...continuing the discussion of the original design for marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 as it pertains to authority and hierarchy between the spouses.
In part I we saw three aspects of human creation found in Genesis 1 which are equally distributed between males and females. Not only are both genders endowed equally with God's image (1:26-27), but God blessed them equally and delegated to them equally the task of exercising dominion over the rest of creation (1:28). Now we will turn our attention to Genesis 2 and the more detailed narrative of human creation.
To begin, I would like to dispel some of the arguments that have been made through history to claim that the marriage relationship is not equal (or in particular, that the female is less than and subservient to the male). There have been 3 such arguments which traditionally were (and still are in some circles) doctrinal positions subordinating women.
First in Line
The first argument is that because the man was created first, he has priority in the relationship (and therefore is superior to the woman). There is no actual biblical proclamation that first created means first in authority so instead, supporters of this view rely on the dubious, ambiguous, and inconsistent cultural deference to the first born. This is flawed on multiple levels, a few of which I will highlight.
Remaining in Genesis, it is clear in fact that humans were not the first created. If first created means first in authority, then fish and birds would rule over land animals and all of them would rule over humans. In fact, the very opposite is true of creation. Humans, being created last, are the “crown” of creation. Logically, then, if one wants to go down this road, females, being created last within humanity, would be the “crown” of the human species. I suggest we don’t go there.
The next big flaw in this argument is it relies on cultural practices instead of biblical principles to make the case. The truth is, outside of culture, being born first means nothing. If it were an inherent and universal fact that being born first makes you superior to your other siblings, then you wouldn’t be able to sell that position or have it stolen from you (Genesis 25:31-33; 27:6-28), or have it redistributed to others (1 Chronicles 5:1). If this were the case, God would have never allowed Joseph to reign over his family and certainly would never have chosen David, the youngest of Jesse’s boys, to be King. Being first does not in any way give you godly preference or dominion.
If the testimony of the Old Testament didn’t make this clear enough, Jesus settles the argument once and for all. When his disciples were questioning him about the failure of the rich man to grasp salvation, he said plainly: “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first” (Matthew 19:23-30). Jesus repeats this statement in Matthew 20:16 when he finishes with the parable of the generous employer who treated both the first hired and last hired equally. (See also the prodigal son story - Luke 15:11-32.) A little later in the same chapter, when James’ and John’s mother was lobbying to get them priority in the kingdom, Jesus advises the 12 that “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (vs. 26b-27). Hardly the superior position envisioned by those who see the female as subservient to the male.
Finally, this argument ignores the omniscience and sovereignty of God. Do we really believe that the female was some after thought, created only because God didn’t realize how much the male would need her? I hardly think God is that short sighted. The reality is that both the male and female were equally and simultaneously created in the mind of God before the actual physical order of creation took place. Why God needed to leave the man on his own for a while so he would realize his need for a partner to complete him is fodder for plenty of jokes, but really outside of our knowledge base. But that by no means indicates that the woman was a stop-gap, and it certainly does not diminish her equal status with the man.
“Your Delta Tau Chi name is…”
In the movie Animal House, there are several ways in which the fraternity members exercise authority over their new pledges. One of them is by giving each pledge a new name. This concept of “naming = possession of/authority over” is certainly not new. Like birthright, it has been a staple of societies throughout history. Even our common practice of having the new wife “take the name” of her husband is a reflection of the patriarchal notion that a woman is the property of her husband. So goes the naming argument when applied to the first marriage. Because Adam named Eve (twice, no less), he automatically assumes a position of superiority, authority, and ownership over her, and she becomes subservient to him. So what is wrong with this reasoning?
First of all, it is again, man made. God has never said that naming something gives you dominion over that something. Humans don’t have dominion over the animals because Adam named them; they have dominion because God delegated it to them. The dominion would exist whether Adam named the animals or not. The naming of the animals was simply a function that Adam performed – part of his on the job training. Moreover, as we have already discussed, the dominion role was given to all humans, male and female. Presumably, if there were animals left to name, Eve would have been just as qualified and empowered to name some of them.
In fact, nowhere in the bible does it say that it is the male’s unilateral job to name anything, nor does it say anywhere that naming something gives you authority over or possession of that thing. That is a cultural standard, not a biblical teaching. In fact, there are many significant cases of women naming things (mostly children). Are we to assume that Eve had sole dominion and authority over Able and Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25) because she named them instead of Adam? What about the command of the angel that Mary was to name Jesus (Luke 1:31)? Did that cut Joseph out of the picture in terms of having authority over his son? In reality, the naming of something does not grant any authority that does not already exist. Parents have authority over their children not because they name them but because they simply are their parents. Humans have dominion over creation not because we name the animals but because God has designated us to rule over the earth. Naming is simply a necessary task with no inherent godly grant of superiority associated with it at all. The fact that we attach human significance to the act of naming does not impress God.
Adam’s Rib
The third argument is that the female is somewhat less of a human being because she was made from a part of the male rather than being constructed “from the ground up”, as it were, like the male. This is contradicted both in the description of the two human creation events and in Adam’s exclamation when presented with Eve.
Four different verbs are used in Genesis when discussing creation. Three of them (bara’ – to create, ‘asah – to make, yatsar – to form) are used somewhat interchangeably, applying to animals and humans (including male and female separately) and just about everything else in creation. The fourth word, banah, is only used once in the entire creation narrative and that is for the creation of Eve. banah means to construct, as in a house. In fact, it is the word that is used in the Hebrew idiom “to build a house”, meaning to have a family. Although it is certainly a common Hebrew word, it is only used this once in the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:22). Interestingly, in terms of what is being constructed, banah suggest the most detailed and complex kind of work amongst the 4 verbs. That isn’t to suggest that, say, the universe isn’t detailed and complex. But it seems to be no coincidence that the particular way Eve was brought into existence is unique.
Another aspect of the unique construction of Eve is that she was the only living creature that was not created from earthly elements. She alone is constructed out of material from another living thing. All other created creatures were formed by God from the ground or “spawned” by the sea.
The significance of this unique construction should not be over looked. Those who want to diminish the creation of Eve seem to take a “size matters” approach. To them, a “rib”, being a small part of the male, yields a less than human result. Maybe the focus should instead be that Adam became less complete in giving up his “rib”. (In reality, he was incomplete to begin with, hence the need for a partner). God took that portion and carefully constructed a new equally endowed “helper” who perfectly complimented him in every way (although she too is incomplete without him). There is nothing “less than” about Eve. Adam recognized this instantly, exclaiming “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). His statement is all encompassing. It recognizes the fully autonomous and equal human partner, not just some spare part which has been modified to help him out around the garden.
The picture of two complimentary equals who never-the-less need each other to become “whole” again is completed in Genesis 2:24. That rejoining of the two into “one flesh” is what we will celebrate in part III.
In part I we saw three aspects of human creation found in Genesis 1 which are equally distributed between males and females. Not only are both genders endowed equally with God's image (1:26-27), but God blessed them equally and delegated to them equally the task of exercising dominion over the rest of creation (1:28). Now we will turn our attention to Genesis 2 and the more detailed narrative of human creation.
To begin, I would like to dispel some of the arguments that have been made through history to claim that the marriage relationship is not equal (or in particular, that the female is less than and subservient to the male). There have been 3 such arguments which traditionally were (and still are in some circles) doctrinal positions subordinating women.
First in Line
The first argument is that because the man was created first, he has priority in the relationship (and therefore is superior to the woman). There is no actual biblical proclamation that first created means first in authority so instead, supporters of this view rely on the dubious, ambiguous, and inconsistent cultural deference to the first born. This is flawed on multiple levels, a few of which I will highlight.
Remaining in Genesis, it is clear in fact that humans were not the first created. If first created means first in authority, then fish and birds would rule over land animals and all of them would rule over humans. In fact, the very opposite is true of creation. Humans, being created last, are the “crown” of creation. Logically, then, if one wants to go down this road, females, being created last within humanity, would be the “crown” of the human species. I suggest we don’t go there.
The next big flaw in this argument is it relies on cultural practices instead of biblical principles to make the case. The truth is, outside of culture, being born first means nothing. If it were an inherent and universal fact that being born first makes you superior to your other siblings, then you wouldn’t be able to sell that position or have it stolen from you (Genesis 25:31-33; 27:6-28), or have it redistributed to others (1 Chronicles 5:1). If this were the case, God would have never allowed Joseph to reign over his family and certainly would never have chosen David, the youngest of Jesse’s boys, to be King. Being first does not in any way give you godly preference or dominion.
If the testimony of the Old Testament didn’t make this clear enough, Jesus settles the argument once and for all. When his disciples were questioning him about the failure of the rich man to grasp salvation, he said plainly: “But many who are first will be last; and the last, first” (Matthew 19:23-30). Jesus repeats this statement in Matthew 20:16 when he finishes with the parable of the generous employer who treated both the first hired and last hired equally. (See also the prodigal son story - Luke 15:11-32.) A little later in the same chapter, when James’ and John’s mother was lobbying to get them priority in the kingdom, Jesus advises the 12 that “whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (vs. 26b-27). Hardly the superior position envisioned by those who see the female as subservient to the male.
Finally, this argument ignores the omniscience and sovereignty of God. Do we really believe that the female was some after thought, created only because God didn’t realize how much the male would need her? I hardly think God is that short sighted. The reality is that both the male and female were equally and simultaneously created in the mind of God before the actual physical order of creation took place. Why God needed to leave the man on his own for a while so he would realize his need for a partner to complete him is fodder for plenty of jokes, but really outside of our knowledge base. But that by no means indicates that the woman was a stop-gap, and it certainly does not diminish her equal status with the man.
“Your Delta Tau Chi name is…”
In the movie Animal House, there are several ways in which the fraternity members exercise authority over their new pledges. One of them is by giving each pledge a new name. This concept of “naming = possession of/authority over” is certainly not new. Like birthright, it has been a staple of societies throughout history. Even our common practice of having the new wife “take the name” of her husband is a reflection of the patriarchal notion that a woman is the property of her husband. So goes the naming argument when applied to the first marriage. Because Adam named Eve (twice, no less), he automatically assumes a position of superiority, authority, and ownership over her, and she becomes subservient to him. So what is wrong with this reasoning?
First of all, it is again, man made. God has never said that naming something gives you dominion over that something. Humans don’t have dominion over the animals because Adam named them; they have dominion because God delegated it to them. The dominion would exist whether Adam named the animals or not. The naming of the animals was simply a function that Adam performed – part of his on the job training. Moreover, as we have already discussed, the dominion role was given to all humans, male and female. Presumably, if there were animals left to name, Eve would have been just as qualified and empowered to name some of them.
In fact, nowhere in the bible does it say that it is the male’s unilateral job to name anything, nor does it say anywhere that naming something gives you authority over or possession of that thing. That is a cultural standard, not a biblical teaching. In fact, there are many significant cases of women naming things (mostly children). Are we to assume that Eve had sole dominion and authority over Able and Seth (Genesis 4:1, 25) because she named them instead of Adam? What about the command of the angel that Mary was to name Jesus (Luke 1:31)? Did that cut Joseph out of the picture in terms of having authority over his son? In reality, the naming of something does not grant any authority that does not already exist. Parents have authority over their children not because they name them but because they simply are their parents. Humans have dominion over creation not because we name the animals but because God has designated us to rule over the earth. Naming is simply a necessary task with no inherent godly grant of superiority associated with it at all. The fact that we attach human significance to the act of naming does not impress God.
Adam’s Rib
The third argument is that the female is somewhat less of a human being because she was made from a part of the male rather than being constructed “from the ground up”, as it were, like the male. This is contradicted both in the description of the two human creation events and in Adam’s exclamation when presented with Eve.
Four different verbs are used in Genesis when discussing creation. Three of them (bara’ – to create, ‘asah – to make, yatsar – to form) are used somewhat interchangeably, applying to animals and humans (including male and female separately) and just about everything else in creation. The fourth word, banah, is only used once in the entire creation narrative and that is for the creation of Eve. banah means to construct, as in a house. In fact, it is the word that is used in the Hebrew idiom “to build a house”, meaning to have a family. Although it is certainly a common Hebrew word, it is only used this once in the Genesis creation account (Genesis 2:22). Interestingly, in terms of what is being constructed, banah suggest the most detailed and complex kind of work amongst the 4 verbs. That isn’t to suggest that, say, the universe isn’t detailed and complex. But it seems to be no coincidence that the particular way Eve was brought into existence is unique.
Another aspect of the unique construction of Eve is that she was the only living creature that was not created from earthly elements. She alone is constructed out of material from another living thing. All other created creatures were formed by God from the ground or “spawned” by the sea.
The significance of this unique construction should not be over looked. Those who want to diminish the creation of Eve seem to take a “size matters” approach. To them, a “rib”, being a small part of the male, yields a less than human result. Maybe the focus should instead be that Adam became less complete in giving up his “rib”. (In reality, he was incomplete to begin with, hence the need for a partner). God took that portion and carefully constructed a new equally endowed “helper” who perfectly complimented him in every way (although she too is incomplete without him). There is nothing “less than” about Eve. Adam recognized this instantly, exclaiming “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). His statement is all encompassing. It recognizes the fully autonomous and equal human partner, not just some spare part which has been modified to help him out around the garden.
The picture of two complimentary equals who never-the-less need each other to become “whole” again is completed in Genesis 2:24. That rejoining of the two into “one flesh” is what we will celebrate in part III.
