kerryn

Wow – i miss reading all your contributions everyone and Cheryl your posts always teach me so much. I have had so little time to ‘blog’ since my third child…but managed to come ‘visit’ today… interesting stuff to read indeed!

Question (for anyone!) – re: the whole ‘cycle’ of Eve – in terms of her potentially fertility and conception opportunity etc… i found that interesting and had never remotely thought about it before this post!
It’s so hard with Genesis 1-3 – as there is so much left ‘unsaid’ (and since God’s word is perfect, it must be ‘all’ we ‘need’ to know!)… so many of our thoughts and ideas are just assumptions we make based on what is actually ‘silence’ in the Scriptures…
we dont really know HOW LONG they were in the garden before they sinned and left… so regarding ‘why’ didn’t adam / eve have kids before they left the garden (and i agree with you cheryl that they didn’t for the reasons you stated in #50)… why do we assume that they were there a ‘long’ time… perhaps it was just a matter of days? weeks? ie: longer than even a ‘normal’ monthly cycle?
i haven’t looked into this – so just a question that came to my mind – anyone got any thoughts that can help me?

(-:
kerryn

Cheryl
I have been unable to blog much due to my young family commitments in the last few months… yours is the first blog which i hope to get back to visiting regularly again now our baby is bit older… sorry to read you are not so well my friend.
peter and i will be praying for you.
much love and HIS peace that surpasses understanding to you!
kerryn

Hello Chery!
So sorry i haven’t been able to come by as much lately. Life has been more than hectic!
Great to catch up on some of your excellent articles.
Keep em coming!
(-:
kerryn

Thanks Justa Berean,

The literary genre of Genesis 1-3 itself is widely debated and is clearly unique in scripture. I believe we need to be very humble in approaching this unique God-inspired text written thousands of years ago in a very different culture and time to ours. Although it’s ‘ok’ to ‘suppose’ all kinds of things that the text ‘might’ be insinuating. I suggest that we need to be very careful moving away from what is explicitly stated in terms of building doctrines or theology. Consider any hierarchical-complimentarian’s arguments for the superiority/ authority of man over woman (wherever on the ‘scale’ they may sit) – I am yet to meet even one who does not root their argument in the Gen 2-3 text. Yet I believe that their claims (such as this so-called ‘naming’ activity of Adam over the woman in 2:24, or the argument for protogeniture – ie Adam comes first = Adam is boss) are NOT explicit and indeed very weak ‘possible’ meanings in the text.
We need to be very wary of arguments made from silence and subtle implicit ‘meanings’ in the text. I am not saying that they are not ‘there’ – but that it is extremely difficult for us to really know for sure and therefore I believe we should deal with the ‘explicit’ black and white facts presented to us as our basis for our theology and hold very loosely and humbly any other ideas we might have.

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges with the Gen 1-3 text is that there are so many things left ‘unsaid’. (And immediately I now enter the dangerous arena of arguments from silence!!!) However, it is a reasonable question to ask I think….Did God ‘forget’ to tell us clearly in the Genesis story that Adam was to rule Eve and expect us to work it out from some so-called subtle details that are very wide open to debate? If the whole male-female authority issue is truly a ‘creation mandate’ from the beginning of time that God intended us to follow for all time on this earth, he certainly did not make it explicitly clear from Gen 1-3. What we DO KNOW clearly from scripture and without doubt is that God DID make man AND woman in his image and gave them BOTH the exact same mandate (Gen 1:26-28). As Cheryl teaches on one of her WIM DVDs, it is not in the character of God to be unclear about ‘sin’. His Word makes it very clear in every case what is sin and what is not (through careful repetition etc). God’s word holds together perfectly and Gen 2 cannot ‘undo’ or undermine what Gen 1 teaches.

Honestly, am I just being pedantic or naïve here with my thoughts/arguments? Let me know… But iIt seems to me that we must begin with the explicit and then if we do ‘dare’ go into any possibly implicit meanings in the text, never ‘enforce’ our opinions of these on others as they are too open to misinterpretation and bias. This is the problem I see with the patriarchal argument – it ‘has’ to be based on things that are NOT explicitly taught/stated in scripture.

What do you reckon?

Humbly trying to learn…
Kerryn

Gidday Lin

if Adam ‘called’ the one from his bone and flesh ‘wo-man’ (out of man) in Gen 2:24 as a naming / authority thing, then what exactly was he doing in Gen 3:20 when we are told,
“?… Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” (NIV) ???

Interestingly, the first ‘action’ Adam takes after the consequences/curses of the Fall are listed in Gen 3:14-19 is that he DOES name his wife… and arguably in this case demonstrate a kind of authority over her. Note …scripture doesn’t say he REnames her. But just that he names her… cos he hadn’t ‘done’ that yet!

When we read Adam’s exclamation to his newly created God-given parter in Gen 2:24 it rings of absolute spontaneous joy and excitement at what he sees – not a ‘naming’ ceremony! Can we even begin to imagine what this ‘solo’ man must have felt having finally ‘found’ what he could NOT find among the rest of creation. His statement in Gen 2:24 is one of incredible unity and ‘likeness’ – not differences or a raising up of him over her. God had already declared he needed help. I reckon after looking at all the animals and seeing no mate, he really understood that for himself (perhaps why God made him go through the ‘naming the animals process first?)

Any argument made that Adam showed ‘authority’ over the woman by what he exclaimed in 2:24 is pretty weak. The text certainly does not explicitly teach us that Adam had any inate ‘creation order’ authority over this woman created from his side. Any so called ‘implicit’ meaning in the text is shown to be unreliable as an interpretation in the light of his formal ‘naming’ in Gen 3:20 – which is POST Fall…when sadly Gen 3:16 – “he shall rule over you”..immediately comes into play!

i think a word study on the word ‘called’ in Gen 2:24 and ‘named’ in Gen 3:20 would be useful, but i haven’t had time to do that one yet! Anyone else got some helpful info on the Hebrew i’d love to hear what you have to say…

Any thoughts anyone? i welcome comments!

Regards
Kerryn

Hello Cheryl and Lin

(if this is too much of a tangent, pls feel free to delete it cheryl… i am just ‘processing’ my own thoughts!)

i have been having a bit of a look at the issue of ‘authority’ this week – especially in terms of how this might relate to the analogy of Christ as head (kephale) of the Church as husband is head of the wife (eph 5). What amazes me is that so far in my reading (and it’s not been exhaustive by any means, so correct me if i have missed something important…) scripture does not actually emphasise Christ’s authority OVER the church. I do believe that as King of kings and Lord of lords Jesus has all power on heaven and earth (eg Mt 28:18) which of course includes the Church. Yet Scripture does not (from what i have studied so far) highlight Christ’s authority “over” his Body. Rather, Christ’s authority is over the “principalities” and “powers” of (eg: Eph 1:19-23) and exercised FOR his Church (Eph 1:22). Col 2:10 states we (the Church/Body of Jesus) have been given the fullness of Christ who is the head over every “power and authority”. It seems that those who misunderstand authority/power described in the verses that follow in Col 2:16-19 etc find themselves disconnected from THE HEAD. The ONLY head of the Church or ‘in’ the Church is Jesus Christ himself. No pastor/apostle/prophet etc is ever to be called/understood as the ‘head’ of the church. The example scripture uses to describe the husband as “Head” over the “wife” in Eph 5 as Christ is head over the Church has no emphasis on ruling or authority, but the most radical example (esp in the patriarchal society of the day) of selfless martyrdom – demonstrated by our wonderful Lord himself. Matt 20:20-28 emphatically states Jesus’ teaching on “authority” – the members of his Body are NOT to Lord it over one another as the “gentiles” do… but follow his example and become servant to all. Even when Jesus sends out his 12 disciples in Matt 9 it is about them using his authority over sickness/ disease/demons etc…. not over other people.

Cheryl, I heartily agree wtih your comments that no pastor has inate authority over a congregation. He (or she!) may be called to teach, but the Body is called to test everything he says in a loving Spirit-filled manner so that all may grow up into maturity together in Christ – not all grow into “being” the “head” themself. “All authority on heaven and earth” remains Christs. He works HIS power/authority through us as we represent him as His Body. But I don’t believe anyone gets to “claim” authority over another person. Even Paul ‘defending’ his apostleship to the Corinthians states “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord. ?? For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends. (2 Cor 10:17-18). Paul tells the Galatians to watch out that neither he/ nor even an angel bring a ‘new’ gospel (Gal 1:7) and congratulates the Bereans for testing everything (Act 17:11), a sentiment echoed in other passages (cf. 1 Thess 5:21).

Dear Jesus, please help us to exercise YOUR authority over powers, principalities, demons and sickness but help us to serve our brothers and sisters in humility and submission.

(-:
kerryn

Hello Cheryl

Thank you for your thoughts on the passage.

I need to roll up my ‘rusty’ greek sleeves and work through your points carefully.

in the meantime… just an interesting ‘aside’ on veils/head coverings. Have you ever noticed that the “cloth that was on Jesus’ head” (a ‘veil’?) was laid distinctly separately from the other burial clothes when he rose from the dead… Jn 20:5-8 Can this be another wonderful illustration of God clearly demonstrating the ‘end’ of any veil coming between us and him? Wonderful stuff i think! What do you think?

regards
Kerryn

Lin,
i ‘second’ your comments!
thanks for another great link cheryl.
regards
kerryn

cheryl,

I think there is a lot of confusion and poor teaching regarding the ‘offices’ of the church and the giftings of the Holy Spirit.
so that’s a good topic to explore…

elders..deacons…apostles..prophets… etc
how do these developments in the 1st C church speak to us today in 21st C church?

also, how about something on Eph 5 – the headship debate within marriage?

whatever you do i am sure will be interesting reading! i look forwards to it.

regards
kerryn

Cheryl

Helpful, clear and succint.

i think verses 11-12 are important to understanding the preceding 10 verses and connects with the three ‘pairs’ of v 2. (Although many patriarchalists only focuse on verses 2-10 and miss the incredible ‘balancing’ explanation and summary that follows – men and women are designed by God to be interdependent. It is not good for them to be ‘alone’ – but to be in unity together and God is the source of everything.

Thanks
kerryn

Good to have you back Cheryl.
Keep em coming…