Bryan L. asked a question about the Messiah having to be a male based on something Bruce Ware said somewhere in an article. Bryan and TC Robinson have been going back and forth in the comments to that post about God’s deliberate act of creating Adam before Eve. Without recounting the entire thing I’ll give the basic thrust of the conversation. TC says that God’s act was deliberate but Bryan says that if we read the text it doesn’t seem so deliberate since God presented animals to Adam first and then created Eve as an afterthought. I don’t really see how that makes it any less deliberate but that’s not germane to the question I’m going to ask in this post.
In Bryan’s post he said that he wonders if the Messiah’s being male was an historical accident, i.e., it was based upon the patriarchal culture that the Bible is set in. He speculates that perhaps if things were different and the culture was different then maybe the Messiah could have came as a woman. Good and well, I don’t care to argue for or against that proposition. I do however want to ask how we view the creation narrative where man is created first. Let’s just for the sake of argument say that Genesis 1-3 is in fact history and not myth. If the man was the first to be created then there was no patriarchal society yet to worry about. God could have created the woman first and it wouldn’t have been a big deal because no one would have existed to protest, right? So does not the narrative itself express some kind of deliberate act where God purposed to create the man before the woman?