A healthy biblical theology about gender, and the role of women in specific, must begin at creation. It is in the story of creation where we develop an understanding of the purpose of mankind and genders. Those who would support a hierarchy of the genders point to the creation order as support for their position. God created man first, therefore God designed men to be the leaders. They refer to Paul’s letters to Timothy and the Corinthians to reinforce this view: man was created first, therefore he has authority over the woman, and woman was taken out of man, therefore she is subordinate. I believe this is a misunderstanding of Paul’s message, but let’s look first at Genesis.
“Does the creation narrative, the order of creation, subordinate women?”
If one would read the creation narrative in a vacuum, without any presuppositions, the narrative actually seems to imply the opposite. How so? First, we see the order of creation moves from lower to higher forms of life…from nothingness and void to an increasingly advanced creation. That would imply that woman is higher than man in the order of creation. If Paul was stating that women are to remain under the authority of man because man was created first, then man would be under the authority of animals. Second, man was taken from dust…woman was created from greater stuff-another human being. If Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians was that because woman was taken out of man, she is subordinate to man, then man would be subordinate to dust. Third, woman was created as an ‘ezer kenegdo,” a term that implies not inferiority but superiority. “Ezer” is typically used to refer to God’s rescuing power; “kenegdo” is a term that means “in front of man.” Fourth, woman is the point of reference to which man goes(Gen. 2:24). If one were to argue from the logic of created order alone, then woman is the “crown of creation”…”humanity twice refined.”(1)
But, what does creation tell us about gender equality? Male supremacy and female subordination? Or, are women indeed the crown of creation, superior to men. Let’s see. Genesis 1 and 2 are different accounts of the same story. Genesis 1 is an overview of creation, climaxing with the creation of man; Genesis 2 zooms on the creation of man, climaxing with the two becoming one. Therefore, Genesis 2 must be read in the context of Genesis 1:26-27.
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,
over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Gen. 1:26-27, NIV
The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:27 is “ha’adam,” meaning “the adam.” It’s a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a term for part of something refers to the whole, or vice versa. Ha’adam is male and female. It is similar to our English word “man” which, until recent years, often referred to humanity, male and female. One could use the term “human” or “humanity,” but would lose some of the inherent meaning of the Hebrew word, namely the unity and diversity of “adam,” the plurality of the oneness.
This plurality of ha’adam, is seen again in Genesis 5:1b-2
“When God created mankind(ha’adam) he made them in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “mankind,”(ha’adam) when they were created.” (NIV)
Notice in this verse that the antecedent to the pronoun “them” is ha’adam. Ha’adam is not he/him, but they/them. In the creation narrative of Genesis 1, male and female were created as one being and given one name…man…’adam.” The design calls for man made in God’s image. As the divine decree becomes reality, the result is not one person, but two. The divine order called only for the creation of man, but because the product had to conform to the specifications of the divine image, “ha’adam” inevitably came as the plurality of persons. Plural yet one…just like the Trinity. Male and female humanity reflect the plurality of the Trinity…and the oneness. The unity and interrelationship of male and female humanity reflects the unity and interrelationship of the Trinity(3)
According to orthodox tradition, there is no hierarchy within the Trinity; no Person of the Trinity is eternally subordinate to another Person. While it is true that the Son was temporarily subordinate to the Father to fulfill a mission agreed upon by the Trinity, He is not eternally subordinate to the Father. The belief that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father is known as Arianism and was attributed to Arius, a Christian presbyter of the early 4th century, and was denounced as heresy by the First Council of Nicaea. No one member of “adam” can fully reflect the image of the Trinity, though they are indeed one; neither does a hierarchical relationship between man and woman accurately reflect the image of God. If there is no hierarchy in the Trinity and mankind is made after their image, why do we feel the need to have a hierarchy within our relationships? There is no “tie-breaker” within the Trinity, so there need not be a “tie-breaker” within the image of the Trinity.
“What do we learn about man and woman in Genesis 1? Here they are not treated as differentiated beings in terms of status or function. Both are fashioned after the image of God; not Adam, then Even, but both together reflect God. Both are blessed and are given responsibility of ruling the earth. Both are given the fruit of the earth for food and enjoyment. While they are distinguished according to two types, male and female, nothing in Genesis 1 distinguishes the two in the God-given identity, calling and relationship to other parts of creation. If all we knew of creation came from this chapter, we would conceive of man and woman as equals, partners and co-rulers on earth as the image of God. There is no statement of first-made privilege, headship, or gender roles. According to the opening chapter of the Bible, humanity was created in two forms, male and female; together they are called to administer God’s own life-giving rulership to the earth.”(2)
What about Genesis 2? When the emphasis is placed upon this chapter, hierarchy enters the conversation. But, does Genesis 2 imply male leadership and female subordination? I think not. This chapter focuses on the creation of man, describing the separation of humanity, “the adam,” into male and female, as well as the joining together of man and woman into one flesh. God first says, “It is not good for the man(ha’adam) to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Then He brought the animals to ha’adam to name. But for ha’adam no suitable helper was found. So God caused him to fall into a deep sleep and took his side. From the side of ha’adam, God fashioned a woman. As one being ha’adam could not reflect the Trinity nor fulfill their mandate on earth. There must be plurality, so God splits them into male and female. Ha’adam is now two…ish and ishshah…man and woman. Separate and plural…yet one. Equality in Eden.
Some believe and teach that God created Adam first and Eve second, therefore it is His design that men rule and women submit, that men lead and women follow. In their opinion, if God wanted women to be leaders, he would’ve created Eve first. First of all, Genesis 1 does not say God created a male human being, but that He created mankind, male and female. Second, I believe the concept of first-created means inherent God-given authority is inserting a later concept, known as primogeniture, into this text; it is more eisegesis than solid exegesis. Can we really imagine the conversation in Genesis 1:26-27 extended with the Trinity seeking to decide which gender would be in charge before creating mankind? “Yes, let’s create mankind in our image, male and female…but which one will be in charge? We need to be certain who is to be the leader before we create the adam.”
The two chapters of Genesis also have a different rising action, climax, and denouement. In chapter 1, the rising action is the progression of creation…God creates areas then fills those arenas with his created beings, climaxing with the creation of man. The denouement would be in the opening verses of chapter 2 as God rests from His work of creation.
In chapter 2, the rising action is the growing realization, and suspense, that one created being, ha’adam, is not good, nor sufficient to fully express the image and nature of God, nor to fulfill the mandate given him(them). This climaxes in the fashioning of woman and man’s exclamation, “This at last is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh…” The denouement can be found in Genesis 2:24 as the two become one.
Back to 1 Timothy 2:13….”For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” This verse is in the context of authority and teaching in the church so it is often assumed that Paul is equating first-made with leader or authority. Rather than informing us that first-made instituted a divine right to rule, it’s more likely that Paul was correcting some false teaching spread by a woman in the church at Ephesus.
When we look briefly at 1 Corinthians 11:8, “man did not come from woman, but woman from man,” we see that the context is worship service, not marriage. There is nothing about subordination or hierarchy between the genders. A few verses later, he reminds them that “For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.” This verse pairs with verse 8 and is speaking of equality and interdependence
According to the first chapter of Genesis, humanity is created in the image of God…both are given dominion…both are vested with authority…both are created to rule…Together. Man and woman are equals in the creation of “ha’adam.” Equality in Eden.
According to the second chapter of Genesis, the oneness of ha’adam is not good. Alone, ha’adam could not adequately represent the image and nature of God to His created world nor fulfill the mandate for which he was created. So God separated the one into two…then brought the two together into one again. Equality in Eden.
Endnotes:
1. https://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/priscilla-papers/beginning-beginning
2. Bilezekian, Gilbert. 2006. Beyond Sex Roles. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, div. Baker Publishing Group) Kindle Edition
3. Gupta, Nijay K. 2022. Tell Her Story. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 23.
3. Spencer, Aida Besancon. 1985. Beyond the Curse. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, div. Baker Publishing Group), p. 21.