Manhood and Womanhood Before Sin

Sep 18

This post is in response to Manhood and Womanhood Before Sin by John Piper. It was written in 1989, but conveys some beliefs that are still quite popular among complementarians. In this post, I'm only addressing his first argument.

The Man was Created First- Or Was He?

Genesis 1:26-27
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Scholars have offered several explanations for the placement of this creation account, since it is before Eve's apparent creation from Adam's rib. The Talmud offers this explanation:

Midrash Rabbah 8:1:

Rabbi Yirmeyah ben El'azar said: The Blessed Holiness created the first human being with both genders, as it is written, "Male and female [God] created them" {Genesis 1:27}.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman [agreed and] said: The Blessed Holiness created the first human being double-faced [with two fronts of the body], and then sawed them apart and made backs for them, a back for one and a back for the other.
Other scholars objected: It is written "[God] took one of his ribs" {Genesis 1:21}! [The word understood as "rib" is tsela- see Hebrew text below]
[Rabbi Shmuel] answered: It means "one of the two sides [of the double being]". As Scripture says, "For the tsela of the Sanctuary..." -- where the translation of tsela is "side".

This is the most likely explanation. The word used for man in Genesis 1 is Adam, which is used for humankind. It is not until Genesis 2:23, after the man/woman Adam was separated, that the word "iysh" is used for the first time to distinguish man from "ishshah" (woman). She was formed from his tsela, or one entire side of him, just like the tsela is one entire side of the sanctuary. In addition, we are created in the image of God, and God is Echad or plural One, with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This explains how a man and a woman are to "become one flesh." In the beginning, they were literally one flesh, and marriage should be a picture of that unity.

1 Timothy 2:23
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve."

Does this contradict the explanation of the man/woman Adam? No, I don't think so. Adam the human being, with no gender separation, was formed first. Paul's purpose in stating this was to refute a teaching that was circulating that woman was the originator of man.

1 Timothy 2:12
"I most certainly do not grant authority to a woman to teach that she is the originator of a man."

But let's just say that John Piper is correct and Adam was, in fact, formed first.

He claims, "Now God wants to say something more about the relationship between man and woman. And what he wants to say is that when it comes to their differing responsibilities, there is a "firstness" of responsibility that falls to the man."

There is nothing in the text to indicate that the purpose of this passage is to show us anything about who has more responsibility before God. This is entirely his opinion. All the Bible does is state the facts of who was created first (if Adam was indeed created first), but does not say why or that it has any meaning at all. He acknowledges that other teachers have pointed out that the animals were created before humans, so if being created first automatically implied a position of leadership, the animals should lead the humans.

He brushes this off by pointing out that "When the Hebrew people gave a special responsibility to the "firstborn" in the family, it never entered their minds that this responsibility would be nullified if the father happened to own cattle before he had sons."

Of course not. Because being firstborn doesn't necessarily mean God will call you to be the leader. If you're an animal, you just might get sacrificed. If you're a human, there are special blessings and inheritances for the firstborn, however example after example shows that doesn't mean much when it comes to who God calls to leadership.

Abel and Cain
Noah's son Shem was the forefather of Jesus, even though Japeth was the oldest (Gen 10:21).
Jacob and Esau
Joseph and his brothers
Manasseh and Ephraim
And so on...

Mark 10:31
"But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

What do the Hebrew word pictures say?

According to Dr. Frank Seekins in Hebrew Word Pictures, the word for Father is ab or Alef Bet. "The word picture tells us that a father is the leader [first] or the strength of the family." (pg. 14)

The word for Mother is em or Alef Mem. "The word picture tells us that a mother is the strong [or first] water... the life giver." (pg. 62)

So there is strong evidence to indicate that man was not, in fact, formed first, rather Adam was a man/woman being who was later separated. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to challenging the complementarian argument, however, because there is nothing IN the text to indicate that being created first has any significance. Certainly, if woman had been created first, patriarchs would have believed that indicated something as well. They would have said, "Of course the woman couldn't manage on her own! That's why God created man, because the poor helpless woman was lost on her own until God created the man to rescue her." Can't you just hear it now?