Genesis 1:27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

Raymond Ortlund argues that this Scripture, in referring to the human race as ‘man’ (and not ‘woman’, or ‘person’) is hinting at male headship. (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p97f.).  This view is repeated by the Kostenbergers (God’s Design for Men and Women).

Although I regard this view as rather speculative, I think that Giles (What the Bible Really Teaches on Women) is quite wrong to dismiss it as ‘special pleading’, and not based on ‘serious scholarship’.

As Lionel Windsor has shown, Giles himself is guilt of poor scholarship with regard to his understanding of this verse.

Windsor presents the verse like this:

So God created man (hā’ādām / ton anthrōpon) in his own image,
in the image of God he created him (’ōtô / auton);
male and female he created them (’ōtām / autous).
(Genesis 1:27 – RSV with MT + LXX)

Note the pattern:

singular humanity/man/mankind/Adam (’ādām / anthrōpon)

singular him (’ōtô / auton) – NB this is masculine singular

plural them (’ōtām / autous)

The third clause clearly demonstrates equality between male and female.  No-one disputes that.

Now, as the Kostenbergers and other commentators observe, there is an element of progression here.  The clauses progress from singular ‘Adam’ to singular ‘him’ to plural ‘them’.  The Kostenbergers suggest that there is here a hint of male ‘headship’ or ‘leadership’.  Their inference may be wrong, but (as Windsor remarks) they are paying attention to what the text actually says.

Giles, on the other hand, pays little attention to the element of progression in the text.  Moreover, he misreads the second line of the verse, wrongly assuming that ‘them’ (as the line reads in a number of English translations) is plural.  It is, in fact, singular.

Windsor concludes:

‘So sadly, in a discussion of a part of Scripture which Giles claims is of “supreme importance”, we don’t find a good, detailed discussion of the text in dialogue with complementarians; rather, we find a sweeping and imprecise exegesis, initially involving an error, quickly proceeding to unhelpful scholarly name-calling. This certainly doesn’t help Giles’s own cause, and it isn’t a good model for reasoned discussion about the text or the issues.’

(It should be noted that Giles has conceded to Windsor his ‘bad mistake’, and says that he intends to correct it in future printings of his book.)