The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Comprehensive Case for Complementarianism, Part 2

Posted on 06/23/2025 at The Curmudgeon’s Chronicle

Creation’s Blueprint: God’s Design for Man and Woman in Genesis

At the 2024 Southern Baptist Convention, President Clint Pressley’s sermon citing Adam’s creation first as proof of male authority sparked fierce debate, with egalitarian voices on X arguing Genesis 1’s equal creation of man and woman rejects hierarchy – calling us to explore God’s design in Scripture. This clash, amplified by the SBC’s failed attempt to ban women pastors, reflects a broader question: What does creation teach about gender roles? As culture wrestles with identity, Genesis 1-3 offers a timeless blueprint. After diving deep into these chapters, I’m convinced they reveal men and women as equal in value but distinct in roles, laying the foundation for complementarianism. In this article, we’ll explore Genesis 1-3, with a detailed look at Eve’s role as helper, to see how creation’s story shapes our lives as Christian men and women.

God’s Design in Creation

Genesis 1:26-27 declares: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Both men and women bear God’s image, equal in dignity and worth. This shared identity refutes any notion of superiority, a point complementarians and egalitarians agree on. Yet, Genesis 2 zooms in on the creation of Adam and Eve, revealing distinct roles within their equality. God forms Adam first: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (2:7). He tasks Adam with tending the garden: “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it” (2:15). God then gives Adam the command: “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it” (2:17).

Only then does God say, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (2:18). This term “helper” (Hebrew עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, ezer kenegdo, helper corresponding to him; Greek βοηθός, boēthos, helper or ally, in the LXX) is pivotal, often sparking debate. Egalitarians argue it implies equality, as “helper” doesn’t inherently mean subordination. Complementarians see it as a complementary role, with Eve designed to support Adam’s leadership. To understand God’s intent, we need to examine the text’s Hebrew and Greek terms in their biblical and cultural context.

Hebrew Analysis: עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ

The Hebrew term עֵזֶר (ezer, helper) appears 21 times in the Old Testament, often describing God as Israel’s “help” (e.g., Psalm 33:20: “Our soul waiteth for the Lord: he is our help and our shield”). Brown-Driver-Briggs defines ezer as “one who helps,” with no connotation of inferiority. In Genesis 2:18, ezer is paired with כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (kenegdo, corresponding to him), meaning “suitable for him,” suggesting a partner who perfectly complements Adam. The phrase “an help meet for him” captures this synergy: Eve is a vital ally, equal in essence but distinct in function. The creation order – Adam first, then Eve – reinforces this, as complementarians like Pressley note, citing 1 Timothy 2:13: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve”. Egalitarians argue that ezer implies no hierarchy, but the term’s context – God’s deliberate design after Adam’s solitude – suggests a purposeful role distinction.

Greek Analysis: βοηθός

The Septuagint (LXX) translates עֵזֶר in Genesis 2:18 as βοηθός (boēthos, helper or ally). Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ) defines boēthos as one who aids or supports, while BDAG notes it’s use in cooperative or divine contexts (e.g., “The Lord is my helper,” Hebrews 13:6). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) notes that boēthos in the LXX carries a sense of partnership, often with divine significance, not subservience. In Genesis 2:18, boēthos underscores Eve’s role as Adam’s corresponding partner, fulfilling God’s purpose alongside him. This counters egalitarian claims, like those on X, that “helper” implies identical roles, as boēthos aligns with a complementary partnership rooted in creation’s order.

Creation’s Order and Roles

Genesis 2:18-25 details Eve’s creation: “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam… and he took one of his ribs… And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman” (2:21-22). Adam declares, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (2:23). Complementarians highlight this as symbolizing unity and distinction, with Adam’s naming reflecting authority. In Greco-Roman culture, naming often signified authority, suggesting Paul’s aim in emphasizing the creation order in 1 Timothy 2:13. Yet, Eve’s creation as helper shows she’s essential, partnering with Adam to “be fruitful, and multiply” (1:28).

The Fall in Genesis 3 complicates this design: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food… she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (3:6). God’s curse follows: “Unto the woman he said… thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (3:16). Complementarians interpret this as a distortion of God’s design, not a new hierarchy. Egalitarians argue the curse reflects cultural patriarchy, not divine intent. However, Genesis 1-2’s pre-Fall design – equality in essence, distinction in role – remains the blueprint, restored in Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33).

Egalitarian Counterarguments

Egalitarians, like those responding to Pressley’s sermon, raise compelling points. Many, following Phyllis Trible, argue that Genesis 1:27’s “male and female” suggests no role distinctions, and “helper” doesn’t imply subordination. (Indeed, “helper” doesn’t imply subordination, as God is called ezer [Psalm 33:20]; yet, Genesis 2’s creation order shows “male and female” includes distinct roles.) Trible goes further, claiming the “earth creature” (הָאָדָם, hā-ʾādām, the man) in Genesis 2:7 is sexually undifferentiated until Eve’s creation in 2:21-22: “In other words, the earth creature is not the male; it is not ‘the first man.’ Although the word hā-ʾādām acquires ambiguous usages and meanings—including an exclusively male reference—in the development of the story, those ambiguities are not present in the first episode. Instead, the earth creature here is precisely and only the human being, so far sexually undifferentiated.” She argues that hā-ʾādām’s masculine form is grammatical, not sexual, and sexuality emerges only later, undermining claims of male priority based on creation order. Some egalitarians on X echoed this, asserting that Genesis 1’s equal creation dismantles hierarchy. The SBC’s expulsion of churches like Saddleback for female pastors fueled critiques, with some claiming complementarians “weaponize Genesis.”

Yet, Trible’s interpretation faces significant challenges. First, her “earth creature” term, derived from hā-ʾādām’s link to אֲדָמָה (ʾădāmâ, ground), fails to distinguish hā-ʾādām from animals, which were also “formed out of the ground” (2:19). Unlike animals, hā-ʾādām bears God’s image (1:26) and receives unique responsibilities (2:15-17), suggesting a human, not a generic creature. Second, Trible’s reliance on etymology – tying hā-ʾādām to “ground” – is unreliable, as etymology often misleads; context, not word origin, determines meaning. Third, hā-ʾādām never means “earth creature” elsewhere in Scripture, where it denotes “humanity” (male and female, Genesis 1:26-27) or “male” (Genesis 2:15-25, Leviticus 1:2), making her reading unprecedented. Fourth, Trible’s claim that hā-ʾādām becomes male only in 2:21-22 is inconsistent, as Genesis continues using hā-ʾādām for Adam post-sexuality (e.g., 3:8-12, “the man”), reverting to its standard meaning without textual warrant.

Moreover, the Hebrew hā-ʾādām, though grammatically masculine, contextually implies a male human in Genesis 2:7-20: God addresses “the man” with commands (2:16-17), and Adam names animals (2:19-20), activities suggesting male identity before Eve’s creation. The creation order – Adam first, then Eve – is affirmed by 1 Timothy 2:13, supporting distinct roles. While Trible’s literary approach highlights the text’s artistry, it overcomplicates the plain reading, which identifies Adam as male from 2:7. Genesis 2’s sequence – Adam’s creation, responsibility, and naming – supports complementarianism’s case for distinct roles, while affirming equality in image-bearing. Article 4 will engage egalitarianism further, but Genesis establishes complementarianism’s foundation.

Why This Matters Today

Genesis 1-3 shapes Christian life. In churches, it informs debates over women preaching or leading, as seen in the SBC’s 2024 discussions. In marriages, it calls husbands to lead sacrificially and wives to support willingly, reflecting Ephesians 5. For singles, it underscores equal worth as image-bearers. Genesis’ tapestry – equality and distinction – offers clarity in a confused culture, pointing to the gospel.

Join the Journey

Genesis 1-3 reveals God’s design: men and women, equal yet distinct, partnering to glorify Him. This blueprint sets the stage for our series, with Article 3 exploring New Testament passages like 1 Timothy 2:12. What does “helper” mean to you? How does Genesis shape gender roles today? Share in the comments, and let’s study Scripture together, praying for wisdom to live out God’s design.