What Genesis Actually Reveals About God's Design for Relationships
I was taught that because the male was created first, he has authority over the female. This "order of creation" argument seemed ironclad—after all, doesn't being first establish precedence and authority?
But when I actually studied the creation account with fresh eyes, setting aside what I'd been taught to see, I discovered something shocking: this argument completely destroys itself.
The very pattern of creation that complementarians use to establish male authority actually proves the opposite of what they claim. When you follow their logic consistently, you end up in a place they never intended to go.
Why the 'First Means Leader' Argument Crumbles
The complementarian argument goes like this: God created Adam first, then Eve. Since Adam was created first, he has authority over Eve. This establishes the principle that in marriage and church leadership, men should lead and women should follow.
But here's the problem: if being created first establishes authority, then let's follow this logic consistently through the entire creation account.
Animals were created before humans. If we're going to use creation order to establish authority relationships, then logically, animals should have authority over humans. After all, they were here first!
Plants were created before animals. So plants should rule over animals.
The sun, moon, and stars were created before plants. So celestial bodies should govern all earthly life.
Matter itself was created before light. So raw matter should rule over everything else.
You can see how quickly this becomes absurd. The complementarian argument about creation order only works if you apply it selectively to male and female while ignoring the actual pattern throughout the rest of creation.
How Creation Moves from Simple to Complex, Not Superior to Inferior
When I stepped back and looked at the entire creation narrative, I saw a completely different pattern. Creation doesn't move from superior to inferior—it moves from simple to complex, from basic to sophisticated, from foundational to culminating.
Day one: Light and darkness are separated
Day two: Waters above and below are divided
Day three: Dry land appears and plants begin growing
Day four: Sun, moon, and stars are set in place
Day five: Fish and birds are created
Day six: Land animals, then humans
Each day builds upon the previous one. Each stage becomes more complex and sophisticated. Creation culminates with humans—male and female together—as the crown of God's creative work.
If the pattern of creation teaches us anything about authority, it would suggest that humans have authority over animals, animals over plants, and so on. But it certainly doesn't suggest that what comes first has authority over what comes later.
Everything else in creation gets better, more sophisticated, and more complete as it progresses. Why would complementarians argue that when it comes to male and female, suddenly the pattern reverses and the superior came first, then the inferior?
It doesn't follow the order of creation—it violates it.
The Deep Sleep Surgery That Reveals God's Original Design
Let's look more carefully at what actually happened when the female was created. Genesis 2:21 tells us: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place" (NKJV).
First, notice that God put the human into a "deep sleep," not light anesthesia. This suggests major surgery, not a minor procedure. Something significant was about to happen.
Second, the Hebrew word translated "rib" is "tsela," which is never translated as "rib" anywhere else in the Old Testament. Every other time it appears (42 times), it means "side," "side chamber," "beam," or "plank"—something substantial with a curved nature. The translation "rib" was chosen to make the surgery seem small and the woman seem like a minor addition.
But this was major surgery. God actually had to "close up the flesh" where He had removed this substantial part. This wasn't God plucking out a little rib to make a woman—this was God removing something major to form an equal partner.
Why Adam Means 'Human,' Not 'Male'
Here's another crucial point that complementarians consistently miss: "Adam" doesn't mean "male" in Hebrew—it means "human."
The Hebrew word for male is "ish," which doesn't appear until both male and female are present and differentiated. Before that differentiation, the text consistently uses "Adam" (human) or "ha-adam" (the human).
Genesis 5:2 makes this crystal clear: "He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created" (NKJV). God called them—plural—by the name Adam. The human was originally plural, containing both male and female within one being.
This means that when complementarians argue that "Adam was created first," they're actually arguing that "the human was created first"—which includes both male and female! They're reading their assumptions about male headship into the text rather than letting the text speak for itself.
What It Really Means That 'It Was Not Good for Man to Be Alone'
"And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'" (Genesis 2:18, NKJV).
For years, I read this as God looking at the male human and deciding he needed a companion. But that's not what the text says. The text says it's not good for "man" (ha-adam, the human) to be alone.
The word "alone" in Hebrew means "a part separated from its whole." The human wasn't complete because the feminine aspect was lost inside, subsumed, unable to have fellowship or express herself.
This is why verse 18 continues with "I will make him a helper comparable to him." The Hebrew phrase "ezer kenegdo" means "a helper corresponding to him" or "a strong ally who stands face-to-face with him as an equal."
God wasn't solving the problem of a lonely male who needed a female assistant. God was solving the problem of a human being who was incomplete because half of humanity's expression was trapped inside, unable to participate in the fellowship and partnership God intended.
The Real Purpose of the Animal Parade
Some complementarian teachers suggest that God paraded the animals past Adam to demonstrate that none of them would make a suitable helper. This interpretation always struck me as strange—surely it would be obvious that animals weren't suitable human companions!
But I think something else was happening. Every animal that came before Adam came in male and female pairs. As Adam participated in naming them (a prophetic, creative act), he would have observed that every creature had its counterpart.
Eventually, it would dawn on him: "God, You're not alone—You exist in Trinity. The animals aren't alone—they each have their mate. But I'm alone. There's no one else like me."
This wasn't God checking to see if a cow or sheep might work as Adam's companion. This was God helping the human recognize what was missing—not an external helper, but the expression of the feminine that was already present within but unable to fellowship.
The True Design Revealed
When we read the creation account without the filter of male headship assumptions, a completely different picture emerges:
Humanity was created plural from the beginning ("Let Us make man in Our image... let them have dominion")
The original human contained both male and female (Genesis 5:2 confirms God called "them" Adam)
The problem wasn't loneliness but incomplete expression (alone = separated from its whole)
The solution was differentiation, not hierarchy (drawing out the feminine so both could fellowship)
The result was partnership, not authority structure (ezer kenegdo = strong ally standing face-to-face)
Unity was restored through marriage (the two becoming one flesh—echad, complex unity)
This pattern reflects the Trinity itself—unity in diversity, equality in relationship, distinct persons in perfect fellowship. It's the opposite of hierarchy.
Moving Beyond the Creation Order Myth
Once we understand what really happened in creation, we can stop using Genesis to justify male authority and start using it to understand God's beautiful design for partnership.
The creation account doesn't establish male headship—it establishes human partnership. It doesn't create hierarchy—it creates unity in diversity. It doesn't make women secondary—it reveals them as essential counterparts, strong allies, equal partners in reflecting God's image.
When we embrace this truth, we don't lose anything valuable about masculinity or femininity. We simply discover what God intended all along: relationships that reflect His nature through mutual honor, mutual submission, and mutual empowerment.
The order of creation, properly understood, supports equality, not hierarchy. It reveals partnership, not dominance. It displays the beauty of unity in diversity that reflects the very heart of God.
The Pattern That Changes Everything
Understanding the real pattern of creation changes everything about how we approach relationships:
In marriage: Partners recognize each other as equal allies, not superior and subordinate
In the church: We value all gifts and callings, regardless of gender
In society: We work toward justice and equality rather than maintaining artificial hierarchies
In our relationship with God: We understand that being made in His image means being made for relationship, partnership, and unity in diversity
The creation order myth has been used to justify inequality for too long. But the real creation order—properly understood—reveals God's heart for relationships that reflect His own nature: Trinitarian partnership where love flows in all directions, where power serves rather than dominates, and where unity is found not in hierarchy but in the beautiful dance of equals working together.
This is the truth that was hiding in plain sight all along. When we stop reading our assumptions into Genesis and start letting Genesis speak for itself, we discover that God's design for relationships is far more beautiful than hierarchy could ever be.
What has been your experience with creation order arguments? Have you seen them used to justify inequality, or have you discovered the beautiful truth of partnership that Genesis actually reveals? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Blessings,
Susan 😊