man, woman, composing

Does the Creation Narrative Teach Male Authority?

/ Creation, Egalitarianism, Women / 2 Comments / By

The basis for Male and Female Equality in the Genesis Creation Story

I have heard numerous times, by different people, that male authority and female submission are clearly taught in the Genesis creation story. They will then go on to says that because God created it this way in the beginning it applies universally, to all times and places. This certainly appears like a strong argument… If it were true of course.

In reality, this story speaks to the equality of all people and the mutuality there should be between a husband and a wife. Let’s dive into the multiple elements of this text that can shed light on this controversial issue.

I will begin by examining how the creation narrative describes the relationship between men and women. Namely, the equality and mutuality that is expressed. There are several reasons I believe that a relationship of equality is described at the beginning of the book of Genesis.

I will then discuss some common objections to this position, attempting to refute them.

Mutuality and equality in creation

In the creation story, the writer doesn’t go out and say “men and women are equal.” In our culture, we would expect this to be clearly addressed. If only it were so simple. The word of God is for all people, but it wasn’t quite written for us and our 21st-century problems. Nonetheless, I believe we can look to the Bible and let it speak to us and our culture.

I see many elements in the creation narrative that speak of the relationship between men and women, especially in the context of a marriage relationship in Genesis 2. Adam and Eve were married after all.

These may be deductions I am making, but they are not far-fetched conclusions. I strongly believe that the genesis creation narrative supports an egalitarian position that men and women are equal, not only in value but equal in role as well.

couple, man, woman

Male and female he created them

“So God created mankind in his own image,

    in the image of God he created them;

    male and female he created them.”

(Gn 1:27)

The genesis creation narrative is really two stories put together. They have different goals and different orders of creation. In Gn 1:1-2:3 we don’t have a separate event for the creation of men and women. They are created together in one event, with one purpose. The Hebrew word translated by mankind in this verse is adam. It is the personal name Adam, but it means humanity in the rest of the scriptures. God created humanity in his own image, meaning that every single person is created in God’s image. Whether they are male or female, they are created in his image. This is what gives us value. This is why killing another human being is so grave (Gn 9:6).

I am still puzzled by what this means, to be made in the image of God. What I do know, is that men and women are equal in the sense that we are equally made in his image. There is no inequality described here. There is no distinction made between them other than their gender. They are different in that one is female, the other male, but that makes no difference to their ultimate value before God. 

In Genesis 2, we see that God created Adam from the dust first, then, he created the woman from Adam. It does not say, however, that the woman is created in the image of the man. No! Women are created in the image of God just as men.

This passage, therefore, means that men and women are equal before God. Equal in value. Most agree with this, but some will add that it does not mean they are equal in role. I think the next verse supports that men and women are called to the same roles.

The same mandate

“God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

(Gn 1:28)

So God created these creatures in his image. For what purpose? He wants them to “increase in number, fill the earth, and subdue it.” This is the mandate he gives to humanity. To men and women alike. He doesn’t give one mandate to men, and a separate one to women. 

In recent Western tradition, we see a woman’s role as taking care of the home and children, and a man’s role as working outside the home to provide for his family. Notice, in contrast, that this passage is not saying this. Rather, both men and women are to be fruitful and multiply. The act of procreation takes both of them, they are both to fill out this command. In other terms, God is telling men and women to raise children, together. Likewise, it is not only men that are called to subdue the earth and rule all the living creatures in it, it is humanity, both men and women, equally. 

It is also interesting to note that hierarchical relationships are described, just not between humans. Humanity is to rule above the animals; the earth is to be below them. There is a hierarchy between humanity and the rest of creation, humans being above the rest. But nowhere is it said that men are to rule over women or their wives.

If all we had in the Bible concerning gender was Genesis 1, we would conclude that men and women are equal in value and role.

The woman rescues the man

Many then turn to God creating the woman to be Adam’s helper to support their view of male “headship” or authority over women in marriage and society. I ultimately believe this fails (I will go deeper into a refutation of this later). Here I will address how this text denotes mutuality between both the man and his wife.

“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’” 

(Gn 2:18)

To begin, if the woman is called a helper, ezer, it is not as a subordinate to man. It is from a position of strength that she rescues the man from his loneliness. Also, Adam could not fill out God’s mandate to fill the earth and subdue it on his own, in this way he needs help.

This Hebrew word (ezer) is used elsewhere in the Bible to speak of God as our helper, or of military help. It comes from a place of strength, not subordination.

 “The other was named Eliezer, for he said, “My father’s God was my helper; he saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.”

(Ex 18:4)

“There is no one like the God of Jeshurun,

who rides across the heavens to help you

and on the clouds in his majesty.”

(Dt 33:26)

“Blessed are you, Israel!

    Who is like you,

    a people saved by the Lord?

He is your shield and helper

    and your glorious sword.”

(Dt 33:29)

“But as for me, I am poor and needy;

    come quickly to me, O God.

You are my help and my deliverer;

    Lord, do not delay.”

(Ps 70:5)

It is even translated as strength in some versions:

“I have bestowed strength on a warrior;

    I have raised up a young man from among the people.” (Ps 89:19, NIV)

(Ps 89:19, NIV)

Need I go on?

We could almost think of the woman as greater than the man by describing her as ezer because it denotes such strength. The word following it, however, evens things out: “a helper suitable for him.” The word in Hebrew for suitable is kenegdô. From neged (in front of, or opposite) with the prefix kaf (like, as, according to). It denotes how they correspond to each other. They are face to face. It denotes their similarity and their equality, their mutuality[a].

Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh

Let us now discuss how the woman was made. The woman was made from Adam and therefore created after him. Since Adam was put into a deep sleep, his contribution to the making of the woman was minimal. God was the creative agent, not Adam. Adam only contributed a piece of his side, that God had made anyway. Perhaps you have heard this proverb:

“The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

―Matthew Henry [b]

Her being created from Adam’s side speaks more to their equality, not hierarchy.

Also, if God had made a woman out of the dirt, instead of from Adam, her equality and mutuality with the man could be put in question. As it were, she is made out of the same substance as him. For this reason, when God presents her to the man he exclaims:

“This is now bone of my bones

    and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

    for she was taken out of man.”

(Gn 2:23)

Do you see any hierarchy described here? I see equality. For, she “is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. He is saying that she is just like him, that they are the same. She isn’t like the animals, she is like him.

They will be one flesh

I also see mutuality in the marriage relationship as described by God.

“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” 

(Gn 2:24)

What do headship and submission have to do in a “one flesh” relationship? Man is called to love his wife as his own flesh (Ep 5:28). When you think about your body do you think of a divided self? A part who orders and another who carries out those orders? Maybe you would say that the brain or mind orders and the body obeys. However, the mind is perfectly within the body and not separate from it. Also, when a hand touches fire, it is as if the hand sends out a signal to remove itself from the burning flame. Just as the brain sends out signals to the body, so does the body send out signals to the brain. The body is not separate from the mind, nor the mind from its body. The body is a whole. This is what a husband and wife relationship should be like, unity, wholeness. This is how we are to be in Christ.

“Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.”

(1 Co 12:12)

It is also intriguing to note that it is the man who was to leave his family to be united with his wife. This is the exact opposite of what we see in patriarchal societies where the man is the head of the house, and the wife leaves her family to be joined this his family, to his estate.

Hierarchy comes after the fall

As I hope I showed above, there is no hierarchy described in the creation narrative. In fact, the first time a hierarchical relationship between men and women is described is after the fall.

“To the woman he said, ‘I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

    with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

    and he will rule over you.’” 

(Gn 3:16)

After the fall we see the woman being subjected to her source, her husband, whereas the man is subjected to his source, the ground. This is a consequence of the fall, it is a consequence of sin entering the world. It is a reversal of the creation order. It is certainly not something to aspire to. It is something that must be redeemed. It is not God’s holy decree, it is an evil consequence of them rebelling. It seems to be more of a description of what was going to happen, not something that God wanted to have happened. It certainly did turn out to be true. There are men, still today, wanting to claim authority over women, even in our churches. Please, let us not look to the effects of sin as a basis for our marriages and our societies.

Also, if men had authority over the woman before the fall it would not make sense to have it listed here as a consequence of their sin. Nor is it a perversion of some kind of good rulership that men exerted before the fall. No rulership on his part is described before the fall. His ruling is a perverted consequence of their sin.

I hope I have outlined here that genesis seems to put forward the equality of men in women. They are equally made in the image of God, they are equally called upon to multiply and rule the earth (no gender-differentiated roles here), they are made of the same essence, they are united in marriage, not divided, and hierarchy only arrived after the fall.

Common objections

Many will nonetheless remain unconvinced of men and women’s equality as it is described in genesis. They have several arguments to support the “headship” of men, or men’s authority, and woman’s submission to that authority. I will present a few of them here, some of the most common ones I have encountered.

The order of creation

I have heard it said that since man was created first, he has authority over the woman. I must admit, this argument has a strong historical precedent. Across multiple generations and cultures, the firstborn son was given more importance and he was heir to a larger part of the estate than were his siblings. This was most likely the case around the time this was written in the Mesopotamian region. I can think, for example, of Isaac wanting to bless Esau before Jacob and give the greatest blessing to Esau, his eldest son. This is certainly how humanity views the firstborn.

However, I would be more concerned about what God thinks. Does God favor the firstborn? Often he does not. Did he not chose Jacob over Esau? Joseph over all his older brothers? Moses over Aaron? David amongst his multiple older brothers? He almost makes it a point not to favor the firstborn. God doesn’t see the world as we do, he does not value the same things we do. For Jesus said: “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” (Mt 19:30).

Another reason I do not think this argument stands well is that it is not supported explicitly in this text or in the rest of the Bible. I could very easily make the reverse argument. God created the earth and the animals before humans and he told humans to: “fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Gn 1:28). We could thus deduce that it is because he created humanity after the animals and the earth that humans are called to rule over them. By extension, since the woman was created after the man, she should rule over Adam.

Another way we could look at it is that God saved the best for last. When he created Adam he saw that it was not good. Then, after he created the women, he saw that it was very good. The woman is the pinnacle of creation! I am just trying to make a point. I believe that men and women are created equal. Reading into this text that either men or women have greater authority or leadership roles because of some creation order is going way beyond the text. Nor is it in line with the general idea of this narrative, the Bible in general, or Jesus’s teachings.

The woman is man’s helper

Another passage people tend to turn to defend male “headship” or leadership is the one I discussed earlier, Gn 2:18. Whereas I see equality, they see a hierarchy.

“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’”

(Gn 2:18)

At a first glance, it appears compelling to see this as meaning the woman is the help, like a servant, carrying out the will of the man before her own. As noted above, however, I think we need to be cautious because this word is often used to describe God as our helper.

For in no way is God humanity’s subordinate, nor does he ever submit to any kind of human leadership, authority, or will. Jesus did say he came to serve, not to be served (Mt 20:28), but the reality his God is not our subordinate. That was Jesus in his humanity. Some complementarians are willing to say God chooses to be our servant at certain times (See Piper etc. p. 104).

“The fallacy lies in the implication of what she says, namely, that God cannot be subordinate to human beings. It is entirely possible for God to subordinate Himself, in a certain sense, to human beings. He does so whenever He undertakes to help us. He does not “un-God” Himself in helping us; but He does stoop to our needs, according to His gracious and sovereign will.”[c]

Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.

If you choose to believe this, consider that there may be a difference between God coming to our aid in a specific temporal-spatial way as opposed to saying he is our servant or subordinate. He is certainly not our subordinate. Yet this is how many complementarians would describe women as they relate to men. They say that women are always to have a subservient role and that men always have a leadership role; or that men have headship/authority over the woman and that women must submit. Thereby affirming inequality between men and women. They would never, however, be willing to say that God is always subservient to us. That would be putting God below us, which is simply ridiculous.

Another way to look at it is to consider that if a person submits to another person they are not yielding to someone else’s power but they are putting themselves voluntarily under someone else. They are placing the other before themselves. This has nothing to do with some power or authority that someone else may have over you. It is all about you and your actions and has nothing to do with the other person nor their power. We are all called to submit to one another, to put others before ourselves, not just women (Ep 5:21).

Also, when we consider the passages where God is described as our helper (ezer), it is not some kind of subordinate position that is described. Rather, it is God saving us because he is more powerful than us and can help us when we are helpless. The one who helps provides something that the other does not have on his own.

Have you ever gone to your boss for some help? For example, a waiter was having issues dealing with an unsatisfied client and goes to her manager for help. She may have tried to solve the issue on her own, but, no matter what she said or did the client seemed to be getting angrier. Therefore, she went to her manager for some help because he has more experience and more authority. He can more readily appease the angry customer. Is the manager stooping down below the level of the waiter to help her? Absolutely not, rather he can help her because he has more power in this situation.

Rather than describe a hierarchical relationship (authority over and subordinate roles), this passage seems more to want to reveal our interdependence on each other to fulfill God’s command to fill the earth and subdue it. The woman is called upon to help the men in his loneliness, not in his need for someone to execute his plans or his need for a servant. We could also deduce that the man provides company to the woman, that it is reciprocal. It highlights our need for one another. Not just in marriage, but in a larger sense, community is essential to what it is to be human.

God speaks to Adam first

Some may then say that God is seen talking to Adam first after the fall because he is the authoritative figure of the two, that he is responsible for both of them. However, note that God addresses Adam for his own sin, not that of the woman. Afterward, God also addresses the woman for her own sin. 

The order is symmetrical. The snake deceives the woman, the woman eats the fruit and hands it over to her husband, and then the husband eats of it. God then addresses Adam for his sin, the woman for hers, and lastly, he addresses the snake. Finally, God curses the snake, exposes the consequence of Eve’s sin, then that of Adam’s sin. The order is a, b, c ; c’,b’,a’; a’’,b’’,c’’. It is poetic. That it has any meaning regarding a hierarchy between the parties is not clear to me.

Likewise, when God tells Adam that because he listened to his wife and ate of the fruit he is guilty, it does not imply that it was listening to his wife that was the problem. As if the woman must always listen to and follow the husband, and never the other way around. Rather, the problem lies in him listening to her instead of God’s clear instructions. We must all listen to God’s voice instead of the voice of other people (Acts 5:29). It is not necessary to read into this verse some kind of hierarchical relationship ordained by God.

Adam names the woman

I have also heard that Adam naming the woman was a sign that he had authority over her since, in that culture, the naming of something was done when you had ownership of it. Even if this is true, it doesn’t mean that God sees it this way, or that this is what is meant by the author of Genesis. The Biblical author can vary well disagree and go against commonly held beliefs at the time. This is just not something that is written in the text, it is extrapolated from elsewhere, there is no real ground for this.

Anyways, Adam only names her Eve after the fall. Before that, he just recognizes her as a woman, as he recognizes himself as a man. He is not naming her here. If it is only after the fall that he names her; after we learn man will rule over his wife. We cannot, then, deduce that he had authority over her before the fall from his naming her. He only named her after the fall.

Some may see in the genders name some kind of preference to man because she is named in reference to him (woman as compared to man). However, I do not think there is some kind of primordial privilege for man because he is called “man” and she is called “woman” (Ish/Isha in Hebrew). It is the same noun really, one masculine, the other feminine. In English, we do not have gendered nouns, but in French we do. For example, the French feminine and masculine words for “nurse” are “infirmière” and “infirmier”. But they mean the same thing, it is the same job title; just one is female, and the other male. I think it is safe to say it is the same principle here. It does not denote any hierarchy between them, certainly not explicitly. It seems to be reading into the text the presupposition that men have priority and thus greater authority.

The arguments for equality between men and women mostly come from a simple exegesis of the text, looking at what the words mean or imply. Whereas most of the arguments for a hierarchy seem to bring in some preconceived notion of primogeniture (Adam was created first) or are based on cultural issues (naming at the time was a sign of authority). I think the strongest case is that for equality.

What do you think? Does the creation narrative speak to man and woman’s mutuality or hierarchy? Let me know what you think in the comments below.

References

  [a] Mowczko, Marg. “Kenegdo: Is the Woman Subordinate, Suitable, or Similar to the Man?”. Marg Mowczko (blog). Aug 1, 2014.

Kenegdo: Is the woman subordinate, suitable, or similar to the man?

[b] Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Hendrickson Publishers. 1991. (Online source https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/249554-the-woman-was-made-of-a-rib-out-of-the

[c] Piper, John & Grudem, Wayne. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Crossway Books. Wheaton, Illinois. Copyright © 1991 by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. P.104

2 thoughts on “Does the Creation Narrative Teach Male Authority?”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *