Male Hierarchy in the Creation of the First Family Unit

H. Blocher writes in regard to the creation of the first family unit in Genesis 2,

“The constitution of any real community requires that there be order; it cannot be done simply by joining together two people, but it must possess its own structure and its metaphorical ‘head’.1 If there was a ‘head’ of the first family, then all indications in Genesis 2 are that it was the man who was to function in this role.”

In Genesis 2 the man is undeniably the more prominent of the two humans.  The man was created first and was for a time the only bearer of God’s image upon earth.  The narrative is centred on the man; the provision of his needs and instruction in his responsibilities.  The attention devoted to the man is that of a father to his only son.  The man was given the task of serving and keeping the garden sanctuary, and to the man was the one commandment entrusted.  The woman was created for the man (1 Cor 11:9), to be his companion and helper.  The man therefore was to function as family ‘head’, whilst the woman was given a supportive function.

Adam and Eve were archetypes for future marriages and relationships between men and women.  The author of Genesis 2 indicates this when he inserts the comment in v. 24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife”.  Jesus referred to Genesis 2 when he wished to establish God’s original intentions for marriage (Matt 19:3-9).  Paul refers back to Genesis 1-3 on almost every occasion when he makes an important point to do with gender roles, both regarding marriage (Eph 5:31) and regarding roles in the ecclesial family (1 Tim 2:13-14, 1 Cor 11:7-9).

The union of the first man and woman in marriage also foreshadowed the union of Christ and the ecclesia.  This is called ‘a great mystery’ by Paul in Eph 5:31.  When the mystery was revealed in Christ, New Testament writers such as Paul were able to read familiar texts such as the creation accounts with fresh insight.  Parallels could be appreciated between Christ and the man, and the ecclesia and the woman.  Accordingly, Paul advises husbands to emulate the love of Christ for the ecclesia; and wives to model the submission of the ecclesia to Christ (Eph 5:23-25).

Many egalitarians agree that some form of hierarchy is necessary in human communities, but question why a person’s place in the hierarchy must be determined by their gender.  R. N. Longenecker puts his finger on the key issue for many when he says,

“Certainly society requires order, with some people functioning as overseers and others as subordinates.  But that one gender must necessarily have the one place and the other gender the other place is another matter”.2

A simple answer may be that there is value to a society in being ordered this way.  Complementarian S. Clark notes that in all known human societies, labour has been divided by gender, with males dominating the public sphere and females the private sphere of home and children.3  Moreover, male and female preference for certain roles seems to be rooted deep in our biology.  Even in societies where women are given a choice, this division of labour persists to some extent.  It could be argued that this is an effect of the ‘curse’.  It could also be argued that God designed men and women, in general, to perform different and complementary functions.  The biological differences between men and women were created ‘from the beginning’ (Gen 1:27), and Adam’s relative prominence in Genesis 2 pre-dates the fall.

In 1 Tim 2:13, Paul says that he does not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve”.  Paul emphasises a similar point in 1 Corinthians –

“The head of the woman is the man … he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.  For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.  Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (1 Cor 11:3, 7-9).

Complementarian J. B. Hurley states,

“Paul’s appeal to the prior formation of Adam is an assertion that Adam’s status as the oldest carried with it the leadership appropriate to a first-born son”.4

Although modern readers may find little significance in the order of creation, readers in a culture which practised primogeniture would likely have found the creation order highly significant, as did Paul.

Clark acknowledges some possible objections to this theory – namely that primogeniture normally only occurs between sons of the same parents, and that in the Scriptures primogeniture is often overturned and the younger son favoured over the elder.  Nevertheless Clark argues that the principle of the precedence of the first in age applied more broadly than just to children in a family; and where the younger was chosen this was normally an act of special election whereby the younger became the legal first-born.

Egalitarian W. J. Webb acknowledges that Genesis 2 does contain “quiet overtones of patriarchy” and that the order of creation supplies “one of the strongest pieces of patriarchal data” in the creation story, given the importance attached to the firstborn in ancient Near Eastern thinking.  However, he argues that the man’s precedence in creation is only one of numerous cultural components found in Genesis 1 and 2.6

Webb suggests that the presence of cultural features in the garden may be a deliberate foreshadowing of the curse; or a way of describing the past through present categories familiar to the reader, in order not to confuse the main message.  Alternatively, we could counter that the patriarchy of the garden may have reflected God’s anticipation of the social context into which Adam and Eve were about to venture.

Webb defines the custom of primogeniture quite broadly to mean that the first within any creative order receives special prominence.  Webb acknowledges that Paul’s reference to the order of creation in 1 Tim 2:13 is a probable reference to the custom of primogeniture, and agrees with Clark that Paul’s use of the firstborn idea is sufficiently elastic to include women within the sibling group (cf. Rom 8:29, Heb 12:23).

However, in Webb’s view, 1 Tim 2:13 has a significant cultural component, given that primogeniture is an ancient custom that is no longer practised today.  Webb concludes that 1 Tim 2:12-13 does not reflect a transcultural principle because “the pragmatic factors that drove primogeniture customs were part of the ancient setting, but they are no longer part of our world”.7  Webb therefore dismisses not only the custom itself, but any principles derived from it.[1]

The fact that primogeniture is not a transcultural principle and is not practised today does not necessarily mean that a hierarchal interpretation of the order of creation cannot stand.  Christ’s status as the ‘firstborn of all creation’ (Colossians 1:15) and ‘firstborn from the dead’ (Colossians 1:18) is in no way diminished because primogeniture is not practised today; nor is Israel’s place as the firstborn among nations (Exod 4:22).  The original audiences of the Old and New Testaments practised primogeniture and therefore the writers used firstborn terminology to describe a position of pre-eminence in rank or honour.  That the practice which Paul bases his argument on became culturally bound does not mean that the argument or principle itself is culturally bound.

Complementarian C. Blomberg offers perhaps the best summary when he writes that at the very least the narrative of Genesis 2 leaves the door open for a hierarchal interpretation, and importantly, that this was Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 2.  If one believes Paul to be the author of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, and to have written these letters by inspiration, then his interpretation of the significance of the creation order must be given due weight.

  1. H. Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984), 103-104.
  2. R. N. Longenecker, “Authority, Hierarchy & Leadership Patterns in the Bible” in Women, Authority & the Bible (ed. A. Mickelsen; Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1986), 66-85 (76).
  3. S. B. Clark, 1980, Man and Woman in Christ, retrieved 14 May 2012 from http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Man-and-Woman-in-Christ/Men-s-and-Women-s-Differences-Social-Structural-Characteristics.
  4. J. B. Hurley, Man & Woman in Biblical Perspective, (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), 207-208.
  5. S. B. Clark, 1980, Man and Woman in Christ, viewed at http://www.cbmw.org/Online-Books/Man-and-Woman-in-Christ/From-the-Beginning on 11 April 2012.
  6. W. J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 130-131.
  7. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis, 141-144.
  8. C. L. Blomberg, in Two Views on Women in Ministry (eds., J. R. Beck and C. L. Blomberg; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 331.

[1] [ED AP]: We might ask ourselves whether the egalitarian position requires the cultural relativisation of the Bible to succeed.

Tags: