“Complementarian” sounds like a compliment. Even the definition kind of sounds like something I could support: “a theological view that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in life.” But the practical reality is that ‘complementarian’ is the religious term for ‘misogyny,’ an ingrained prejudice against women, because it shapes a worldview that only men are created to be spiritual leaders, and women were created to be their helpers.
If you attend a church or belong to a denomination where all the pastors are men, the church probably believes in complementarianism. Because proponents can point to Bible verses and church history to support their view, one can be led to feel that opposing this view is to oppose God or God’s design.
In this article, I will suggest that the creation story in Genesis, which is often cited as a strong proof text, may not support the complementarian view after we examine the original Hebrew text.
Every Translation an Interpretation
Every English Bible translation is an interpretation of an ancient language.
It often flattens the delightful nuances and charm of the text. Take Genesis 2:7, “The LORD God formed the man from the soil of the ground” (NET). We miss the charming wordplay in Hebrew, which ties ‘the man’ (ha adam) and ‘the ground’ (ha adamah). So God formed ha adam from the soil of ha adamah. Nice!
We also miss the nuance in the usage of the Hebrew words ha adam (the human), adam (humanity, human being, or the name Adam), ish (man/husband), and ishah (woman/wife) because all translation committees make decisions from a particular theological perspective. For instance, the ESV was created in 2001 in response to the 1989 NRSV’s decision to use gender-inclusive language when contextually appropriate.
Interestingly, if you trace the usage of adam in certain English translations, you will discover they use ‘man’ in Genesis but then switch to using the generic ‘humankind’ or ‘people’ for the rest of the Old Testament.
On top of that theological starting point, the original text can be complicated. In Hebrew, there is no capitalization, so when should we translate the generic adam to the proper name Adam? Or even at all?
Many translations use the proper name Adam at Genesis 2:20 because it is the first time the word is used without the article ‘the’ but then go back to the generic usage for the rest of the story. Why? The text does not have a person being named until after the curses at the end of Genesis 3. Additionally, there is no third common pronominal suffix (the word ‘it’) in Hebrew, so the masculine he/his is used by default, further influencing our reading.
As a result, even though adam is the generic Hebrew term for humanity (which includes both male and female), it is often translated as ‘man’ in the creation account to conform to a complementarian view that men were created first and women were made a subservient second. But does this line up with the original text?
Let’s read the New English Translation (NET) of Genesis 1-2, keeping adam, ish, and ishah in place. I also use ‘it’ instead of ‘he/him’ in an attempt to remove that gendered bias for adam and God. I’ve marked in bold italics where I changed the text.
We’ll pick up the creation story in Genesis 1:26, the first mention of adam.
Genesis 1-2
Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make adam in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
Gen. 1:27 God created the adam in its own image, in the image of God it created them, male and female, it created them.
Gen. 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.”
Gen. 1:29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Gen. 1:30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.
Gen. 1:31 God saw all that it had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
SIDE NOTE: It is interesting that Genesis 1 says God created the adam, then refers to the adam with they/them pronouns just like God refers to itself with plural “let us ‘us’ make…”, and then connects the adam with both the male (zakhar) and the female (neqevah).
Should Genesis 2, which is a more detailed account of just humanity’s creation, be translated to start the same way? Let’s continue.
Gen. 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the LORD God made the earth and heavens.
Gen. 2:5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no adam to cultivate the ground.
Gen. 2:6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
Gen. 2:7 The LORD God formed the adam from the soil of the ground and breathed into its nostrils the breath of life, and the adam became a living being.
Gen. 2:8 The LORD God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there it placed the adam it had formed.
…[verses 9-14 describe Eden and its rivers]…
Gen. 2:15 The LORD God took the adam and placed it in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.
Gen. 2:16 Then the LORD God commanded the adam, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard,
Gen. 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it1 you will surely die.”
Gen. 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the adam to be alone. I will make a companion for it who corresponds to it.”
Gen. 2:19 The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. It brought them to the adam to see what it would name them, and whatever the adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Gen. 2:20 So the adam named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for adam no companion who corresponded to it was found.
Gen. 2:21 So the LORD God caused the adam to fall into a deep sleep, and while it was asleep, it took part of the adam’s side and closed up the place with flesh.
Gen. 2:22 Then the LORD God made an ishah from the part it took out of the adam, and it brought her to the adam.
Gen. 2:23 Then the adam said, “This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called ‘ishah,’ for she was taken out of ish.”
Gen. 2:24 That is why an ish leaves his father and mother and unites with his ishah, and they become one family.
Gen. 2:25 The adam and his ishah were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
A few observations:
According to the two Genesis creation stories, it appears the first human was either a) both male and female or b) non-gendered. The text does not require a specific gender in the initial concept of humanity, just like God. Unlike competing religions that had male and female gods, the God of the Hebrew Bible is singularly complete and does not need to be gendered. This makes the parade of animals in Genesis 2:19 not some weird procreative experiment of bestiality for a man but rather, as the NET translates well, companionship (not helper).
God splits apart this unified human to create two oppositely gendered humans at the same time. Yes, Genesis 2:25 refers to the adam as the male-gendered human after the splitting, but that is different than saying the adam started as a male and, therefore, has dominion over females. ‘Dominion over’ is Eve’s curse, not one that future generations need to lean into. It may be more accurate to say that the adam lost something at the splitting, and that this lesser state is fundamentally male.
A word of caution to reading this text outside its literary context. We should read biblical texts literarily, not necessarily literally. I find the best reading of Genesis 1-3 is as a myth, contemporary with the stories of Enuma Elish and the Heliopolitan, Theban, and Memphite creation myths of ancient Egypt. By comparing the truth claims in Genesis to these competing stories (which informed their worldview), we see that only Genesis gives equal value to women - making the bold claim that both men and women carry the image of God side-by-side. A revolutionary idea still today!
What Do You Think?
Whether you agree with this suggested reading or not, hopefully, it will spark more curiosity about the texts that are the foundations of the English translation we choose to read. Granted, there are far smarter and more experienced scholars than me on these translation committees - by far! However, committees are susceptible to groupthink and are constrained by the theological disposition of those backing the project.
Hopefully, the next time someone says, “The Bible clearly says such and such,” you will be reminded that there may be other equally valid readings of the same text. Remember, every translation is an interpretation of an ancient language!
Here are some free resources to help you see what Hebrew or Greek words are behind your modern English translation:
NET Bible online: I appreciate the inclusion of translator notes, which give great insights into alternative translations, especially when the copies of sources do not agree with each other (called text criticism).
Bible Hub Interlinear: Interlinear means you stack multiple translations underneath each other to compare word usage.
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: A library of digitized manuscripts that scholars and translation committees use. Here’s a scan of the Gospel of John from the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus.
If you’d like to invest in some additional study tools, Logos and Accordance are equally great applications that run on Mac, Windows, and tablets. They are free with basic features, and you can purchase additional translations and resources.
Notice the translators use the third common singular form, ‘it’, when the third masculine singular form refers to inanimate or non-gendered objects like fruit.