The authority of rulership for Adam is clearly over animals and the earth,

This is not a mystery. It’s plain and it’s clear. God himself speaks of the authority both have over the animals and all the earth. The authority of rulership for the woman is clearly over animals and the earth.
Adam identifies the animals before the woman is created, but he doesn’t name them, or give them names like “Tommy the cat”, “Leo the lion”, or “Sparky the dog.” The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”. There is a difference between naming a creature and identifying or recognizing one.
Adam had rule over the animals only because God himself gave this authority to both the human and the woman. But God gave both the human and the woman authority over the animals and the earth only after he created the woman. So did Adam have authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created? Did God give Adam authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created or only after?
God never once spoke to Adam giving him authority over either when Adam was alone. Adam also wasn’t given permission to eat food outside the garden when he was alone. When the human was alone, God only gave him trees within the garden to eat from. The human was only given permission to eat outside the garden after the woman was created and he was given this permission when the woman was with him, as God spoke to both giving them authority over the animals and the earth, and permission to eat fruit with seed from the enitre face of the earth. God had only given Adam trees of the garden when he spoke to him, before the woman was created, not trees on the entire face of the earth. So if Adam was given trees on the entire face of the earth, and rulershipp over the animals and all the earth, it was only when God SAID so, which was when he was with the woman.
If we cannot presume that the human had permission to eat from trees outside of the garden before the woman was created, then we also cannot presume he had authority over the animals (which he named) before the woman was created. This leaves us then without the presumption that he had authority over the woman too before he and the woman were given authority over ALL the animals and all the earth and given permission to eat from trees outside the garden.
If Adam identifying the animals as “elephant” or “tiger” doesn’t show he had any authority over them because he wasn’t even given authority over any while he was alone, but rather he was given this authority over ALL of them after the woman was created, then Adam identifying the woman as “woman” doesn’t show that he had authority over her either because it wasn’t given to him at all, and rather both were told to rule the animals and the earth.

How could Adam have authority over all the animals and all the earth when he wasn’t even given permission to eat fruit from trees on the face of the entire earth untell after the woman was with him? I’m amused 🙂

Let me re-word for clarity:

If Adam didn’t even have Permission to eat fruit from all trees on the face of the earth before the woman was created, then how could he have sole rulership over all the animals and all the earth when he was alone without the woman? LOL A ruler who is not even allowed to eat from that which he rules, that’s funny! So he can’t eat from the fruit trees outside the garden when he was all alone without the woman, yet he had rulership over the animals at this time? LOL

What kind of ruler of animals and earth does not even have Permission (!) to eat from trees on the face of the whole earth but only from trees inside the garden?

pinklight,

So did Adam have authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created? Did God give Adam authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created or only after?
God never once spoke to Adam giving him authority over either when Adam was alone.

Excellent observation! You are right. When Adam named the animals he had not yet been given the authority over them. Therefore naming the animals could not have been an action of his authority.

I find it interesting that when Adam did name Eve it was AFTER the fall and after Eve has been told that her husband would rule over her. If naming does indeed imply some type of authority over (a debatable point) this hardly helps the comp argument in regards to the prefall created order.

As Pinklight points out, calling her ‘woman’ was more identification than naming. Actually it sounds like simple male logic at work…”she shall be called woman for she was taken out of man…” Go Adam!

Dave,
That indeed is the bottom line! Adam says why he names Eve, but if we are to add a reason (authority over her) it is indeed a postfall issue and never a created design issue.

“Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. ”

The Mormons have their own saying about this with Mormon women. They call it “keeping sweet”.

My daughter named our dog, but I can promise you I am the one who has authority over him. :o)

We have been watching too much of the dog whisperer. Now we are starting to talk to people like they are dogs 😉

Frank, Thanks for sharing that! Excellent

Frank,
Thanks for sharing that. I do believe that comps miss out on the prophetic meaning of names and their view of marriage as a hierarchy destroys the oneness that was prophesied right from the beginning.

You and Jon Zens are also right in that “Adam” as a name was given to both of them. Eve was “named” woman and she was named “Adam” along with the man who was also named “Adam”.

As far as Genesis 1 goes, I believe that the Hebrew word usage is the language of two people separate but joined together in marriage who are given rulership together. I do believe that Adam’s bride was symbolically taken from his side, but I don’t think that there was a female inside of Adam although of course the side part was made into the female Adam.

I agree with Jon Zens that marriage is a beautiful thing when it reflects Christ’s marriage with the church. The Jesus did for His bride is what Adam should have done for his bride. When comps try to make marriage like Adam’s marriage after the fall, the prophetic figure to Christ disappears and the world’s way steps in.

I think that I heard Jon Zens is writing a book on the issue of women in ministry. I am sure that it will be a good one.

CBMW PROVES BY IT’S OWN WRITINGS THAT THEY NEVER DO SEEK TRUE AUTHORITY FROM GOD IN ANYTHING THEY DO, NOR DO THEY SEEK PROOF OF TRUE AUTHORITY FROM GOD. THEY ARE COMPLETELY DISOBEDIENT; THEY ARE WISE IN THEIR OWN EYES. THEY LOOK TO THEMSELVES FIRST; THEY DO NOT LOOK FIRST TO GOD1.

kw,
Welcome to my blog.
I think that CBMW’s problem is foremost that the Bible is placed under the view of patriarchy for them so that everything gives the message of male privilege to them. With this mindset they are unlikely to surrender any authority to women as God’s “sons” but instead will likely continue to puzzle over such mundane things as whether it is God’s will for a woman to usher or what exactly is the correct age for a woman to stop being a teacher to young boys. Their eyes are on their own authority rather than the authority of God.

kw, I see that you are angry over this too.

It upsets me so bad that I can no longer go to anything linked to CBMW ever again. I want to shake some sense into them.

But since I can’t and since I don’t have the patience of people like Cheryl [ YOU GO GIRL! 🙂 ], I find other things to do, like helping the walking wounded that CBMW (and like ministries) have created by their “blind guide leading the blind” doctrines.

Glad to see you here. And glad to see you dealing with your anger, as I’ve have to do, on and off, when I hear about the ‘latest’ from CBMW.

Cheryl – I must first dispense with the non-spiritual necessities. USA 5, Canada 3, Miracle on Ice II going according to plan. OK, now for the important stuff.

In my show stopper post on Genesis 2, I address this idea of naming as an authority granter. It is, of course, as presumptuous and ill supported as the created order argument. But I find something even more disturbing about the comp side of the debate. They base their whole argument not on scriptural principles but on cultural practices. Are the traditions of fallen humans really the best support upon which to rest a theological argument? I suppose, if that’s all you got, then they are. But I would hope that we could look more to God’s word for clarity on what God meant and less to the dark and murky realms of cultural anthropology.

“Are the traditions of fallen humans really the best support upon which to rest a theological argument? I suppose, if that’s all you got, then they are. But I would hope that we could look more to God’s word for clarity on what God meant and less to the dark and murky realms of cultural anthropology.”
gengwall,
Or as some comps. I’ve encountered recently, they in affect, claim that they can clearly discern what the essential differences are in spite of myriads of cultural influences – but then, of course, they are also the ones who decide what the “essential differences” are in the first place.
One comp. claims it comes down to women are all essentially “nurturers” and men are all essentially “leaders”. He refuses to speak to specifics, no matter how many men and women do not fit his paradigm. As well, he has determined that leadership is of course the key ingredient necessary for being a “head pastor.”

To that I asked: Why do you continue to define those “essential differences” in terms of social roles while at the same time acknowledging that gender roles are culturally derived?
and
I am curious as to how you arrived at believing “leadership” is the defining factor that makes a person better suited for pastoral ministry? Considering that Jesus told Peter to “Feed My sheep,” not “lead My sheep.”
No reply.

Kay – It is this mysterious link to “leadership” that has me constantly baffled. I as much as anyone here celebrates differences between males and females. But what do those differences have to do with leadership? I can think of nothing. In fact, as I stated on a comment in another post, if anything all that testosterone flowing through us guys can have a detrimental effect on leadership ability (makes us do rash, risky, aggressive things without thinking through the consequences) That is what is so confusing. They claim men are “designed” to lead, but can never even once point to a design feature that yields better leaders. And this is the best – they claim men are more logical (a scientifically disproven claim) but employ no logic what-so-ever in their arguments. As a man, I have to say it’s a little embarrassing.

Here is the dirty little secret. Men, if anything, because of our testosterone levels, are designed to lust after power. Now, of course, I don’t claim God desires this greed in us. But the fall titls us that way and there is no clearer indication of that than “he will rule over you”.

Hi Cheryl,
Thank you for the welcome and I so appreciate the great companionship here. I, like Mara, (hi Mara,) greatly appreciate Cheryl and her wonderful, loving patience. I’m not as well versed in this subject as many of you are but I do know that True and the Only Authority comes from Above and only from Above. As does Wisdom. When we receive this Wisdom in which we’ve asked for, we will never seek to “rule” but serve. The happy result is there will be no abuse. I think God knows better than us, which is why he Commanded us so why do so many wish to disobey Him? The only time I truly get angry is when well-meaning people, men and women are misled so terribly by the unbiblical and unholy “clergy system”. How arrogant people get when they think they have the right to dictate to someone else especially in the area of spiritual things. Just look at how mankind has abused “authority” all throughout history resulting in bloody wars and worse. Mankind never has nor ever will be able to handle authority. We are the creation, CBMW. In our New Covenant with God we are only to gently guide others to Lord Jesus Christ and then let Him, the Master take over. John 5:39-40, but of course be available for whatever help anyone needs, but no one person is ever to be his/her only teacher. That’s how people become deceived. They are receiving their bread from earth and not from Heaven. What part of//: Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. Mark 10:42-44 //do “clergy” not understand?
I do have a question. Many “pastors” etc. are deceived in their false authority. Many may not be deceived. I would really love to know how these “leaders” of the flock cannot understand Lord Jesus Christ’s Simple Words. Don’t they realize the consequences for their false teachings? Or have they received a delusion from God to believe a lie? Thank you

“Here is the dirty little secret. Men, if anything, because of our testosterone levels, are designed to lust after power. Now, of course, I don’t claim God desires this greed in us. But the fall titls us that way and there is no clearer indication of that than “he will rule over you”.
gengwall,
Good points! and I appreciate your honesty here. Somehow comp./patrios. just can’t imagine that being a negative thing – in fact they seem bent on seeing everything regarding higher testosterone as a necessity for the “leadership” “roles” they claim. They’re either unable to or refuse to separate the concept of equality from the concept of uniformity/sameness.

“What part of//: Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. Mark 10:42-44 //do “clergy” not understand?”
kw,
A fellow believer after my own heart! Anyone reading Cheryl’s blog comments very often knows this is one of my favorite verses.

Hi Kay,
Aren’t they such comforting verses? We love those verses because we do believe Lord Jesus Christ when He tells us something.

I think gengwall has really hit on something, here and on another post on this blog, regarding deconstructing the position by comps that males are divinely, inherently designed for bearing the “burden of responsibility” for authority over their wives.

In following this new concept (for me anyway), I have read much and listened to many sermons that say men were designed for leadership and authority over their wives. Yet, in the next breath it is explained that Adam went passive in the Genesis account by allowing Eve to exert leadership. If Adam was designed for leadership then why of all times IN his pre-fall nature would he “go passive”? Wouldn’t the inherent nature for exerting leadership and exercising authority “kick-in”, particularly in his pre-fall state?
I have yet to find an explanation of the physiological, psychological, emotional, intellectual, or any other type of advantage that males have over females for leadership and authority. I have heard in a few sermons that leadership and position of authority over wives is in the male DNA? However, there is no science given to support this claim. I am curious if anyone has heard an explanation as to this supposed advantage.

Hey everybody.

Here’s another obvious problem that I don’t think anyone mentioned yet.

Hard comps claim that Adam had dominion over Eve because he named her, demonstrating his authority over her in so doing.

What does it mean in Genesis 4:1 where Eve names Cain? Is that a demonstration of her “will to power”? How is it that she had authority to name her own son? Or is that an error?

In Genesis 4:25, it says that she named Seth.

If they’re going to make an issue of naming children as a sign of authority, what are the implications for Eve who is not reprimanded for “usurping Adam’s authority” by naming sons over whom she really has no authority to name?

So if I give my hubby a nickname, does that mean I have authority over him? Oy ve, this is getting complicated.

It drives my blood pressure to unhealthy levels when people say men are made to “provide.” Provide what? Food? Money? Does that mean that unemployed or poverty-stricken men are essentially castrated?

One thing I noticed when people do the “nurture” vs. “lead/provide” thing, is that they are looking through a female-21st century tinted glass. The most often used example is of women breastfeeding or playing with a baby/toddler as being nurturing. These things are nurturing, not doubt. But why are those “nurturing” when a father tossing his young child into the air is “playing”? Playing catch with dad is the epitome of “playing” and “bonding” with him, but why isn’t it considered “nurturing” a child’s spirit? Father-child bonding is just as important to psychological development as a mother’s. So why not give demean it as simple “playtime” while elevating the mother’s bond as sacred “nurturing”?

Please call me out if I’m wrong. Please.
This list is written with sadness and grief, not anger.

Compism seems more and more like white-washed misandry.

Think about it:
-Men: ultimately responsible for family. SOME teach they are even responsible for their sins
-Men: glorified ATM. Veiled as “providing”, even if it means an 80 hr. work week and no time w/ the family
-Men: Lust-driven beasts who cannot control themselves. Men become animals that must be tolerated by wives “doing their duty”
-Men: solely responsible for outcome of the kids, even though he gets less time with them than the mother
-Men: Expendable. God forbid a woman/mother joins the military and deploy, but a man is encouraged to. At the risk of his life and being away from his family for 6-15 months. A mother should never work because the children need her so much, but a father MUST.
-Men: spiritual leader of the wife and children. This does not account for the spiritual “dry spells” that are essential to development. What if he is angry at God? Does a man not even warrant a partner to help him, one who can carry him in his weak times? One he doesn’t have to “lead”?

And finally, the worst way men are objectified. I consider this way to be almost worse than p*ornography:

Men: Sperm donors. If a woman’s HIGHEST calling is to be a wife/mother, then (forgive the crudeness) a man becomes a trophy p*nis. A mere thing she convinced to give her a ring and climb in her bed so she can extract his sperm. And he can “provide” for her and her children. Mission Accomplished; she has fulfilled her calling.

Nicole,
You have a way with words. 😉
That last line reminds me of Gen. 30: “When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die! Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?”

“Playing catch with dad is the epitome of “playing” and “bonding” with him, but why isn’t it considered “nurturing” a child’s spirit?”
-Because that would not fit neatly into their paradigm. I was informed recently by a comp. that any example of men or women switching “roles” is just a result of our sinful nature – so, don’t try to convince them giving examples of people who don’t fit their definition of “lead” or “nurture.” But, then that’s why they must use different words to refer to the same thing.

Cindy K,
Excellent question #25 – As Frank pointed out in #11, comp/patris do not seem to acknowledge the fact that Eve’s name was a direct reference to the promised seed. It’s not as though her name had no particular meaning. It’s not as though Adam just liked “the way Eve sounds” – the way many people choose names for children and pets in our culture today. Names had much more significance to them.

Ah Nicole – I will take up the challenge.

-Men: ultimately responsible for family…
This is generally derived from a very narrow and context ignorant reading of 1 TImothy 5:8. The passage is about families taking care of their widowed relatives so the church is not burdened, but patriarchalists (and even many well meaning speakers I have heard) turn it into a man’s duty to provide. The correct passage when dealing with providing is, of course, Proverbs 31. Both the husband and wife are involved in provision and protection of the family.

…SOME teach they are even responsible for their sins
This comes straight from a misunderstanding of Genesis 3 where God confronts Adam first. There has been much discussion here around that presumptuous and quite erroneous interpretation.

-Men: glorified ATM. Veiled as “providing”, even if it means an 80 hr. work week and no time w/ the family
I agree from a sociological perspective that men seem to have a drive to provide. I think testosterone plays into that. But nowhere in the bible are men commanded to be the provider, and making work your “wife” is adulterous and idolitrous.

-Men: Lust-driven beasts who cannot control themselves. Men become animals that must be tolerated by wives “doing their duty”
Husbands and wives have a mutual “duty” to each other when it comes to sex (1 Corinthians 7). As far as the lust filled part, well, I don’t think desire for one’s wife can be correctly be called “lust”. Mark Gungor has just recently posted a two part series on his blog titled “Attention = Desire Disorder”. You may want to read it. Mark makes a strong case that desire for one’s wife is a very, very positive thing, and the more there is, the better it is for the marriage. Read also Proverbs 5:15-23 for another view on desire and why it is important (and should not be shuned) for the marriage.

-Men: solely responsible for outcome of the kids, even though he gets less time with them than the mother
I hear this a little less in comp circles. Actually, I hear more often how the mother should be almost entirely responsible for their upbringing until probably their teen years. Of course – the observation is correct – men spend less time with their children than they should. Robert Lewis, in the Men’s Fraternity program, correctly points out the negative impact that both the industrial revolution and World War II had on father’s and their children in terms of quality time. The bible’s teaching allows for no such disparity in time spent with the kids – men and women are equally responsible to “bring up a child in the way he/she should go”.

-Men: Expendable. God forbid a woman/mother joins the military and deploy, but a man is encouraged to. At the risk of his life and being away from his family for 6-15 months. A mother should never work because the children need her so much, but a father MUST.
Interestingly, in ancient Israel a newlywed man was forbidden to go off to war in the first year of marriage. But from a “design” perspective, it does seem undeniable to me that men are better designed physically to bear the brunt of war. Now, my wish would be that there were no wars and so it would be a moot point. But never the less, if we do have to have wars and a parent has to leave to fight them, in most cases I agree that it should be the father. As with anything, circumstances will dictate for the individual family and there is certainly no absense of female warriors and other “deployed” women in the bible.

-Men: spiritual leader of the wife and children….
We have been discussing this one extensively too in recent weeks. The simple response is that the bible decalres no such thing. As I mentioned in another post, my response to this is “I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to be our spiritual leader.” To an extent, men look again to Genesis 3 and somehow pull this idea out of thin air from that passage. But it has no actual support. Quite frankly, in the majority of the marriages I know, the women are better spiritual “leaders” than the men. The most succesful marriages acknowledge and embrace that reality.

Men: Sperm donors. If a woman’s HIGHEST calling is to be a wife/mother, then (forgive the crudeness) a man becomes a trophy p*nis. A mere thing she convinced to give her a ring and climb in her bed so she can extract his sperm. And he can “provide” for her and her children. Mission Accomplished; she has fulfilled her calling.
Interestingly, that sounds more like an argument from radical feminism than from patriarchy. I agree with your distain for the concept. But I am not sure you wuold catch a complementarian making the argument.

Opps – forgot link to Mark Gungor’s blog:

“Men: spiritual leader of the wife and children….
We have been discussing this one extensively too in recent weeks. The simple response is that the bible decalres no such thing. As I mentioned in another post, my response to this is “I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to be our spiritual leader.” To an extent, men look again to Genesis 3 and somehow pull this idea out of thin air from that passage. But it has no actual support.”

I’ll add that they also devise the “spiritual leadership” or “spiritual headship” from their interpretation of the word “head” in Eph. 5:23 and 1 Cor.11:3.

Thanks Kay – that’s right. Another topic which has been discussed extensively here. I also address Paul’s use of “head” in my show stoppers series.

Adam identifies the animals before the woman is created, but he doesn’t name them, or give them names like “Tommy the cat”, “Leo the lion”, or “Sparky the dog.” The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”. There is a difference between naming a creature and identifying or recognizing one.
Adam had rule over the animals only because God himself gave this authority to both the human and the woman. But God gave both the human and the woman authority over the animals and the earth only after he created the woman. So did Adam have authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created?

This insight by pinklight deserves more play. Was the identification of the animals by Adam even an act of authority?

I think PL is onto something here. Why were the animals brought to Adam in the first place? Was it so he could exercise dominion over them in some way? In what way is authority manifest simply by identifying something? Was it not instead related specifically to his aloneness? Maybe the identification of the animals (really the first taxonomical exercise) was an object lesson to Adam to illustrate to him just how “fish out of water” his situation was. That would account for his identification of Eve along the same lines in the midst of his exclamation – “Finally! Here is one like me”. That makes “she shall be called woman” not an act of authority but a proclamation of great joy.

More on Adam’s identification of the animals.

Genesis 2:19 reads “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. ” (KJV)

Since God brought the animals to Adam, does not that indicate that God was stil sovereign over them? That he had not yet delegated authority over the animals to humans? If Adam had been in authority over them, why wouldn’t Adam have commanded that they come to him? In fact, we don’t actually see humans literally exercising authority over animals until Genesis 4:2. I am in agreement with pinklight that no authority existed of man over beast until after the creation of woman and maybe even only after expulsion from the graden.

Cheryl,

ONe question. You say that God named ‘the woman’ before Adam in Gen 2:22. Aren’t you confusing narrative into a quote? Please explain why verse 22 should be understood as God’s words and not a narrative section of scripture?
Thanks

I think the most that could be said is that, unlike with the animals who got their identification directly from Adam, the term “woman” existed in the mind of God before her creation. As such, Adam did not identify her but directly but reiterated the identification God gave her.

30 gengwall,

Thank you for responding!
I do know that the things I listed come from misunderstandings of the Bible. My experience has more leaned to the side of women preferring the CMBW comp position, because it shelters them from having to fully grow up.

I admit, I do feel uncomfortable with women going to war, it is my bias. But basing the argument on children needing their mother, seems to neglect the importance of the father. It just doesn’t sit well.

One of the reasons I look forward to marriage is to be able to have a active sex life! A running joke is that our honeymoon will have to be 4 weeks long 😉 But the majority of material I find on a man’s sexuality is related to avoiding pornography, lust, and premarital sex (necessary teachings) without any focus on developing the positive aspects of a man’s sexuality. (I consider lust to be more along the lines of objectification, than healthy sexual desire). As a result, a male sexuality becomes something to be feared, a monster of sorts. Women are not taught about healthy female sexuality, only that it is her job to provide him with release, lest he wander elsewhere.

“Adam identifies the animals before the woman is created, but he doesn’t name them, or give them names like “Tommy the cat”, “Leo the lion”, or “Sparky the dog.” The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”. There is a difference between naming a creature and identifying or recognizing one.”

Well put, pinklight!

“I think PL is onto something here. Why were the animals brought to Adam in the first place? Was it so he could exercise dominion over them in some way?”
No, gengwall,
it certainly doesn’t read that way to me. I think you are right on with:
“Finally! Here is one like me”. That makes “she shall be called woman” not an act of authority but a proclamation of great joy.”

Arghhh! I am behind two posts now in comments. Wish I had more time. Seems like the day is long gone before I have a chance to get back to the blog.

1 pinklight you said:

The woman’s name was never “Woman”. Her name was Eve, not “woman”.

I think that this is a better explanation in that God “called” her woman in that he identified her as woman when He created her. Woman was not her “name” but her identity.

I am so glad that you are able to go on without me when I am away from the blog. Good stuff!

gengwall,
You said:

In my show stopper post on Genesis 2, I address this idea of naming as an authority granter. It is, of course, as presumptuous and ill supported as the created order argument. But I find something even more disturbing about the comp side of the debate. They base their whole argument not on scriptural principles but on cultural practices. Are the traditions of fallen humans really the best support upon which to rest a theological argument? I suppose, if that’s all you got, then they are. But I would hope that we could look more to God’s word for clarity on what God meant and less to the dark and murky realms of cultural anthropology.

I do want to wander off to your “show stoppers” once I catch up myself. I value your wisdom and am sure that you have some very good thoughts. I will catch up with you later.

You are so right in that we need to get our support from the Biblical text and not from fallen human tradition. All of us would do well to heed your word of wisdom.

Kay,
You said:

I am curious as to how you arrived at believing “leadership” is the defining factor that makes a person better suited for pastoral ministry? Considering that Jesus told Peter to “Feed My sheep,” not “lead My sheep.”
No reply.

Excellent thoughts!! I would say that “feeding” is the very definition of “leading”. It removes any thought that “leading” is “ruling”. You are so right that Jesus said to “feed my sheep” and Jesus never said to the disciples “rule my sheep”. When we take the worldly way of leading which is “ruling” and make it “the” way of Jesus, we have distorted the teaching that the one who wants to be the greatest is to be the servant of all. The servant “feeds”. The servant does not “rule over” God’s sheep.

More wisdom here from gengwall,

They claim men are “designed” to lead, but can never even once point to a design feature that yields better leaders. And this is the best – they claim men are more logical (a scientifically disproven claim) but employ no logic what-so-ever in their arguments. As a man, I have to say it’s a little embarrassing.

This is the issue that I tried to bring out regarding the false idea that God designed men and women differently in that one was designed to rule and the other was designed to be ruled. It is a myth and is not Scriptural.

I agree with you too that the lust for power is a deal breaker. Jesus not only didn’t encourage this lust, he tore it down by setting the servant heart up as the ideal.

kw,
You said:

Thank you for the welcome and I so appreciate the great companionship here.

You are so welcome! I hope that you stay around for a long time and interact with the great people who visit my blog.

When we receive this Wisdom in which we’ve asked for, we will never seek to “rule” but serve.

I couldn’t agree more. Hmmm… makes me wonder if we took the comp way of thinking and ask who God designed for servanthood? For the greatest leaders are the servants. Of course the answer is that although we are all created as sinners, God will remove our heart of stone if we allow Him to and give us a soft heart of flesh so that we are willing to serve rather than demand the right to rule. Jesus had a way of turning everything upside down. What was considered weakness in the world is to be the strength of the Christian and what is the strength in the world is to be considered a thing to be avoided and shunned.

That’s how people become deceived. They are receiving their bread from earth and not from Heaven.

Amen!

I do have a question. Many “pastors” etc. are deceived in their false authority. Many may not be deceived. I would really love to know how these “leaders” of the flock cannot understand Lord Jesus Christ’s Simple Words. Don’t they realize the consequences for their false teachings? Or have they received a delusion from God to believe a lie? Thank you

I can’t say that I know anyone’s heart, but I wonder if some are deceived because they put their trust in the big names and the fact that it is said over and over and over again that the men were designed to be the leaders and rulers. When one is groomed for a position of rulership, it is a hard lie to give up. I think that it may take a significant emotional event to get these men to rethink this doctrine. They are not the enemy but surely they have been deceived in this area by the enemy. If this is the case, and I believe that it is, then we need to pray for these men that God will open their eyes. We are not fighting against flesh and blood but against evil rulers and authorities in the unseen world.

sm,
You said:

If Adam was designed for leadership then why of all times IN his pre-fall nature would he “go passive”? Wouldn’t the inherent nature for exerting leadership and exercising authority “kick-in”, particularly in his pre-fall state?

Excellent worded question! And if Adam could act out his “design” of leadership over Eve, then how could we think that fallen men today can have full authority over women today? Sounds like giving the inmates guns.

Cindy K,
You said:

What does it mean in Genesis 4:1 where Eve names Cain? Is that a demonstration of her “will to power”? How is it that she had authority to name her own son? Or is that an error?

Good questions that I don’t think the comps have answered yet.

Nicole,
You said:

So if I give my hubby a nickname, does that mean I have authority over him? Oy ve, this is getting complicated.

Exactly! And I am a great one for giving out nicknames. When I gave my husband his nicknames, he never saw this as me taking authority over him. A name or a nickname identifies what we see in the person and it can be an act of love. It certainly is not an act of rulership.

Nicole,

-Men: ultimately responsible for family. SOME teach they are even responsible for their sins

What a huge burden that has been placed on men with the teaching that men will have to give an account of their wives and families before God.

gengwall,

The correct passage when dealing with providing is, of course, Proverbs 31. Both the husband and wife are involved in provision and protection of the family.

Absolutely! 1 Tim. 5:8 is about “anyone” who will not provide for his/her family, they are worse than unbelievers. It isn’t just for men.

Kay,

As I mentioned in another post, my response to this is “I thought the Holy Spirit was supposed to be our spiritual leader.”

Absolutely. Taking the position of “spiritual leader” is akin to having a mediator between us and God. We look to Him not to any fallen human as our spiritual leader.

gengwall,
You said:

I think PL is onto something here. Why were the animals brought to Adam in the first place? Was it so he could exercise dominion over them in some way? In what way is authority manifest simply by identifying something?

I think that you and Pinklight are right to challenge the thought that Adam showed his dominance over the animals by naming them. Identifying the character of something is acknowledging what something is, not taking a “role” of being the boss over them.

Was it not instead related specifically to his aloneness? Maybe the identification of the animals (really the first taxonomical exercise) was an object lesson to Adam to illustrate to him just how “fish out of water” his situation was.

I think the naming was two-fold. To identify the character of the animals and the key reason was to identify his own aloneness. No animal had the character that suited the special nature of Adam. That is why his wife would be called “woman” as she was part of his own kind and one who came face-to-face with him in humanity.

If Adam had been in authority over them, why wouldn’t Adam have commanded that they come to him?

Excellent question!

Mark,
You said:

ONe question. You say that God named ‘the woman’ before Adam in Gen 2:22. Aren’t you confusing narrative into a quote? Please explain why verse 22 should be understood as God’s words and not a narrative section of scripture?

Let’s look at the verse in question:

Genesis 2:22 (NASB95)
22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

While God isn’t quoted here, this is God’s narrative. He inspired it and only He knows what happened so that a narrative regarding the events has to come from Him alone. God could have said that he created a female since in the beginning He said that he created male and female. But the text specifically identifies her as “woman”. He didn’t just fashion her into a female, but into a “woman” which is her identity. The fact that God has divinely placed this verse into the text in the narrative before Adam’s identification of the woman, shows that it is His identification that existed first and Adam merely discovered what God had already ordained as a fact.

So I would like to pass the challenge on back to you. Since Adam was out cold when God created the woman, and since no other human was around when the woman was created, where did the narrative come from? From man or from God?

Back to you with this one. Also have you been thinking about all the questions that I have asked you that you haven’t answered yet? Are you still too busy to answer or are you working on it? Thanks!

Nicole,
You said:

I do know that the things I listed come from misunderstandings of the Bible. My experience has more leaned to the side of women preferring the CMBW comp position, because it shelters them from having to fully grow up.

Sadly I think that this is often the case. It is often easier to let someone take charge and make all the decisions then it is to be mature and take responsibility to make the hard decisions.

Ah, yes! I think I finally caught up on this one. Will catch up on the other post I missed commenting on another night.

“So, the fulfillment of her calling is dependent on another person’s decision to propose, and their ability to have (successful) children. In other words, her calling is defined by other people, opening the door wide open to sin nature’s manipulative powers.”

Nicole,
Precisely, it’s all man-centered.
“In other words, her calling is defined by other people” – not just “people,” but males in particular, because they claim the “authority” to define.

“When we take the worldly way of leading which is “ruling” and make it “the” way of Jesus, we have distorted the teaching that the one who wants to be the greatest is to be the servant of all. The servant “feeds”. The servant does not “rule over” God’s sheep.”
Cheryl,
Comp/hierarchists have this idea of ruling/authority so deeply ingrained that it’s really difficult for them to see past it. I think part of the problem, especially for new Christians or those who do not study on their own, is with the choice of words by translators.
Recently a comp. sited Hebrews 13:17 “obey them that rule over us”. The problem, I pointed out, is that the word ‘peitho’ sometimes translated as “obey” there, is also translated as:
assure, confident, convinced, followed, have confidence, having confidence, listen, persuade, persuaded, persuading, put confidence, put…confidence, put…trust, relied, seeking the favor, sure, took…advice, trust, trusted, trusting, trusts, urging, win…over, won over.
It’s not as though the elders of the Church are making “rules” that must be “obeyed.” What rules are they enforcing? The comp. had no answer for that.
Further, how could they enforce such “ruling”? Elders cannot force the sheep to obey. If anyone had that authority it would be the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit never forces us either. Doesn’t the Holy Spirit do the convicting? Does the Holy Spirit need a “chain of command” to do it? Really! Like the HS. needs man’s help??

Another comp. asked me, “I assume you don’t think that parents have no authority over their children, do you?”
I replied, Actually, I don’t find one Scripture telling me to take authority over my children – my children are adults with children of their own. But, I didn’t find one telling me to do that when they were young either. I also don’t see any Scriptures telling parents to force their children to do obey. (?) Jesus doesn’t force us to follow Him – He leads by example. “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” Out of love for my children, I sought to teach them by example. They were intrusted to the care of my husband and myself – we didn’t see that as having authority over. We saw it as a blessing and a challenge to walk out our faith.

Along with what pinklight and genwall have said about naming, I’d like to bring out a point Frank made in his comment #11:
“When God created Adam he made this one in the image of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Adam when they were created.”

“Adam” is a term for both of them – it’s not just the first male’s given name. In Gen.5:1:
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.”
-the word translated as “Adam” in the first sentence is the exact same word translated “man” in the second.
Eve was “named” woman and she was “Adam” along with the man.

Another interesting translation tidbit is that the exact same word ‘ishshah’ translated “woman” in verse 23 is translated as “wife” in verse 24.

Hi Cheryl,

I agree with you now that God isn’t quoted here. Therefore I expect you to retract your comment “God called her woman before Adam did” from your main post, since we both agree that God did not ‘call’ her woman before Adam. Narrative is not the same as a ‘quote’ which I hope we agree on.

Regarding why the narrative doesn’t describe the woman as a ‘female’ is an argument from silence. It would be better to stick with what we do have and see why. The obvious reason that ‘woman’ is used (‘ishah) is because she was made from man (‘ish). It is a play on words used by the writer. This is common in Hebrew and particularly common in these early chapters of Genesis. We see it with man/woman, with man/ground.

Regarding where the narrative came from, as Christians we have to say both God and man. We do not believe as Islam does that scripture is the direct words of God per se and that there is no human agent. Inspiration of scripture is that God uses human agents to fulfil his purposes, so yes it is the word of God, but it is also the writing of man. That is why grammar, purpose, intention of writing, historical situation, culture etc are all important aspects for scholars when trying to understand the bible.

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

Finally I find it interesting that you believe this “While it is possible that naming Eve was part of Adam’s sinful rule over her”, but that naming her before the fall is most definitely not to do with authority. Why is that?
In fact I would be more inclined to say that since Adam named her Eve (chavvah) which is closely associated with ‘life’ (chayyah), the naming is more associated not with sinful lordship, but with Adam’s recognition that through the woman would come the ‘seed’ to bruise the serpent’s ‘seed’. Adam’s post fall naming is more a declaration of God’s promise than it is sinful lordship. It is a recognition of God’s grace. Grammatically also, in verse 20b there is a causal clause linking the name ‘chavvah’ with the point that she would become the mother of the living ‘chayyah’. Again we see the play on words used when ‘naming’ occurs.
We see this again and again. In chapter 4 Eve declares that “I have ‘brought forth’ a man…’ Here ‘brought forth’ is closely associated with ‘Cain’. Literally Eve ‘cained a Cain’. Therefore there is more to naming something in the Hebrew culture than can easily just be dismissed. You seemingly recognised this with your comments on ‘prophetic’ naming etc, but for some reason think that the man naming the woman is insignificant (at least before the fall).

“I agree that God knew before Adam that he would call her ‘woman’. What I disagree on is that God ‘called’ her woman before Adam did.”

I’m pretty sure Cheryl didn’t mean that and I certainly wouldn’t agree. I said: “I think the most that could be said is that…the term “woman” existed in the mind of God before her creation.”

By that, I certainly don’t mean God didn’t “call” her woman. None of us were in heaven, so we don’t know if God’s statement was audible or not. But that doesn’t make it any less of a statement than “let there be light”. Whether in his mind or out loud, God “called” her “woman” before Adam did. In other words, unlike the animals, the term, the category, the identification “woman” existed before Adam uttered it. It therefore can not be equated to Adam’s action of identifying the animals, which was hardly an act of authority to begin with.

Mark,
You said:

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

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

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

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

Okay, to carry on, Mark you said:

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

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

Mark,
You said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

carrying on….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam is the one who was ignorant of that plan, not God. And since God’s plan to bring her forth from Adam’s own flesh before even one of the animals was paraded before Adam, then the one who would be made from Adam’s flesh was created to be woman not just named woman because making her from Adam’s flesh was God’s plan not Adam’s.

This is good.

No slight of hand can make this an act of authority when no authority has been given by God.

Oooooh. Now that’s bad to the bone!

“And if we were to believe that Adam had to identify her as woman and God wanted the man to create her identity, then we would also have to believe that God bringing the animals before Adam to find a mate for him was God’s plan to mate Adam with an animal if Adam found one he liked.”

pinklight,
Any thoughts on this one?

“Adam identifying the woman’s source and identifying her as “woman” when God brought her to Adam was not an act of authority. It was an act of willing acceptance and happy fulfillment. “At last” Adam said, this one was just right for him.”

Yes, God is the woman’s source and Creator, just as He is the man’s. God is sovereign over all things. Yes, since when does being able to identify the things God created put us in authority over them? It was not the naming of things that imparted authority.
Clearly God gave both the man and the woman the mandate:
“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created THEM.
God blessed them and said to THEM, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

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

Kay,

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

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

“And if we were to believe that Adam had to identify her as woman and God wanted the man to create her identity, then we would also have to believe that God bringing the animals before Adam to find a mate for him was God’s plan to mate Adam with an animal if Adam found one he liked.”

Hi Kay,

My thoughts are that it’s a solid train of thought. I’ve been looking for holes in it and I can’t find any. It shows the Creator’s plan is subject to man’s where the plan of the created (Adam) is placed in front of the Creator’s.

It’s grose, that’s what I think. Man ain’t God.

🙂

Cheryl,

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

We all agree on the sovereignty anf foreknowledge of God I hope. I am not questioning that. We know that God knew that Eve would call her sons, Cain, Abel and Seth, but that doesn’t mean Eve didn’t do the actual naming of her sons. The parellel is the same with Adam and the woman. Just because God uses a human agent does not detract from God’s foreknowledge. The text simply saids that it was the man who ‘named’ the woman.

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

Whats with this? First of all it was you who said God ‘named’ the woman. I have simply said that is not what the text saids. And now you say I am the one distorting the accuracy. Are you serious. Is this the way you approach all people who challenge your views, just say that they are tampering with the text.

“What has culture got to do with God’s story?”

And here is the problem. You are approaching scripture the same way Muslims do, as if the historical setting is unimportant. Which is interesting because when it comes to 1 Tim 2 you revert the other way and say it is all cultural.

“Sure it is easy for complementarians to want to set aside the inspiration of the text as pure truth exactly as it happened because it contradicts their theory”

Whats this got to do with what I said. It was you who said something that is not in the text, and simply because it is your view that is contradicted. If you can try and dismiss the fact that it was Adam who named Eve then your view might stand, but the text is against you. Again please engage with my comments not attack comp theology and say it denies the inspiration of scripture. Arguing these lines makes me feel like you are avoiding the real issue. Not once have I questioned your belief in the inspiration of scripture, but you consistently say it about me under the label ‘comps’.

“then I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I hold to the account exactly as it is written”

Where have I ever said that I am denying the account as it happened. I have no problem saying that God was in control of what Adam said and knew what he said. In the same way I do no doubt that Jesus was the vessel chosen before the foundation of the world to save the world.I fully believe in that God’s plan was executed from the beginning. I am not denying scripture nor the attributes of God. If you really held to the account as it is written you would not have said God ‘called’ her woman before Adam, since that is not in the account.

“So God had nothing at all to do with the fact that she had her identify as woman?”

And what did I say “This was God’s purpose and plan for it to happen this way.” How can you assume that I am saying God had nothing to do with what Eve’s identity when the words you quote me on say the opposite. OF course God knew Eve before Adam did. The text simply shows that it was also God’s plan for the man to name the woman. I wonder with some of your comments Cheryl.

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

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

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

“We are not discussing all the nuances of naming here. This is a blog about the comp/egal debate and the discussion is whether identifying the woman by name of title is an act of a God-given authority of the man over the woman.”

This is interesting! You want to support your view with the idea about prophetic naming and the like, yet you try and ignore the Hebrew culture in which naming was authoritative, but apparently this is a nuance. Why is it that the real important aspects of the text and culture you continually dismiss as nuances or ‘rabbit trails’ as if they have no bearing on the discussion. It bewilders me. You are refusing to look at all the relevant information before making your stance on what the text actually says. If you were serious about whether naming Eve was authorative, then you would look into what it meant in the Hebrew culture to give someone a name, and why in these accounts we have play on words and things like that, before criticising comps and just labelling them as denying the inspiration of scripture.

More soon

Hey Mark,
Welcome back!

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

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

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

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

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

Talk later…

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?

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.

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

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.

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

;P

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

A pretty convincing argument pinklight.

🙂

“She wasn’t woman because Adam said so.”

Exactly, pinklight!

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).

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.

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. Surely the fact that in the text it is Adam and not God who actually names Eve that Mark is saying is significant. No one would argue that Adam in anyway created Eve or her nature but rather that in naming Eve Adam is asserting his understanding that he is in a position of leadership over her (according to our understanding of the signficance of naming in Hebrew culture). Gods silence in not naming the woman could be seen as an assertion of this role. This would be true despite Pinklights observations that God made Eve according to Gods own design for woman would it not?

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.

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.

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??

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.

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.

Hi Pinklight

What do you think of the narrator specifically not saying God named Eve woman but leaving that for Adam? Again the beasts of the field and the birds of the air does reveal as much as can be said about their natures in a plural form whereas Eve is the only woman. I am yet to be convinced that the narrator really distinguishes different levels of designation here.
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.

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

Mark,
I don’t think the Bible supports Adam being a Hebrew.

Even though the Hebrews may have used naming to declare authority over others, they also practiced polygamy, but that doesn’t make doing either one ordained by God.

Just a quick comment.

I disagree Pinklight that Adam naming Eve didn’t give her some identity. 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’. The very reason Adam gives her that name is because of how she is made, namely his own rib. Therefore the name ‘woman’ suggests immense identity (not saying that that wasn’t God’s plan though). 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). To simply diminish the significance of naming the woman, reduces the very words of the passage and there significance. 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’.
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. These are important points that need to be addressed by egals not just rejected because of 2:22

Kay,

Its not about Adam being a hebrew, its about the author being a hebrew writing to a hebrew audience in a hebrew culture.

I am glad at least that you are willing to simply dismiss naming as authoratative than simply ignoring it. But your methodology is wrong. We know polygamy is wrong because the Jesus tells us that. Naming on the other hand is something God gave Adam to do so therefore it cannot be considered wrong, unless you wish to dispute that.
Your point makes no corrolation.

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.

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

Mark,
It’s not that egals see no significance at all in what Adam said in verse 23. It’s that we see a completely different thing than “naming means to have authority over something.”
I see verse 23 as Adam’s vocal acknowledgement that he recognizes Eve as his corresponding ezer’ – unlike the animals he gave identifying names to and found no one among them like himself.

Mark,
I see God’s having Adam name the animals as an object lesson for Adam – so the man could understand without a doubt that there was no one for him among the animals and that the woman was going to be made of his flesh.

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??

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.

Gen 2 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;

Pinklight
The animals are defined as beasts of the field and birds of the air before Adam names them. This is the same amount of identification as that given to woman except there are many different types of each category as opposed to just one woman.

As for using a different word when naming the animals the text here gives extra emphasis to the reasoning and intimacy behind Adam calling her woman. I would not for a second say that Adam had authority over the animals in the same way he had authority over Eve – so there is no surprise that there is a difference here.

But none the less naming in Hebrew society does carry an authority. What happened at creation is not bound by Hebrew society. But as Genesis was written by a Hebrew for Hebrews, Hebrew society is significant. It is the context in which the original and true meaning of Gods inspired word was written into. Just as we need to translate the Hebrew words into our language we need to consider what those words meant in their Hebrew context to correctly translate the meaning conveyed to our Western mindset.

Mark,
Am I correct in thinking that you see Gen.3:16 “he will rule over you” not as a result of the Fall, but as a continuation of the way things were?
Why would God need to state it again after the Fall? Wouldn’t it have been more accurate for God to say, “he will continue to rule over you”?

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?

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?

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??

Who named the human ish in v23?

;P

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.

Mark,
You said:

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

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

Mark,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark,

You said:

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

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

More soon

Good! I look forward to it.

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

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

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

Pinklight,

Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective. We do know alot of other details from verses other that verse 23. However how would Eve of known her identity had Adam not said it. If her identity was solely in God’s mind and was never declared by Adam, she would never have known would she? She would not have known how or why she was made. 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. 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. The context of the narrative is clearly linked to the earlier accounts where he names all the other animals. To be honest i’m quite amazed at the roundabout conversations on such a simple topic. The man named the woman. The bible says it so lets accept it and see what it means rather than trying to pull exegetical loopholes around it.

Kay

You said “It’s that we see a completely different thing than “naming means to have authority over something.”
And thats the point. You are ignoring the historical setting of Hebrew naming. Why should you do such a thing and still be considered evangelical? It is completely against how one should interpret the bible. You can’t just pick and choose which pieces of history you like. If you want to see that naming someone means something other than an ‘authorative’ pattern it won’t work, because it is simple fact.

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

Cheryl

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

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

2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals. God ‘forms’ the creation ( and the narrative identifies what the created animal is i.e beasts, birds and woman), then God ‘brought them to the man’, to ‘see what he would call them’. To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point. The emphasis of the passage is not on that, it is on the declaration of the man- this is what is being stressed, not the narrative. The mans declaration is a completely different genre, it is poetry, this means we should stop and look why the narrative changes- it is emphasis. The fact that we are debating verse 22 and ignoring what verse 23 actually represents, obscures the intention of the author.

3. “When you say that God did not identify her as woman before He brought her to Eve” Here you misunderstand me. I am not saying God is ignorant of what he has made, simply that we do not have a quote before the man’s declaration that says “God said “you are called woman”. Therefore God allows the man to name the woman, the same way he allowed the man to name all the other animals. This does not mean that i am saying God did not know what he created, nor that he knew what Adam would call her, simply it was Adams role to declare to both the woman and himself what her identification was.

4. I am not trying to offend or attack you with the Islamic relations. But your deliberate denial of historical relevance is not proper scholarly exegesis.

5. No i am not arguing that this is myth. I simply believe that historical relevance is all important in understanding the bible. After all if we reject that, how can we possible claim to know what a word even means. If you say that understanding Hebraic naming is irrelevant, then by necessity you should deny any understanding of what ‘ezer kenego’ can possibly mean. I could simply follow your line of logic and say it is irrelevant what ‘helper’ means outside of Gen 2. Do you see the problem. You are picking and choosing which Hebrew things help your supposed argument. It is inconsistent.

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

When have i ever denied that God formed the woman? Please show me. What i have said all along is that verse 22 does not say that “God called her woman” as you so matter of factly stated earlier. The literature is narrative- it is a description of what occurred, it is not a quote of God’s. Since when does “God formed a woman”= God identifies/names a woman. This isn’t logic, it’s word dribbling. God made the woman, brought her to the man who calls her woman, the same way God made the animals, brought them to the man who gives them names. The exception being that this creation of God’s is perfect as his ezer kenego. They are a one flesh union.

7. “but your comment that it is only narrative appears to deny that God really did create a “woman”
   How did you come to that conclusion. The literary genre is narrative-simple fact. Why do you then come to the conclusion that i deny that God created a woman. I have said several times that God created a woman, just not that we have a recorded quote of God calling her woman before the man. Naming her was the mans responsibility.

“If that is so, which I believe the text shows, then Adam’s glorious acclamation was an affirmation of what she already was.”

Agreed. Not denial of that. But Adam was also the one who named her. God did not say “here Adam this is woman”, nor did God say to the woman “you are woman”. God gave the identification naming to Adam. Only after he did that does the woman know her identity (i.e where she came from and why she was created)

8. “You said yourself that this was only God’s foreknowledge”
   First God’s foreknowledge is what he knows and ordains will happen. Therefore i do not doubt that God knew and ordained that Adam call her woman. But for the two of them to know this he gave the responsibility to Adam. I am not saying God did not create a woman nor know she was a woman, simply that the responsibility of calling her woman was given to Adam.

9. “Did God create a “woman”? Or did God create something that later became a woman when Adam identified her as such?”

God created a woman. However her identity is only revealed to the man and the woman after God brings her to him to call her something. Adam calls her woman because he recognises where she has come from- man.

10. Finally “Please prove your point. Where does it say that it was “God’s plan for the man to name the woman”. Please give me the inspired words that reveal this in the text.”

This is a big one. So are you denying that it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Yes or No?

And yes i did get a revelation that it was God’s plan to name the woman- its called the Bible. The bible says that Adam named the woman and since i believe that God is sovereign and that nothing happens apart from his will, then yes it was his plan for the man to name the woman. If it wasn’t his plan, it wouldn’t of happened. The fact that this is the inspired word of God, and the fact that this event happened, shows that this was God’s plan.

Now im not sure if you were pulling a bluff with your comment. But i would really like to know if you don’t think it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Please answer this question at least.

Cheerio

Mark:”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?”
“Agreed. Not denial of that. But Adam was also the one who named her. God did not say “here Adam this is woman”, nor did God say to the woman “you are woman”. God gave the identification naming to Adam. Only after he did that does the woman know her identity (i.e where she came from and why she was created)

Mark,
Seriously? How do you propose that Adam knew his own identity?

Mark: “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.”

Mark,
Are you saying that Adam observed the ground and concluded “I am ground” and had no idea he was God’s image bearer?

Mark wrote: “5. No i am not arguing that this is myth. I simply believe that historical relevance is all important in understanding the bible. After all if we reject that, how can we possible claim to know

Mark wrote: “Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective.”

Mark wrote:”Its not about Adam being a hebrew, its about the author being a hebrew writing to a hebrew audience in a hebrew culture.”
Mark wrote: “Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective.”

Mark,
So, which is it?

Mark: “Regarding 3:16, no i don’t see it as a continuation of the way things were. I deal with this more in my next post with Cheryl, but quickly, essentially the context is punishment, therefore verse 16 is not a positive thing. The womans desire for her husband is not a good thing, nor is the husbands rule- this is a puinishment. Basically it is a corruption of the original perfect relationship. But i expand more on that in another post soon.”
Mark,
You can’t have it both ways – your “Adam’s authority over” Eve, can’t be both “God’s perfect design” and His “punishment.”

Mark, you said to Kay:

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

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

Mark,
You said to Kay:

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

You are begging the question.

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

You also said:

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

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

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

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

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

“2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals. God ‘forms’ the creation ( and the narrative identifies what the created animal is i.e. beasts, birds and woman), then God ‘brought them to the man’, to ‘see what he would call them’. To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point.”

There is much to disagree with in your numbered list but this one jumps out at me. While the “sentence structure” may have some passing similarity in each account, the narrative is strikingly different. Some examples:

1. God formed the animals from the ground but Eve was the only creature in creation formed of material from another living creature. This is a striking difference which sets Eve apart from the animals.

2. God brought Eve to Adam but nowhere does the text say he did so “to see what he would call her”. Your claim that the two narratives are parallel on this point is simply false.

3. The narrative says that “whatever name Adam called it [an animal] by, that was its name”. BTW – Adam did not call the animals “bird” and “beast” – another flaw in your argument. There is no such narrative when it comes to Eve. Nothing indicates that “Adam called Eve ‘woman’ and from that point forward that was what her name was”. The two narratives are mutually exclusive on this fundamental point. Your claim that Adam’s “naming” of Eve was identical to his “naming” of the animals is not supported.

Mark – Another thing struck me reading through Cheryl’s responses. You appeal to the “historical setting of Hebrew naming” to claim that Adam was exercising authority over Eve by naming her (and I assume over the animals by naming them). Exactly how many years of Hebrew history do you think Adam had to look back on when he uttered “she shall be called Woman”?

Mark,

You said to me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark,
You said:

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

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

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

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

Oh, and I almost forgot, another point to my post 123 above.

4. The Hebrew word used to describe the forming of the animals (yatzar) is very different than the hebrew word used to describe the construction of Eve (banah). In fact, of the three Hebrew words used in Genesis 1 and 2 to describe “creative” actions, only Eve is said to be banah. There is simply nothing about her creation that parallels the creation of the animals.

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

Mark,
You said:

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

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

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

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?

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?

Mark,

You never did answer my question on how Adam’s words (v23)added anything at all to her identification (v22).

What was it about what Adam said that changed anything about who she already was?

Gen 2 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;

Pinklight
The animals are defined as beasts of the field and birds of the air before Adam names them. This is the same amount of identification as that given to woman except there are many different types of each category as opposed to just one woman.

19 So the Lord God formed from the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the sky. He brought them to the man

Gazza,

They are called animals or beasts. Either is fine. The point is that the animals/beast are not given classification or names before they are brought to Adam and until Adam names them (he names them, lion, tiger and bear) whereas in the woman’s case she is given classification (“woman”, v22) before she is brought to Adam and then Adam doesn’t re-classify her but rather agrees with what v22 has already told us being that she is a woman.

As for using a different word when naming the animals the text here gives extra emphasis to the reasoning and intimacy behind Adam calling her woman. I would not for a second say that Adam had authority over the animals in the same way he had authority over Eve – so there is no surprise that there is a difference here.

Very simply, it is said that Adam was given authority over the animals, and it is said when. It is only after woman is created. Therefore Adam does not have authority over the animals when he names them. There needs to be proof that he had authority over them when he named them. There is already proof that Adam and the woman (who didn’t do any naming of the animals) had authority over the animals after the woman was created. So I believe that they both had authority after the woman was created. I expect the same kind of proof for your belief that Adam had authority over the animals when he named them and that Adam had authority over the woman when he agreed with God’s identification of her. If I provide proof for what I believe then I expect the same thing from you.

Pinklight

Thanks for the clarification.

The proof of this point is quite simple. Naming in Hebrew culture was a mark of authority so the text is saying to the people it was written for that Adam is claiming authority over the animals and over the woman. The author doesn’t have to spell this out directly as it is simply understood to be the meaning of the actions just as each word we use has a meaning that has to be mutually understood by both the author and the reader. Just as if you said that someone looked you in the eye and made a promise it would be understood to be out of respect and trust in a western culture, but in many asian cultures looking someone in the eye is the height of insolence and disrespect so this same description of the same action would have an entirely different meaning.

Could you explain what significance you would place on the Hebrew context of the writing of Genesis? I get the feeling that out disparity on the importance of context is really the difference between what we both feel the passage is plainly saying. Do you understand how I can consider this a proof from the text? Is there something that I am overlooking?

If the naming is as I understand a sign of authority as it was occurring pre-fall it is reasonable to say that this authority is inline with Gods intention. Whether or not God had previously named her woman is a bit of a side point. If God had not given this authority to the man, then he would be claiming what was rightfully Gods and it would be this claim of authority, rather than eating the fruit, that would have been the first sin.

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

Naming in Hebrew culture was a mark of authority so the text is saying to the people it was written for that Adam is claiming authority over the animals and over the woman.

Gazza,

So Adam called the tiger “Tony”, the lion “Leo” and the elephant “Dumbo”? “Woman” is not even a proper name. Give me a brake. So what is your point? Is it that Adam displayed authority over the woman AFTER the fall by naming her “Eve”? IDENTIFICATION (as in the title “woman”) in Hebrew culture never marked authority. Now if there’s some evidence from Hebrew culture that you’d like to present where one human IDENTIFYING another is a mark of authority then I’d like to see it. Otherwise perhaps you have a different point to make?

Gazza,
Also if Adam had authority over the woman for identifying her as “woman” then he HAD TO OF had authority over every other woman, since THAT became EVERY women’s title. Do you understand?

Gazza,

If Adam “named” the first woman then I can gaurantee you that he named EVERY woman therefore if that “naming” is a mark of authority then Adam had authority over EVERY woman. Are you willing to argue that?

I bet he did have authority over every woman (in comp line of reasoning) too as Papa! LOL!

“The proof of this point is quite simple. Naming in Hebrew culture was a mark of authority so the text is saying to the people it was written for that Adam is claiming authority over the animals and over the woman.”

Gazza,
Are you saying that the Hebrew people are the only ones for whom God’s Word was written? It is my understanding that God’s Word is for us as well. Isn’t that why we are discussing it?

pinklight wrote: “Also if Adam had authority over the woman for identifying her as “woman” then he HAD TO OF had authority over every other woman, since THAT became EVERY women’s title. Do you understand?”

pinklight,
Glad you pointed that out again.
A “woman” is what she is, but her name is Eve.

Hi Gazza. Cultures, Hebrew or otherwise, do not define God. Just because a culture engages in some activity or paradigm does not mean that God approves or that it is a reflection of God’s intent. The Hebrew culture participated in polygamy for a large protion of its history. Does that mean that polygamy is godly? Certainly not. You have to be careful to distinguish biblical history from biblical teaching. Nowhere in the bible does God say that identifying (or even naming) something grants you authority over it. Who cares what the culture says about naming! It only matters what God says about naming and God is silent, at least in terms of authority.

Even if you appeal to cultural standards instead of God’s standards, you run into a problem if the bible is your source of truth. Other than Genesis, can you find even one other instance in the bible where a husband named his wife? The cultural argument is entirely irrelevant because naming (or renaming) one’s wife was not in fact a cultural practice. You can’t claim the culture sees an act as a demonstration of authority if that act is never actually carried out in the culture.

I will also reiterate my challenge to Mark related to Hebrew Cultural influences. There was no “Hebrew culture” when Adam and Eve were around, so it is quite silly to claim that Adam was following a Hebraic cultural practice.

A “woman” is what she is, but her name is Eve.

Thanks for taking notice. And that’s a good way to put it. “Woman” is what she is not her name!

You can’t claim the culture sees an act as a demonstration of authority if that act is never actually carried out in the culture.

Thankyou! A fine statement right thar! Perfect!

“Other than Genesis, can you find even one other instance in the bible where a husband named his wife? The cultural argument is entirely irrelevant because naming (or renaming) one’s wife was not in fact a cultural practice. You can’t claim the culture sees an act as a demonstration of authority if that act is never actually carried out in the culture.”
gengwall,
Yes, the truths of God’s Word transcend culture and time.

“Other than Genesis, can you find even one other instance in the bible where a husband named his wife?”
gengwall,
Another interesting side note is that the first naming we see done in the Bible after Eve’s, is done by Eve, herself, naming her son, Cain. The Scriptures have many examples of women naming their children, a woman changing her own name – Naomi changed her name to Mara (Ruth 1:20), and God changing people’s names – Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah.

…and, as pinklight has already pointed out several times, the purpose for Adam’s naming of the animals was not to either establish or demonstrate his authority over them. There is no evidence at all in scripture that any authority over creation existed for humans until both humans were present and then, that authority was equally granted to them.

In other words, if Adam had a naming authority that Eve did not have, and his naming of Eve was an expression of that authority, then Eve is of no greater status than an animal in relation to Adam and the directive from God in Genesis 1 is misleading.

Conversely, if Eve had equal authority over the animals with Adam as Genesis 1 states, then she would have equal naming authority as well and would have been just as qualified to name them as Adam was in Genesis 2. Eve can’t simultaneously be both possessing and subject to the very same authority. Adam’s naming of her could not possibly be equivalent to his naming of the animals because she shared that authority with him.

And of course, as many have pointed out, the “naming” of the animals was not at all equivalent to naming a child or a pet. It was a taxonomical classification and therefore has nothing to do with any Hebrew cultural naming activity.

The whole argument related to Hebrew culture is filled with contradictions and non sequiturs.

I’m starting a list – please feel free to add to it. So far I find 6 solid reasons why Adam’s “naming” of Eve in Genesis 2 could not be considered a proof of any authority Adam had over Eve.

1. Adam doesn’t “name” Eve and the animals, he classifies them. Therefore, cultural naming conventions are irrelevant.
2. There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent.
3. Adam’s classification of the animals was not an act of authority, it was an act of scientific discovery.
4. There is no evidence that Adam even had authority over the animals before Eve’s creation.
5. Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.
6. If Adam’s classification of Eve is equivalent to his classification of the animals and it was an act of authority, then Eve does not possess the same level of authority over creation as Adam, negating Genesis 1 and lowering Eve to the status of an animal.

Already remembered another one. This goes between 1 and 2.

1.5 No culture existed in the garden for Adam to look back on, therefore the argument that Adam is reflecting cultural patterns is erroneous.

gengwall,
Yes, it’s rather like Mark’s thinking on Gen.3:16 –
he can’t have it both ways – the comp’s “Adam’s authority over” Eve, can’t be both “God’s perfect design” and His “punishment.”

God is not opposed to logic and reasoning. 🙂

“1.5”
LOL

8. God never states anywhere in scripture that naming something grants or is an expression of authority. The cultural argument is just that – a cultural argument based on the affairs of fallen humans. It has no basis in scriptural teaching or law.

gengwall,
How about renumbering and posting the entire list.

What about?:
God defines his own creation when it comes to those who are created in His image.
&
“To assume that the man would be needed to give identity to the woman assumes that the work of God in humanity must be given direction by one human just has no basis in the text.”

I think we will repost a complete list further down. Trust me, I am keeping track. Now, was that one or two reasons. It seems like one:

9. God defines his own creation when it comes to those who are created in His image. To assume that the man would be needed to give identity to the woman assumes that the work of God in humanity must be given direction by one human. This has no basis in the text.

How does that sound?

We are obviously not even on the same page to begin with. My view is that what was written by the author needs to be understood within his culture, intention etc.

Everyone else (apart from Gazza) seems to think that the time of writing is not important. Therefore this whole discussion will never be on the same page.

However i have never heard any evangelical scholars attempt to understand the menaing of a passage and the words within that passage, without understanding the culture it was written in, whether that be the hebrew or greek influences. Sure Moses was not there at creation, but he is writing historical narratives for the Israelites under God’s inspiriation. Now since Christianity believes that God uses human agents to write his word, i am perplexed at any view that deliberately ignores the writers culture and audience.

I do hope therefore that all of you here who do not think the hebraic culture is important in understanding the writing within that culture, are consistent with your over literal view of scripture throughout all of scripture. If you were to be consistent, any appeal to understand ‘kephale’ from wihtin the greek culture for example, would be irrelevant for you guys. You can’t have it both ways, but it seems you are all just arguing irrationally.

How can you even attempt to understand what naming represents reading it from a 21st century perspective- it doesn’t work and does injustice to the text. Therefore this discussion on naming will never produce any fruit because we are simply interpreting the text from different perspectives.

Mark – the Hebraic culture certainly might have had an impact on Moses’ writing as it dealt with the law and other contemporary matters, but it can’t be claimed that the culture of Moses influenced Adam’s actions. Yet that seems to be what you are claiming – that Adam’s actions were a reflection of hebraic culture. How can that be when there was no such thing as a hebraic culture when Adam engaged in his actions? If the culture of Moses’ time is the lens through which we interpret the actions of Adam’s time, isn’t that revisionist history?

Mark,
Even if you want to argue for possessing authority by naming, that doesn’t stand up to the Hebrew’s cultural practices in the Bible.
The first naming we see done in the Bible after Eve’s, is done by Eve, herself, naming her son, Cain. The Scriptures have many examples of women naming their children, a woman changing her own name – Naomi changed her name to Mara (Ruth 1:20), and God changing people’s names – Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah.

gengwell,

1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?

2. “There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent”

Why are you appealing to culture gengwell to support your argument, i thought it was irrelevant? You are contradicting yourself.

3. “3. Adam’s classification of the animals was not an act of authority, it was an act of scientific discovery.”

Saids who? This is not in the scripture. But we do know that naming is authoritative in the hebrew culture. You are ignoring relevant information and supplementing it with speculation.

4.” There is no evidence that Adam even had authority over the animals before Eve’s creation.”

Gen 2 is not supposed to be read in isolation of Gen 1, it is supposed to expand and help us understand Gen 1. And since the hebrew culture understands it authoritatively this is the best way to undestand it.

5.” Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is false argument- A+B do not equal C. It shows that authority is not the same. Both are told in Gen 1 to rule the earth, but Gen 2 shows that Adam had the primary role for that. Also Gen 3 shows his punishment is associated with his primary role- the earth. Both have rule over it but differently. Authority is not equal. Women have the primary role of bearing children, which was also given to both as ‘rule’ in Gen 1. But i don’t hear any egals arguing that this is unfair or predjudice. Your argument is simply false.

6. “If Adam’s classification of Eve is equivalent to his classification of the animals and it was an act of authority, then Eve does not possess the same level of authority over creation as Adam, negating Genesis 1 and lowering Eve to the status of an animal.”

Again false methodology. It shows that their authority is not given in the same way with the same roles. Gen 1 does not say you will rule (in the exact same way with the exact same authority). Again reading Gen 1 in isolation distorts what Gen 2 reveals about this ruling.

Kay,

So Eve didn’t have authority over her children? OF course she did. The bible tells us that children should obey and submit to their parents- that is parents are in authority over their children. I am not saying that only Adam or men named their children. Naming to a hebrew indicates authority, therefore Eve had authority over her kids. Likewise Adam was in authority over his wife.

Although parents are in authority does that mean we lors it. Do you lord it over your children Kay. I’m sure you dont (if you have kids). Why therefore do egals come to the conclusion that authority=abuse or predjudice.

gengwell

I am not saying Hebrew culture affected Adam and Eve. Simply to understand the hebrew language (which is obviously what the creation account is written in) and what words mean or represent is what is important. If Moses said that Adam named Eve, what would that mean to a hebrew? It would mean something to them.
Does this make sense?

continuing on…

if we should agree with your over-literal interpretion, and ignore the significance of hebrew language, should we not therefore also conclude that God speaks hebrew, and that Adam and Eve spoke hebrew. You see, you can’t have it both ways. To understand this over-literally comes to the same conclusion- the hebrew language. Therefore a hebrew understanding of the words and what they mean is still the same.

gengwall,

I really like your idea of the list!
I also want to say that I think the most important points are the two below and the reasons being that they show 1) Adam didn’t even name the woman before the fall and rather she got her identity from God and 2) the cultural argument is bogus.

2. “There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent”

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.

1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?

God didn’t name things “John” and “Jane”, so yes, he was classifying. Do you dispute that Adam gave taxanomical names to the animals?

2. “There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent”

Why are you appealing to culture gengwell to support your argument, i thought it was irrelevant? You are contradicting yourself.

LOL – I am refuting your appeal to culture, which certainly is evident. Now please put the goal posts back where they belong.

3. “3. Adam’s classification of the animals was not an act of authority, it was an act of scientific discovery.”

Saids who? This is not in the scripture. But we do know that naming is authoritative in the hebrew culture. You are ignoring relevant information and supplementing it with speculation.

Culture is irrelevant as I have already stated. Classification of animals is not an authoritative action, it is a scientific action. The bible does tell me this by the nature of Adam’s activity. If Adam named the animals “John” and “Jane”, then I would agree that Adam was engaging in a naming activity and we could discuss whether or not that activity had an authoritative element. But Adam did not engage in such an activity.

4.” There is no evidence that Adam even had authority over the animals before Eve’s creation.”

Gen 2 is not supposed to be read in isolation of Gen 1, it is supposed to expand and help us understand Gen 1. And since the hebrew culture understands it authoritatively this is the best way to undestand it.

I agree with you that Genesis 2 expands Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is clear that the man and woman were given authority over creation at the same time. God didn’t first have a talk with Adam about dominion and then rehash the conversation with Eve. The first instance of authority granting to humans that we have any evidence of was when Adam and Eve were together. So culture again is irrelevant. The text is plain. Prior to Eve’s creation, at least according to all the evidence we have, there was no discussion of human dominion over creation.

<blockquote)5.” Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is false argument- A+B do not equal C. It shows that authority is not the same. Both are told in Gen 1 to rule the earth, but Gen 2 shows that Adam had the primary role for that. Also Gen 3 shows his punishment is associated with his primary role- the earth. Both have rule over it but differently. Authority is not equal. Women have the primary role of bearing children, which was also given to both as ‘rule’ in Gen 1. But i don’t hear any egals arguing that this is unfair or predjudice. Your argument is simply false.I believe yours is the false argument. You claim a=b (Adam and Eve were given equal authority in Genesis 1) but then ab (Adam had the primary authoritarian role.) And the Genesis 1 “be fruitful” is not related to the act of bearing children, which women do exclusively (not primarily which you claim). “Be fruitful and multiply” is also equally shared between men and women.

6. “If Adam’s classification of Eve is equivalent to his classification of the animals and it was an act of authority, then Eve does not possess the same level of authority over creation as Adam, negating Genesis 1 and lowering Eve to the status of an animal.”

Again false methodology. It shows that their authority is not given in the same way with the same roles. Gen 1 does not say you will rule (in the exact same way with the exact same authority). Again reading Gen 1 in isolation distorts what Gen 2 reveals about this ruling.

No differentiation of authority over creation is ever given in scripture. Your claim that women have less authority than men over creation is baseless. I know you want to believe that Genesis 2 is a division in authority, but the bible simply does not say that – it is supposition.

Mark – “I am not saying that only Adam or men named their children. Naming to a hebrew indicates authority”

So how come, outside of Genesis, there is not one occurance of a husband naming his wife in all of scripture. If this was cultural practice, how come we see no evidence of it in the culture?

“If Moses said that Adam named Eve, what would that mean to a hebrew? It would mean something to them.
Does this make sense?”

Certainly. But the Hebrew word has a variety of meaning. It can mean to give a name, it can mean to call to someone or cry out, it can mean to classify or identify something based on its characteristics. Our job is to determine in what way Adam “called” Eve. It is true that in Genesis 3 he named her. But in Genesis 2 he classified her. As someone put it earlier, her name wasn’t “woman”. So, any reference to the giving of proper names in Hebrew (or any other) culture is irrelevant to Genesis 2 because that is not what Adam did with either Eve or the animals.

5 above got messed up:

5.” Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is false argument- A+B do not equal C. It shows that authority is not the same. Both are told in Gen 1 to rule the earth, but Gen 2 shows that Adam had the primary role for that. Also Gen 3 shows his punishment is associated with his primary role- the earth. Both have rule over it but differently. Authority is not equal. Women have the primary role of bearing children, which was also given to both as ‘rule’ in Gen 1. But i don’t hear any egals arguing that this is unfair or predjudice. Your argument is simply false.

I believe yours is the false argument. You claim a=b (Adam and Eve were given equal authority in Genesis 1) but then a!=b (Adam had the primary authoritarian role.) And the Genesis 1 “be fruitful” is not related to the act of bearing children, which women do exclusively (not primarily which you claim). “Be fruitful and multiply” is also equally shared between men and women.

And that is number 10 Pinklight

10. Adam’s classification of Eve differs from that of the animals in that Eve was first classified by God. With the animals, Adam’s classification was the first utterance of the word which Adam called each animal. But with Eve, “woman” had already been designated by God. Adam simply reiterated, in his expression of joy, what God had already declared. So Adam didn’t really engage in the act of classifying Eve at all.

1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?

As Creator he has authority over his creation. Naming is not necessary to show that the Creator has authority over his creation. This should be obvious.

I have some questions for those who believe that Adam calling his wife “woman” means that he took authority over her. Can you please tell me why God would leave such an important doctrine to private interpretation? Why didn’t God clearly say that He was giving Adam authority over Eve and why didn’t God clearly say that Adam was to take this authority by “naming” Eve? Why would God clearly tell us that Adam was to have authority over the animals but then leave it to us to figure out, assume, postulate, etc that Adam had some kind of authority over the woman that was or was not like the authority Adam had over the animals? Is God not able to be clear on this important area of delegated authority? If not why not?

Sorry for just popping in for a bit, but another busy day. I look forward to the comp answers.

Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is great, gengwall!!

Mark wrote: “Although parents are in authority does that mean we lors it. Do you lord it over your children Kay. I’m sure you dont (if you have kids). Why therefore do egals come to the conclusion that authority=abuse or predjudice.”

Mark,
My children are adults now with children of their own.

You won’t find one Scripture telling anyone to take authority over their children, grown or young.

You won’t see any Scriptures telling parents to force their children to do obey. (?)

Jesus doesn’t force us to follow Him – He leads by example. “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.”
Out of love for my children I sought to teach them by example. They were our responsibility intrusted to the care of my husband and myself – we didn’t see that as taking authority over. We saw it as a blessing and a challenge to walk out our faith.

“I am not saying that only Adam or men named their children. Naming to a hebrew indicates authority, therefore Eve had authority over her kids. Likewise Adam was in authority over his wife.”
Mark,
Do you think Naomi was taking authority over herself when she changed her name to Mara? (Ruth 1:20)

Don’t you think God already had authority over Abram and Sarai when He changed their names to Abraham and Sarah.

Naming had other purposes besides showing authority in Hebrew culture.

“1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?”

For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? . . . But I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27).

pinklight,
You asked:

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).

God made “animals” and then God brought them to the man (for the purpose of) see(ing) what the man would call each type of animal.

It is interesting that God never identified His bringing the woman to the man as having a purpose of seeing what man would call her. God already had an identity for the woman and a plan to cause the man to understand that she was to be considered his flesh and blood.

The Bible does not say that God made a female and brought her to Adam to see what he would call her. We cannot assume that the bringing of the bride was for the same reason as the bringing of the animals. That would not make sense at all.

It is true that God identified the woman by identifying what He made and in the way that He made her as the source of her origin is what her name means.

Gazza,

You said:

. I don’t see how God in making Eve a woman detracts from the significance of Adam naming her. Surely the fact that in the text it is Adam and not God who actually names Eve that Mark is saying is significant.

Actually the issue that we have been discussing is not the name “Eve” but the issue of Adam calling her “woman”. What we have been arguing is that God identifies her by identifying what He made and by the way that He made her which identifies exactly what she is. The issue of Adam calling her “Eve” is outside the issue of the original sinless creation so it wouldn’t identify whether God gave Adam authority over the woman in the beginning which is a major issue.

No one would argue that Adam in anyway created Eve or her nature but rather that in naming Eve Adam is asserting his understanding that he is in a position of leadership over her (according to our understanding of the signficance of naming in Hebrew culture).

Gengwall brought up a great point that no husband named his wife so there is no historical significance in a husband naming his wife.

Plus if it was truly a significance of naming in the Hebrew culture, then what about the Scripture that says that Hagar named God?

Genesis 16:13 (NASB)
13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God who sees”; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?”

It certainly was the same author that had Adam name Eve, so is Hagar now taking authority over God since the author recorded the naming? If we really are going to identify naming as taking authority over a person, then we need to understand the serious problems with this view even in Genesis.

Gods silence in not naming the woman could be seen as an assertion of this role.

God wasn’t silent. In chapter 1 He called both of them “Adam” and in chapter 2 He identified her as the woman. Apparently God didn’t see any need to give her another name as He didn’t see any need to give Adam another name.

This would be true despite Pinklights observations that God made Eve according to Gods own design for woman would it not?

We are talking about the term “woman”. And if we were to deal with the idea of the mother of the living, God Himself identified that she would be the mother of the Messiah who we know as The Life so mother of the living would be God’s idea before it became man’s idea.

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.

She wasn’t called Eve when God brought her to the man and she was not in the class of the animals. She was not just another animal brought to Adam. It is interesting that those who believe in evolution describe humans as a type of animal. This is not God’s plan as only humans are made in God’s image.

pinklight,

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.

Good point.

Gazza,

You asked pinklight:

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

The narrator through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote that God created the woman. He specifically could have left out the fact of what God created so that the man could have named her in the way that he named the animals. With the animals, it says that God brought them to see what Adam would name them. But this is not so with the woman. God creates her with an identity that Adam does not originate, even though Adam agrees with God’s identity to the tee. If God wanted to report to us that He wanted to see what Adam would name the woman then that would have been reported. In this account the woman is already identified by her creation and she is brought for marriage not for naming.

Again the beasts of the field and the birds of the air does reveal as much as can be said about their natures in a plural form whereas Eve is the only woman.

“Beasts of the field” is not their name. It is intentional that God gave the man something to do that was not already accomplished for Him by God. But it is also intentional that God identified the woman by creating her from the man. He didn’t need to “see what Adam would call her”. His purpose was unity not naming. When people try to put the woman into the same category as the beasts they degrade the woman, the man who she came from and God whose image she also reflects.

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

Then are you admitting that the woman is in the category of the beast? Or can you see that God’s purpose for bringing the woman to Adam was not the same purpose as He brought the animals unless you are also willing to accept that God would have married Adam to a brute beast if Adam would have liked any of them. No, the animals are not in the image of God and only the one in the image of God was right for Adam. The woman is in the class of the God image, not in the class of the beast and she is a delegated ruler of the beasts. There is far more differences between the ones brought to Adam then there are similarities.

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.

The book of Genesis is not just written for the Hebrews but for mankind for all of time. Secondly the naming of God in the book of Genesis should be a red flag that naming someone is not taking authority over them. I would think that Complementarians need to be consistent or drop a bad argument that devalues the woman as one made to be ruled.

Mark,
You said:

I disagree Pinklight that Adam naming Eve didn’t give her some identity. 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’. The very reason Adam gives her that name is because of how she is made, namely his own rib.

The problem with this is that God had already identified this before Adam did. It is in the text and the verses have not changed position since I last looked at them. This is not a slip up of God’s. i.e. it is not God’s mistake that He identified how and what the woman was before He brought her to Adam. It was intentional as God always intended that woman would not be made from the dirt but from the man. She is to be the glory of the man.

Therefore the name ‘woman’ suggests immense identity (not saying that that wasn’t God’s plan though). 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).

It is immense identity. But it is God’s identity and God’s plan not man’s. It was God who planned to create her from his body therefore the immense identity of the whole thing originates with God not with man. It was God who intended a one flesh union and that is why marriage is so important even today. Man didn’t originate the joining together with her. God did. And it is that God part that forbids man to break apart what God has joined.

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

Not true. For God to identify her by creating her from the man and then have her called woman even before He brought her to the man does not diminish the significance of her name. In fact it is a double significance because it is what God created and His plan and man’s complete acceptance of God’s plan. If you remove God’s part that was planned in advance and carried on without having man as part of the plan, it is of great significance that man admits that God’s sovereign will is the very best. And he even does it with poetry.

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’.

But you fail to see that it is creation from the man but not BY the man. Do you see the difference? God used the man as the basis of the woman, but man did not originate the idea or the plan or the way. It is only because it was in the mind of God that it was a perfect plan.

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. These are important points that need to be addressed by egals not just rejected because of 2:22

No, my friend, Adam’s identity is not in the dirt. His identity is in the image of God. His return to the dirt is the result of the fall not the plan of God.

Mark,
You said to Kay:

We know polygamy is wrong because the Jesus tells us that. Naming on the other hand is something God gave Adam to do so therefore it cannot be considered wrong, unless you wish to dispute that.

This is only half the story. We need to pay attention to what the text actually says. God gave Adam the task of naming the animals, but there is not a shred of proof that He gave the man the task of naming the woman. When complementarians claim something like this without any evidence that God gave this to Adam, they show the weakness of their argument. There is no real argument unless they read into the text. With this kind of argument, how could you ever convince Bible believing Christians that the complementarian position is the truth from Genesis? When you have to read into the text and give an authority where no authority is given, your position is weak and unsustainable.

Mark, I see you as a highly intelligent young man. I am continually amazed at how such an intelligent young man can hold to views that have to be read into the text. It just amazes me. It seems to me that you have become convinced of a position before you even came to Genesis. Otherwise how could you possibly equate the woman with the animals and make Adam a ruler of the animals and the woman when God gave no such authority to Adam over her?

Gazza,
You said:

I would not for a second say that Adam had authority over the animals in the same way he had authority over Eve – so there is no surprise that there is a difference here.

But where do you get an explicit authority given by God to Adam from the text? Not only is the authority not explicitly given over the woman, it is explicitly given for the animals. How can you read a “difference” in Adam’s authority when his authority over the woman is never explicitly given or compared to the authority given over the animals?

But none the less naming in Hebrew society does carry an authority.

Then surely Hagar must have exercise her authority over God because she named Him.

What happened at creation is not bound by Hebrew society. But as Genesis was written by a Hebrew for Hebrews, Hebrew society is significant.

The book of 1 Timothy is explicitly written by Paul to Timothy. That isn’t a secret. But where are you getting this from the text that the book of Genesis was written just for Hebrews? Can you not see that the book was written for all of us as the record of the works of God in creation and the history of man? Who convinced you that it was written merely for Hebrews? Which part of the text says that?

It is the context in which the original and true meaning of Gods inspired word was written into. Just as we need to translate the Hebrew words into our language we need to consider what those words meant in their Hebrew context to correctly translate the meaning conveyed to our Western mindset.

The problem with this is that complementarians are reading part of Hebrew culture into the text when God did not say that man’s culture interprets His acts? And where is the Hebrew culture of naming one’s wife? The strength of the argument must be reasonable from the inspired text right from Genesis. The complementarian position reveals its greatest weakness in trying to force man’s tradition into the creation account. It cannot be done without violence to the text.

Mark,
You said:

I understand that essentially you are saying that because the narrative says “he made into a woman” (Gen 2:22), that this narrative is identifying her as ‘woman’ and thus God calls her woman before the man. But it’s just dancing around the obvious. Yes God created her, but the job of calling her something was given to the man.

Give me the proof that God gave the job to Adam? Also give me the proof that God identifying her as woman at her creation is unimportant and in essence is laid aside so that the man can name her?

2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals. …To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point. The emphasis of the passage is not on that, it is on the declaration of the man- this is what is being stressed, not the narrative.

Mark, you appear to be man-centered instead of God centered. To make God’s creation and identification as secondary to the man and then to insist that the purpose of God bringing her was to have Adam name her instead of a marriage joining the two by God makes the center of everything as man. Don’t you see the problem in making all of the text as man-centered?

I am not saying God is ignorant of what he has made, simply that we do not have a quote before the man’s declaration that says “God said “you are called woman”.

We don’t need a direct quote from God when the inspired text tells us what God made and how He made her. Her creation is the words of God spoken through the agency of a man, but no less the inspired words of God.

Therefore God allows the man to name the woman, the same way he allowed the man to name all the other animals.

God allows the man to identify the woman with himself, but God doesn’t need Adam to name her since He has already done that by His act of creation. Don’t you see that this is different from the way He dealt with the animals. He did not identify the animals as giraffe, dog, cat. Adam did that. But God did identify the woman. He is the source of her ultimate creation. She is in the image of God first and then image of man second.

This does not mean that i am saying God did not know what he created, nor that he knew what Adam would call her, simply it was Adams role to declare to both the woman and himself what her identification was.

Where does the text say that this was Adam’s “role”? Where does it say that it was “for this reason” that God brought her to Adam?

I will break this comment here and continue on the next comment.

Mark,
You said:

4. I am not trying to offend or attack you with the Islamic relations. But your deliberate denial of historical relevance is not proper scholarly exegesis.

Mark, I would ask you to deal with the issues and not bring in inappropriate connections with non-Christians. Also I have taken a lot of time to carefully explain why the historical account of the actual events of the creation account in Genesis is dependent on the account and the inspired words and inspired grammar and it is not dependent on any man-made culture. God created Genesis for all of us and if He wanted us to understand His own actions within a sub-culture of people who would live thousands of years later, then He would have created that within the text. I believe that it is unwise to add in a cultural position that is not stated in the text especially since it causes contradiction with the issue of “naming” later in the book of Genesis when a woman names God. One either must be consistent here or drop the unsupported assignment of authority when God refused to record about any additional authority given to just one of the two world rulers.

Mark,
You said:

I simply believe that historical relevance is all important in understanding the bible. After all if we reject that, how can we possible claim to know what a word even means. If you say that understanding Hebraic naming is irrelevant, then by necessity you should deny any understanding of what ‘ezer kenego’ can possibly mean.

Mark, you mixing apples with oranges. I am not denying the historical relevance of words. I have been arguing for the meaning of the inspired words in the text, but there is no such authority in the culture for naming of a wife by a husband and I wish you would just quit with this argument. It is not only irrelevant to the text, but it isn’t a correct cultural argument over words. Show me from the culture where the husband proved his authority by naming his wife?

I could simply follow your line of logic and say it is irrelevant what ‘helper’ means outside of Gen 2. Do you see the problem. You are picking and choosing which Hebrew things help your supposed argument. It is inconsistent.

Not true. I am not dismissing the meaning of words. That is not my “line of logic” so it is unfair of you to characterize my argument this way. The meaning of words has absolutely nothing to do with a claimed authority given to a man. Neither is there historical precedence for men to name their wives, Hebrew or otherwise. Your point is not supported at all by any proof. And me? I have kept to the text with the inspired words and the inspired grammar.

Mark,

I am wondering if this long set of questions its the tome that you were wanting to write on my blog?

Continuing with your points, you said:

When have i ever denied that God formed the woman? Please show me. What i have said all along is that verse 22 does not say that “God called her woman” as you so matter of factly stated earlier.

If God built the woman then God’s building identified who she was by the fact that He identified through the inspired author what He had created. You have not answered this and I doubt that you can. God could have refrained from identifying her in the text as woman, but He did not. That is a problem to your view.

The literature is narrative- it is a description of what occurred, it is not a quote of God’s.

It doesn’t need to be a direct quote, don’t you see that? The fact that God wrote it and identified who she was made as (woman) is attributed to God. And when God inspired the description of what occurred, then it is exactly as it was described. It is not in error. She was woman at her creation. The inspiration does not need a direct quote to be true.

Since when does “God formed a woman”= God identifies/names a woman. This isn’t logic, it’s word dribbling.

Word dribbling??? Mark, I think you must have run out of arguments. Calling my arguments “names” isn’t a valid argument nor does it deal with my points. Where does God give Adam authority over his wife or authority to rule her? Where are your proofs? Or is asking for proof merely “word dribbling” to you when you are unable to prove your point?

It is interesting that God never identified His bringing the woman to the man as having a purpose of seeing what man would call her. God already had an identity for the woman and a plan to cause the man to understand that she was to be considered his flesh and blood.

That’s right, Cheryl! The reason why he didn’t bring her to the man to see what he would call her while on the other hand he brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them, is because he already gave her indentity! I’m glad you brought out this point! Excellent!!

Love that point!! 🙂

The Bible does not say that God made a female and brought her to Adam to see what he would call her. We cannot assume that the bringing of the bride was for the same reason as the bringing of the animals. That would not make sense at all.

Absolutely!

We are talking about the term “woman”. And if we were to deal with the idea of the mother of the living, God Himself identified that she would be the mother of the Messiah who we know as The Life so mother of the living would be God’s idea before it became man’s idea.

And gengwalls’ point “that no husband named his wife so there is no historical significance in a husband naming his wife.”, would apply as well here to this issue of her being named “Eve”! (I tried to get this point out that gengwall made before he did, but it came out introverted… lol)

God creates her with an identity that Adam does not originate,

I’m reminded of one of my previous comments a few days back or something – oh yeah #70 – *grose* Man ain’t God.

I’m going to bed now. 🙂

The case is closed.

“Genesis 16:13 (NASB)
13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, “You are a God who sees”; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?”

Cheryl,
One of my favorite verses…I wasn’t thinking in that vein yesterday – glad you were!

In the study of literature from any genre, all too often the simplicity of the message is lost in the over analyzing and in particular in the defending of an argument by reducing the whole to its parts.

Reading again this portion with the purpose of Genesis in mind, in view of the whole of scripture which reveals God’s intent from the beginning that marriage reflect the a “one-flesh union” between Christ’s and His Church, and in light of the glorious reality we now experience of God’s intent as members of His Bride, there is a simple and beautiful declaration in Adam’s poetic response to the woman. (Mark alluded to the poetic element in #94).
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

In response to seeing the woman, Adam waxed poetic. Poetry by its very nature is emotive. Poetry is not a cerebral response but an affective response. He proclaims that she is one like him—of him. After sorting animals, his emotion is stirred upon seeing Eve, and he proclaims, “Alas! This creature is like me. I recognize her as being of like substance.” His response may include an identification, but that, in my opinion, would be incidental and inconsequential to the intent of his lyrical response because the whole of the poem is that he recognizes one like him for she is of his substance, taken from him. He poetically acknowledges their shared quality.

The commentary in verse 24 explains that it is this emotive response by a man to a woman that compels a man to establish a unique emotional relationship with a woman which culminates in a beautiful expression that mirrors the reality of what has taken place in the heart—two bodies become one.

Poetry is not a cerebral exercise of analysis or diagnosis; therefore, it not analytical or diagnostic. Nothing in these lines of poetry, in the greater narrative of Genesis, of in the meta-narrative of scripture hint of an academic exercise of a role or responsibility by Adam to name the creature. To read this strikingly stirring response as an exercise of Adam’s diagnostic authority and leadership is to dismiss the very nature of his response and to miss the point completely.

Mark, if you can perceive that “Adam’s post fall naming is more a declaration of God’s promise than it is sinful lordship” and a “recognition of God’s grace” (#94), is it inconceivable that Adam’s pre-fall declaration in this poem is not an exercise of authority but a response of joy, happiness, and love in recognizing one who is like him and fits him?

(Cheryl, I accidentally posted this under the post about women being more easily decieved. I regret that. Feel free to delete that post as it was intended for this topic.)

Mark claims that Adam had the “priority” in authority over the animals and that his expression of that authority was naming the animals. As a converse, he denies that Eve had “equal authority” to Adam as it relates to naming the animals. But, he concedes that Eve and all women have equal authority with men in naming children (BTW – the only Hebraic cultural naming practice from which we can draw). Moreover, he has not gone to the absurd length of claiming that naming animals is a unilaterally male task. Still, he shows no evidence (nor is there any) that the naming of animals is “mostly” a male task or that Adam’s presumed unilateral naming authority in the garden had some future expiration date. The contradictions in this line of thinking should be obvious. The rational, logical conclusion if that Eve was equal with Adam in regards to naming animals. If such naming was an act of authority (I do not believe it was), then Eve’s authority was equal to Adam’s in this context. If Eve was equal to Adam in authority, it would have been a great ussurpation of that balanced authority for Adam to exercise an authority over Eve that she possesed with him in equal measure. It also would have been terribly degrading for Adam to put Eve at the level of the animals who she had equal authority over. Therefore, Adam’s act of calling Eve “woman” was either not at all related to any authoritarian hierarchy, or a very sinful precursor to “he will rule over you”. Since the latter, I hope all would agree, is impossible, we must conclude exactly what the text tells us, that “she shall be called woman…” is nothing more than his joyful recognition that his ezer neged had finally arrived.

Yes, the most obvious conclusion is that Adam’s declaration is “nothing more than his joyful recognition that his ‘ezer neged’ has finally arrived.”

i will respond more here soon. I just looked at all the comments

First this needs to be address since it is getting a bit ridiculous now.

“So you are not going to answer my question again?”

Cheryl you said the above thing to me again, but then right after it preceeded to address my answer to your question which supposedly i did not answer. Do you get it! You say i am avoiding your question, but then right after that engage with my answer. Now that isn’t fair. Please re-think your tactics. You accuse me of wiggling out of your questions, when in fact i gave an answer to it. And i know you know that, because then you engage with my comment. Please explain?

Anyway, now i will respond to the actual issue at hand

Unfortunately I have a very unstable internet connection. I am going to try to answer a comment or two while I still have access.

Mark,
You said:

Cheryl you said the above thing to me again, but then right after it preceeded to address my answer to your question which supposedly i did not answer. Do you get it! You say i am avoiding your question, but then right after that engage with my answer.

Are you serious? The thought that anything that happens must be God’s plan is a “proof” that it was God’s will to name Eve? Honestly I didn’t see the proof. I thought you would be interacting with me from the text and when you did not, all I saw was you failing to answer my question.

You “answer” is conjecture that God ordains everything that happens. If that is the best that you can do, that God ordains the sin of Adam and He ordains that the serpent should deceive the woman, then that is going to be the best you can do. It isn’t good enough for me because I want a real answer from God’s word in the text. I guess that’s why I continue to be an egalitarian and have never been convinced by the comp argument that assumes their own argument from the text without defending it from the text.

Okay, I’ll see what I can do with your original tome.

Again, I love that you continue here with your challenges and arguments. I intend to find the truth from the text with the inspired words and the inspired grammar. If I just assumed my own view, I could not face my own failure. I would need to try harder.

Cheryl,

I wonder if we have very different understanding of what a ‘conservative’ theology is. Numerous times you have hinted that a opinion of mine may be getting near ‘liberal’, and thus the assumption is made that your view is the conservative one. But then you go and make all these comments about the sovereinty and pre-determined plans of God (or lack of in your view) and expect me to think that you do hold a conservative option to the scriptures.

It is obvious that you do not have a proper undersanding of the reformed conservative position of divine sovereignty. This is clear in your statements. Now i’m not sure you would wish to delve down that path, but since you brought it up i will.

I thought you said you believed in God’s sovereignty (which of course means God is in complete control of everything that happens…even the hairs on your head) yet you define it as God ‘allowing’ it to happen. This is not a belief in the sovereignty of God at all, it’s just ip service.

Let me illustrate on something in Gen you said

“So God willed the serpent to deceive the woman? And God willed Adam to disobey God?”

Now what do you mean by willed? I would most definately say that it was God’s plan for the fall to happen. We know this is the case because Jesus was chosen before the world was even made to be the lamb without blemish and to be the one to redeem his people (1 Pet 1:19-20). Now how could God choose Jesus to save his people before the world, if the fall was not part of God’s plan.

To say that God’s is not in control of something in His world or that it happens as not part of his plan is really to deny the sovereignty of God. Your view is an oxymoron! You need to actually understand the conservative reformed position before making these sorts of comments about predestination. It has revealed alot about your theology.

I will respond more later and deal with your supposed Jeremiah proof text to deny pre-destination.

Mark,
One other thing. You said:

Please re-think your tactics.

I don’t need to use “tactics” as I am only pushing for truth. If I see you wiggling by assuming something that you have not proved, then I will push you. Okay?

Cheryl said:

“. . . the false idea that God designed men and women differently in that one was designed to rule and the other was designed to be ruled. It is a myth and is not Scriptural.”

I keep wondering if they see that this is the same argument that the aristocracy used to use in saying they were meant to rule the peasants. The same argument that white people used to use to say that they had a special ability to rule the other races. The same argument that bolstered the “divine right of kings.”

It’s just the same old, tired power-seeking that has existed throughout human history. It’s of the world; it doesn’t belong in the Kingdom of God.

Kirsten,
I agree. What is of the world certainly doesn’t belong in the Kingdom of God!