection is hardly convincing when we see how Genesis 2:23 fits into the pattern of naming activities throughout these first two chapters of Genesis. We see this when we examine the places where the same verb (the Hebrew verb qārā’ [to call]) is used in contexts of naming in Genesis 1—2:

Genesis 1:5: God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

Genesis 1:8: And God called the expanse Heaven.

Genesis 1:10: God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.

Genesis 2:19: So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."

Genesis 2:20: "The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field."

Genesis 2:23: "Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’"

In each of these verses prior to Genesis 2:23, the same verb, the Hebrew verb qārā’, had been used. Just as God demonstrated His sovereignty over day and night, heavens, earth, and seas by assigning them names, so Adam demonstrated his authority over the animal kingdom by assigning them names. The pattern would have been easily recognized by the original readers, and they would have seen a continuation of the pattern when Adam said, she shall be called Woman.

The original readers of Genesis and of the rest of the Old Testament would have been familiar with this pattern, a pattern whereby people who have authority over another person or thing have the ability to assign a name to that person or thing, a name that often indicates something of the character or quality of the person. Thus parents give names to their children (see Gen. 4:25-26; 5:3, 29; 16:15; 19:37-38; 21:3). And God is able to change the names of people when He wishes to indicate a change in their character or role (see Gen. 17:5, 15, where God changes Abram’s name to Abraham and where He changes Sarai’s name to Sarah). In each of these passages we have the same verb as is used in Genesis 2:23 (the verb qara’), and in each case the person who gives the name is one in authority over the person who receives the name. Therefore when Adam gives to his wife the name Woman, in terms of biblical patterns of thought this indicates a kind of authority that God gave to Adam, a leadership function that Eve did not have with respect to her husband.

We should notice here that Adam does not give the personal name Eve to his wife until Genesis 3:20 (the man called [Hebrew qārā’] his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living). This is because in the creation story in Genesis 2 Adam is giving a broad category name to his wife, indicating the name that would be given to womanhood generally, and he is not giving specific personal names designating the character of the individual person.¹⁴

4. The naming of the human race: God named the human race Man, not Woman. Because the idea of naming is so important in the Old Testament, it is interesting what name God chose for the human race as a whole. We read: When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created (Gen. 5:1-2).

In the Hebrew text, the word that is translated Man is the Hebrew word ’ādām. But this is by no means a gender-neutral term in the eyes of the Hebrew reader at this point, because in the four chapters prior to Genesis 5:2, the Hebrew word ’ādām has been used many times to speak of a male human being in distinction from a female human being. In the following list the roman word man represents this same Hebrew word ’ādām in every case:

Genesis 2:22: And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (We should notice here that it does not say that God made the rib into another ’ādām, another man, but that He made the rib into a woman, which is a different Hebrew word.)

Genesis 2:23: Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman. . . .’

Genesis 2:25: And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Genesis 3:8: . . . and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God . . .

Genesis 3:9: But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’

Genesis 3:12: The man said, ‘The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.’

Genesis 3:20: The man called his wife’s name Eve.

When we come, then, to the naming of the human race in Genesis 5:2 (reporting an event before the Fall), it would be evident to the original readers that God was using a name that had clear male overtones or nuances. In fact, in the first four chapters of Genesis the word ’ādām had been used thirteen times to refer not to a human being in general but to a male human being. In addition to the eight examples mentioned above, it was used a further five times as a proper name for Adam in distinction from Eve (Gen. 3:17, 21; 4:1, 25; 5:1).¹⁵

We are not saying here that the word ’ādām in the Hebrew Bible always refers to a male human being, for sometimes it has a broader sense and means something like person. But here in the early chapters of Genesis the connection with the man in distinction from the woman is a very clear pattern. God gave the human race a name that, like the English word man, can either mean a male human being or can refer to the human race in general.

Does this make any difference? It does give a hint of male leadership, which God suggested in choosing this name. It is significant that God did not call the human race Woman. (I am speaking, of course, of Hebrew equivalents to these English words.) Nor did he give the human race a name such as humanity, which would have no male connotations and no connection with the man in distinction from the woman. Rather, he called the race man. Raymond C. Ortlund rightly says, God’s naming of the race ‘man’ whispers male headship.¹⁶

While it is Genesis 5:2 that explicitly reports this naming process, it specifies that it is referring to an event prior to sin and the Fall: "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created" (Gen. 5:1-2).

And, in fact, the name is already indicated in Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

If the name man in English (as in Hebrew) did not suggest male leadership or headship in the human race, there would be no objection to using the word man to refer to the human race generally today. But it is precisely the hint of male leadership in the word that has led some people to object to this use of the word man and to attempt to substitute other terms instead.¹⁷ Yet it is that same hint of male leadership that makes this precisely the best translation of Genesis 1:27 and 5:2.

5. The primary accountability: God spoke to Adam first after the Fall.

After Adam and Eve sinned, they hid from the Lord among the trees of the garden. Then we read, But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ (Gen. 3:9).

In the Hebrew text, the expression the man and the pronouns him and you are all singular. Even though Eve had sinned first, God first summoned Adam to give account for what had happened. This suggests that Adam was the one primarily accountable for what had happened in his family.

An analogy to this is seen in the life of a human family. When a parent comes into a room where several children have been misbehaving and have left the room in chaos, the parent will probably summon the oldest and say, What happened here? This is because, though all are responsible for their behavior, the oldest child bears the primary responsibility.

In a similar way, when God summoned Adam to give an account, it indicated a primary responsibility for Adam in the conduct of his family. This is similar to the situation in Genesis 2:15-17, where God had given commands to Adam alone before the Fall, indicating there also a primary responsibility that belonged to Adam. By contrast, the serpent spoke to Eve first (Gen. 3:1), trying to get her to take responsibility for leading the family into sin, and inverting the order that God had established at creation.

6. The purpose: Eve was created as a helper for Adam, not Adam as a helper for Eve.

After God had created Adam and gave him directions concerning his life in the Garden of Eden, we read, Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’ (Gen. 2:18).

It is true that the Hebrew word here translated helper (‘ezer) is often used of God who is our helper elsewhere in the Bible. (See Ps. 33:20; 70:5; 115:9; etc.) But the word helper does not by itself decide the issue of what God intended the relationship between Adam and Eve to be. The nature of the activity of helping is so broad that it can be done by someone who has greater authority, someone who has equal authority, or someone who has lesser authority than the person being helped. For example, I can help my son do his homework.¹⁸ Or I can help my neighbor move his sofa. Or my son can help me clean the garage. Yet the fact remains that in the situation under consideration, the person doing the helping puts himself in a subordinate role to the person who has primary responsibility for carrying out the activity. Thus, even if I help my son with his homework, the primary responsibility for the homework remains his and not mine. I am the helper. And even