Does Adam's Creation Before Eve Put Men In Charge?

Apr 07, 2025

IN THIS ARTICLE: Advocates for male rule teach that man’s creation before woman in Genesis 2 signifies that God created men to be leaders and women to be followers. Close attention to the text disproves this claim. This matters because male rule celebrates and perpetuates the sad result of the Fall in the same way that war and unhealthy living do.

You remember what was the first perversion? Was a woman1 … She is a perversion of the original creation.2 She, Eve, is Satan's queen.3 You may question me about Satan being her designer, but that's the Truth …. By her beauty and her sex control, her shape that was given to her by Satan, the by-product that Satan did, she is sent to deceive sons of God.4
— False teacher William Branham

Those of you who were not raised as I was in the Branham cult can brush off his words as the ravings of a misogynistic madman, but note the resemblance to these words from Tertullian, the early Church Father who coined the Latin term “trinitas,” from whence we get “trinity”:

And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die.5

Tertullian is not much of an outlier either; the historic church position is not quite what many call “complementarianism” today, but a patriarchy based on the ontological inferiority of women (they are inferior in their very nature, including lesser intelligence). This belief, primarily from Greek philosophy and pseudo-science, was the majority position of those advocating male rule in marriage, the church, and society until the 1970s. We see this in Church Fathers like Augustine:

Woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason.6

and Reformers like Martin Luther:

For woman seems to be a creature somewhat different from man, in that she has dissimilar members, a varied form and a mind weaker than man.7

and Richard Hooker:

the very imbecility of their nature and sex doth bind them, namely to be always directed, guided and ordered by others.8

Note the oddity of claiming women cannot teach men because they are more easily deceived but also because they can easily deceive men. The math isn’t quite mathing, but that didn’t stop Mark Driscoll from interpreting 1 Timothy to claim, “Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men."9

Most contemporary Bible interpreters who still read hierarchy into male-female relations don’t take Driscoll’s tone, nor do they follow the historic teaching of the church on this matter (female ontological inferiority). But many do believe that God established male rule before the Fall of humanity into sin. And they are wrong.

Where Does Patriarchy, or “Male-Rule,” Come From? Why Does It Matter?
I contend that every consequence to the serpent, woman, and man resulted from the Fall. Nothing in the text indicates that “he will rule over you” is the exception (Gen. 3:16). It is ironic that those who claim to favor a “plain reading of the text” depart from a “plain reading” on this doctrine. Genesis 3:16 is as decisive as can be. Catherine Booth, co-founder of The Salvation Army, made this clear in 1859:

If woman had been in a state of subjection from her creation, in consequence of natural inferiority, where is the force of the words, ‘he shall rule over thee,’ as a part of her curse?10

Now, we try to mitigate or delay the consequences of death, weeds, and pain in childbirth.11 We should be as eager to fight a hierarchical relationship of men over women as we fight cancer, dental cavities, weeds, and thorns.

The Hebrew for “to rule” is מָשַׁל (ma.shal). It is a common word appearing over eighty times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It does not mean “to rule cruelly,” so we cannot say that perhaps Adam was supposed “to rule” from the beginning, but only after the fall would it be a tyrannical rule. The author of Genesis 1:18 says that the sun and moon will “rule” the day and night. Genesis 4:17 says Cain must “rule” over sin. It’s the standard word for being in authority over someone or something, and it’s applied for the first time to men and women as a tragic consequence of the Fall. To sum up, the plain reading of the text says that male rule comes from the Fall, just like death, thorns and thistles, and pain in childbearing.

The introduction of death, the curse on the ground, and multiplied conceptions limited the sphere of women and coincided with man’s post-Fall rule (in a world of death, scarcity, and a cursed ground, patriarchy would be inevitable even if women were larger than men). “The need for many children (in subsistence farming) combined with the fact that there was no substitute for human breast milk limited the kinds of work that women could sensibly do. Heavy labor was an invitation to miscarriage … women did tasks that were compatible with pregnancy and lactation,” writes Carrie A. Miles.12

In our fallen world, conditions related to monthly periods, hard pregnancies, lactation, and menopause are challenges that only women face. Their generally smaller size will similarly limit them and place many of them at the mercy of violent men. However, it will not render them unable to perform the tasks required to be equal partners in marriage or to teach and exercise strategic leadership in other spheres. The Bible shows God working within patriarchy to use women in surprising ways (Deborah, Huldah, Anna, Lydia, Phoebe, Junia, Priscilla ...) as an advance sign of the day when we come to the eschatological end and patriarchy, like death, shall be no more.

What about the fact that God made man first?
Those who claim that male rule precedes the Fall, hidden in the concept that God deals primarily with the firstborn, appeal to the ancient practice of “primogeniture” (double inheritance and blessing to the firstborn). I believe James Hurley was the first to make this claim in 1981. Of course, Adam and Eve weren’t born, and they weren’t siblings, but let’s set aside those facts and explore the premise:

Primogeniture, like slavery and polygamy, was a hallmark of ancient Near East pagan nations that God regulated in the Law to be less abusive in Israel. It turns up in Deuteronomy 21:15-17 to say that if a man has sons by two wives, he cannot write the older son out of his inheritance just because he prefers the wife who bore the second son. Primogeniture doesn’t reflect God’s perfect will (any more than slavery and polygamy do). If you have multiple children, you probably don’t treat them according to the rules of primogeniture. And if you don’t, why would you apply it in a roundabout way to your spouse?

Genesis contains no story where God honors primogeniture. The ancient readers would have noticed God choosing the younger over the older in story after story. This literary pattern is consistent throughout Genesis, beginning with humans being created last but chosen to rule over all animals. Whenever Genesis tells a story about older and younger, God favors the younger (from Abel and Cain in Gen. 4 to Ephraim and Manasseh in Gen. 48).

Shem, Isaac, and Jacob are all second-born. The stories of Ishmael-Isaac and Esau-Jacob are towering Genesis accounts of God subverting primogeniture. Abraham is likely the third-born.13 Judah, from whom Christ descends, is fourth. Joseph is Jacob’s eleventh son.

Later in the Hebrew Scriptures, Moses is born three years after Aaron. Gideon saves God’s people, although he is the youngest son of a family from the weakest clan in his tribe. David is crowned king, although he’s the youngest of eight. Solomon is chosen king over his big brother Adonijah. On and on this story goes. Hear The Bible Project podcast series Firstborn: The Last Will Be First (11 episodes, including their conclusion that Adam was not to rule Eve pre-fall).

Consider the importance of some of the second-or-later-born names I’ve just written, all of whom were favored by God or had some God-approved authority over the eldest: Abel. Shem. Abraham. Isaac. Jacob. Judah. Joseph. Moses. Gideon. David. Solomon. All from the same Testament as Adam and Eve. Seven from the same book as Adam and Eve. And we’re going to base the eternal subjugation of women on primogeniture?

The clear, stated reason Adam was formed first is that God is demonstrating how alone and incomplete Adam is without Eve. This would have been the perfect place in the text to let everyone who picks up the Bible know immediately that God wants the man to lead the woman. But that’s not how the story plays out.

There is a gradual climb that crescendos in the creation of Eve, causing Adam to break into song. The progression is not from man’s authority to woman’s subservience but from incompletion and loneliness to completion and love.

Since God created the animals first and then Adam, their superior, we could say that Eve, created after Adam, became his superior. But this would miss the point: to show the unity of woman and man. Or we could go the other way and say that since God created Adam after creating the animals, humans are inferior to animals. But I’m not going to let some squirrel start bossing me around.

The patriarchal cultures surrounding Israel told creation stories in which the female was created first, yet brutal patriarchy still ruled in those cultures (such as the Mesopotamian story of Atrahasis, where the goddess Tiamat came into existence before Marduk).14 These ancient cultures didn’t consider who came first as indicative of who should be the leader. Men led because all people are sinners, but male sinners are typically bigger, stronger, faster, louder, and more aggressive. Men who want to be in charge will find a way to justify it. They'll find another one if they can no longer cling to a “created first” argument. Male rule is about prestige and power.

Some come close to admitting this when they say, “We men need to be in charge so we can protect the women.” First, protect them from whom? The men. That sounds like a protection racket. Second, the president’s bodyguards protect the president, but they aren’t in charge. At appropriate times, they can take charge (tackling the president to shield him from a bullet), but they aren’t formulating policy and executing the law.

The Illusory Truth Effect:
The psychological phenomenon called the illusory truth effect says that familiarity or repetition can override your rationality. If you hear something enough, you start to believe it. Could it be that the argument, “Men are created to be leaders and women are created to be followers,” is something we’ve heard so often that we have come to believe it, even though it isn’t correct?

What if we lived in a female-dominated world, where women ran the church, home, and society? What if, for 2000 years, we heard this version of what the order of creation means for Genesis 1-3 (this fictional example courtesy Andrew Bartlett):

“Genesis 1-2: the creation order

Creation is in ascending order of importance, with humans last, and woman last of all (1:3-27; 2:7-23).
The man needs a stronger helper because of his inadequacy (2:18, 20). At marriage he leaves the protection of his father and mother in order to come under the protection of his wife (2:24).

Genesis 3: the Fall

The serpent’s strategy is to attack the leader, knowing that the man will follow her (v.1).
After the fall of man, the woman and the serpent are spoken to in ascending order of responsibility (vv.9-14) and cursed in descending order (vv.14-19).
The tragic consequence of the fall is to reverse the natural order; the woman’s leadership is taken away from her and she is ruled by the man (3:16).”15

He goes on to retell the rest of the biblical narrative, through 1 Timothy 2, in this same sense. Obviously, it is incorrect for the sake of demonstration. If this is all we knew and had heard from people we loved and trusted, would it seem crazy? Or would it all seem to make sense if we didn’t look into it with clear eyes and open minds?

Or consider Anne Atkins’ thought experiment:

Suppose God had made the woman first, and the man out of her. . . . Now who comes over as the helpless, dependent one, the weaker, inferior partner? Why, the woman again of course! She could not cope alone; man had to be made to bail her out. Part of her body was taken away to make him; she can never again be complete on her own. The man was made last, after the plants, after the animals, and certainly after the woman; he is the crown of God’s creation. He was made out of human flesh; she is nothing but dust. Even her name (“man” now of course) is a diminutive version of his (“woman”). She is to “cleave” to him (and, as it happens, this word is “used almost universally for a weaker cleaving to a stronger”; no doubt a great deal would be made of this if the woman were to cleave to the man!). Most significant of all she is to leave her parents and her way of life to join him and adapt to him; she was clearly found to be inadequate on her own.16

On its own terms, the true story of Genesis doesn’t codify male rule as a creational ideal for all times — we’ve seen that here, just as we saw it when we looked at other misinterpretations of Genesis 2-3 in “Another Claim That Patriarchy Is God’s Plan Bites The Dust.” There’s one potential fly in our ointment, though — how does Paul interpret this story in 1 Timothy 2? And for that, come back next week.

Available for iOS and Android

Your Sons and Daughters will Prophesy: New Creation Musings

Discussion about this post