18 Cindy K,

You said:

Unfortunately, much of that ideology has shaped my thinking, sometimes to the point that I wish I could take a toothbrush and toothpaste to scrub out my brain.

I understand this quite well especially since I worked for 16 years leading a support group for ex-JW’s and it was a real struggle with most of them for a long time to get the old doctrine out. Even now some ex’s who have been out of the organization for 30 years will find old doctrine popping up at times to torment them.

And I was taught that this is also what God did with Abram and Sarai when he changed their names — he breathed his life into them which allowed them to conceive Isaac. He added that “ah” to their names, heralding the that life. Again, this is not Scripture, but it is a long tradition that demonstrates a great love for the Hebrew language held by that tradition.

This kind of tradition can be quite beautiful. Much of the other Talmudic tradition is not so beautiful and it goes far off base. But, yes, I do think that getting an understanding for the language can be very helpful especially with Hebrew.

The other idea held by many Jews (most all that I’ve encountered which is no true representation of all Jews), as mentioned above in this blog post, is that per Genesis 1:27-28, Adam was made as one being who somehow contained some type of qualities of both male and female. I’ve read Jewish commentaries that said that Adam, though physically a male, did initially contain all that was Eve within him in some capacity. I’ve read the language (of non-believing Jews) that also speculate that this might make Adam a “functional hermaphrodite” of some type.

I have a copy of the Jewish teachings of sin and God and human nature, etc that is a compilation of Jewish tradition from the talmud and their teaching goes past scripture in just about everything I read. I wouldn’t personally give much weight to a Jewish tradition on Adam being male and female any more than I would personally give weight to Greek mythology. The stories are interesting, for sure, but the reality is lacking. The story of Lileth, Adam’s supposed first wife is an example of that. It is quite detailed and goes off into all kinds of speculation including the first wife flying off into the air. Kind of like a Benny Hinn flavored Adam’s wife.

I have always been persuaded that God transcends all gender, but has chosen to reveal Himself to us as male and not female (which includes Jesus who is not some kind of sick ESS understanding).

I fully agree with you here. God has taken the main image of Father and with the male language has portrayed himself that way. It was also only right that Jesus would come as a male since it was the first male who failed as the first God-appointed watchman. Since God uses word images for a reason, I do not think that we should be calling God “mother” since God has a purpose for the Father image. When we change that we can distort what God has revealed for a distinct purpose.

The female symbolism and analogy is carried by the church, and gender helps teach us something about this mystery of God’s love for His creation.

This is true, but God Himself also uses female symbolism for Himself.

With the caution, fear and trembling that I have been strongly affected by some of these things, concerning Adam and Eve, I have made sense of this that Adam was made as one being that contained the seed of what Eve was in his side/rib (a supportive structure that protects man’s heart as opposed to a bone from the foot or head per Justin Martyr -I think that is attributed to him). And to that substance of bone and flesh taken from Adam, something both physical and representative of something metaphysical — whatever that means, God added that same breath of “ah” that was the very same thing that allowed Abram and Sarai to become parents.

Your language is beautiful. The rib certainly would be a kind of “seed” that was used to make Eve and your view that it was a supportive structure that protects man’s heart is something that I never thought of that way before. Very beautiful. The way you describe it, it doesn’t seem to imply that Adam was not male or that what was taken out was a female organ that didn’t belong to Adam. If this is what you are saying, then I can go along with that. I don’t know what “metaphysical” thing you are talking about but I wouldn’t have a problem with that if it leaves the man and the woman as created male and female. So far so good.

But I do think that God is not gender-bound at all, but that we were given gender to help us understand some mysterious aspects of Christ’s relationship to us as our Redeemer.

Amen!

On the blog post that you linked to I found this:

Perhaps man was created bisexual

I notice that the Jewish writer worded this as speculation since there isn’t any text that says this.

It’s just more information, something that may or may not be helpful sometimes. But I can’t shake the Abraham and Sarah name change as completely insignificant.

I do think that was beautiful. Thanks for sharing with us!