Creation Order and 1 Timothy 2:11–15

The largest denomination in the United States has doubled down on restricting women’s service. Female Southern Baptist Church members already could not be pastors; now they cannot even function like pastors by preaching to an assembled congregation[1]. Many who support this action cite 1 Timothy 2:11–15:

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (NRSVUE)

People who promote women’s subordination to men point to verses 12–14 and claim, “Women can’t have authority over men. It’s not cultural, because Paul grounds it in the Creation Order.”

Despite numerous issues with both the translation and interpretation of these verses,[2] we will focus on the appeal to Creation Order. Did Paul assert that God does not want women to teach or exercise authority over men due to Adam’s creation before Eve?

If God’s original plan for humans included a hierarchy of male over female, it doesn’t matter that egalitarians can prove some New Testament instructions addressed a specific circumstance in a specific church in a specific culture. Conversely, if God intended equality between the sexes before sin entered the world, then Jesus redeemed us from sin and its effects. In either case, God’s original intent for humanity surpasses all.

Genesis 1 recounts God’s creation of the world, establishing realms of light and dark (Gen. 1:3–5), water, sky (1:6–8), and land (1:9–10). He created plants (1:11–13), birds and water creatures (1:20–23), and land animals (1:24–25). Then God paused to declare that he would create a creature in his own image: a pair of humans, male and female (1:26–27). They stood before God as he charged them jointly to multiply and fill the earth, and to have dominion over it.

Then God said, “Let us make human in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” . . . .God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” (Gen. 1:26, 28, NRSVUE)

Note that God did not give the job to just the man, saying that the woman would assist him. In the Hebrew text of verses 26-28, the verbs concerning their mandate are plural; he gave them the job together.

Throughout this chapter, God put restrictions on light and darkness (Gen. 1:4), between sky and sea (1:6–7), and on water and land (1:9–10). He declared that plants and creatures would reproduce “after their kind” (1:11, 21, 24–25, KJV) and gave them plants for food (1:29–30). God created the sun and moon to rule over the day and the night, and the stars to determine times and seasons (Gen. 1:14–19). He specified that humans would rule over the earth and its creatures (1:26–28). Yet, note what God did not mandate: hierarchy between the man and the woman. If God intended for men to rule over women from the beginning, this would have been the appropriate place to say so.

Genesis 2 is a foundational text for people who support male hierarchy, where God created the man first, then the woman as “a helper suitable for him” (NIV). But does this text show that God intended the woman to be subordinate?

God created the first human from clay. The Hebrew words form a gender-neutral pun: God created an adam (human) from the adamah (clay), an earthling out of the earth. Though adam would later become that human’s proper name, in Genesis 2 the Hebrew text treats it as a simple noun (like “clay” vs. “Clay”). It is not even clear that the first human was specifically male or had any gender at all, as he is only called “the human” – and not “the man” – in the Hebrew text, in spite of how it appears in many English Bible translations. It is only after the woman is created in Genesis 2:23 that the gender-specific term for “male human” (ish) appears. What is important, according to the text, is that the first human was human, not that it had a particular sex. (Both the male and female are referred to as “human” together in Genesis 1:26–27, after all.) The sex of the first human, assuming it had one, is simply irrelevant in the Hebrew text until after the woman exists.

God then placed the human in the Garden and told him he could eat from any tree except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. If he ate from it, he would surely die. Then God observed, “It is not good for the man [adam] to be alone. I will make a helper suitable [ezer kenegdo] for him” (v. 18). The human didn’t realize his need until God paraded the animals before him. Then he recognized that none of them could serve as his “suitable helper” (v. 20).

Consequently, God placed the man into a very deep sleep, removed one of his tselas, and from that fashioned the woman. Translated as “rib” in virtually all Bibles, tsela means “side.” It is not rendered as “rib” elsewhere in the Bible. For example, tsela refers to each of the two sides of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25:12).

Instead of a small bone that wouldn’t be missed, removing the tsela allows for the first human to be split in half! At the very least, God took a handful of tissue, blood, and bone from the first human’s side to make the woman. The man comprehended this, and broke into exultant poetry, calling her “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”[3] (Gen. 2:23).

She was the suitable helper he needed. To many, “helper” means “subordinate assistant.” Ezer occurs about twenty times in the Old Testament, usually referring to God as our help or strength. [4] Contrary to the English usage of “helper,” ezer does not denote a subordinate position. In the Hebrew context, a human “helper” serves above or beside another person, not under a leader.[5] It implies that the person being helped does not have enough strength or expertise for the task at hand.[6] A more clear rendering for our culture today might be “strength” or “strong rescue” instead of “helper.” Modern examples of the idea of an ezer include a doctor helping a sick person, a lifeguard rescuing a drowning person, and fresh military troops reinforcing weary ones.

If the woman had been called only ezer, people could argue that she was superior to the man. However, God qualified what sort of ezer she was, and that was a kenegdo type of ezer. Kenegdo is a compound word. The first part (k^e) means like or as. It confirms the woman would be human. Neg̱dô means “face to face,” an idiom meaning equal to.^[7]She was his perfect counterpart. God intended the man and the woman to function as equals from the beginning, helping each other rule the earth.

Thus, being created first has no bearing on authority or superiority. So, assuming that the first human was male (though, as noted above, the Hebrew is unclear), why did God make the man first? God had to create them simultaneously, or one had to be created before the other. If God had created them from the earth at the same time, some might argue that, since there are different types of clay, perhaps the clay God used to make the man had been different or even superior to what he used to make the woman. Furthermore, the adam would not have felt the profound loneliness from being the only human on the planet. God wants us to understand we are made of the same stuff, and that we need relationships with other people.

So, God chose to create one before the other. What might have happened if God had created the woman first? Anne Atkins demonstrates how those claiming male authority could interpret that:

Suppose God had made the woman first, and then the man out of her. . . . Now who comes over as the helpless, dependent one, the weaker, inferior partner? [The argument would be:] Why, the woman again, of course! She could not cope alone; the 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.[8]

Had God created the woman first, Genesis 1–2 could not prove the equality of the woman with the man. Genesis 1 progresses from lower to higher life forms, culminating with humans. If the man had been formed last, he could claim superiority as the apex of God’s creation. This exercise also shows precisely why the order of creation argument falls apart. God made the animals first, so if we are going strictly by creation order, would that not mean they are over humans? Or if we try to say that the man is superior because he was created after the animals, then the woman, by the force of that very argument, should be superior to the man because she was created last.

Even so, believers in male hierarchy often use the order of creation as proof that God intends men to rule over women. They cite the Old Testament practice of primogeniture, which propelled the firstborn son to the leadership of the family over his brothers.[9] It did not apply to a husband/wife relationship.

Does God consider being born first important for leadership and authority? Even in the Old Testament, God made exceptions to this human custom. The Lord chose Abel over Cain (Gen. 4:4–5), Isaac over Ishmael (Gen. 21:12), Jacob over Esau (Gen. 25:23, cf. Rom. 9:12–13), Joseph over his older brothers (Gen. 37, 45, cf. 1 Chron. 5:1–3), Ephraim over Manasseh (Gen. 48:17–20), Judah’s son Perez over Shelah (Gen. 38, cf. Num. 26:20), Moses over Aaron (Exo. 3, 7:1–2, cf. Num. 12:1–9), Gideon though “the least of his family” (Judg. 6:15–16), David over his seven older brothers (1 Sam. 16:1–13), and Solomon over David’s older sons (1 Chron. 22:9–10, cf. 1 Kgs. 1:28–31). Evidently, being first holds little weight with God.

Paul recognized this when he wrote, “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God” (1 Cor. 11:11–12, NIV). Paul notes here that we must “recognize our mutual dependence on one another and our ultimate dependence on God.”[10]

If neither God nor Paul considered creation order valid to determine authority or leadership, why did Paul mention that Adam was created first in 1 Timothy 2:12–14?

Paul was counseling Timothy about false teaching in the church at Ephesus. Immediately after the greeting, he wrote, “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer” (1 Tim. 1:3, NIV). The rest of the letter concerns what to do about it. Lifting 2:12–14 from that context produces erroneous interpretations.

False teaching about Adam and Eve abounded at that time, including in Ephesus.[11] It asserted that Eve gave an ignorant Adam spiritual life, doing well by taking fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. The cult of Artemis was also strong in Ephesus (see Acts 19:23–41). It taught that Artemis was born before her twin brother Apollos, assisted in his birth, and was instrumental in helping women through childbirth.[12] Some believe that new converts to Christ often assumed that Eve came before Adam and brought good into the world.[13]

First Timothy 2:13–14, then, refuted these falsehoods: Paul contended that Genesis teaches Adam was formed before Eve; that Eve was deceived, not brilliant; that she sinned by eating, instead of advancing humanity; and that Adam had not blindly followed her but knew he was disobeying God.

Many who claim that Paul prohibited women from teaching men based on Eve’s being deceived nevertheless encourage them to teach children and other “easily deceived” women, not men who could supposedly catch their error. Do they consider women and/or children unimportant?

Paul used Eve’s example to warn the entire church in Corinth to guard against deception (2 Cor. 11:13); he did not tie Eve’s gullibility to only women. Nowhere in Scripture are women portrayed as more easily deceived than men. Consider how Paul spoke about and treated specific women in his letters and in Acts: he highly valued his female coworkers in the faith.[14]

When Paul wrote about a woman and a man[15] in 1 Timothy 2:11–15, he was neither appealing to “creation order” nor asserting that “women are more easily deceived.” If he was not basing any restrictions on God’s original intent for male/female relationships, then we can safely set aside that concern as we study how Paul sought to deal with false teachers and their teaching in the church in Ephesus.

Notes

[1] Jesse T. Jackson. “Albert Mohler Says Woman Answering Sermon Questions on Church Podcast Is a ‘Problem’” Church Leaders. May 22, 2026. www.churchleaders.com/news/2217844-albert-mohler-sermon-questions-podcast-woman-pastor.html/2

[2] While translations may seem clear to the modern reader, the Greek text is not. For example, Paul was not forbidding normal authority, but a destructive, domineering control. Also, Paul switches from plurals in verses 9–10 to a singular woman and man in 11–15a, but back to a plural verb in 15b. Some translators try to “fix” his words to omit this, but that switch is not random. Readers are encouraged to review solid egalitarian examinations of this Greek text.

[3] Although many want to focus on how much men and women are different, Genesis 2 emphasizes how much we are alike.

[4] Ezer is used to refer to God in Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; Psalms 20:2; 27:9; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19; 115:9; 121:1–2; 124:8; and 146:5. Ezer refers to Eve in Gen 2:18, 20. It pertains to other persons (usually being inadequate ezers) in Isaiah 30:5; Ezekiel 12:14; Daniel 11:34; and Hosea 13:9.

[5] John H. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 176.

[6] Cf. Josh. 1:14; 1 Chron. 12:21–22; Ecc. 4:9–12.

[7] Joseph E. Coleson, ‘Ezer Cenegdo: A Power Like Him, Facing Him as Equal, 3^rd ed. (Wesleyan/Holiness Women Clergy, 1996), 13.

[8] Anne Atkins, Split Image: Male and Female after God’s Likeness (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1987), 20.

[9] Deuteronomy 21:15 –17 supports primogeniture among brothers to rectify favoritism within a polygamous marriage. God was accommodating human culture, not prescribing primogeniture. 1 Chronicles 24:31 notes: ^“They also cast lots, just as their relatives the descendants of Aaron did, in the presence of King David and of Zadok, Ahimelek, and the heads of families of the priests and of the Levites. The families of the oldest brother were treated the same as those of the youngest.” (NIV, emphasis added)

[10] Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 221.

[11] Marg Mowczko, “Adam and Eve in Ancient Gnostic Literature and 1 Tim. 2:13–14,” Marg Mowczko, March 9, 2015, www.margmowczko.com/adam-and-eve-in-gnostic-literature/.

[12] Marg Mowczko, “1 Timothy 2:12 in Context (2): Artemis of Ephesus,” Marg Mowczko, April 17, 2013, www.margmowczko.com/1-timothy-212-in-context-2/.

[13] Denise T. Plichta, “The Cult of Artemis: Acts 19 and 1 Timothy 2,” Redemptive History and Theology, www.redemptivehistorytheology.com/blog/chapter-8-pain-and-desire-genesis-316-20/the-cult-of-artemis/.

[14] Paul highly commended Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, and others in Romans 16, see www.cbeinternational.org/resource/phoebe-through-eyes-paul/.

[15] The Greek text uses singular terms.