Cheryl Schatz

Paula,

Thanks for your consideration. It has been a stressful week for sure! This is a great discussion.

1a – I don’t agree that Adam’s words contradict the idea of Eve being made from a “female” organ taken from Adam. After all, she wasn’t made from only bone, but also from flesh.

So do you agree with me then that the words are not poetic but literal?

1b – It is not logically required for Adam to say “this is her flesh taken from me” in order for the part taken to be “female”. It started out as his part; there was no her until she was made. All the parts were his to begin with, whether they performed a “male” or “female” function.

So then if the organ was a “female” organ and it belonged to Adam, what was Adam in the creation male or female or both?

1c – Similar point here to 1b. And the text never says Adam was created male. He did not have to become male when the parts were removed from him to form Eve; he was simply missing some parts. And his post-sleep body was then exclusively male, while Eve’s was exclusively female.

Okay, but since God said that he created male and female and I think we can agree the Eve was female, what was Adam? Creation means creation for Adam. God created male and female.

If God created Adam as a male-female, then we can help God out by putting that into the text. Otherwise it appears God made a mistake. Adam wasn’t exclusively male so then God didn’t create the male, he became male by default. Had God taken out the male part, he would have been female?

2a – Again, the text never says Adam was exclusively male before Eve was created.

There isn’t any other kind of creation but male and female. If Adam wasn’t exclusively male, then God would have told us. It would have been quite easy to fix. i.e. in the original creative work of God was a unisex human and a female. Removing the female left the male. Done. Unfortunately we have to read into the account to get this out. I prefer to just take what God said.

2b – Gen. 2:23 actually argues against your position. Adam said Eve was “taken out of man”, therefore the part was (1) originally part of Adam, and (2) taken out of him and formed into Eve. Yes, they were his parts to begin with; taking them out didn’t make them any less his parts. This preserves the unity and equality of both of them, without requiring that the parts taken from Adam had to be “male”.

Gen. 2:23 doesn’t argue against my position at all. Adam’s rib belonged to his body. It was taken out of him and formed into a woman. She then became a woman but from his flesh and his bone. This preserves the unity and equality of both and ribs aren’t
“male”. It wasn’t a “male” part that was taken out. It was a “part” of a male.

3 – Agree that context rules, but the Hebrew word is still not the one used for “rib”. To say it must mean “rib” anyway is to ignore the normal meaning of the word and make up a new one, while also ignoring the “flesh” part. What “flesh” is included in “bone”? Why ignore the “flesh” factor?

I don’t know how you can say that the Hebrew word is not the one used for “rib” since other than these verses in Genesis, the word rib doesn’t appear in the Hebrew bible. I am saying that it must mean rib because there is no other bone in one’s side. Can you point to another bone?

Well, I normally don’t have people telling me that I am making up a meaning for a biblical word, but I am happy to prove that I am not. The Brown-Drive-Briggs definition is as follows:

BDB Definition:
1) side, rib, beam
1a) rib (of man)
1b) rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
1c) side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
1d) rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
1e) leaves (of door)
1f) side (of ark)

As far as how much flesh went along with the rib, I don’t know, but for sure some was on the rib. I enjoy ribs once in awhile and the ribs I eat are not just bone. They all have some tasty flesh with them.

4 – Again, there is no logical necessity for making the parts taken from Adam exclusively “male” in order for Eve to be his flesh and bones.

I am not claiming that the bones are “male”. I am claiming that they are Adam’s bones not bones belonging to anyone else including Eve.

Conclusion: You may be right– or maybe not. But the argument that Adam could have had both “male” and “female” parts originally cannot be labeled myth, because the text does not rule it out, explicitly or implicitly or logically.

The text does rule it out. God’s creation is specific. It isn’t human and human. It is male and female. There is no third fill in the blank.

It is simply a valid difference of opinion, one we will have to wait for heaven to answer.

It appears to me that those who see another option have something that they would like to see in the text. Are there any complementarians who can read Genesis and see a androgynous being created first especially since God specially said he created (and the word here is not created so cannot be confused with what would happen after the fact) male & female? If there are any complementarians who see this I would be very interested to dialog with them.

I cannot be dogmatic about that on which scripture is silent, and I won’t call other views myths.

I wouldn’t be dogmatic either if scripture was silent on Adam’s sex. Fact is that scripture isn’t silent so I should be okay 🙂

The issue here is not whether the Word of God can correct anyone, but what inferences can be made from the text by fallible people.

I think that inference can be made if there is two or three witnesses. I haven’t seen any witness either in Genesis or anywhere else that would imply in any way that Adam was not a regular male (with all his ducks in order) at his creation.

There are many other such issues on which strong, Bible-honoring believers disagree, as you know. I believe this is one of them, and that there is room for both views on this matter.

I do not think that this issue will be a dividing point in fellowship nor will it send someone to hell. However I strongly believe that making Eve come from a female part inside Adam that clearly doesn’t belong to a male, clouds the importance of Eve’s direct connection with Adam. If a female part is Eve before she was divided from Adam, then Eve didn’t really come from Adam but from her own part in a two person shared body. Or perhaps she was like a tumour or a misformed twin. I don’t see any evidence for such a doctrine in scripture and I do see evidence of it in pagan philosophy. That is a huge red flag in spite in addition to the silence of scripture.

It is simply a valid difference of opinion, one we will have to wait for heaven to answer. I cannot be dogmatic about that on which scripture is silent, and I won’t call other views myths. The issue here is not whether the Word of God can correct anyone, but what inferences can be made from the text by fallible people. There are many other such issues on which strong, Bible-honoring believers disagree, as you know. I believe this is one of them, and that there is room for both views on this matter.

At any rate, I think we can produce arguments from Genesis till the cows come home and it won’t budge those who insist upon male privilege.

You bet. I just don’t want them to reject me because they see me embracing a Greek mythology. I don’t see that as helpful or needed.

I still await the male supremacist answer to the question of pride in the flesh: how can male supremacy be compatible with “not so among you” and all the “one anothers” of scripture? How can any believer even wish to lord over another? Until and unless they answer those questions from clear scriptural teachings, everything else is going to be endless mud wrestling.

That may be. I do not mind getting dirty, though, if I can influence one person to rethink. I am one person that will never accept egalitarian doctrine if I can see it conflicts with the scriptures. My interest is not to prove a point from the scripture but to work hard to mine out what it says beyond what my prejudice tells me. If it can be proven that I am wrong, I will gladly change.

I dunno, maybe we should scrape up some cash and offer a reward to the first male supremacist to explain away the most basic quality of the believer being to serve and be humble as Jesus gave the example. 😉

The humility is a big thing. I have met so many that are arrogant and rude they pride themselves in being privileged as a male. The ones who are humble and willing to be gentle and give an answer without the arrogance are very precious to me even if we disagree. I have acquired a couple of complementarian friends because of my ministry work. I never thought I would have a comp give me the time of day. All of the ones I met before were rude and arrogant. But the couple that I have met over the last few months are men well known in ministry who actually value what I have to say. Maybe miracles do happen even in the comp world!

Thanks for jousting with me, Paula. These issues can be very important to many people reading my blog and it was my desire to give a thorough answer.

I would also like anyone who may have believed that Adam was part female and has since changed their mind to consider commenting here. There may be more angles that I have missed and I appreciate hearing anyone’s thoughts.

These are issues where we can debate and disagree on and even agree to disagree, but we can do it agreeably with great love and appreciation for each other. I have learned a lot from you Paula that has been a tremendous help to me. I very much value the interaction.