Adam And His Ms Organ
The creation account has been used by many as a foundation to produce myths and stories. While this post will concentrate on modern day myths, it is also helpful to understand some of the historical myths about the creation of male and female
Date: 2009-02-02
URL: https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/02/02/adam-and-his-ms-organ/
The creation account has been used by many as a foundation to produce myths and stories. While this post will concentrate on modern day myths, it is also helpful to understand some of the historical myths about the creation of male and female.
One of the myths of creation comes from Plato where the androgynous sex existed as what humans were in the beginning. Here is the edited speech at the Banquet by Aristophanes (189e-193b of Plato’s Symposium):
“Anciently….the androgynous sex existed…coupled back to back…till jealous Jupiter divided then vertically …as people cut eggs with hairs…after then, these divided and imperfect folk ran about over the earth ever seeking their lost halves to be joined to them again…and the reason being that human nature was originally one, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love…..”
Another version is concerning Hermaphroditos who was a Greek androgynous deity.
Hermaphroditos (HERMAPHRODITUS) Greek androgynous deity. The cult of Hermaphroditos appeared first in Cyprus, but never became prominent in the rest of the Greek world until the Hellenistic period. Originally the son of Hermes and Aphrodite. The Naiad Salmakis (associated with a fountain of the same name in Caria, a region of Anatolia) fell so passionately in love with him that their bodies merged into one. In some versions, it was her entreaties to the gods that finally resulted in their becoming one being.
In1 Timothy Paul warns that myths give rise to speculation and this can hurt our faith.
1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
1 Timothy 1:4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
Today, as in Paul’s day there are still many myths about creation and some of these myths not only distort who man is, but they also distort the image of God. While complementarians can be tempted to distort the image of God by saying that God is male, others distort the image of God by saying that God is male and female. The truth is that God is neither male nor female. God is spirit. God has no sexual body parts and as spirit God has no sexual gender.
As a Christian apologist I frequently come across doctrinal error that has crept into the church through all kinds of TV preachers. It is a good idea to learn how to test the “new truths” that these teachers are spreading so that our foundation is based on the word of God and not popular myths.
One of those teaching a modern day myth is Kenneth Copeland who says that God is both male and female like the first human Adam. The audio clip is here.
You know that God created Adam. We won’t go back over that again. He created him in authority. God said and it was. God said let there be light and there was. Then he came up to create man and said, God said “Let us create man in our image. Let him have dominion.” Those were the words that he used to bring Adam alive. And then he created Eve out of Adam. Actually God didn’t name her Eve. Adam named her Eve later. That wasn’t her name. Her name was Adam. When God said Adam, they both came. Their authority was one and the same together. They did everything together. They had always been together even when she was still part of him. He was as much female as he was male, like God is. God separated the female part of him and then put him back together. And she was Adam. They were Adam. He was the man, she was the woman. She was the man with the womb.
The Bible says nothing at all about the words “Let him have dominion” as the words that brought Adam to life. This is a word of faith myth that allows Copeland to teach that man was given such extensive dominion that God now has to have our permission to do anything in this world. In this myth man becomes god-like one who has the power to create whatever he speaks.
Copeland also teaches that God created Adam as an androgynous being, with both male and female body parts. Once the myth has been established in people’s minds, Copeland builds on this myth and makes God in the same image as his creation. He says that the androgynous Adam was made like God is. This theology is Greek myth more akin to Zeus of the Greek pantheon.
In contrast, the Bible is absolutely clear that God is our Heavenly Father and in his divine nature, sexual distinctions are non-existent. God is not like man with male and female parts. God is pure spirit. When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man. The concept that God is a being with sexual identity as both male and female is transforming God into a pagan mythological deity.
Copeland also teaches that wholeness only comes with men and women together.
After that, man and woman had to come together to be perfectly whole.
If this was true, then single people could never have wholeness in life unless they are currently married. Yet Paul says that singleness can be a blessing because it can bring time for undistracted service to the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7:34 … The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.
It is also a myth that one cannot have wholeness unless one is married. This myth can be devastating when it is taught to those who are single.
Benny Hinn also teaches that originally man was both male and female and that Adam gave birth to the female out of his side. Listen to the audio clip here.
Holy Spirit said something to me and I had to go like a mad man and looking in the Word. He says, “God’s original plan is that the woman was to bring forth children out her other side.” What? You know that there is nowhere in the Bible but where God gives birth out of His side? Jesus gives birth to the church out of His side. Adam gives birth to his wife out of his side. It was sin that turned the thing around. And it was sin that transformed her flesh and her body.
This is nothing less than a myth. There is not even one verse to confirm that the woman was originally created to give birth out of her side. Again we have the mythological teaching that the first man was created as male and female with Adam giving birth to Eve. It may be a very romantic idea, but it has no basis in the scriptures.
How far the myths can be stretched is shown by Benny Hinn’s bizarre teaching about the super being abilities of Adam. Listen to the audio file here.
Adam was a super being when God created him. I don’t know if people even know this but he was the first super man that ever lived. First of all the scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, which means he used to fly. Well of course, how could he have dominion over the birds and not be able to do what they do? I’ll prove it to you. The word dominion, in the Hebrew, clearly declares that if you have dominion over a subject that you do everything that subject does. In other words that subject if it does something you cannot do, you don’t have dominion over it. I’ll prove it further. Adam not only flew, he flew to space. He was with one thought he would be on the moon.
There is nothing in Benny Hinn’s story that has any validity to it. The Hebrew word for dominion does not mean that you have to do everything that your subjects are able to do. It is preposterous to think that there is even a hint in the scriptures that Adam had gills like a fish to breath underwater so that he could have dominion over the fish of the sea or that he could also buzz around like a bee. This is an untrue myth.
Another myth has come along into the landscape that Adam in the beginning was called both “male” and “female” and both “him” and “them”. Christiane Carlson-Thies writes an article for CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) in and this article she states that one person can be called “them”.
In Genesis 1:27-28, God clearly elevates Adam above every creature creating him in the “image of God.” And God gives clear marching orders: Be fruitful. Fill the earth. Rule. But what is this Adam that God creates in his divine image and that he authorizes to fulfill the cultural mandate? In this passage, God uses a lot of words that don’t normally apply to a solitary person. Specifically, God calls Adam variously “him”, “them”, “male” and “female.” Hmmm. Know anyone like that?
From Genesis 1:27 through Genesis 2:21, we learn the story of Adam, “him-them-male-female” – the world’s first and only truly “generic man.” Granted, if we had a photograph of this Adam, from our perspective in a universe of both male and female humans, we would identify the creature we see as a male human, but in Adam’s universe, to what could he compare himself to fix his human identity? What plants, what animals were like him? None, as Adam sadly discovers in Genesis 2. Distinctly different from all of God’s other creation, Adam is human, nothing more, nothing less. Going back to God’s own words again, Adam is “him-them-male-female,” a formulation repeated in Genesis 5:2.
What Christiane fails to realize is that Genesis chapter 1 is not talking about the creation of one person as a plural, but about one person from whom was made another person.
Genesis 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.”
Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
In Genesis 1:26 God says that mankind will be made in the image of God. He doesn’t say “the man” as he does elsewhere because in this instance, it is the generic term for mankind. Speaking of his plan, God gives the rulership to “them”. This was the plan even before God created, that they would rule. Then in verse 27 God speaks about the creation of the man (the noun is definite) and after that point, God will use the plural for male and female. This proves that both male and female were created in God’s image, not just the male.
In verse 28 we can see that the rulership of the creation is given when both male and female are together. The male does not get rulership given to him before the time that the female is created. This is clear from the text because it would make no sense to tell a single human to “be fruitful and multiple”. This is spoken to both the man and the woman. God also tells both of them what they can and cannot eat by giving them parameters for food. The word “you” in the Hebrew is plural. God gives the man and the woman only the plants yielding seed and only the fruit from the trees which yield seed.
There is no indication in the original Hebrew that God is speaking to one person as a plural. This is a myth.
Can the truth of God’s word be blended together with modern myths or pagan mythologies? I believe that when we do this we water down the world of God. I believe very strongly that the word of God is eternal, infallible and unchanging.
Now let’s deal with some questions regarding what kind of person Adam was before Eve was created.
1. Could Adam’s exclamation that Eve is “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” mean that she was a female part of him that was taken out?
There are many who say that Adam’s exclamation is just poetic language and isn’t to be taken literally. There are two problems with this view.
- If Adam was merely speaking poetically then how would we know that? What is there in the text that does not allow Adam’s words to be literal?
There is nothing in the text that would make Adam’s words non-literal. If the words were not literal, where would we get the meaning from? No other meaning in scripture is ever supplied for Adam’s words other than what he literally said.
Also if Eve came from a female organ that was taken out of Adam, Adam’s words would contradict that fact. In the literal Hebrew Adam said “this is the once bone from bones of me and flesh from flesh of me”. The first “bone” is singular and the second bone is plural. Literally Adam said that she is made from what was once “a bone” amongst his multiple “bones” and she is flesh from what was his flesh.
- If God wanted us to know that Eve was formed from a female organ within Adam how could God have inspired his word to tell us that?
Adam would have had to say “this is her flesh taken from me”. It would have to be her flesh not his. Why all the fuss? Why is this so important that it was his flesh that she was made from, not her own flesh that was divided from his body? The reason is because Eve had to be a DNA descendant of Adam’s so that the kinsman Redeemer that came through her would be traceable back to Adam before he sinned. Read my post on Adam as head of the family to see how important it is to tie Eve back to Adam with a link before the stain of sin.
- There is nothing in the record that would impugn Adam’s testimony.
If Adam’s testimony was false then God would have corrected him. Adam’s testimony to Eve is that she was part of his own bone as well as was his own flesh. He did not testify that she was her own flesh from a female organ inside Adam.
Both the man and the woman were created in their sexual identify. Adam was not created androgynous. If this was so, then scripture would tell us that God created an androgynous human who later came to have a male identify. The only reliable text we have is that the man was created male in the beginning and he did not become male after the female part was taken out of him.
2. Did God’s testimony that he created humanity in Genesis 1:26 mean that God created an androgynous human?
In Genesis 1:26 God speaks about his plan to make humanity.
Genesis 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.”
It isn’t until verse 27 that God creates male and female from the “him” who was created first. God’s plan was to create humanity in his image and he did that with the creation of two people who were individually male and female. Women cannot be considered less then men by saying that only man was created and the woman was formed. In chapter 1 both male and female are said to be created and in chapter 2 both male and female are said to be formed. The term “formed” is the way that God “created”.
- Adam concurred with God, agreeing that the female was taken from the male.
Adam’s testimony is that the female was taken out of the the male (Hebrew ish). Adam does not use the generic term for mankind.
Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman (ish-shaw), Because she was taken out of Man (eesh).”
Adam said she is bone of my bones… If what comes next is not true, then Adam was mistaken and God who had just brought Eve to the man, failed to correct the mistake. No, the clear way to interpret the text, is that God created the female from a part of the man’s own body.
3. Can’t the word for “rib” also mean “side chamber” proving that Eve was a female organ inside of Adam?
Although the Hebrew word can mean “side chamber” and although the translation “rib” is only translated this way only one time in the Old Testament, the amount 0f times a word is translated a certain way is not the only key to a correct translation. The most consistent key to a correct translation is the context. Adam said “she is…” and in his testimony he testifies that she is his own flesh and bone. With the word “bone” given by Adam, the best translation is rib since that is the bone in the side of man. One would have to explain away Adam’s words in order to have the translation read “side chamber”. I believe that Adam told the truth and that his testimony was true and reliable because God is the one who told Adam what was used to make Eve. It was bone and flesh. I would rather believe the text than explain away the clear meaning.
4. Is there a New Testament “proof” that Eve was made from the male and not divided from an androgynous human?
In 1 Corinthians 11:7-8, Paul states that the woman is the “glory” of the man (aner).
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man (aner)
1 Corinthians 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man (aner);
If the woman did not come from his own flesh as Adam declared she did, she wouldn’t have been his glory. She would have been her own glory.
- One of the signs of a myth is that there are holes in the argument and unanswerable questions
While truth is provable from the text, a myth will have holes in the argument. For those who believe that Eve was taken out as a female part of Adam and then formed into a woman, what was Adam before Eve was taken out? How did Adam become “male” after the “female” organ was taken out? Did God add male hormones to Adam while Adam was still asleep? There are more questions then there are answers when a myth comes into view.
Conclusion:
Interpretation of the scriptures is to be consistent with the text. It is not to be based on feelings but what God has revealed. There are a great deal of myths that are very compelling because they are romantic and they just feel good. One of the most popular myths is that Adam sinned because he was giving up his life for his wife when he ate the fruit, making Adam a romantic savior for his wife. Yet romantic or not, these are still myths.
It is my desire to be free from myths and to stick to the word of God alone. I realize that it is possible that I could be wrong and that Adam was indeed created an androgynous human, but if I am wrong, it is the Word of God which will be able to correct me. Until I am corrected, I will stand on the Word of God as it is and affirm that in Eve’s creation, Adam told the truth and God’s Word told the truth that they were created male and female from the beginning.
Cheryl Schatz
2009-02-02
★
Paula,
Thanks for your consideration. It has been a stressful week for sure! This is a great discussion.
1a – I don’t agree that Adam’s words contradict the idea of Eve being made from a “female” organ taken from Adam. After all, she wasn’t made from only bone, but also from flesh.
So do you agree with me then that the words are not poetic but literal?
1b – It is not logically required for Adam to say “this is her flesh taken from me” in order for the part taken to be “female”. It started out as his part; there was no her until she was made. All the parts were his to begin with, whether they performed a “male” or “female” function.
So then if the organ was a “female” organ and it belonged to Adam, what was Adam in the creation male or female or both?
1c – Similar point here to 1b. And the text never says Adam was created male. He did not have to become male when the parts were removed from him to form Eve; he was simply missing some parts. And his post-sleep body was then exclusively male, while Eve’s was exclusively female.
Okay, but since God said that he created male and female and I think we can agree the Eve was female, what was Adam? Creation means creation for Adam. God created male and female.
If God created Adam as a male-female, then we can help God out by putting that into the text. Otherwise it appears God made a mistake. Adam wasn’t exclusively male so then God didn’t create the male, he became male by default. Had God taken out the male part, he would have been female?
2a – Again, the text never says Adam was exclusively male before Eve was created.
There isn’t any other kind of creation but male and female. If Adam wasn’t exclusively male, then God would have told us. It would have been quite easy to fix. i.e. in the original creative work of God was a unisex human and a female. Removing the female left the male. Done. Unfortunately we have to read into the account to get this out. I prefer to just take what God said.
2b – Gen. 2:23 actually argues against your position. Adam said Eve was “taken out of man”, therefore the part was (1) originally part of Adam, and (2) taken out of him and formed into Eve. Yes, they were his parts to begin with; taking them out didn’t make them any less his parts. This preserves the unity and equality of both of them, without requiring that the parts taken from Adam had to be “male”.
Gen. 2:23 doesn’t argue against my position at all. Adam’s rib belonged to his body. It was taken out of him and formed into a woman. She then became a woman but from his flesh and his bone. This preserves the unity and equality of both and ribs aren’t
“male”. It wasn’t a “male” part that was taken out. It was a “part” of a male.
3 – Agree that context rules, but the Hebrew word is still not the one used for “rib”. To say it must mean “rib” anyway is to ignore the normal meaning of the word and make up a new one, while also ignoring the “flesh” part. What “flesh” is included in “bone”? Why ignore the “flesh” factor?
I don’t know how you can say that the Hebrew word is not the one used for “rib” since other than these verses in Genesis, the word rib doesn’t appear in the Hebrew bible. I am saying that it must mean rib because there is no other bone in one’s side. Can you point to another bone?
Well, I normally don’t have people telling me that I am making up a meaning for a biblical word, but I am happy to prove that I am not. The Brown-Drive-Briggs definition is as follows:
BDB Definition:
1) side, rib, beam
1a) rib (of man)
1b) rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
1c) side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
1d) rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
1e) leaves (of door)
1f) side (of ark)
As far as how much flesh went along with the rib, I don’t know, but for sure some was on the rib. I enjoy ribs once in awhile and the ribs I eat are not just bone. They all have some tasty flesh with them.
4 – Again, there is no logical necessity for making the parts taken from Adam exclusively “male” in order for Eve to be his flesh and bones.
I am not claiming that the bones are “male”. I am claiming that they are Adam’s bones not bones belonging to anyone else including Eve.
Conclusion: You may be right– or maybe not. But the argument that Adam could have had both “male” and “female” parts originally cannot be labeled myth, because the text does not rule it out, explicitly or implicitly or logically.
The text does rule it out. God’s creation is specific. It isn’t human and human. It is male and female. There is no third fill in the blank.
It is simply a valid difference of opinion, one we will have to wait for heaven to answer.
It appears to me that those who see another option have something that they would like to see in the text. Are there any complementarians who can read Genesis and see a androgynous being created first especially since God specially said he created (and the word here is not created so cannot be confused with what would happen after the fact) male & female? If there are any complementarians who see this I would be very interested to dialog with them.
I cannot be dogmatic about that on which scripture is silent, and I won’t call other views myths.
I wouldn’t be dogmatic either if scripture was silent on Adam’s sex. Fact is that scripture isn’t silent so I should be okay 🙂
The issue here is not whether the Word of God can correct anyone, but what inferences can be made from the text by fallible people.
I think that inference can be made if there is two or three witnesses. I haven’t seen any witness either in Genesis or anywhere else that would imply in any way that Adam was not a regular male (with all his ducks in order) at his creation.
There are many other such issues on which strong, Bible-honoring believers disagree, as you know. I believe this is one of them, and that there is room for both views on this matter.
I do not think that this issue will be a dividing point in fellowship nor will it send someone to hell. However I strongly believe that making Eve come from a female part inside Adam that clearly doesn’t belong to a male, clouds the importance of Eve’s direct connection with Adam. If a female part is Eve before she was divided from Adam, then Eve didn’t really come from Adam but from her own part in a two person shared body. Or perhaps she was like a tumour or a misformed twin. I don’t see any evidence for such a doctrine in scripture and I do see evidence of it in pagan philosophy. That is a huge red flag in spite in addition to the silence of scripture.
It is simply a valid difference of opinion, one we will have to wait for heaven to answer. I cannot be dogmatic about that on which scripture is silent, and I won’t call other views myths. The issue here is not whether the Word of God can correct anyone, but what inferences can be made from the text by fallible people. There are many other such issues on which strong, Bible-honoring believers disagree, as you know. I believe this is one of them, and that there is room for both views on this matter.
At any rate, I think we can produce arguments from Genesis till the cows come home and it won’t budge those who insist upon male privilege.
You bet. I just don’t want them to reject me because they see me embracing a Greek mythology. I don’t see that as helpful or needed.
I still await the male supremacist answer to the question of pride in the flesh: how can male supremacy be compatible with “not so among you” and all the “one anothers” of scripture? How can any believer even wish to lord over another? Until and unless they answer those questions from clear scriptural teachings, everything else is going to be endless mud wrestling.
That may be. I do not mind getting dirty, though, if I can influence one person to rethink. I am one person that will never accept egalitarian doctrine if I can see it conflicts with the scriptures. My interest is not to prove a point from the scripture but to work hard to mine out what it says beyond what my prejudice tells me. If it can be proven that I am wrong, I will gladly change.
I dunno, maybe we should scrape up some cash and offer a reward to the first male supremacist to explain away the most basic quality of the believer being to serve and be humble as Jesus gave the example. 😉
The humility is a big thing. I have met so many that are arrogant and rude they pride themselves in being privileged as a male. The ones who are humble and willing to be gentle and give an answer without the arrogance are very precious to me even if we disagree. I have acquired a couple of complementarian friends because of my ministry work. I never thought I would have a comp give me the time of day. All of the ones I met before were rude and arrogant. But the couple that I have met over the last few months are men well known in ministry who actually value what I have to say. Maybe miracles do happen even in the comp world!
Thanks for jousting with me, Paula. These issues can be very important to many people reading my blog and it was my desire to give a thorough answer.
I would also like anyone who may have believed that Adam was part female and has since changed their mind to consider commenting here. There may be more angles that I have missed and I appreciate hearing anyone’s thoughts.
These are issues where we can debate and disagree on and even agree to disagree, but we can do it agreeably with great love and appreciation for each other. I have learned a lot from you Paula that has been a tremendous help to me. I very much value the interaction.
pinklight
2009-02-02
‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’
Cheryl, what is this?
Cheryl Schatz
2009-02-02
Okay, I will take time also for pinklight tonight.
‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’
This is 1 Corinthians 11. The woman is the glory of God AND the glory of man. The woman is in the image of God AND in the image of man. The woman is the only one with two glories and two images. And…she is the only one that has two heads. While scripture says that the husband is her head, scripture also says that if she is a Christian that Christ as head of the church is her head.
It is difficult to understand some passages without also understanding that Paul never denies that the woman was made in God’s image even though he highlights in 1 Cor. 11 that the woman is the image of the man. See my post called Paul refutes a faulty tradition here
Paula
2009-02-02
I see I got my quote tags out of whack there, sorry. Hope you all can figure it out.
Cindy K
2009-02-03
★
Though we attended an Assemblies of God Church, I was fed a fairly steady diet of Ken Copeland from the time I was a young teen. Later, my mother forced a great deal of Benny Hinn on me, and I’d been told from a young age that God intended that I become the next Kathryn Kuhlman, so I dutifully ate what I was fed by my parents. 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.
As an undergrad, my college hired impressive people to come in to teach electives, and I arranged to study classes on Judaism (as I didn’t feel comfortable learning Christian topics from Catholics — I went for the nursing program, not the theology). I had the honor of studying with a Rabbi and notable leader in Philadelphia who traveled one night a week to teach at the school. I so wanted to take the opportunity to understand the Jewish roots of Christianity at that point in my life. I was very impressed and also enamoured by the things this Rabbi taught regarding Hebrew tradition. While between churches at different times in my life, for the novelty, I’ve attended Messianic congregations — primarily to get more expert insight into Hebrew.
I find the Yeshivite myths of language to be very lovely about how God added the “ah” sound to Ish to make woman Isha. Woman is man with God’s breath of fire. The “ah” represents fire — the fire of life. This could also be meant as woman is man’s fire of passion, too. 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. There are some lovely observations that are thought provoking, but again, I am not stating that they are Scripture. It is just a commentary on how the Jews now understand their own language, once very near to being a dead language.
Don mentioned one of two schools of thought in the previous thread, that one being that woman is only an understanding of “opposite” that God created, not necessarily implying anything about gender at all, save that woman was made to be “opposite”
(ke’negdo) from man. Some say that man and woman are like mirror opposites in whom one sees a recognizable reflection of the other in a very Jewish poetic sense as described by some rabbis.
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.
Under the influence to some degree of the Ken Copeland stuff and respectful of the Jewish teachings (with some assumption that the Jews have some capacity to traditionally interpret their own language), 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). 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. 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. Again, anything we add to what is expressly written in the word is man’s theory, but I’ve always been moved by the parallel of the “ah” in the story of Abraham. (And I am not out publishing books about this, claiming that this is the only possible interpretation of Genesis, either.) 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. (That, again is based on some of my understanding of certain Hebrew words, but another topic for another day.)
I’ve pulled some quotes from “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” (by orthodox Rabbi Maurice Lamb) last year and posted online, mainly to demonstrate that what was taught by Vision Forum’s weird twis of traditional theonomy with Jewish, Uber-Adam weirdness was not remotely like anything traditional Jews believe. (Vision Forum relies pretty heavily on their claims that they are following practices true to traditional Jewish patriarchy which actually proves to be more harsh than the Mishnah.) If anyone is interested, they can link over to read the blog posts here: http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-of-eve-jewish-way.html
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.
Cindy K
2009-02-03
Note: The account of Abraham and Sarah’s names being changed is located in Genesis 17.
Cheryl Schatz
2009-02-04
★
Paula,
I am going back to the comments from #10 as I took a break for a few days to deal with other matters.
I am glad that you agree with me that the passage is literal. I asked you “what was Adam in the creation male or female or both” and you answered “or neither”. If your answer is neither, then God created a human without gender.
Timing is the key here. The statement “male and female he created them” is in the first, less detailed overview of creation week. Chapter two goes into detail absent from chapter one. After Eve, we have no doubt that Adam was male and Eve female. Before that, we just don’t know. The important thing of course is that Eve and Adam were made of the same flesh and bone, making them absolutely equal.
Yet Jesus told us that God made them male and female “from the beginning” so we cannot say that we don’t know what there was before Eve was created.
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Jesus didn’t say that “from the beginning” man was an ungendered person AND female. He said that “from the beginning” he made them male and female.
If God created Adam as a male-female, then we can help God out by putting that into the text. Otherwise it appears God made a mistake. Adam wasn’t exclusively male so then God didn’t create the male, he became male by default. Had God taken out the male part, he would have been female?
We don’t have to help God out at all. Jesus said they were male and female “in the beginning” and he didn’t make a mistake since he was there “in the beginning”. The scripture does not contradict Jesus by telling us that Adam wasn’t exclusively male. Neither does Jesus say that “after the split” there was male and female. He said “in the beginning” and I believe him.
There’s a lot God left out of the text, on a gazillion topics. I mean, come on… “there was light”. Little help, eh?
I agree that there is a lot left out, but what is there is enough and what is there by the testimony of two of three witnesses will not contradict what we think God meant. If God didn’t say that ungendered was there “in the beginning”, and he said “male and female” then we can cross “ungendered” off our list of possibilities. Jesus has never misled us yet and I would rather trust him than the word of any mere man.
And I don’t try to supply what God didn’t say either.
But that is what you appear to be doing. You are saying that Adam was NOT male in the beginning. Please show me a verse that will contradict Jesus’ testimony and then please explain how Jesus was wrong.
If there’s no mention of ribs anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, then how do you know it means rib and not just “side”? I considered the LXX too. And you still haven’t told me what “flesh” came out of Adam.
Adam’s testimony has not been impeached. He said that what Eve was made from was his flesh and his bone. The only bone in the side of man is rib. In the LXX it renders it as something “angular” and the word “organ” is not in the original. Everything meshes with Adam’s rib. Since there is flesh attached to the rib and God apparently did not scrape the flesh off the rib, it makes perfect sense.
There is also not one reference in the Old Testament to a side chamber inside a person. The only reference is to an “angular” “board” “rib” which shows something hard. If I saw actual evidence there there was a female organ attached to the rib I would consider it. However there is no evidence in the scripture nor from Adam’s testimony. Adam did not say that God took out an organ. He said “flesh” and “bone”. An organ is not usually called “flesh”.
Again, if the word for rib is only found here in Genesis, then nobody can say for sure what it must mean in this context. Side is the meaning in the LXX which predates (AFAIK) any Hebrew text available by several hundred years. It’s at least something to go on. If we say it must mean rib because we think the context supports it, that would be circular reasoning since there is no other context to compare it to.
There is no doubt that the rib was taken from Adam’s side. But to take the location (side) and try to prove that it is an organ just doesn’t make sense to me.
So it wasn’t only a bone after all? Just a little muscle attached to it? Can we arbitrarily decide that’s what “flesh” means here, and not anything else?
It wasn’t just a bone. I never said it was just a rib. The text says it was flesh and bone. Flesh is defined as: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flesh
the soft substance of a human or other animal body, consisting of muscle and fat or skin.
Again, very consistent with the the rib and the flesh around it and not consistent with an organ.
Cheryl, I’ve been biting my tongue all this time so I wouldn’t accuse you of this, even though I could. Let’s not judge motives now, okay? That’s what male supremacists do to us all the time.
My intention was not to offend you and if I have, I apologize. When I said that there is no evidence for an ungendered human and those who see it that way, it appears to me that they would like to see this in the text, I was not intending to judge anyone’s heart. I was making an observation about the fact that there is no evidence. I have given evidence to the contrary by quoting scripture and I have now buttressed this with Jesus’ words who tells us what there was “in the beginning”. If there is any evidence for the contrary then I want to see it. However without evidence, it appears to me that people who have a good heart and good motives, want to see something in the text that is not there. I also believe that adding in an ungendered human “in the beginning” messes up God’s good intention for the genders. God’s intention was not an after thought because male and female was his purpose “in the beginning”. If I offend someone with these words, I truly do not mean to be offensive. I would like to push you to prove your point from evidence instead of from silence. If the point cannot be proved, I would like to push you to see the beauty of gender right from the beginning. It does not lessen my value because I am female. In fact I believe it gives me more value. I was made with a purpose and I was meant to add value to the man because I am one of those whom the man needs.
And I haven’t seen any witness to say he was a male as we know them. The text just calls the pre-Eve Adam “human”. Only this, and nothing more.
If this is the case then perhaps Adam became nongendered again when he got kicked out of the garden because God did not call him “male” but THE human. When God called Adam “THE human” and kicked him out does this prove that Adam was non-gendered? If not, then how could it prove that he was non-gendered in the beginning?
I really think that these are valid points because honestly this belief makes me feel somewhat embarrassed. I know that complementarians make fun of those egalitarians that believe that Adam was non-gendered or male/female gendered in the beginning. I think that they have a point. There is no evidence for this in the text and they see those who believe this way as trying to make us all non-gendered now. I know that this is not the case but their concern that if one can read into the text about a non-gendered human in the beginning, what else do we read into the text? I do not want to be accused of this because I value evidence that has two or three witnesses so that I can be sure of what I believe.
I don’t argue that the part taken from Adam was necessarily a “female part”. It was an Adam part. Maybe it was something we associate now with the exclusively female now, maybe not.
I agree that it was an “Adam” part. It was his own flesh and bone and not hers in the beginning. But it makes no sense at all to say that what was taken out was not necessarily a “female part” but could be now exclusively female. What on earth is a female part now that wasn’t female before? This just appears to be stretching things farther and farther into speculation and conjecture and farther away from the actual text especially since we have a solid word from Adam about what was taken out.
Are you saying I’m embracing a Greek myth, just because I won’t close a door I don’t see closed in scripture?
No, I don’t think you are necessarily embracing a Greek myth. What I am saying is that the only backup we have is from mythology. Even the Jews had a great amount of mythology including the addition of a “first wife” to Adam. According to their myth, Lileth was the one created equal to Adam, but Adam needed another wife created from his side to be in submission to him because the first one who was equal wouldn’t submit to him.
You can read about Lileth here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#Folk_tradition
The idea that Adam had a wife prior to Eve may have developed from an interpretation of the Book of Genesis and its dual creation accounts; while Genesis 2:22 describes God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, an earlier passage, 1:27, already indicates that a woman had been made: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” The text places Lilith’s creation after God’s words in Genesis 2:18 that “it is not good for man to be alone”. He forms Lilith out of the clay from which he made Adam, but the two bicker. Lilith claims that since she and Adam were created in the same way, they were equal, and she refuses to submit to him:
I am fully honored to have such intellects who come here and who are so far above me that I look like a country hill-billy. There is no doubt at all in my mind that you are way smarter than I am. But even with your intelligence, there may be something that I can challenge you on and help you to unlearn. If I am right, then the challenge is a good thing and it is godly. If I am wrong, then I submit to learn from real evidence. In your evidence to me you will have to deal with Jesus’ words that “in the beginning” God created them male and female and you need to teach me why I should see Jesus’ words differently. I do not want to be misled by mythology or anything of my own flesh that would like to make myself created for a different purpose than I have been created. I am happy and content to be what God created me to be and I am happy and content to believe God. If I can be persuaded by God’s word that there is another option and the persuasion comes from clear texts that show that from the beginning they were not gendered, at least there was one ungendered human, then I am happy to admit that I may stand to be corrected. Until then I would like to encourage everyone to study hard. Study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. Don’t look at scriptures through your emotions. Test all things and hold fast to what is good.
It will take me awhile to answer the rest of the comments as this is a very busy week for me, but I do intend to work my way through them all. If a biblical proof for an ungendered human “in the beginning” pops up in the text and anyone has the ability to correct me on this one, feel free to proof text away. In the meantime I stand firm that Jesus and Genesis are correct as gendered humans (male and female) were “in the beginning” and the other view is only supported in the myths.
Cheryl Schatz
2009-02-05
★
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!
Cheryl Schatz
2009-02-06
★
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.
Cheryl Schatz
2009-02-08
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!
pinklight
2009-03-22
Alright, that makes sense 😛
Your Tags
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more
Personal labels you apply to any item — separate from system topics. Tags are shared across all databases. Visit /tags to browse all your tags.
...more