HPK,

You have charged me with deception. Please take my wise words above to heart. You are welcome to continue reading.

HPK,

Again you show your ignorance of what I teach. If you refuse to actually read what I have written and instead want to refute what you think my position is, then you are a very unwise person who speaks before he hears. In the years that I have had this blog, I have only mentioned Phoebe once. Check out the search feature on this blog. My argument is from the hard passages of scripture. If you want to argue about Phoebe, perhaps you might want to go to a blog that posts on Phoebe.

I will be restricting your ability to post here if you will not actually read what I have written and respond to my arguments. There are plenty of other places that allow those who refuse to address the actual arguments.

Happy Promise Keeper,

Cheryl, you are incorrectly assuming I haven’t investigated your agenda.

I am not assuming anything. I can see where you have been. This is why I made the comment.

You are in error, sister. I do believe you are well meaning. I do believe you have a seeking heart. I also must be direct and tell you there is deception in your teaching. I’m not going to use my valuable time to go through your teachings and nitpick them to death.

When I tell someone their belief is in error, I lovingly take the time to show them where their belief is wrong. Take my latest post for example.

You may think that your “valuable” time is more valuable than mine. That is your opinion and you have the right to it. I would suggest then that you stick to forums where you can show people you have a Christlike love instead of saying there is deception and then refusing to give specifics on the posts where I teach such so-called “deception”.

You also will not be given permission to judge my heart. I have no resentment and your attacks are unwarranted, unfair, unkind and not Christ-like. Again, go where you can show a Christ-like love and if you find no such place, then perhaps you might want to check your own heart. I think this is very wise advise.

Paula,

You said:

This is one possible interpretation, but still an interpretation. It is equally possible to interpret “male and female from the beginning” as from the time both a male and a female existed.

Since both the male and female were created on the 6th day and “from the beginning” for humanity began on the 6th day, we can rightfully just accept what God said in Genesis that they were created male and female and Jesus’ words as a second witness. If this is not the truth, then saying there is another interpretation is needs to have a solid basis on fact. I have not seen two witnesses that show that Adam was created either an a-sexual human or a bi-sexual. In fact I haven’t seen any witness at all except for the witness of silence. That isn’t good enough for me because it doesn’t fit with Jesus’ witness. For me, I don’t accept an alternate view that doesn’t have a solid basis in the OT text or Jesus’ interpretation of the OT text nor does the alternate view have acceptance through church history. It does have acceptance in mythology and that raises a red flag for me that I cannot ignore.

To assign meaning to a phrase is to interpret.

I believe that this is why Jesus made the comment that he did. Jesus interpreted the Old Testament Genesis account so that we can be sure that God created them male and female and if it was not so, then Jesus would have told us.

Many, such as Calvinists, insist that certain things are inescapable logically and that we therefor must accept their conclusions.

This is why I refuse to rely solely on logic. The text must state the genesis (beginings) account without relying on silence just as Jesus stated the account without relying on silence of the text.

Likewise, though it looks to you that your conclusion is inescapable, I don’t agree. And that’s okay.

I am glad that you can agree with me that it is okay. I am open to hearing further facts if there is something that I have missed.

Right. But whether this applies to the time there was no female is still not specified by scripture, but is instead a matter of interpretation.

Scripture is not subject to private interpretation. There is no basis in calling a single person “them” and doing so would make the man a God in the category of God himself. Where does scripture ever call a single human “them” or where did Jesus interpret the Old Testament Genesis account as a human unlike other humans? Jesus came as the last Adam. Did Jesus call himself “we” or did the disciples refer to Jesus as “them”? If we make Adam to be in a category that Jesus was not in (other than sin) then it appears to me that we destroy the “last Adam” analogy. Jesus then is an inferior “last Adam” from the original creation of the first Adam who was a multiply person being? I don’t think so. Jesus never gave one piece of credibility to that view and so without evidence I can have no other interpretation.

What about timing? Consider the phrase “slain from the foundation of the world”. If I apply your method I must believe that Jesus was slain when the world was created.

Jesus was both man and God. As man he was slain at a specific point in time. But as God he is not the “I was” but “I AM”. He is outside of time and his “slain from the foundation of the world” is just as much as the “now” as the past and the future is to him. Even before creation God’s plan was to redeem mankind because he both exists in the past, present and future at the same time so that God’s plan was a “done deal” before the world began. “Before the world began” is God’s view of time. There is absolutely no problem with God’s view of time. However the book of Genesis is stated in our view as events in time. “in the beginning” is our view of time and God steps into time to create.

But with Adam before Eve, there are no statements to clarify. Timing does matter.

There is a statement to clarify. It is the testimony of Jesus that “in the beginning” (our view of time) God created them male and female. There is no other testimony, no other second witness from one who was there, other than that and the account stated in Genesis. I choose to believe the one who was there as giving me all the truth I need to know. In the beginning…..God created……male and female.

This same NET also has footnotes that are male supremacist. Point being, they are not infallible, and when experts disagree on a point, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

No one is infallible but their view is not impeached. Please show me the expert in the biblical text that say that Adam was created as a hermaphrodite. I have seen no such “expert” in the biblical text and since no such expert has been appealed to, it is not a logical fallacy.

All I’m saying in all this is that we have to be careful not to mistake an interpretation with what is actually stated, nor argue from silence about Adam’s condition before Eve.

This is my exact point. Jesus is the one who interpreted the Genesis account and another view is an argument from silence.

It all hinges on how one interprets “from the beginning” since that phrase always mentions both male and female, and there was a period of time when no female existed. Again, your interpretation could very well be right; but so could mine.

“in the beginning” for the male is his creation. “in the beginning” for female is her creation. There is not even one iota of proof that “in the beginning” means after original creation to include a complete change of creation for the first man. If we do this to the “first Adam”, what will we do to the “last Adam”?

More importantly, this debate has no bearing on the question of male supremacy.

I would say yes and no. Yes, it doesn’t directly have a bearing on the question of male supremacy. However at the same time if we hold onto a belief in a myth that only has the “proof” from silence and in direct opposition to the testimony of Jesus, then those who have believed in hierarchy but whose hearts truly are open to truth that resides outside of hierarchy, may dismiss everything else we say. They may see through the argument from silence and come to the conclusion that we do not have a solid argument about the equality of men and women. Instead, if we are willing to admit that the position that the first man was either both male and female or an a-sexual being is not verifiable in the text nor does it have a second witness and is not worthy to be a foundation for our view of gender in the rest of scripture, then perhaps they may respect us enough and our love of truth enough to listen to what else we have to say. That is my point and I think it has validity. Anyone else agree?

It has been my habit of testing all things by the scripture and rejecting anything that doesn’t match even if it is an egalitarian view. I am not an egalitarian because it is a world view that I like. I am an egalitarian because it is the view that fits scripture in context with the inspired words and the inspired grammar. Anything that doesn’t fit, I am not willing to hold onto tightly. I can and will reject what isn’t truth. I do not have an emotional hold onto teachings that do not line up with the biblical test for truth. Every judicial and foundational point of doctrine should have at least two or three witnesses.

Happy Promise Keeper,

This blog is filled with material on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which is the only scripture in the bible that even could be taken to “suggest” that women are not to teach men. I simply do not have time to restate things that have already been stated here very clearly. I suggest that you move off of this one post and look up the answers for yourself instead of just saying that the scriptures have not been answered. It really does not look good for you otherwise. It makes it look like you are only interested in throwing grenades and leaving without a consideration for truth or the answers that have been provided. I greatly value dialog and respectful attitudes towards fellow Christians. Those who do not respect fellow Christians and who are not interested in a position other than their own that is set in stone and not up for testing should probably just stay in their own “role” and not try to educate. Others who truly do love the body of Christ, even those who do not believe as we do, will always be welcomed here with open arms. I would recommend that you read the page at the top called “Disclaimer” to understand the rules and either respect this space and this community or find a place where you can be respectful and loving.

As far as CBMW I never claimed that I was just anyone who emailed this group. I have clearly presented the truth that CBMW participated with me in agreeing to quotes taken from their literature and they participated in requesting a “review” copy of my DVD. If they weren’t interested in refuting a well thought-out argument that refuted their arguments from a position of respect and love, then they should not have agreed to a review copy of the DVD. Agreeing to review the DVD and then refusing to do so does not come across as honest or respectful. Since you have danced around the facts, it is clear that you are not open to dialog just as they are not open to dialog with me.

Jesus is the one with the authority and if he decides to have a special group of 12 male apostles, that is perfectly fine with me. He also distributes the gifts and if he distributes the gift of pastor to a woman, that is just fine with me. Take it up with Him.

Yippee! I am caught up with the comments. Now you folks are free to take me around the bush again or bring me to task if you may. I appreciate every one of you!

Lin #42,

He told them to be fruitful and multiply, He told them about the food, etc. And He is telling them this before we read about either of them being formed. Is there any significance to this? I have no idea.

This proves that creation = formed. It is not different but the same thing as far as humanity goes. We do know that God is the creator of language and when he calls them, “them”, we can be assured that he was speaking to more than one person. He was speaking to both Adam and Eve and of course this gives us great confidence that when Eve quoted God later as having spoken to her about what she could and couldn’t eat, we can be assured that God did speak to her too. Some would like us to think that God would not stoop to speak to the first woman and he would only communicate to her through the man. This is not the truth from scripture.

Good thoughts, Lin.

38 Paula,

I think Don has a valid point about the fact that “male and female from the beginning” cannot apply to the time before Eve was created.

Since Eve is part of the original creation of mankind, the “male” from the beginning was the original creation of Adam and the “female” was the original creation of Eve. “From the beginning” cannot be a term that does not include the creation of Adam. This is why I am confident that God created just as he said he did with two genders not one and a half.

Thanks Paula for correcting the quotation error. Sometimes when the blockquote gets misplaced, it can be easy to miss. I appreciate you pointing out the correction.

Cheryl, I could say you’re doing this too. You’re saying that Adam was male, and at the same time, that he was male and female from the beginning. Both can’t be true.

Thanks for summarizing your view of what I said so that I have the opportunity to clear up any confusion. I am NOT saying that Adam was both male AND male and female, as if the male was both male and female. When God said “them”, he was referring to both of them – humanity as male and female, not one person as male and female.

And I’m not insisting on anything except this: that we are not told in scripture the physical makeup of Adam before Eve was created, unless you believe that Adam was “male and female from the beginning” even before Eve was made.

We are told that God’s original creation was male and female. That we can take to the bank as full truth. Genesis chapter 1 takes man from the the original creation of humanity in one person to the plural with the creation of Eve. I did post a quote from the NET translator notes that show that God is talking to BOTH the male and female in Genesis 1:28 and verse 27 refers to both the original man and both humans. Because Genesis attaches “him” and “them” together so closely shows that woman is not a separate creation, nor does she have a separate rule or spiritual function. Together they are that humanity that God originally planned as two people.

37 Don,

Creation can take time and forming can take time. Moses could have written that Adam before the split was ish, but did not, Adam is simply human and both the man and the woman have that name after the split. The point is to not go beyond the text, going beyond the text in ANY way is speculation; and as long as it is called speculation, I do not see a problem. For our faith, it simply does not matter what type of human Adam was before the split, since it does not say. Since there was only one, it is not even clear what the meaning of type is, type only has a meaning when there are 2 types.

The scripture never lists Eve’s creation as a “split”. When you have surgery and the surgeon removes something from you, it is never called a “split”. This implies something that is not said.

Since creation and forming are one-in-the-same for mankind and since God said he did it in the sixth day, we can be assured that the forming took no longer than the sixth day. I do think that terming this creation as “splitting” is going beyond the text. Is it okay if it is called “speculation”? Perhaps, perhaps not. There is so much in the scriptures that is not speculation, that perhaps we should start there first. Paul did say that things that result in speculations which can produce doubts (1 Timothy 1:4). I do not agree that it doesn’t say what kind of human Adam was. God specifically said that the original creation of mankind was male and female. Adam was not female.

I don’t think that we need to be concerned that Adam was male and think that this is putting females down because they weren’t created first. This is an argument that the hierarchists make about the importance of male over female, but God doesn’t make such a distinction that removes the ability for the woman to function in complete fullness and wholeness in her gifts and equal spiritual calling. Adam’s maleness was God created and it was God’s plan for both male and female to work together.

36 Cindy K,

And I’m glad you’re catching up and specifically said so, as I had a tiny twinge of concern that I might have shut down the discussion, (even though I found that unlikely).

If you were a show-stopper, it would only be because of your wisdom! Not to worry. I have been behind in my responses because my life has been out of the ordinary for weeks now and for periods of time I need to ignore my blog in order to give attention to other pressing matters. I am not quite sure when my life will be back to normal, if I even know what “normal” means anymore!

In the event that I didn’t state it succinctly, my goal here is to see the Word clearly and discern the truth. I take more of an Augustinian approach to things, tending to be less presumptive about God. That has its pitfalls, because one can lean more towards the idea that God is holy other and too mysterious to know. On the other hand, I am very disturbed at the practice of some who put God in a tiny, human box, presuming to have God’s perspective. Aware of the pitfalls of my natural bend, I try to find balance, but it is always a very dynamic process for me.

I can understand your concern. I am one of those who believes that the scriptures are so full of the depth of God’s revelation to us that we can be continually awed when we plumb the depths as we find more and more of what God has revealed. But in plumbing the depths, we need to be cautious not to go beyond what is written.

My other concern is that at certain impressionable times in my life, I drew from the Word of Faith teachers and was taught by my parents that I never had any right to question the teaching of anyone who called themselves an anointed pastor. Sometimes those influences are those things to which we are most blind because they form our first views of things and are the foundation for what we add to them.

We always have the right to question a person’s teaching, no matter who they are. If Paul commended the Bereans for testing him with the scriptures, then certainly no one today should be offended when we take anything that another believes or teaches and test it against God’s word. If it holds up to the test, praise God!

So as much as I am trying to bring up ideas here, I am also trying to make sure that I am letting the Word and the Spirit wipe the scales of flesh from my sight.

I greatly respect this attitude!

That said, my reasons for posting here at all are probably more selfish than anything else. If I come across as hard or pushy, I think that would be more a sign of my own discomfort in trying to sort out right thinking from wrong thinking in myself.

I have never seen you come across as pushy or hard at all. I think you do come across as one who is a truth lover and open to either proven wrong or shown what conforms to the scriptures.

So if I do come across as some kind of bully at any point, I apologize. But it is always pretty terrifying when I look back at some of these things, wondering if I’m clinging to things I like as opposed to truth because they are easy and familiar.

I for one would never consider you a bully. All I see is a precious sister in Christ.

But that consideration has its benefits in this discussion, as this is exactly what we hope that the complementarian will do — consider whether their presuppositions have tainted their reading and understanding of the Word. It is a threatening process to consider that you’ve chosen a foundation stone that needs to be hewn out and replaced. God have mercy on us all as we look at the foundations we’ve chosen with the best of intent.

This sums up the key to what I am trying to do. It is certainly painful to have to rethink things through especially if one has built on the foundation already. But truth should always be more important than our discomfort at having to replace faulty stones that we have used for building material.

I see myself as someone who wants to forcibly pry open my own chest to allow truth to get in even though I am uncomfortable with having to rethink my position. I want truth more than I want anything else. But that truth will only be convincing if it is provable by the only true measuring rod there is. I want to see it from the bible. One can never convince me through logic alone or through history or important men from the past. If the scripture is not a solid foundation for the “truth” then I just cannot accept it. I do not believe that in the judgment that I will be chastised for accepting God’s word as the test. Everything else can be a rubber ruler used alone.

Thanks for all your comments and your participation. I love every opportunity here to challenge others and to be challenged. We can love and respect one another and yet still push for truth. In the end whether one changes their point of view or just agrees to disagree, at least we had the opportunity to dialog with respect. This isn’t always possible in other forums where opposing views are not allowed and people are not tolerated. I love this community!

26 Don,

Love God and people and you cannot go far wrong.

I think possible scenarios are fine to discuss, as long as they are claimed to be just that.

We should add a respect for God’s word and a desire to know truth. Without a love for truth, we can be drawn into error.

I also think that it is fine to discuss possible scenarios, but we should have a solid basis in the text so that we can give a reason for our faith. Speculation can be dangerous without a firm basis in scripture, because it can erode the foundation. In 1 Timothy 1 Paul warns against speculation that came from myths and many had already been deceived by the myths and speculation which were falsely called knowledge.

24 Cindy K,

You said:

Gen 1 and a good part of Gen 2 says “man” multiple times, but we know not if it means man as male or man as species. So we do add that to the text, probably interpreting gender because the distinction is soon made when female is introduced.

We can know when God means both male and female when He says “them” and “you (plural)”. We can know He means the male alone when he says “the man”.

The bottom line is that we don’t know any more than what we’re told, and we have a limited number of possibilities of what could have possibly happened based upon what we are clearly told.

I agree. We need to just read the account and not add to it. However if we read the account and very carefully map it out, I think that God did a good job of letting us know what He meant.

The creation order is problematic for evolution, because some creatures were made before their food would have been created, so they would have either have been divinely sustained if there was a long earth day versus 24 hours.

Amen!

I had not considered this morning also that ex nihilo could have been complete on day six with Eve created later as made from something as opposed to nothing. No?

I had not heard this one before, but I don’t think that there is merit in the text for seeing Eve created after God rested. How could God have blessed them (plural) and told them to multiply if there was only one person in creation? I just don’t think it fits.

I just (personally) do not agree that right about calling a particular group of JudeoChristian beliefs as pagan (that Adam was a “they” of male and female and then the flesh drawn out of him with an aspect of him that would have been notably Eve’s essence, equal in flesh and any other metaphysical property that was expressly Eve or just a portion of Adam).

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn’t say the belief was pagan but that the only support for the belief came from pagan sources. What I did say was that it was a myth. If someone can show me that it has real support in the scriptures instead of an argument from silence, then I would retract my comments about “myth”. However I am not calling people who believe this way as “pagans” or their belief as “pagan”. I am trying hard to encourage all to be bible bereans and to work hard at seeing what is actually in the text so that we all can be assured that there is nothing for us to be ashamed at because we have rightly divided the word of truth. I am working hard to challenge those precious people who come to my blog, to see that God says what He means and means what He says. When he said “them” and “you (plural)” he was not referring to a single person but to the man and the woman. There is no biblical precedent to allow a single person to be called plural. That is except for the one God who is three persons in one and who can rightfully be spoken of in the plural form for plural persons.

As I understand it, God would have to be greater than both male and female, so it would not necessarily be evil to say that viewing Adam this way (pre-split) necessarily violates God’s nature or other Scriptures. In what terms was Adam made in God’s image, exactly, and is this reflected in a gender expression? I guess that’s the real issue. (Maybe not?) And I could be entirely wrong.

The question here is what can we add to the account? Can we say that God made Adam to be an angel first and then his humanity came next just before Eve was create? This would also be adding to the text.

Ken Copeland has another teaching that because God stretched out the heavens with the span of his hand, Copeland calculates that God, in the form of Jesus, was a certain height and would have been a certain stature. (Isaiah says God is 6?4? or something like that.) It makes for interesting academic speculation and muse, but not doctrine as Copeland teaches it. And we get ourselves headed into error.

I agree that this would be speculation, however it also is blasphemy making God in our image. God fills the heavens and the earth so it is impossible for God to have a size and to bring Him down to our size would cause us to see God like a man instead of seeing Him as the awesome Deity that He is.

I don’t know. We hit a point where the poetic nature of the language gives us over to speculation. Hhmmm.

You hit the nail on the head. Poetry causes us to speculate. Unless the text is clearly poetry, we can find ourselves pulled away into speculation and for some this can ruin their faith.

23 Don,

You said:

Misuse does not deny correct use. Even if something is shown to be pagan before Moses does not mean Moses could not use it.

While I can agree with the basic concept, the fact that something has a pagan use/origin should cause us to want to make sure that we are not following the pagan view. This makes it doubly important to search out whether such a thing is there in scripture or not.

Genesis 1 is an overview of creation, while Genesis 2 is the details that are important for us to understand the creation of humanity.

2. When God creates something in Gen 1 it cannot be in contradiction to him forming the same thing in Gen 2; they are different ways of expressing the same thing. In other words, forming something can be PART of the act of creation, it does not need to be ex nihilo, from nothing, or instantaneous.

Unless otherwise shown, creation and forming are words that are interchangeable with the creation of man. God can create through speaking or He can create through forming.

3. Gen 1-11 are poetic narratives or narratives with poetic elements, the more historical and less poetic narratives start with Gen 12. I use the term poetic broadly, there are MANY understandings of how Gen 1-11 teaches us about reality.

We can’t go wrong in understanding the historical story of Genesis need to be seen as anything other than history unless scripture shows us it is something else. I know that some see Genesis as a story that is not historical or true but merely a creative form, but in doing so the foundation for much of the rest of scripture is removed. For example, some believe that Adam and Eve of Genesis 1 and 2 are figurative for _____ (fill in the blank), yet if we remove the historical account of the first man and the first woman we have no basis to understand how sin entered the world or how God originally gave mankind freewill, etc. It is very easy to be tempted to treat scripture as poetry when the scripture taken literally says something that doesn’t fit our worldview. I would rather adjust my own worldview than force the historical beginnings (this is what Genesis means) to be a fairytale meant to teach us whatever we think we want it to mean.

Some believers can think something in Gen 1-11 is more poetic and some can think it is more historical but I do not think this should divide believers, just like I do not think end times things should divide them. For example, I do not believe the Gen 1 days are 24 hours and my sis does, we do not let it divide us, altho we do discuss it sometimes, never changing the other’s mind, yet we both agree God is Creator.

I do agree with you that we should not let these issues divide us, however I do believe that there is much reason to earnestly contend for the truth so that we can rightly divide the world of truth. Whenever we lay aside something that God has given us as a foundation and we replace it to make it a piece of poetry, we remove fact and replace it with feeling. Poetry is meant to have imagery and feeling and thus can mean many different things to different people. One apologist in an attempt at refuting my exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:15, said that this verse should be taken as poetry. This was the excuse taken to get out from the clear grammar that is specifically worded to create a one-of-a-kind ending to the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12. This just doesn’t work, nor does it work to take history from the scriptures and make it poetry.

4. When Moses does not say something, we need to respect him NOT saying it. As Moses never says Adam/human was male before the split, we do not need to think he was or was not, it is simply not stated.

God is the one who said that the Genesis of humanity was male and female. We need to respect God. If he said that it was male and female in the beginning, we need to believe that. He is completely silent on any pre-male form and so we need to respect him NOT saying there was anything before the genesis of his creation in humanity.

We do know both the male and female were named Adam by God. We do know they were made of the same stuff. There is a lot that is taught and if something is not taught that we wish were taught, then God is telling us we do not need that for our faith, instead, look at what is taught.

Yes, this is true. This is the genesis of humanity and it is history and it is fact. God did name them both Adam and they were created of the same stuff.

This is one of the key reasons why I reject an a-sexual or bi-sexual Adam. In the historical record, God did not tell an a-sexual or bi-sexual being to be fruitful and multiply. (Genesis 1:27, 28) This would make God appear to be unreasonable. He did tell the male and female (them) to multiply.

J,

Welcome!

The question you ask is relevant also to our spirit since we all created from the body of another human being(s). My answer to this question would be that what is born of flesh is from the flesh. What is born of the spirit is from the Spirit. In other words our human nature and our body comes from our parents but our spirit can come only from God. That appears to be an individual miracle with each person.

While the scriptures is silent on whether or not God breathed life into Eve in exactly the same way as he did for Adam, we can be assured that they were created equally in the image of God and this is the bottom line.

I hope this helps!

Hi DB,

Welcome! Thanks for your comments especially coming from someone who knows the issues first hand.

Happy Promise Keeper,

You said:

Some of you see it as a kind of “defeat” for CBMW to not respond to Cheryl’s DVD’s in exactly the way she demanded of them. Sorry, but an organization as large as CBMW simply does not have the time or resources to respond to every inquiry.

You apparently fail to understand. CBMW gave me permission to use quotes from their material and they knew that I would be refuting them. They requested a review copy so that they could provide a review of the refutation. They received their free copy but were unable to provide a refutation so I asked for the DVDs back. Instead they paid me for them so they were no longer “review” DVDs. This has nothing to do with just emails. It has to do with a refutation of their view that they were aware of and a review copy that they asked for.

I will get to the rest of your comments later.

22 Cindy K,

I intended to say more directly before that I don’t think that it is expressly “pagan” to believe that the “they” of Genesis 1:27 means that there was one person named Adam who was a “they of male and female,” and not necessarily a reference to the species of mankind. (It may not be Eve or female, but an “Eveishness”)

In Genesis 1 God reveals Himself as “Us” and it is not without meaning that he speaks of the creation of mankind of both male and female. The problem with making Adam a “they” instead of a grammatically correct “he” is that it would not only be incorrect grammar for a human, but it would make the human a God with a multiple with one person just as God is. This is not the way that the passage reads of the way that the church has understood it.

The NET bible translator notes reads:

The Hebrew word is ??? (‘adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in Gen_1:26 (i.e., Genesis 1:26b)) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in Gen_1:27. Usage elsewhere in Genesis 1-11 supports this as well. In Gen_5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ [???].”

So according to the translator notes, “Adam” is not to be considered a single man here but humanity and male and female is thus more than one person. I concur with their understanding of the Hebrew.

But to say that Adam contained something of Eve in some sense amounts to paganism is akin to a fallacy of distribution.

If one says that Adam contained something that God created into Eve is perfectly fine. But to say that Adam contained the female or her body parts of part male and part female or 100% male and 100% female (like Jesus was 100% God and 100% man) has no foundation in the scriptures. The only foundation it has is in mythology (mostly Greek) and Jewish story telling.

To believe something similar to what a pagan believes does not make one a pagan. It could well be that the pagans took the ideal and altered it.

I agree. To believe something similar or even to believe something exactly as the pagans, does not make one a pagan. I do think, though, that we should be concerned about what our beliefs might distort. To me it is like people calling God “mother”. That has similarities with pagan mythology too but it doesn’t make a believer a pagan. But removing or adding to God’s only image of Fatherhood, may very well cause us to see God differently than the inspired image He has created for us. It may also stop us from seeing other related things that He has prepared for us. I don’t want to be in a position to miss out on anything that God has for me.

So in and of itself, stating that Adam contained an aspect or quality of Eve when he was made, something that need not be a gender quality at all but “Eveishness,” is neither sacred nor profane.

The problem here is that scripture gives no indication that Eve was made from anything metaphysical. It only mentions “flesh and bone” not “flesh and bone and Eveishness”. God could have said something like that if there was more to it. But He didn’t. I don’t want to distort what He has given us to turn it into a story that is based on conjecture instead of solid fact. Many have followed that path before. I know because I have specialized in dealing with the cults.

Some people who are not familiar with the Hebrew style of telling and retelling as a literary device understand that Eve was made after God rested, though I do not find that to be cogent, because Genesis 2 said that God rested and was finished.

This would be an instance of a story telling that would contradict the revealed facts.

But the chronology is not abundantly clear, and though I ascribe to a young earth, I think that many good Christians believe that God did create Eve after day 6.

While I do believe one can be a good Christian and be an old earther, I would have trouble with any distortion of the text when Exodus says that God’s physical creation was “in six days” and having creation go past the “six days” would distort the sabbath.

Exo 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

The question is whether or not it makes any kind of difference to anything later on. Why would it matter one way or the other? I think it makes a big deal if you are fixated on anthropomorphizing God, and egal and comp can do that both alike.

I think it matters because it becomes the foundation for other doctrines. If the text is rendered as “unclear” on the creation of the first man and first woman what else is now unclear? Perhaps marriage is no longer clear between one man and one woman and perhaps the issue of sin is no longer clear?

You have been very gentle and respectful. I really appreciate that. My bottom line is that I want to be persuaded by the text. If we can make one human as “they” then we can no longer trust Paul’s wording in 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul writes “she” AND “they”. Now the language becomes nonsensical and it appears to me that the Holy Spirit would be more willing to confuse us that give us the straight truth. I prefer to let the language speak for itself and just accept that “they” is more than one person.

Okay, that’s all I can deal with tonight. I will get to the remaining comments likely tomorrow.

20 Cindy K,

For God to have created both male and female, He would have had to be transcendent over gender (greater than and pass beyond the limits of gender). And there MUST be something in God that defines the perfect standard of gender, though this need not mean that God has gender. Gender may be a metaphor and an allegory that God designed to reveal aspects of His character to us, and He Himself may have absolutely no gender at all. In some sense, to say that God IS male is to anthropomorphize Him.

Gender has to be contained in God, as there can never be more of something in the creation than there is in the Creator.

I would say that “gender traits” are contained in God, but gender is not. Our understanding of gender is mostly physical and God has no physical body parts to make him male or female. Character traits – yes he does have those.

How can the finite possibly understand the infinite in fullness? Again, we only know what we have been taught. Within God, there is the ideal of both masculine and feminine.

Yes, I agree and very nicely put!

18 Cindy K,

You said:

Unfortunately, much of that ideology has shaped my thinking, sometimes to the point that I wish I could take a toothbrush and toothpaste to scrub out my brain.

I understand this quite well especially since I worked for 16 years leading a support group for ex-JW’s and it was a real struggle with most of them for a long time to get the old doctrine out. Even now some ex’s who have been out of the organization for 30 years will find old doctrine popping up at times to torment them.

And I was taught that this is also what God did with Abram and Sarai when he changed their names — he breathed his life into them which allowed them to conceive Isaac. He added that “ah” to their names, heralding the that life. Again, this is not Scripture, but it is a long tradition that demonstrates a great love for the Hebrew language held by that tradition.

This kind of tradition can be quite beautiful. Much of the other Talmudic tradition is not so beautiful and it goes far off base. But, yes, I do think that getting an understanding for the language can be very helpful especially with Hebrew.

The other idea held by many Jews (most all that I’ve encountered which is no true representation of all Jews), as mentioned above in this blog post, is that per Genesis 1:27-28, Adam was made as one being who somehow contained some type of qualities of both male and female. I’ve read Jewish commentaries that said that Adam, though physically a male, did initially contain all that was Eve within him in some capacity. I’ve read the language (of non-believing Jews) that also speculate that this might make Adam a “functional hermaphrodite” of some type.

I have a copy of the Jewish teachings of sin and God and human nature, etc that is a compilation of Jewish tradition from the talmud and their teaching goes past scripture in just about everything I read. I wouldn’t personally give much weight to a Jewish tradition on Adam being male and female any more than I would personally give weight to Greek mythology. The stories are interesting, for sure, but the reality is lacking. The story of Lileth, Adam’s supposed first wife is an example of that. It is quite detailed and goes off into all kinds of speculation including the first wife flying off into the air. Kind of like a Benny Hinn flavored Adam’s wife.

I have always been persuaded that God transcends all gender, but has chosen to reveal Himself to us as male and not female (which includes Jesus who is not some kind of sick ESS understanding).

I fully agree with you here. God has taken the main image of Father and with the male language has portrayed himself that way. It was also only right that Jesus would come as a male since it was the first male who failed as the first God-appointed watchman. Since God uses word images for a reason, I do not think that we should be calling God “mother” since God has a purpose for the Father image. When we change that we can distort what God has revealed for a distinct purpose.

The female symbolism and analogy is carried by the church, and gender helps teach us something about this mystery of God’s love for His creation.

This is true, but God Himself also uses female symbolism for Himself.

With the caution, fear and trembling that I have been strongly affected by some of these things, concerning Adam and Eve, I have made sense of this that Adam was made as one being that contained the seed of what Eve was in his side/rib (a supportive structure that protects man’s heart as opposed to a bone from the foot or head per Justin Martyr -I think that is attributed to him). And to that substance of bone and flesh taken from Adam, something both physical and representative of something metaphysical — whatever that means, God added that same breath of “ah” that was the very same thing that allowed Abram and Sarai to become parents.

Your language is beautiful. The rib certainly would be a kind of “seed” that was used to make Eve and your view that it was a supportive structure that protects man’s heart is something that I never thought of that way before. Very beautiful. The way you describe it, it doesn’t seem to imply that Adam was not male or that what was taken out was a female organ that didn’t belong to Adam. If this is what you are saying, then I can go along with that. I don’t know what “metaphysical” thing you are talking about but I wouldn’t have a problem with that if it leaves the man and the woman as created male and female. So far so good.

But I do think that God is not gender-bound at all, but that we were given gender to help us understand some mysterious aspects of Christ’s relationship to us as our Redeemer.

Amen!

On the blog post that you linked to I found this:

Perhaps man was created bisexual

I notice that the Jewish writer worded this as speculation since there isn’t any text that says this.

It’s just more information, something that may or may not be helpful sometimes. But I can’t shake the Abraham and Sarah name change as completely insignificant.

I do think that was beautiful. Thanks for sharing with us!

davidbmc,

The pictures are automatically randomly generated for anyone who doesn’t already have a gravatar account with their own uploaded picture or graphic. Just count yourself lucky it didn’t assign you a pink smile 🙂

If you would like to change this, just go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and sign up to load your own picture or funny graphic and your angry face will be replaced with whatever you put up there.

Hillary,

That is how I see it too. You are way too logical!! 😉

I have no idea what they are doing. They will not engage. The last email I got from them said it would be the last email I got. I think it is a head in the sand way of dealing with things. If they do not publicly acknowledge the arguments, they don’t have to give any kind of refutation. I was very surprised at this attitude.

Yes, I believe it does show their agenda. Since they did not refute the exegesis in the DVDs they had to pay for them. The set they requested were agreed to be received free for review purposes. At least they were honest enough to pay for them in the end.

Happy Promise Keeper,

Just type in CBMW on this blog and see where their teachings have been refuted. Also see my youtube video clips where CBMW teaching is refuted http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=%22cheryl+schatz%22&aq=f

Bruce Ware says that women are not created in the direct image of God but are an indirect image. There is so much unbiblical stuff that it isn’t even possible to begin to post here. Just look through this blog. I will be going through CBMW’s book on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood on many of my future posts as well so you are welcome to stick around and comment. Just be respectful knowing that we are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Once you have looked through the arguments that I present on my blog, you are welcome to show me where I have “manipulated the Word of God”. CBMW requested a copy of my DVD set in 2006 and they were unable and unwilling to refute it. If you think you are able, then you are welcome to do so.

It is a godly thing to break down arguments that come against the knowledge of God and the Word of God. This is what we do on this blog regarding patriarchal teaching.

Blessings,
Cheryl

That is an interesting thought, Charis. I do understand that God did something to the woman’s body to cause her conception to greatly increase. The only problem that I would find with your suggestion, is that if God multiplied Adam’s testosterone, then God would be responsible for Adam’s aggression. While we can understand that God certainly did something to the woman’s body, because that is in the text, there doesn’t appear to be anything in the text where God says he will change Adam’s body. It seems to me that Adam’s aggression was a direct result of his own newly attained sin nature and his ungodly rule over his wife was caused by his own propensity to this sin. I get this from the text because God says “he will…” Not “I will (make him)”. I think that Adam is on his own on this one. But I also think that you thoughts were very creative and good and shows that you are thinking this one through. Good job!

17 Greg,

You said:

I’ll issue the caveat right now that this is only hypothesis on the one hand, but not at all unreasonable on the other.

It means that the machinery of slow death is not coded and set in motion (Romans 5:14) until the ovum becomes a fertilized zygote by a human male sperm cell.

I can tell that you have been reasoning this one through.

Cindy K,

I have run out of time for tonight. Will try to get to your posts in the next day or so. No problem with your multiple posts as I can see that your brain was really processing all of this and your ability to be respectful and thoughtful early in the morning is amazing!

16 Lin,

on the disparity of Gen 1 and Gen 2 version, I do not know. I cannot for one minute believe that Adam (Human) was neutral, ungendered. I would be more apt to believe that because God is speaking of creating in His Image in this first part, that it would be a spritual type of being because that is the ‘Image of God’ part. (I feel strange even writing this!)

Yes, absolutely. God IS Spirit. Yet ai also think that our being a triune being is also part of the equation.

He did give them important information in Gen 1:28+

I am not quite sure what you mean with the above statement.

BTW: Since I never listen to Copeland or Hinn, it was bizarre hearing what they teach. And people give money for these guys to buy jets!

Yes, bizarre, eh?

15 pinklight,

Adam (the human) said woman was taken from man (eesh, male person, male human). So I think he was a human male before woman was taken from him because Adam himself speaks as if he were male before she were taken from him.

Amen! I agree.

14 Light,

You said:

Cheryl, many female subordinationists don’t quite go this far. Rather, they dance around it by saying that although God isn’t male because He doesn’t have sex organs like we do, he is 100% purely “masculine.” Of course, what they mean by masculine is like trying to nail jello to a wall; I’ve never received a satisfying answer. I would be interested in your take on whether or not God is “masculine” (as opposed to “feminine”).

If one means that He has character traits that are often found in men, then yes He has masculine traits. But God has also revealed that he has feminine traits. I believe that these traits that we would identify as primarily masculine or primarily feminine are reflected in the whole of humanity. No one sex can say that God only fully represents their sex because God is more than one set of traits. I think this is why some want to call Him “Mother”. I disagree with this only because God has chosen the image of Father to reveal himself to us and the image has meaning and a specific purpose. Yet his personality certainly does embrace all of the mothering characteristics too and that should be very comforting to us.

I hope I adequately answered your question. If I missed what you were getting at, please push me further on this one.

13 pinklight,

1 Co 11 says that the man is the image of God (doesn’t mention the man being made in the image of God). I take that to mean a human being who is male reflects the image of God.

What we do is compare scripture with scripture. 1 Cor. 11 says that man is the image of God and Genesis 1:26 God says “Let us make man in Our image…”

Image of God then equates to “made in the image of God”.

I agree with the concepts I think you are saying, I just wouldn’t phrase it as ‘God made male and female in his image’ and specificaly because I don’t find it wworded that way in Genesis.

We actually do find this in Genesis 1:26

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

When God said “Let Us make man in Our image” man here is to be taken as mankind. This is the way that the church has always taken the verse, except for a few hierarchists who women are subordinate to men because of their nature. God then defines the category of who will rule. The “mankind” is “they” who will rule over the creation. Women certainly are made in the image of God just as men are.

In Gen 1:26-27 we see that those terms for male and fermale are the same ones used for animals describing their sex. Since sex is not made in the image of God because God has no gender, I think that intentionaly the author of Genesis said that ‘God made adam (humanity) in his image,’ but when the author speaks of sex using the Hebrew words for male and female whether animal or human, he says, ‘male and female he made them’.

The terms “male and female” are identifying that “they” is not “men” but both men and women. It adds to the meaning and is not intended to mean that God has one or two genders.