Getting the Whole Picture, Part 14: Adam, Eve, and the Double Standard of the Fall

One of the concerns I have with the created order argument is the assumption that men are generally the exclusive providers, protectors, and leaders, while women are primarily in the position of receiving that provision and protection.That may often have been the cultural reality, but I don't think Scripture presents it as an exclusive or universal pattern.

Let’s look at Proverbs 31:

The woman described there is hardly passive or dependent. She is industrious, economically productive, wise, generous, strong, and capable. She buys and sells property, plants a vineyard, provides food for her household, makes clothing, cares for the poor, speaks with wisdom, and is praised for her strength and dignity. I really appreciate the very practical comparison to a merchant ship!

The Hebrew word chayil, used in Proverbs 31:10, is especially interesting. It is often translated as "noble," "virtuous," or "capable," but its meaning is much broader than that. The same word can refer to an army, wealth, strength, resources, capability, and mighty men and women of valor. It describes someone who is strong, capable, and competent. (1)

The Proverbs 31 woman is not simply someone who is provided for and protected by a man. She herself provides, protects, buys property, runs a business, makes decisions, teaches, gives generously, and is a source of strength for her household and community.

Of course, that doesn't mean every woman needs to do all of these things. Nor does it mean that men and women have no differences. It does, however, challenge the idea that Scripture establishes a universal pattern in which men are the providers and protectors and women are necessarily dependent upon them. And this brings me to another, more serious concern with the created order argument: the double standard surrounding the Fall.

The Double Standard of Adam and Eve

Historically, there has been a strong and persistent tendency to place disproportionate blame for sin on Eve. One early example is found in the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), written by Rabbi Jesus ben Sira around 180 to 175 BC. Sirach 25:24 states:

"From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die."

Sirach is part of the Septuagint and is included in the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canons, although Protestants later classified it among the Apocrypha. Its writings had a significant influence on Christian thought. That tradition of blaming Eve also affected how Genesis was transmitted and interpreted. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, completed in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, omitted an important phrase from Genesis 3:6: "who was with her." The Hebrew text explicitly says that Eve "also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it."

You can see the difference in Genesis 3:6 (check out the Catholic translations).

For centuries, Christian tradition frequently emphasized Eve's deception while minimizing Adam's presence and responsibility. The result was a theological pattern in which women were understood to be uniquely vulnerable to deception and therefore uniquely unqualified to teach or exercise authority over men.

But what about Adam? Adam was there and Adam deliberately disobeyed. He was not deceived in the same way Eve was. He received the command directly from God, was present when Eve ate the fruit, and then ate it himself.

Yet somehow the Fall has often been used as evidence that women should be permanently restricted from leadership, while Adam's deliberate disobedience does not disqualify men from leadership. That is the double standard.

Paul himself seems to correct this tradition by identifying Adam, rather than Eve, as the representative through whom sin and death entered the world.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:22

Romans 5:14 likewise says:

"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses..."

Paul certainly knew that Eve was deceived. He explicitly says so in 1 Timothy 2:14. But when Paul talks about the entrance of sin and death into humanity, he places the representative responsibility on Adam.

This raises a pretty important question for using Genesis 1-3 as an argument for permanent male authority. If Eve's deception is sufficient evidence that women should never teach or lead men, why isn't Adam's deliberate disobedience at least equally significant evidence against establishing a universal mandate for male leadership?

In fact, I think Adam's failure should make us stop and think. Adam did not merely fail to exercise authority properly; he failed to obey God and he failed to protect Eve and he participated knowingly in the rebellion.

Yet throughout history, men have repeatedly been given opportunities to lead while women have continued to experience lifelong restrictions on leadership. In some cases, those restrictions have left women particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse by men who themselves fail to love, provide, serve and protect as they should.

The issue becomes even more troubling when we consider how closely some historical traditions about women resemble the language of Sirach. Sirach 42:14 says:

"Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace."

This is not suggesting that contemporary complementarians believe this; most certainly do not. But the historical trajectory deserves a closer examination. When Eve's failure is repeatedly emphasized while Adam's failure is minimized, and when that asymmetry eventually becomes the basis for permanent restrictions on women, we should ask whether some of the surrounding cultural assumptions about women have been imported into our reading of Scripture.

The created order argument cannot simply be assumed to settle the question. We should instead test it against the entire biblical story.

And when we do that, we find something interesting. God repeatedly refuses to make human worth, calling, leadership, or usefulness dependent upon priority of birth, chronology, or conventional hierarchy. Abel instead of Cain. Isaac instead of Ishmael. Jacob instead of Esau. Joseph instead of his older brothers. David instead of his older brothers.

Again and again, God disrupts our assumption about who should be first.

And this shouldn’t be a surprise because Jesus does the same thing. "The last will be first, and the first will be last." Christ redefines greatness as serving rather than ruling over others. The one who is greatest becomes the servant. And ultimately, Jesus himself demonstrates this by giving up power and status and taking the role of a servant.

Men do have a responsibility to provide and protect, but so do women! Men also have a responsibility to lead by example, but so do women! The problem is making certain “roles” exclusive to men based on the very difficult and controversial passage of 1 Timothy 2:12-14 and connecting it to Genesis 1-3 as the foundation for hierarchy at the expense of other powerful principles found in Genesis 1-3 and the rest of Scripture.

So instead of the focus mainly on "Who was created first?" and “Who is to blame for sin?”, a better, Biblically-grounded emphasis is "How are we all called to use whatever authority, gifts, strengths, and responsibilities God has given us to individually and collectively seek and serve His Kingdom first?!"

The answer in Genesis and throughout Scripture is considerably different than a universal system in which men lead and women submit. It’s also amazingly consistent. We are all called to love, serve, protect, build one another up, and seek each other's flourishing. I will expand on this beautiful sharing of responsibilities as family at the end of the series!