pinklight

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.

Through who’s words came Adam’s identity of being ruler over the woman?

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

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.

How would Eve of known her identity through Adam if she couldn’t understand what Adam was even saying? If she understood what Adam was saying then it’s because she was taught language first by God. How did she know what bone, flesh, man and woman were?

How would Adam of known his role to name the woman since God never said it? If Adam’s identity was solely in God’s mind never declared by God, then how did he know who he was? How did he know what a garden was when God gave him the task to work it?

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.

Through who’s words was the role to name the woman portrayed from?

If she had not been made in this precise way, and named in this way she would have no identity of ‘woman’ since her identity is based around her creation from the ‘man’.

Hi Mark,
I also have to add that not only does 1:22 already tell us she was taken from the human, but because “woman” in v22 means “female” therefore we can gather that she came from the male if we were to combine 2:22 with Gen 1:27b. And so she has been given identity by the text without Adam’s words in v23. Adam’s words aren’t about the woman’s identity anyway but rather they are about his own experience of her. To say that she would have no identity as “woman” without Adam’s words is only pushing the idea that Adam had to name her in order for her to even have an identity.

;P

Who named the human ish in v23?

It identifies how she was made and why she was made (not good for man to be alone and to make a one flesh union).

We already know how she was made and why she was made from vv 18, 20, 21, 22 & 24.

To simply diminish the significance of naming the woman, reduces the very words of the passage and there significance.

I not diminishing the significance behind v23. The significance to you is that Adam adds to her identification that was already given in v21. What’s the addition?

If she had not been made in this precise way, and named in this way she would have no identity of ‘woman’ since her identity is based around her creation from the ‘man’.

The significance behind v23 is that the human is now described as being male. But the human was already a male in v22. So nothing changes still and no additions to her identity.

Where as man (’adam’) finds it’s identity in the ground from which he was made (ha’adam) and to which he returns after the fall.

Serious, Mark??

The very reason Adam gives her that name is because of how she is made, namely his own rib.

This is what 1:22 is about. So where is the additional identification?

The fact that ”isshah’, is th feminine form of ”ish’ is significant, since the poetry of the chapter says that he called her ‘woman’ BECAUSE she was made from ‘man’.

Sure it is, but how does this add to her identity already given her in 1:22?

What Adam said has significance but it does not change or add to woman’s identity therefore what he said didn’t give her anymore identity that she already didn’t have.

I disagree Pinklight that Adam naming Eve didn’t give her some identity.

There is not one thing that Adam said that cannot already be realized from 1:22. Bone comes with flesh on it in unless God performed laser surgery. She came from man. Basicaly what is said in 1:22 is said a different way and by Adam in 1:23. Like when Paul says that Adam was not deceived in 1 Tim 2. This can be drawn from the Gen text itself too. We don’t need Paul to tell us this. Same thign with Adam in regards to the information he provides. Adam did not add to the identitiy that was already given her. If he did, tell me then what did he add??

I was being funny when I asked if they spoke Hebrew (Was wondering how Adam learned to name the animals) ;P

What do you think of the narrator specifically not saying God named Eve woman but leaving that for Adam?

Hi Gazza,

God named them Adam (Gen 5) their proper name collectively, woman is not a “name” like “Eve”, and the narrator is making a point of Adam not naming the woman like he did the animals. (see comment #90 – we posted on the same minute)

The animals were identified after they were brought to Adam and by Adam. Woman on the other hand was identified prior to being brought to Adam.

I am yet to be convinced that the narrator really distinguishes different levels of designation here.

The narrator doesn’t use the same word for “name” when Adam names the animals and identifies the woman.

As to Hebrew culture I would think that context for which Genesis was initially written was entirely Hebrew and thus the connotations of naming should be taken as the original intended audience would understand them – whether or not Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew themselves.

I will wait for Cheryl on this issue, but I will say that I’m completely amazed that it could be thought that what happened at creation is bound by Hebrew culture when hebrew culture had not even existed yet. That makes no sense to me at all. It’s also like forcing 21st century pastor & pulpit onto 1 Tim 2. It’s reading into the text.

The animals (unidentified) were brought to Adam to see what he would name them but this is not true about the woman since AS woman (identified already) she was brought to him. Adam identified the animals as lion tigers and bears etc.

The narrator is making a point of Adam not naming the woman like he did the animals.

could this not be that the animals are plural – many different types where as Eve was a singular entity. Adam no more made the animals or their nature than he did Eve

it cannot be that the animals are plural since Adam was given task to name them.

Sorry I don’t really follow the significance of Pinklights observations. I don’t see how God in making Eve a woman detracts from the significance of Adam naming her.

Hi gazza,

Your premise is under question. Did Adam even “name” woman is the question. And it is the question because she was already designated as woman before she was brought to the man whereas on the other hand the animals were NOT designated as tigers, lions and bears before they were brought to the man. If Adam didn’t even “name” her then he couldn’t of had authority over her when he named her if by naming her implied that he had authority over her. And then giving her the proper name “Eve” after the fall is another story. Also still needs to be considered if naming in the garden was even an act of authority since Adam had no authority over the animals when he named them because he wasn’t even given any authority over them untell after the woman was created when both were given authority over the animals. There’s alot to consider. And then there’s this claim about “Hebrew culture” which needs to be addressed. I’ll wait for Cheryl on that one. Did Adam and Eve even speak Hebrew??

The narrator makes it clear that her nature and identity by name (“woman”) is already designated before she is brought to Adam (therefore designated by God since he was the only other person in the garden) unlike the animals who’s nature and identity are not designated by name untell after they are brought to Adam and are named by him.

19Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

22Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Thanks gengwall.

Did God make lions tigers and bears? Or did he make animals (that were named by Adam)?
Did God make woman? Or did he make a female that was named by Adam?
God gave identity/name to the woman but not the animals (Adam gave identity/names to the animals).

🙂

I agree Kay. 🙂 Good point about “God’s Rule Book” vs “God’s Love Book”.

So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

May I make a quick note? 🙂

Only Adam was taken from the ground, not the woman. The woman was taken from the man.

Do we still have a woman in the narrative if 1:23 didn’t exist? Yes.

Adam’s words (1:23) do not even have to exist in order for her to be a woman (1:22)!!

*rolls eyes*

Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Get rid of 1:23, pretend it doesn’t even exist and we still have a
w-o-m-a-n (1:22).

;P

If Adam had not spoken at the sight of her, she still would have been exactly what 1:22 says she was – a woman. She still would have been what God created – a woman. Adam’s recognition doesn’t change a thing and if he hadn’t said a word, that still wouldn’t have changed a thing because she was already identified in 1:22.

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman, ‘
for she was taken out of man.”

Taking her (“woman”) out of the text (1:22) as is done in the above comment obliviates her very nature – who she is as created by God. She wasn’t woman because Adam said so. She was woman because that is what God made the rib into, a fact Adam recognized.

Then the LORD God made a _______ from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

How does she turn out if her identity wasn’t by God first? What would she have been?

Religion can be an ugly monster.

Is it a fear based thing?

You know what I think? I think it’s a matter of receiving a “safe religious feeling” that one is doing the right thing. So fear is behind it, but fear is behind it because of what false religion does to people.

People try to be righteous and in the process fall for “false religion.”