Cheryl Schatz

Hi Gazza,

Eve isn’t being punished. She is the only one who doesn’t get a reprimand from God. Notice God says to the serpent “because you did this..” and the same to the man. There are curses that go forth because of the acts of the serpent and the man but not for the woman. This one requires a close attention to the wording and the grammar of the Hebrew. I’ll probably do a post about this one in the future, but my DVD set has a section on it too that is helpful.

Just a note for those whose browser shows a warning of an expired security certificate warning for this blog- this blog is protected but the protection expired today before my son could reinstall it and he is working on it right now. It is not a security breach just a normal warning that it has expired. It is kind of tricky to reinstall so it make take him some time to get it installed correctly, but the blog is fine.

Mark,
You said:

The mans declaration is a completely different genre, it is poetry, this means we should stop and look why the narrative changes- it is emphasis. The fact that we are debating verse 22 and ignoring what verse 23 actually represents, obscures the intention of the author.

The intention of the author (God) is clear from the text. He is the Creator, not Adam. He defines his own creation when it comes to those who are created in His image. And verse 24 defines why God brought the “woman” to the man. We don’t need to guess that it was for the purpose of naming her. We can read the thoughts of the author and I thought that we agreed that the ultimate author of Genesis is God as He is the one who created man in His image and He was the only one there during the creation of both the man and the woman so He alone can inspire the accurate account of what really happened.

I will work on answering your other points as I have time. Today is a full day for me once again in my own ministry activities.

gengwall,
I see that we are posting at the same time. Good thoughts!! Your comments are corroborating my own reasoning just from another angle. Great job!

Mark,
You said:

then God ‘brought them to the man’, to ‘see what he would call them’. To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point.

Mark, do you not see a difference between the woman and the animals? Do you not see that the animals were brought for the purpose of Adam’s naming him, but that the woman was brought for a different purpose? Do you not see that the woman was brought for marriage? Is not marriage and becoming “one flesh” the only identified reason for bringing the woman to the man?

The emphasis of the passage is not on that, it is on the declaration of the man- this is what is being stressed, not the narrative.

The narrative sets up the context of the declaration. You cannot ignore what God has done as if man is independent of the woman and has been given a rule over humans. You are reading into the text an importance of “rule” that is not there nor is ever given to the man at any other point of history.

Mark,

You said to me:

I feel like we continually go round in circles. Let me comment on a few things, particularly where you have misunderstood me aswell.

1. In your original post you said God named the woman “God called her woman before Adam did.” Now you say things like this “I said that God identified/called her woman when he built her.” Can you see the problem i am having. I understand that essentially you are saying that because the narrative says “he made into a woman” (Gen 2:22), that this narrative is identifying her as ‘woman’ and thus God calls her woman before the man. But it’s just dancing around the obvious. Yes God created her, but the job of calling her something was given to the man.

The problem that you are having is that God no where “gave” the “job” of calling her “woman” to the man. Where do you get this from? You continually claim this but give no proof of your claim. I am the one who is constantly going back to the text that says that God created “woman”. Since her beginning is said to be from God’s creation and she is identified not just as “human” or “Adam” or “female” but specifically “woman”, then her creation is what qualifies her to be “woman”. I request that you prove your point from the Scriptures rather than continually ignoring her creation as “woman” and claiming a “job” for the man that is never given to him. If I was the one that was picking my arguments from thin air, you would likely identity me as a non-evangelical, like you did to Kay.

2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals.

Mark, your sentence structure reveals your heart. You are placing the woman in category as one with the “other animals”. Can you not see what you are doing? What kind of prejudice against women would place God’s creation in God’s image into the category of “animal”?

God ‘forms’ the creation ( and the narrative identifies what the created animal is i.e beasts, birds and woman),

Uh huh, yup, you are once again identifying the woman as an “animal” along with the beasts and birds. At this point I am wondering why you are even here? Why communicate with this “other animal” when you could be communicating with real people (men) on other blogs? Is this a game for you to see how much of the wild animal you can rile up within women? Do you enjoy putting us in the category of all the other animals?

Mark,
You said to Kay:

It is completely against how one should interpret the bible. You can’t just pick and choose which pieces of history you like. If you want to see that naming someone means something other than an ‘authorative’ pattern it won’t work, because it is simple fact.

You are begging the question.

The fallacy of petitio principii, or “begging the question”, is committed “when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.

You also said:

Regarding 3:16, no i don’t see it as a continuation of the way things were. I deal with this more in my next post with Cheryl, but quickly, essentially the context is punishment, therefore verse 16 is not a positive thing. The womans desire for her husband is not a good thing, nor is the husbands rule- this is a puinishment.

Are you saying that the man is being punished by giving him rule over the woman?

The Scripture is pretty clear when punishment is being meted out. God says “Because you have done this you are cursed…” (said to the serpent) and “Because you have …. cursed is the ground for your sake.” (said to the man). But where is the “Because you have done this” said to the woman? Where does God say that He will bring about a curse on the woman by putting her under her husband’s rule? Please prove your point instead of just assuming the point.

Basically it is a corruption of the original perfect relationship. But i expand more on that in another post soon.

I look forward to your further thoughts. But you will need to explain who brought about the “corruption” of the relationship? God or Adam?

Mark, you said to Kay:

You said “It’s that we see a completely different thing than “naming means to have authority over something.”
And thats the point. You are ignoring the historical setting of Hebrew naming. Why should you do such a thing and still be considered evangelical?

Mark, this one is below the belt. To attribute an authority to the man without any evidence that God gave such an authority to the man and then attaching Adam’s acceptance and identification of God’s creation as a necessary “Hebrew naming” that implies authority and attacking Kay as if she cannot be considered evangelical because she disagrees with you is extremely inappropriate behavior on your behalf. I ask you to apologize to Kay for treating her as if she is not an evangelical Christian merely for disagreeing with your importing into the text something that is not there.

Mark,
You said to pinklight:

Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective. We do know alot of other details from verses other that verse 23. However how would Eve of known her identity had Adam not said it. If her identity was solely in God’s mind and was never declared by Adam, she would never have known would she?

Kay identifies the problem with this and I would also like to comment. You seem to have the same mindset as the complementarian leaders that have been quoted on this blog saying that Eve got her identity only through the man. The problem with this is that it is God who identifies the man and the woman as being in His image so the original purpose and identity comes from God not from man. Secondly the man was out of it when God created the woman so he could not have been the first one to communicate with her. Eve, by her own testimony, identifies God as the originator of information given to her so we know that God talked with the woman that He created. We also know that God brought the woman to the man so it is reasonable for God to have explained to the woman not only what she could eat but who she was and who was the man that He was bringing her to. The fact that God identified her as woman when He created her shows that His purpose for her was already set before He brought her to the man. Therefore the man’s announcing her identification with himself would not have been her first interaction with who she is because she was alone with God and communicating with Him before she was brought to the man. To assume that the man would be needed to give identity to the woman assumes that the work of God in humanity must be given direction by one human just has no basis in the text. Notice that the woman doesn’t say to the man that she now knows that she is a part of him, but who on earth is he? She doesn’t have to ask who he is because she was with God in the beginning before she was brought to the man. God didn’t bring a confused woman to the man. He brought someone that already knew who she was. It was Adam who was required to accept her for who God created her to be and Adam did that beautifully.

She would not have known how or why she was made.

Oh really? So she was good enough to be talked to and told what she could eat and what she couldn’t eat, but God couldn’t tell her who she was? That isn’t even reasonable. Adam clearly knew who he was so what makes you think that the woman needed someone other than God to tell her who she was?

Adam’s declaration, i agree is about the intimacy of the relationship and joy at seeing God’s new creation for him, yet her identity is portrayed from the will and mind of God, to them both through Adam’s words.

Where do you get this from? Adam doesn’t say that his words are the will and mind of God. Adam just identifies what already is. It is clear that he understands the operation that God did on him brought his mate forth as created from his own flesh and blood, but to say that his words were the will and mind of God to teach the woman what her identity was is really going way beyond what the text says. If this was the case that Eve needed this education on who she was, where are the words explaining to her who he is?

He names her because he now realises what God has done, created a woman from the man-his bone and flesh literally. Put simply God has given Adam the role of naming the other animals, and has now given him the role of naming the woman aswell.

We know that God gave the man the opportunity to name the animals because God reveals in the narrative of Genesis 2:19 that the animals were brought to Adam for the specific reason for Adam to give them a name. In the case of the woman, God doesn’t say that He brings he to be named. That is totally missing from the account although God could have said this is that is what He wanted. Rather, God brings her to Adam in an act of marriage, not an act of naming. The fact that this was an act of marriage is clearly shown in verse 24 where the bringing together is said to be joining together as a “one flesh” union. There is no mention at all of a purpose of naming.

The context of the narrative is clearly linked to the earlier accounts where he names all the other animals.

Mark, Mark, Mark, did you really read what you wrote? All the other animals?? This is the problem with many complementarians. Even though God specifically says that there was not found an ezer comparable to him (among the animals), when the woman is created, complementarians see her as just another of the class of animals that Adam was to name. But her purpose and identify was in God not in man. She was the “image of God” just as he was. She was not the same as the animals, she was different. And because she was different, we cannot assume that she was to be treated the same way as the animals. This is a fatal flaw with comps and one of the reasons why women are not treated with the respect that they deserve.

To be honest i’m quite amazed at the roundabout conversations on such a simple topic.

To be honest, I am quite amazed at how comps treat women like just another animal when she is the image of God!

The man named the woman. The bible says it so lets accept it and see what it means rather than trying to pull exegetical loopholes around it.

The man identified the woman as his own flesh and blood just as God did when He made the woman. I am continually mystified at the levels some will go to, to downgrade women. Placing women in the category of the ones to be dominated, ruled and controlled is demeaning to the place of the woman. She is in the image of God and in the image of man so she is to be gloried in and not ruled over. She is truly the glory of the man, not under the rule of the man. When men take what was meant to be his glory and degrade her to a place of dominion, to me they really show that the world revolves around the male and not around God who created both to be in His image. The pinpoint of creation and identification comes from God. Man only recognizes what God has already identified in His creation. God alone creates and man accepts that creation and identifies his union with her as flesh and bone.

Hi Craig and welcome to my blog!

1 Timothy 3:11 fits in really well with 1 Timothy 3:1 where Paul states that “anyone” can desire the work of an overseer. The issue of “husband of one wife” is specifically set up to refer to men’s qualifications in both the overseer (elder) and deacon since only men were allowed to be polygamists but in case anyone would think this would qualify only men to do he work of an elder or deacon Paul specifically mentions women in verse 11. Some will attach women only to deacons by saying that these women are the deacon’s wives but this seems highly unlikely. First of all there is no possessive form for women that would make these the wives of the deacons. Secondly if one makes “women” attached only to deacons, it would not be understandable why only the deacon’s wives would have to have qualifications and elder’s wives would not.

I believe that the most consistent understand of “women” in 1 Tim. 3:11 is that Paul is specifically giving the same qualifications to women who desire to be elders or deacons. He wouldn’t even need to mention women in the text for the entire set of qualifications to refer to women except for the phrase “husband of one wife”. Thus the term “likewise” will connect the qualifications of women to both deacons and elders.

Some will say that since Phoebe was a woman deacon, then the “likewise” can connect women to deacons but they refuse to allow women also to be qualified to elders saying that they see the women only attached to deacons. But Paul has already qualified in 1 Timothy 3:1 that “anyone” can desire to the work of an overseer. If “anyone” can desire this work, and Paul does not say “any male may desire the work”, then we should be able to understand that “women likewise” connects the qualifications of overseer/elder and deacon with women.

The biggest problem for complementarians has been trying to explain how women can be deacons yet they cannot be elders when the term “husband of one wife” is used for both. I have yet to hear any clear answer to this problem for the complementarian camp.

My answer would be that the issue of polygamy which apparently was a problem in the early church caused Paul to specifically set up a qualification that would not allow those who are polygamists to act in any kind of service to the church that would set them up as leaders to follow their example. While they could be part of the body of Christians and they were not required to divorce all their wives but one to be baptized, they were not allowed to be set up as examples to the flock. Women didn’t have that problem as there was no legal precedent that allowed women to have more than one husband, but their inclusion in the list “women likewise” showed that Paul’s setting up qualifications was not meant to exclude women, but only to exclude polygamists.

Is this helpful?

Mark,

You said:

If you were serious about whether naming Eve was authorative, then you would look into what it meant in the Hebrew culture to give someone a name,

The issue is about the term “woman”. Did God give Adam the authority to create this “name” and take his authority over the woman? If so, where is the evidence?

More soon

Good! I look forward to it.

That’s about all I can do tonight. Sometimes I wonder if I will ever catch up to all the comments, but then I see that other blog owners have the same problem. Too little time and too little of men to go around. But I do try.

Thanks, Mark for giving me a challenge. I love the passionate debate. And you do still see me as a sister in Christ, right? 🙂

Unity in the essentials, in the non-essentials freedom and in all things brotherly love!

Mark,

You seem to be throwing ‘identity’ around a lot now. If you have changed your opinion of what you said about verse 22 just admit it. We are on the same page that God’s plan existed before any human- just don’t ignore the way God uses human instruments to fulfil his purposes.

Naming is identifying. What I did say was that God didn’t necessarily “call” her woman, by saying “I call you woman”. I don’t know how He did that, but I do know as a matter of fact that He created her woman. He did not say that He created her female and she became woman later. I hold to that opinion and I have not changed my mind. If I do change my mind, I am sure to let you know 😉

“Let’s just accept the text for what it says.”

Yes, lets do that and not say God called her woman before the man which is clearly not in the text.

The text CLEARLY says that she was made a woman. If she was not made a woman, what was she “called” and why does God identify her as woman in her creation when He doesn’t say that He created a being that Adam would call “woman”.

The thing about identifying character and nature is so important to me as a woman. To know that God created the woman as a woman and His purpose in her coming out of the man as an equal keeps me from devaluing women as only having an identity through the man. I am SO happy that God identified woman first and His plan was all along what counts because man’s plan has been hurtful in many ways to women. We don’t need to look to men for our identity. We can receive that from God alone without the help of man. Adam’s identity was a bonus. He identified what God had already created and that is a second witness. Adam was not the first witness to the woman being a woman. Adam was the second witness and God was first.

This is interesting! You want to support your view with the idea about prophetic naming and the like, yet you try and ignore the Hebrew culture in which naming was authoritative, but apparently this is a nuance.

If your view that it is authoritative, then prove it from the text. The problem is that you have to go to culture outside of the direct narrative. But the fact is that authority is never taken without being given. It is impossible for Adam to take authority over Eve in a rightful way without it being given to him. But the text never says this so we need to read it as it is written without the nuance of authority. I am tempted to think that men have some kind of “authority” gene that turns their brains into a quest for “who is the boss” mentality. There is no authority of one human over the other in this passage and if you believe me to be wrong, then prove it from the text.

Why is it that the real important aspects of the text and culture you continually dismiss as nuances or ‘rabbit trails’ as if they have no bearing on the discussion. It bewilders me.

Well, my friend, if you could really prove your point from the text itself and then take that proof and use culture as a second witness, I wouldn’t have a problem with a second witness. But you fail to even get a first witness from the text and without a proper exegesis of your point, your appeal to culture just appears to be rabbit trails. I have more then enough experience with those who practice rabbit trails and I had to learn early on that without a clear cut evidence in the text itself, rabbit trails are merely methods of smoke and mirrors with no valid presentation of the truth. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to bring actual proof from the text first. Thanks!

Mark,
You said:

OF course God knew Eve before Adam did. The text simply shows that it was also God’s plan for the man to name the woman. I wonder with some of your comments Cheryl.

Please prove your point. Where does it say that it was “God’s plan for the man to name the woman”. Please give me the inspired words that reveal this in the text. You must have special revelation because I have never seen such a thing that said it was “God’s plan” revealed or that God told Adam to name her. Please do prove your very bold statement.

Mark,
You said:

The parellel is the same with Adam and the woman. Just because God uses a human agent does not detract from God’s foreknowledge. The text simply saids that it was the man who ‘named’ the woman.

Where does the text say that this is God’s foreknowledge? Does it not say that God “built a woman”? (formed, fashioned). God’s building wasn’t foreknowledge at this point so what he built wasn’t either.

And the text doesn’t say that the man “named” the woman. Adam said that she shall be “proclaimed” or “called” woman. It is a statement of what she is as a recognition of what God had created her to be. Since God had already created her woman, her being proclaimed woman by Adam is very significant in that he recognized her nature. It is not significant in any way to show his authority over her since he had no authority assigned to him in such a way.

“Try as you might, you cannot take away the accuracy of God’s story just as He relayed it.”

Whats with this? First of all it was you who said God ‘named’ the woman. I have simply said that is not what the text saids.

The text does say that God created the woman. He created her as a woman. She didn’t become a woman when Adam saw and recognized her. She already was. The text certainly does say that God created something that He identified as a woman and the fact that God planned this creation as her coming forth from his body is the very meaning of woman. How much plainer can it get?

And now you say I am the one distorting the accuracy. Are you serious. Is this the way you approach all people who challenge your views, just say that they are tampering with the text.

Actually I didn’t say that you were “distorting the accuracy”. I said that you were taking away from the accurate account by making it a narrative that was not an exact rendition of what happened. When you say that God did not identify her as woman before He brought her to Eve, I am ready to challenge that. The fact is that the the text says that she was created by God as woman. She wasn’t just female, she was the one who came out of the man – a woman.

And here is the problem. You are approaching scripture the same way Muslims do, as if the historical setting is unimportant.

Mark, I don’t know if you intended to mock me, but to identify my reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims is quite offensive. Perhaps you would also like to say that since I worked so hard to bring JW’s to Christ, that I also read the passage like a JW. This attempt at knocking my position by attaching it to a non-Christian religion is not appropriate for this blog. It comes across as a personal attack on me and I do not think that this is a wise thing to do, do you?

Now to answer your challenge. Genesis is a historical account. How the Jews thought about God’s creation is not a factor in what actually happened. Are you arguing that this is Jewish cultural myth as others have? I am arguing from the type of literature – that Genesis is historical literature and unless it is written in a specifically identifiable metaphor, we can take the Word of God just as it is written. God created something – a woman – and brought something – a woman to the man.

Which is interesting because when it comes to 1 Tim 2 you revert the other way and say it is all cultural.

Mark, I really like you best when you are trying hard to not misrepresent my arguments. I have never said that 1 Timothy 2 is “cultural”. I really don’t even know where you are getting that from. My argument is not Paul is talking about specific people and a specific situation. That is not “cultural”. That is “fact based” in the literature that is clearly a personal letter. But then this post is not about Timothy but about Adam naming Eve, right?

Whats this got to do with what I said. It was you who said something that is not in the text, and simply because it is your view that is contradicted.

It is plainly there that God built a woman. You can say that this isn’t in the text and that God didn’t identify/call her woman when her built her as woman from the body of the man, but the text says she was already known as woman before she was brought to the man. My friend, you will have to deal with that instead of say it isn’t in the text.

If you can try and dismiss the fact that it was Adam who named Eve then your view might stand, but the text is against you.

I didn’t dismiss the fact that Adam named “Eve”. I said that God identified/called her woman when he built her. Adam called Eve later after sin entered the world. Whether that is an example of his taking his authority over her is debatable. However there is nothing in the text about Adam affirming her identity as woman that would even have a hint that he took an authority over her that had not even been given him by God.

Again please engage with my comments not attack comp theology and say it denies the inspiration of scripture. Arguing these lines makes me feel like you are avoiding the real issue.

Mark, I really wish you would take the time to digest what I am saying instead of rewording it. I didn’t say that comp theology denies the inspiration of Scripture. I say that comp theology (and your theology) denies that the text states what exactly happened. I am not saying that they don’t believe it is inspired, but your comment that it is only narrative appears to deny that God really did create a “woman”. What did God create? Perhaps you can tell me. Did He create a female and she became a woman later? Or did God really and truly create a woman so that she was a woman because of God’s design? If that is so, which I believe the text shows, then Adam’s glorious acclamation was an affirmation of what she already was.

Not once have I questioned your belief in the inspiration of scripture, but you consistently say it about me under the label ‘comps’.

I will say it again. I didn’t question your belief in inspiration of scripture. I said that you were rather denying that she was created woman by God and identified as such. You said yourself that this was only God’s foreknowledge.

Where have I ever said that I am denying the account as it happened. I have no problem saying that God was in control of what Adam said and knew what he said.

Let’s go through this one again. Did God create a “woman”? Or did God create something that later became a woman when Adam identified her as such? Please tell me what the text says. Let’s discuss that.

If you really held to the account as it is written you would not have said God ‘called’ her woman before Adam, since that is not in the account.

Not true! God wrote this account and He wrote that He created the woman. Since her created her as woman, how do you deny that God called/identified her as woman?

And what did I say “This was God’s purpose and plan for it to happen this way.” How can you assume that I am saying God had nothing to do with what Eve’s identity when the words you quote me on say the opposite.

I am not talking about the name “Eve”. Please don’t switch to the naming of Eve by Adam later. I am talking about the identity “woman”. If God created her in her identity was woman and He did this before Adam identified her as woman, then God’s creative actions on a specific identity “woman” are where we get our identity from. The woman does not get her identity first from the man. She does get her identity second from the man as an agreement that this is what she is (what God made her to be – flesh of his flesh).

SM,
quoting Andreas Kostenburger:

Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth. Appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables.

Really this is all reading into the text, because there is nothing said about forbidding women to teach because they are “less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables.” Apologists like myself do not fit this mold and since when does God prohibit all because of what is perceived as a trait of some or most? Women in leadership are quite capable of holding their own. In fact in my case I have brought leaders to task following the Scriptural method. To prohibit one woman because of what others might do, not because of what she does and demonstrates in her life, is not a godly way to judge and this is not the way God does things.

I also very much appreciated Frank for jumping to my defense regarding my own ministry. It really is hard to see these guys so deceived in their own misled logic. They are trying hard to find a reason to hold women back in their spiritual gifts and they cannot find such an argument from the Scriptures so they fight against each other with one reason after another for why women are “forbidden” in leadership. I would say that this is a case where these men have been deceived for so long, their eyes and their minds have been closed to truth.

Mark,
Again I am so glad that you are willing to answer questions. There are lots on your plate and the fact that you are still here shows your tenacity. I only have a very short time right now so I will get to the rest later, but for this one:

We know that God knew that Eve would call her sons, Cain, Abel and Seth, but that doesn’t mean Eve didn’t do the actual naming of her sons.

Did God name Cain, “Cain”. Or did He give that privilege to Eve? Did God get the privilege of identifying the woman as “woman”? Or did God have to wait until Adam identified her first? What do you think?

Talk later…

Hey Mark,
Welcome back!

Why are you back peddling. In your post you were quite confident that verse 22 shows God ‘naming’ Eve before Adam, and now you have just incorporated pinklights idea of ‘identity’ to support yourself. Either verse 22 says God named woman or it doesn’t. You can’t say that God did, and then try to skirt your way around it by justification.

I haven’t back peddled at all. Looks like you just don’t understand me. God identified the female as a woman. Call it naming call it identifying, its the same thing really. The fact is that she is a woman whether that is a name or not. The fact is that she was identified/called as to her identity by God before Adam knew her is a precious thing as God knows us first! Our identity doesn’t depend on the man. It depends on God! I love that in God. He is the one who knows our nature through and through and He has made us equal rulers with the man. If that might offend you, I’m sorry that you might be offended. I rejoice in God’s identifying our worth!

I think that a lot of men are afraid of submission. They love to teach on it….for others, specifically women, but the teaching that submission is to be an attitude of all Christians just doesn’t fly with some. I think they see it as humiliating and there are some men who would rather die than submit to a woman. I find that really sad. They aren’t looking to Jesus as their example. It seems to me that their ego has become king and anything they don’t want to do is set aside for others. Women are then put on the bottom level to bear all things that are beneath the men. I find this especially sad because I think these men miss out on the joy of submitting in love to the body of Christ.

Kay,

From where comes the whole idea that “because I can identify something and give it word name identifier, therefore I now have authority over it”??

This is so important for comps to really “get”. Authority is not something that can be claimed of one’s own will. It has to be given. Adam and Eve could not even claim the food they wanted to eat. They had to be given food, given the authority to eat. So where was Adam ever given the authority over the woman? He wasn’t. Taking authority that doesn’t belong to us is called _______. Anyone have a word to fill in the blank?

Hannah,

No restrictions on the gender that DIDN’T get deceived, and just down right disobeyed God directly. Its an illustration of that no one size fits all. You directly sin against God, and you get the hold all the cards. You get deceived? We take things away. Do they seriously feel that is God’s nature

This is well stated and yet should we all see this as very odd. Why is it that we have all been duped to think that God gives power to the one who sinned deliberately? And then God makes him have power and authority over the one that he failed to protect when he was not yet a sinner? How is that from the nature of the God who is just? I don’t think so.

gengwall,
You said:

I was wondering when you would get to this one, Cheryl. Another point which discredits the “women are easily deceived” argument is that in the 1st chapter of the letter, Paul talks about his own deception or “ignorance”. If Paul can be “duped” into sinful activity, anyone can.

Yes, indeed, Paul does talk about about his own ignorance and really that is amazing! But Paul is one that didn’t hold to his own pride. He let everything go, even his pride, so that he could gain Christ and let everything else become like filthy rags to him. Paul was an excellent example of a godly Christian who admitted his faults, admitted his failures and moved on in Christ.

Mara #3,
You said:

Sorry, but the woman being more easily deceived argument doesn’t cut it. Men are just as easily deceived. And where sex is concerned… often more so.

I agree that men can be just as deceived as women. I had hundreds of people go though my support group in the 16 years that I had the group and I know about equality in the area of spiritual deception. The one thing that I would like to add is that men seem to have one additional problem perhaps more so than women. It is that men don’t always easily admit that they have been duped. It could be a pride issue, I don’t know, but admitting that one has been deceived can be very difficult for men.

carrying on….

I agree that God knew before Adam that he would call her ‘woman’. What I disagree on is that God ‘called’ her woman before Adam did. This is not in the scripture. God is all knowing and sovereign no doubt, but that does not dismiss the fact that it was the man who named the woman. This was God’s purpose and plan for it to happen this way. Do you disagree with that?

So God had nothing at all to do with the fact that she had her identify as woman? It was all Adam’s idea and God merely read his mind? I don’t think so. If God wanted her identity to come first from the man, then it would have been helpful and wise to refrain from identifying her as woman before Adam even set eyes on her. And if we were to believe that Adam had to identify her as woman and God wanted the man to create her identity, then we would also have to believe that God bringing the animals before Adam to find a mate for him was God’s plan to mate Adam with an animal if Adam found one he liked. No, my friend, God’s plan was set in stone before He ever created the first human. His purpose was male and female and His plan was that one would be created from the body of the other. Adam is the one who was ignorant of that plan, not God. And since God’s plan to bring her forth from Adam’s own flesh before even one of the animals was paraded before Adam, then the one who would be made from Adam’s flesh was created to be woman not just named woman because making her from Adam’s flesh was God’s plan not Adam’s. Let’s just accept the text for what it says. There is no mistake and there is no words or grammar that are there by happenstance. It is God’s divine purpose and His command. This is what gives God ultimate glory. God’s plan, God’s design, God’s building and identifying what He has designed and Adam accepting that design as His own.

Finally I find it interesting that you believe this “While it is possible that naming Eve was part of Adam’s sinful rule over her”, but that naming her before the fall is most definitely not to do with authority. Why is that?
In fact I would be more inclined to say that since Adam named her Eve (chavvah) which is closely associated with ‘life’ (chayyah), the naming is more associated not with sinful lordship, but with Adam’s recognition that through the woman would come the ‘seed’ to bruise the serpent’s ‘seed’. Adam’s post fall naming is more a declaration of God’s promise than it is sinful lordship.

You missed my point. I said it was possible…but I said that calling her woman before sin entered the world was definitely not an act of taking authority over her. That is the part that I emphasized and you completely missed it. Let me emphasize it again for your benefit. Adam identifying the woman’s source and identifying her as “woman” when God brought her to Adam was not an act of authority. It was an act of willing acceptance and happy fulfillment. “At last” Adam said, this one was just right for him.

Therefore there is more to naming something in the Hebrew culture than can easily just be dismissed.

We are not discussing all the nuances of naming here. This is a blog about the comp/egal debate and the discussion is whether identifying the woman by name of title is an act of a God-given authority of the man over the woman. No slight of hand can make this an act of authority when no authority has been given by God.

Jesus said that “all authority has been given Me” and as the God-man, He did not take authority that had not been given Him. Adam had no right as a mere human to take authority that had not been given him. And there is not a speck of wording that would cause one to believe that God gave Adam an authority over his wife to rule and reign over her. Rather both the man and the woman were given dominion over the world and God’s creation. They were not given dominion over each other.

You seemingly recognised this with your comments on ‘prophetic’ naming etc, but for some reason think that the man naming the woman is insignificant (at least before the fall).

No true at all. It is very significant. Adam’s recognition that the woman was his own flesh and blood and that she was taken form his flesh and was a competent mate for him is very significant. The term woman embodies all of that and Adam is there in agreement with God. Highly, highly significant. But significant in the way that would make him an authority over her? Not a chance.

Mark,
You said:

It would be better to stick with what we do have and see why. The obvious reason that ‘woman’ is used (‘ishah) is because she was made from man (‘ish). It is a play on words used by the writer.

The writer of Genesis is God and He used a man to pen His words. Do you disagree with this?

This is common in Hebrew and particularly common in these early chapters of Genesis. We see it with man/woman, with man/ground.

Isn’t God brilliant and witty? He is a marvelous God who didn’t leave out any detail that He wanted us to know. He is truly an amazing God.

Regarding where the narrative came from, as Christians we have to say both God and man. We do not believe as Islam does that scripture is the direct words of God per se and that there is no human agent.

They are the direct words of God, but God chose to use a human to pen His story.

Inspiration of scripture is that God uses human agents to fulfil his purposes, so yes it is the word of God, but it is also the writing of man.

The problem with this is that there was no man around that was conscious when the woman was created. So unless God told the human agent who penned God’s story what happened and He inspired the writing without error, we would only have human fantasy and inaccurate dreams since no one can know the truth but God Himself and those to whom He reveals His story. Try as you might, you cannot take away the accuracy of God’s story just as He relayed it.

That is why grammar, purpose, intention of writing, historical situation, culture etc are all important aspects for scholars when trying to understand the bible.

What has culture got to do with God’s story? No one can know what happened but God Himself. No culture can influence or distort the story for God prepared the vessel to write it as He wanted. Sure it is easy for complementarians to want to set aside the inspiration of the text as pure truth exactly as it happened because it contradicts their theory. I just accept it as it was written. I am not a liberal as egalitarians are often accused of being. If the very foundation of our human history is not real but “fluid” (i.e.) maybe it is truth and maybe it is just poetry and just a story through the interpretation of the culture of the one who wrote it) and your belief cannot hold water unless the account is not clear, then I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I hold to the account exactly as it is written.

Okay, to carry on, Mark you said:

Regarding why the narrative doesn’t describe the woman as a ‘female’ is an argument from silence.

The fact is that the narrative is inspired, right? She is called woman. That is the facts. If God wanted Adam to identify her first that would have happened. I am so glad that the woman gets her identity first and foremost from the Creator. I am so glad that God cares about us as equal image bearers even though this fact has been denied by some comps without justification.

Sorry guys if it seems that I always put Mark first. Its just that he disappears for days and weeks at a time and the questions have not been answered so I don’t want to make him wait as long as some of you have to wait to get some attention. I am not trying to play favorites, but there aren’t enough comps who are brave enough to stick around here for long. Fair enough?

Mark,
You said:

I agree with you now that God isn’t quoted here. Therefore I expect you to retract your comment “God called her woman before Adam did”

Woah, you are getting brave aren’t you? Sorry my friend, but there is no need for me to retract my statement. While a narrative is not a direct quote, it gives the facts, not superstition or speculation. Whether God “spoke” out loud the words, I don’t know. But it is a fact that God identified her as woman, not as merely a female, when she was created. When God brought her to her husband, she was already identified by God for what she was. If God had not identified her before Adam did, then the account would have shown that. God would have made a “female” and Adam would have identified her as “woman”. The question should be whether God did or did not create a woman. The account says He did.

gengwall, thanks for sticking up for me. You are right on! Certainly no need for this egal to take any other view then the one presented as truth from the narrative. God created a woman just as He intended and He brought the woman, not an unidentified thing to Adam. Adam did not have to tell her what and who she was. She already knew. She had some time with God while Adam was out cold. And then the blushing bride was brought by God back to the side of Adam where she belonged.

Mark,
Boy you Aussies sure take a long time to prepare simple questions. Having a hard time? I think it is a good thing when complementarians are willing to address some of the difficult questions against their position. For after all, the correct position will be able to stand the hard questions and the challenges. At least that is what I believe. I hope you believe the same.

1. The definate article of 3:22-24 excludes Eve?

The context is clear that “the Adam” from chapter 3 is the one man Adam. Only one Adam had the earth cursed on his behalf.

2. Eve was decieved but Adam sinned wilfully. Therefore they have different sin natures

The first sentence is Biblical. The second is not. The Bible attributes only one man from bringing the sin nature into the world. There is no mention of “different” sin natures inherited by mankind. I don’t know where you got that from.

3. Eve was not a threat to the tree of life

The world was not cursed on Eve’s behalf because of what she did. Paul clearly says that she was deceived. Once her eyes were opened she was no longer under deception. Since she didn’t sin in outright rebellion, what reason would we have that she would act in outright rebellion once her eyes were opened to the truth? I see no evidence of any rebellion against God. Do you?

4. Eve did leave the garden, but not becasue she was banished. She left becasue of her ‘desire for her husband’ (Gen 3:16)

God only blamed one man for bringing sin into the world and only one man had the earth cursed because of his actions. There is no evidence at all that God believed that a formerly deceived woman was a threat to the tree of life and that was the only reason that He kicked Adam out of the garden. Since Eve was not a threat the only reason we have regarding why she left is God’s words to her about what would transpire in the future. As far as I can see God gave a true prophesy and His word did indeed come true. Do you see God as giving false information regarding Eve’s future? I don’t and I highly doubt that you do, so what evidence do you have regarding why Eve left the garden? I would be happy to verify the evidence you come up with.

5. Gen 3:1-5. Eve is quoting what God told her. That is, she was given the prohibition by herself from God, therefore she has not misquoted God and Adam did not pass on the prohibition.

Eve’s testimony before she sinned is that God said this…and she gave a direct quote. There is no evidence that Eve lied nor is there any evidence that she misquoted God. Lastly there is no evidence in the grammar that Eve was giving a quote from God via Adam. With a direct quote the “you” (plural) would have had to be “we”. Since I believe that God inspired the Bible without error, I have no problem believing that God’s word is true and that God didn’t have to correct Eve since she didn’t lie or distort the truth.

The truth is worth testing. And the distorted version of Genesis that we have all been told for so many years is worth challenging for truth is worth its weight in gold.

Mark,
You can email it to me if you would like, or you can post it here piece by piece.

I have just finished our ministry’s accounting. The balance sheet actually balances, hurray! On to different things next week and I will try to catch up. Its hard to do two things at once when you are working with numbers. My eyes are crossed, my mind is tired but I have a balanced balance sheet, praise the Lord!

Kay,

Yes, if her qualifying difference is defined by males because they possess the “authority” to define, they ought to be able to tell us what that is, right?

That is a hoot!