sign in sign up
<<
Home , Be fruitful and multiply, The Creation of Adam

In Likeness and Unity: Debunking Order Fallacy Allison J. Young One of my first experiences as an intern with Christians for tions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by as Biblical Equality (CBE) involved my staffing a CBE booth at a part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human conference. Here, I met a woman who was very excited about heart”; (3) “’s headship in marriage was established by God egalitarianism; however, in spite of the enormous favor toward before the Fall, and was not a result of sin.”1 egalitarianism that she found in the , she still considered In the chapter entitled “Male-Female Equality and Male Head- herself a complementarian. Why? She said it was due to the “or- ship” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, the au- der of creation.” The creation of Adam before was the last and thor defines “headship” to mean that “the bears the primary major “obstacle” that she could not surmount. responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direc- Her response surprised me greatly. In my opinion, the “order of tion.”2 According to him, man was created to lead, and woman creation” is one of the weakest objections. As my internship pro- was created to submit to man, who is to be an authority or “head” gressed, I encountered more people who, although supportive of over the woman. His claim is that, because the man was created CBE’s mission, were convinced that Adam, being created first, had first and the woman second as a helper, or partner, for the man, a special role as representative of humanity that Eve did not share. the man is to be the leader and an authority over the woman. The “order of creation” argument is significant to the hierar- The Genesis accounts chical case. If inequality between man and woman was part of the original creation, it is logical that inequality was part of God’s How valid are such claims as readings based on the Genesis 1 and 2 original design for male/female relationships. By interpreting the accounts? Genesis 1 explains that “in the beginning God created creation order to imply that man was created to be an author- the and the earth” (v. 1). God first created light, then the ity over woman, hierarchists teach that men are to be authorities sky, the water and land, the plants and vegetation, the sun and the over women today. A woman’s authority is, therefore, limited so stars, the creatures of the air and sea, the creatures of the land, that she cannot be in a position of authority or leadership over and, then, the end of creation was humankind (Gen. 1:1–27): men. To be so, according to this line of thought, would be to ig- Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, ac- nore her God-given “role” as a subordinate helper to man. cording to our likeness; and let them have dominion over While hierarchists refer back to the original creation for sup- the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the port for hierarchy in female/male relationships, egalitarians refer cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over ev- to the original creation to support equality. Because we are living ery creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God cre- after the fall and in the midst of broken relationships, egalitar- ated humankind in his image, in the he created ians believe one must look to the biblical account of creation to them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, gain a clearer understanding of God’s original intent for human- and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the ity. What implications does the “order of creation” in the Genesis earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the account have for the structure of human relationships? sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing Two perspectives that moves upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:26–28 NRSV).

According to the egalitarian perspective, the creation account in The account concludes with God giving humans the plants for food, Genesis indicates that (1) man and woman were created equal in and God looking at everything and calling it good (vv. 29–31). value, both being made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27); (2) man What is clear from Genesis 1 is that both man and woman and woman were both given equal dominion over the earth and were equally created in the image of God (vv. 26–27), told to be its creatures (Gen. 1:26–30); and (3) there was no hierarchy in fruitful and multiply (v. 28), and given dominion over the world male/female relationships in the original creation, but this came God created (vv. 26–31). Both were created equal in value in the as a result of sin (Gen. 3:16). image of God, and both were given the same task of caring for the According to the hierarchical perspective, as quoted from earth. Genesis 1 gives no indication that man and woman were the Danvers Statement, (1) “both were created in created any different, other than one being “male” and the other God’s image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their “female.” Both are included within the Hebrew term for human- manhood and womanhood”; (2) “distinc- ity, adam. In Genesis 1, man and woman are created at the same time, and no temporal ordering appears. ALLISON J. YOUNG is a Master of Divinity can- Hierarchists agree that man and woman were both charged didate at Princeton Theological Seminary. She with authority over creation, but argue that they will not exercise earned her Bachelor of degree in biblical and theological studies from Bethel University. She authority over creation in the same way.3 Women, they claim, are served as a theological intern for Christians for to be stewards within a position of submission under authority, Biblical Equality in the summer of 2007. and men are to steward within a position of leadership. But, such a distinction is not made in Genesis 1.

12 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2009 In Genesis 2, another account of creation focuses in more de- ner, for none was like him. God wanted to make it clear to Adam tail on the creation of humankind, male and female. In Genesis what or whom he was missing before creating Eve, so that the 2:7, God formed the being (adam) from the dust of the earth (ad- creation of Eve would be fully appreciated by Adam.4 amah). This word usage in Hebrew is intentional. It is a play on Similarity and unity words to demonstrate the connection of human life to the earth. God then put adam in the to till and keep it, God The next main point of this passage is the similarity and unity gave the command to adam not to eat of the tree of the knowl- between the man and woman. Eve is a fitting partner for Adam edge of good and evil, and then God perceived that it was not because, unlike the animals, she was like him. Woman was cre- good that adam was alone: ated by God from the side of the man (vv. 21–22)—not from the dust, but from the same flesh as the man. This is a beautiful and Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should poetic way to describe the “one flesh” relationship between men be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” So out of the and women. Some interpret this part of the story to show wom- ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and an’s subordination to man. However, since the animals were cre- every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what ated first and Adam later as their superior, one could just as easily he would call them; and whatever the man called every living conclude that Eve, created after Adam from his flesh, superseded creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, him and became his superior. Such understandings miss the main and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but intent of the story: to show the unity between the two humans. for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. So the Adam rejoices in this similarity when he exclaims, “this is at Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken” (v. 23). To un- flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man derstand the full force of this statement, it is necessary to recog- he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the nize that the Hebrew word for man used here is ish, and the word man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my for woman is ishah. Just as the man (adam) was formed from flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one the ground (adamah), so woman (ishah) was formed from man was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother (ish). The names given to man and woman continue the theme of and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the rejoicing in the unity of the two. man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. Just as Adam and Eve were made from the same flesh, in mar- (Gen. 2:18–25 NRSV). riage they become one flesh again, as verse 24 states, “Therefore It is here in Genesis 2 that claims are made for a “creation order.” a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and There is a moment when adam is created alone before the cre- they become one flesh.” Here, in Genesis 2:24, is the first time ation of Eve. We must ask what the intention is in this narrative. marriage appears in the Bible. There is nothing patriarchal about Is there a reason that one person was created first alone before this text. In fact, contrary to the tradition of the woman being the creation of the other? Hierarchical belief is that this “order of “given away” by her father to her husband, this text has the man creation” hints towards male “headship.” Is this so? Let us focus leaving his father and mother to unite with his wife. There is abso- our attention on the main intention of this passage. lutely no hint that the husband is to have authority over his wife. At no point in the creation account does God give the man The necessity of Eve authority or a special leadership role over the woman. Would First of all, it is made abundantly clear that it was not good that not this have been the perfect time to give such mandates? God Adam was alone. Adam needed Eve. This is a shocking state- directly told man and woman that they were given a share in do- ment, for, up until this point, everything God had created was minion over the earth and its creatures (Gen. 1:26–30). If God in- considered “good.” Only here, when seeing that Adam was alone, tended man to be the authority over woman, would not God have did God declare that it was “not good.” This is a remarkable wit- directly stated this in the same way? The first mention of a spouse ness to the fact that Adam had a lack that was not fulfilled until ruling over another only comes at the fall as a consequence of sin Eve was created. Adam was in need of a partner, of a helper. In in Genesis 3:16. But, at the beginning, the focus of marriage is the Genesis 2:18, God acknowledges that it is not good for man to be unity and one-flesh relationship of the two. alone and that it was necessary to create Eve. Order of creation Before creating Eve, God wanted Adam to recognize his need for Eve. God first wanted Adam to be aware that he was, in fact, The creation account in Genesis 1–2 clearly states that both man alone. God brought all the animals to Adam to name (vv. 19–20). and woman were created in the image of God, both were told to Most likely, when Adam named the animals, he did not merely be fruitful and multiply, and both were given dominion over the glance at them quickly and give them a name. Adam probably creation. Genesis 2 shows how Adam had a lack when he was took time considering each animal before naming it. In this way, alone, and that Eve was created in a manner demonstrating the Adam became familiar with all of the animals and recognized similarity and one-flesh relationship between the two. She was, in that he was different from them. None was fitting to be his part- fact, the pinnacle of creation, completing the creation of humani-

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2009 • 13 ty. Why, or how, is this text being used to support male “headship” ments claim to address only the woman’s “role,” in reality, these and gender “roles”? Some suggest that the creation of man before claims have implications for woman’s ontology. If a man, just by woman supports male headship. As one hierarchist writes: virtue of being a man, is supposed to be a leader, and a woman, by virtue of being a woman, is supposed to be a subordinate help- The paradox of Genesis 2 is also seen in the fact that the wom- er, then something intrinsic about the essence, or ontology, of an was made from the man (her equality) and for the man a man and woman must be different.7 (her inequality). God did not make This interpretation was drawn by some Adam and Eve from the ground at reating one person first and then the other in the past. For example, John Calvin the same time and for one another from his flesh poetically demonstrates C (1509–1564) writes: without distinction. Neither did the one-flesh relationship of man and woman, God make the woman first, and showing unity, not hierarchy. Now shews that the woman was then the man from the woman for created afterwards, in order that she the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would joined to the man on the express condition, that she should have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood be at hand to render obedience to him. (Gen. ii. 21.) Since, that He intended to make clear.5 therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the Apostle justly reminds According to this author, God intentionally created Adam before us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable Eve in order to make it clear that Adam was to be the leader in appointment of God is strikingly displayed.8 the relationship (manhood), while Eve was to be a subordinate helper (womanhood). Today, we would be hard-pressed to find someone who will say First of all, the author assumes that, in order to be equal, man what Calvin said—that woman was created after man to be an “in- and woman would have had to have been created at the same ferior aid” and an “appendage.” The contemporary argument that time, both from the dust. He presumes hierarchy based on the attempts to maintain hierarchical relationships while at the same creation order. I believe, however, there was a greater purpose in time affirming equality in essence and value is inconsistent. creating one partner before the other: to show the need of man Does “help” imply inferiority or subordination? and woman for one another. The emphasis is not that one partner was created to be the helper, but that one partner was momen- What reason do we have to assume that a “helper” implies sub- tarily alone, and this was “not good.” Adam recognizes not only ordination? I often go to people for help who are my superiors his need, but also how invaluable Eve is. The fact that the creation because I have more confidence in their help. “Help” can come of the woman came second as a helper does not imply her subor- from someone of superior, inferior, or equal status. dination or that she was a “gift” to Adam, but that she was created As I noted, the Hebrew words often translated as “helper” are to fill a need and to help in the task of maintaining God’s rule on ezer kenegdo. Ezer (help) is often used of God as helper (Ps. 10:14, earth. Creating one person first and then the other from his flesh 30:10, 54:4, 70:5, 72:12, 121:2). Clearly, there is no connotation of poetically demonstrates the one-flesh relationship of man and inferiority or subordination of the One designated a help! Rather, woman, showing unity, not hierarchy. ezer is a sign of strength and power. A better case could be made Woman’s identity that ezer refers to a superior rather than an inferior.9 Kenegdo means “corresponding to,” “opposite to,” or “face to face,” mak- Whenever hierarchists refer to different “roles” for men and ing it clear that the relationship between man and woman is one women, they are referring to who leads and who obeys. They of equality. Eve was a fitting partner for Adam, for she was like suggest that woman was created as a subordinate help to man him. None of the animals was able to be an ezer kenegdo, because and that man was created to be the leader of the relationship. they were not like Adam. Ezer kenegdo implies not inferiority or For example, the author quoted earlier believes that the creation subordination, but strength and power. order of Adam before Eve was intentional to make these “roles” God first brought animals for man and woman clear. He writes, “A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of A common hierarchist argument is that, because God first her womanhood, is called to help for God.”6 On what is this claim brought the animals to Adam, the helper would likewise be one based? Not once in the text is Adam called a “leader” or a “head.” over whom Adam exercised authority. This reasoning suggests The woman’s “role” as “helper” is based on two Hebrew words in that Eve was created in a rank closer to that of the animals than Genesis 2:18: ezer kenegdo, often translated together as “helper.” to that of Adam. Here we find the Greek influence of the “chain It should not be assumed that, because Eve was created as a of being”: man, then woman, then animals, then inanimate life.10 helper, that this is the permanent role or identity for all women. This understanding misses the point: that Eve was different than The main purpose for her creation was that Adam not be alone. the animals and like Adam. None of the animals was suitable as a Adam needed an equal. Christiane Carlson-Thies writes in her helper. Adam needed someone like himself and equal to himself article “Man and Woman at Creation” that, although such argu- (unlike the animals), and Eve is suitable because she is like him.

14 • Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2009 Primogenitor If people come to the text with certain expectations, then they will certainly be able to interpret the text to meet those expectations. Some maintain that Adam’s temporal priority grants him author- Because historically, and in certain situations today, men have ity over that which comes after him. They turn to the concept of had authority in relationships, this does not mean it is what God primogenitor, or rights given to the firstborn (cf. Deut. 21:15–17). originally intended. We do not see relationships of male author- They reason that, because Adam was created first, he received ity over women in the Bible until the fall as the consequence of greater authority and was given a special role as representative of sin (Gen. 3:16). The roots of gender hierarchy, or male authority the two. According to Richard Hess, this is an illegitimate model over women, are not in creation, but in the fall. upon which to base the creation narrative. Primogenitor applies Further, we have been influenced by the Western idea that to children’s rights to their father’s inheritance. God does not give first is best—but God created in an ascending order of impor- birth to man or woman, but creates them. There is no “inheritance” tance, with the more complex beings created last. On this basis, because God does not die.11 Furthermore, Adam and Eve are not it could be as easily concluded that Eve was more complex than siblings. To read primogenitor into this context is improper. Adam, and that Eve was the pinnacle of creation. The purpose of Even if we were to grant the premise of primogenitor, we the sequential creation of Adam and then Eve in Genesis 2 is to should not neglect the many examples in Scripture where prefer- show the need they have for each other.13 Adam alone was “not ence is given to a younger child over the first: Isaac over Ishmael good,” and he was in need of a partner. It was not until Eve was (Gen. 21), Jacob over Esau (Gen. 27), over (Gen. 29), created that the creation of humankind was complete and good. Ephraim over Manasseh (Gen. 48), Joseph over his brothers (Gen. 37), and over his brothers (1 Sam. 17). Would we say that Conclusion John the Baptist had authority over because he came first? There is nothing in the text to suggest that man, because he God, who has ultimate authority, gave humanity (man and wom- was created first, is meant to be the leader. If we follow this logic, an) a share in God’s authority over creation. The creation accounts we would have to say that the plants and animals are to have au- in Genesis 1–2 are beautiful accounts of the interdependence of thority over human beings, or that the dust of the earth is to be an man and woman and the unity and partnership that they share. authority over Adam. Derivation does not necessitate subordina- This is made even clearer when we look to the new creation and tion, nor does prior existence entail authority. the way in which Christ restored man and woman to a similar re- lationship of unity and interdependence (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28). Why this hierarchical interpretation of Genesis? Notes Are we reading the Genesis text as it is, or are we reading it ac- 1. Found in Wayne Grudem, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth cording to what we expect to find based on the interpretations of (Sisters, Ore.: Multnomah, 2004), 538. others? Is it possible that we have been influenced by notions that 2. Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr., “Male-Female Equality and Male Head- are completely external to the text? ship: Genesis 1–3,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A We should not assume that the creation of Adam first means Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem anything other than he was created first, or that the creation of (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1991), 95. 3. Grudem, Evangelical Feminism, 107. Eve second means anything other than that she was created sec- 4. Joy Elasky Fleming, “Man and Woman in Biblical Unity: The- ond. To assume that this suggests a relationship of subordination ology from Genesis –3” (Minneapolis, Minn.: Christians for Biblical is to read things into the text that are simply not there. Anne Equality, 1993), 7. Atkins has stated the point aptly: 5. Ortund, “Male–Female Equality and Male Headship,” 102. 6. Ortlund, “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship,” 102. Suppose God had made the woman first, and the man out 7. Christiane Carlson-Thies, “Man and Woman at Creation: A Cri- of her. . . . Now who comes over as the helpless, dependent tique of Complementarian Interpretations,” Priscilla Papers 18, no. 4 one, the weaker, inferior partner? Why, the woman again of (Fall 2004): 5. 8. John Calvin, “The First Epistle to Timothy,” 2.13, in Commentar- course! She could not cope alone; man had to be made to bail ies on the Epistles of Paul, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: her out. Part of her body was taken away to make him; she Baker, 1989), 69. can never again be complete on her own. The man was made 9. Fleming, “Man and Woman in Biblical Unity,” 9. last, after the plants, after the animals, and certainly after the 10. Aristotle recognized a hierarchy of nature in his De Anima. For woman; he is the crown of God’s creation. He was made out of the history of the idea, see Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being, human flesh; she is nothing but dust. Even her name (“man” (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936). 11. Richard S. Hess, “Equality With and Without Innocence: Genesis now of course) is a diminutive version of his (“woman”). She 1–3,” Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy, is to “cleave” to him (and, as it happens, this word is “used (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005), 84. almost universally for a weaker cleaving to a stronger”; no 12. Anne Atkins, Split Image: Male and Female After God’s Like- doubt a great deal would be made of this if the woman were ness (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987), 0–21; cited in Rebecca to cleave to the man!). Most significant of all she is to leave her Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1997), 137. parents and her way of life to join him and adapt to him; she 13. Hess, “Equality With and Without Innocence,” 84. was clearly found to be inadequate on her own.12

Priscilla Papers ◆ Vol. 23, No. 2 ◆ Spring 2009 • 15