Adam and his Ms. organ

Adam and his Ms. organ

Cheryl Schatz Adam and his Ms. organ

The creation account has been used by many as a foundation to produce myths and stories.  While this post will concentrate on modern day myths, it is also helpful to understand some of the historical myths about the creation of male and female.

One of the myths of creation comes from Plato where the androgynous sex existed as what humans were in the beginning. Here is the edited speech at the Banquet by Aristophanes (189e-193b of Plato’s Symposium):

“Anciently….the androgynous sex existed…coupled back to back…till jealous Jupiter divided then vertically …as people cut eggs with hairs…after then, these divided and imperfect folk ran about over the earth ever seeking their lost halves to be joined to them again…and the reason being that human nature was originally one, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love…..”

Another version is concerning Hermaphroditos who was a Greek androgynous deity.

Hermaphroditos (HERMAPHRODITUS) Greek androgynous deity. The cult of Hermaphroditos appeared first in Cyprus, but never became prominent in the rest of the Greek world until the Hellenistic period. Originally the son of Hermes and Aphrodite. The Naiad Salmakis (associated with a fountain of the same name in Caria, a region of Anatolia) fell so passionately in love with him that their bodies merged into one. In some versions, it was her entreaties to the gods that finally resulted in their becoming one being.

In1 Timothy Paul warns that myths give rise to speculation and this can hurt our faith.

1 Timothy 1:3  As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,

1 Timothy 1:4  nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.

Today, as in Paul’s day there are still many myths about creation and some of these myths not only distort who man is, but they also distort the image of God.  While complementarians can be tempted to distort the image of God by saying that God is male, others distort the image of God by saying that God is male and female.  The truth is that God is neither male nor female.  God is spirit.  God has no sexual body parts and as spirit God has no sexual gender.

As a Christian apologist I frequently come across doctrinal error that has crept into the church through all kinds of TV preachers.  It is a good idea to learn how to test the “new truths” that these teachers are spreading so that our foundation is based on the word of God and not popular myths.

One of those teaching a modern day myth is  Kenneth Copeland who says that God is both male and female like the first human Adam.  The audio clip is here.

You know that God created Adam.  We won’t go back over that again.  He created him in authority.  God said and it was.  God said let there be light and there was.  Then he came up to create man and said, God said “Let us create man in our image.  Let him have dominion.”  Those were the words that he used to bring Adam alive.  And then he created Eve out of Adam.  Actually God didn’t name her Eve.  Adam named her Eve later.  That wasn’t her name.  Her name was Adam.  When God said Adam, they both came.  Their authority was one and the same together.  They did everything together.  They had always been together even when she was still part of him.  He was as much female as he was male, like God is.  God separated the female part of him and then put him back together.  And she was Adam.  They were Adam.  He was the man, she was the woman.  She was the man with the womb.

The Bible says nothing at all about the words “Let him have dominion” as the words that brought Adam to life.  This is a word of faith myth that allows Copeland to teach that man was given such extensive dominion that God now has to have our permission to do anything in this world.  In this myth man becomes god-like one who has the power to create whatever he speaks.

Copeland also teaches that God created Adam as an androgynous being, with both male and female body parts.  Once the myth has been established in people’s minds, Copeland builds on this myth and makes God in the same image as his creation.  He says that the androgynous Adam was made like God is.  This theology is Greek myth more akin to Zeus of the Greek pantheon.

In contrast, the Bible is absolutely clear that God is our Heavenly Father and in his divine nature, sexual distinctions are non-existent.  God is not like man with male and female parts.  God is pure spirit.  When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man. The concept that God is a being with sexual identity as both male and female is transforming God into a pagan mythological deity.

Copeland also teaches that wholeness only comes with men and women together.

After that, man and woman had to come together to be perfectly whole.

If this was true, then single people could never have wholeness in life unless they are currently married.  Yet Paul says that singleness can be a blessing because it can bring time for undistracted service to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:34  … The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:35  This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

It is also a myth that one cannot have wholeness unless one is married.  This myth can be devastating when it is taught to those who are single.

Benny Hinn also teaches that originally man was both male and female and that Adam gave birth to the female out of his side.  Listen to the audio clip here.

Holy Spirit said something to me and I had to go like a mad man and looking in the Word.  He says, “God’s original plan is that the woman was to bring forth children out her other side.”   What?  You know that there is nowhere in the Bible but where God gives birth out of His side? Jesus gives birth to the church out of His side.  Adam gives birth to his wife out of his side.  It was sin that turned the thing around. And it was sin that transformed her flesh and her body.

This is nothing less than a myth.  There is not even one verse to confirm that the woman was originally created to give birth out of her side.  Again we have the mythological teaching that the first man was created as male and female with Adam giving birth to Eve.  It may be a very romantic idea, but it has no basis in the scriptures.

How far the myths can be stretched is shown by Benny Hinn’s bizarre teaching about the super being abilities of Adam. Listen to the audio file  here.

Adam was a super being when God created him.  I don’t know if people even know this but he was the first super man that ever lived.  First of all the scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, which means he used to fly.  Well of course, how could he have dominion over the birds and not be able to do what they do?  I’ll prove it to you.  The word dominion, in the Hebrew, clearly declares that if you have dominion over a subject that you do everything that subject does.  In other words that subject if it does something you cannot do, you don’t have dominion over it.  I’ll prove it further.  Adam not only flew, he flew to space.  He was with one thought he would be on the moon.

There is nothing in Benny Hinn’s story that has any validity to it.  The Hebrew word for dominion does not mean that you have to do everything that your subjects are able to do.  It is preposterous to think that there is even a hint in the scriptures that Adam had gills like a fish to breath underwater so that he could have dominion over the fish of the sea or that he could also buzz around like a bee.  This is an untrue myth.

Another myth has come along into the landscape that Adam in the beginning was called both “male” and “female” and both “him” and “them”.  Christiane Carlson-Thies writes an article for CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality) in and this article she states that one person can be called “them”.

In Genesis 1:27-28, God clearly elevates Adam above every creature creating him in the “image of God.” And God gives clear marching orders: Be fruitful. Fill the earth. Rule. But what is this Adam that God creates in his divine image and that he authorizes to fulfill the cultural mandate? In this passage, God uses a lot of words that don’t normally apply to a solitary person. Specifically, God calls Adam variously “him”, “them”, “male” and “female.” Hmmm. Know anyone like that?

From Genesis 1:27 through Genesis 2:21, we learn the story of Adam, “him-them-male-female” – the world’s first and only truly “generic man.” Granted, if we had a photograph of this Adam, from our perspective in a universe of both male and female humans, we would identify the creature we see as a male human, but in Adam’s universe, to what could he compare himself to fix his human identity? What plants, what animals were like him? None, as Adam sadly discovers in Genesis 2. Distinctly different from all of God’s other creation, Adam is human, nothing more, nothing less. Going back to God’s own words again, Adam is “him-them-male-female,” a formulation repeated in Genesis 5:2.

What Christiane fails to realize is that Genesis chapter 1 is not talking about the creation of one person as a plural, but about one person from whom was made another person.

Genesis 1:26  Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 1:27  God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 1:28  God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:29  Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

In Genesis 1:26 God says that mankind will be made in the image of God.  He doesn’t say “the man” as he does elsewhere because in this instance, it is the generic term for mankind.  Speaking of his plan, God gives the rulership to “them”.  This was the plan even before God created, that they would rule.  Then in verse 27 God speaks about the creation of the man (the noun is definite) and after that point, God will use the plural for male and female.  This proves that both male and female were created in God’s image, not just the male.

In verse 28 we can see that the rulership of the creation is given when both male and female are together.  The male does not get rulership given to him before the time that the female is created.  This is clear from the text because it would make no sense to tell a single human to “be fruitful and multiple”.  This is spoken to both the man and the woman.  God also tells both of them what they can and cannot eat by giving them parameters for food.  The word “you” in the Hebrew is plural.  God gives the man and the woman only the plants yielding seed and only the fruit from the trees which yield seed.

There is no indication in the original Hebrew that God is speaking to one person as a plural.  This is a myth.

Can the truth of God’s word be blended together with modern myths or pagan mythologies?  I believe that when we do this we water down the world of God.  I believe very strongly that the word of God is eternal, infallible and unchanging.

Now let’s deal with some questions regarding what kind of person Adam was before Eve was created.

1.  Could Adam’s exclamation that Eve is  “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” mean that she was a female part of him that was taken out?

There are many who say that Adam’s exclamation is just poetic language and isn’t to be taken literally.  There are two problems with this view.

  • If Adam was merely speaking poetically then how would we know that?  What is there in the text that does not allow Adam’s words to be literal?

There is nothing in the text that would make Adam’s words non-literal.  If the words were not literal, where would we get the meaning from?  No other meaning in scripture is ever supplied for Adam’s words other than what he literally said.

Also if Eve came from a female organ that was taken out of Adam, Adam’s words would contradict that fact.  In the literal Hebrew Adam said “this is the once bone from bones of me and flesh from flesh of me”.  The first “bone” is singular and the second bone is plural.  Literally Adam said that she is made from what was once “a bone” amongst his multiple “bones” and she is flesh from what was his flesh.

  • If God wanted us to know that Eve was formed from a female organ within Adam how could God have inspired his word to tell us that?

Adam would have had to say “this is her flesh taken from me”.  It would have to be her flesh not his.  Why all the fuss?  Why is this so important that it was his flesh that she was made from, not her own flesh that was divided from his body?  The reason is because Eve had to be a DNA descendant of Adam’s so that the kinsman Redeemer that came through her would be traceable back to Adam before he sinned.  Read my post on Adam as head of the family to see how important it is to tie Eve back to Adam with a link before the stain of sin.

  • There is nothing in the record that would impugn Adam’s testimony.

If  Adam’s testimony was false then God would have corrected him.  Adam’s testimony to Eve is that she was part of his own bone as well as was his own flesh.  He did not testify that she was her own flesh from a female organ inside Adam.

Both the man and the woman were created in their sexual identify.  Adam was not created androgynous.  If this was so, then scripture would tell us that God created an androgynous human who later came to have a male identify.  The only reliable text we have is that the man was created male in the beginning and he did not become male after the female part was taken out of him.

2.  Did God’s testimony that he created humanity in Genesis 1:26 mean that God created an androgynous human?

In Genesis 1:26 God speaks about his plan to make humanity.

Genesis 1:26  Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

It isn’t until verse 27 that God creates male and female from the “him” who was created first.  God’s plan was to create humanity in his image and he did that with the creation of two people who were individually male and female.  Women cannot be considered less then men by saying that only man was created and the woman was formed.  In chapter 1 both male and female are said to be created and in chapter 2 both male and female are said to be formed.  The term “formed” is the way that God “created”.

  • Adam concurred with God, agreeing that the female was taken from the male.

Adam’s testimony is that the female was taken out of the the male (Hebrew ish).  Adam does not use the generic term for mankind.

Gen 2:23  The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman (ish-shaw), Because she was taken out of Man (eesh).”

Adam said she is bone of my bones…  If what comes next is not true, then Adam was mistaken and God who had just brought Eve to the man, failed to correct the mistake.  No, the clear way to interpret the text, is that God created the female from a part of the man’s own body.

3.  Can’t the word for “rib” also mean “side chamber” proving that Eve was a female organ inside of Adam?

Although the Hebrew word can mean “side chamber” and although the translation “rib” is only translated this way only one time in the Old Testament, the amount 0f times a word is translated a certain way is not the only key to a correct translation.  The most consistent key to a correct translation is the context.  Adam said “she is…” and in his testimony he testifies that she is his own flesh and bone.  With the word “bone” given by Adam, the best translation is rib since that is the bone in the side of  man.  One would have to explain away Adam’s words in order to have the translation read “side chamber”.  I believe that Adam told the truth and that his testimony was true and reliable because God is the one who told Adam what was used to make Eve.  It was bone and flesh.  I would rather believe the text than explain away the clear meaning.

4.  Is there a New Testament “proof” that Eve was made from the male and not divided from an androgynous human?

In 1 Corinthians 11:7-8, Paul states that the woman is the “glory” of the man (aner).

1 Corinthians 11:7  For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man (aner)
1 Corinthians 11:8  For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man (aner);

If the woman did not come from his own flesh as Adam declared she did, she wouldn’t have been his glory.  She would have been her own glory.

  • One of the signs of a myth is that there are holes in the argument and unanswerable questions

While truth is provable from the text, a myth will have holes in the argument.  For those who believe that Eve was taken out as a female part of Adam and then formed into a woman, what was Adam before Eve was taken out?  How did Adam become “male” after the “female” organ was taken out?  Did God add male hormones to Adam while Adam was still asleep?  There are more questions then there are answers when a myth comes into view.

Conclusion:

Interpretation of the scriptures is to be consistent with the text.  It is not to be based on feelings but what God has revealed.   There are a great deal of myths that are very compelling because they are romantic and they just feel good.  One of the most popular myths is that Adam sinned because he was giving up his life  for his wife when he ate the fruit, making Adam a romantic savior for his wife.  Yet romantic or not, these are still myths.

It is my desire to be free from myths and to stick to the word of God alone.  I realize that it is possible that I could be wrong and that Adam was indeed created an androgynous human, but if I am wrong, it is the Word of God which will be able to correct me.  Until I am corrected, I will stand on the Word of God as it is and affirm that in Eve’s creation, Adam told the truth and God’s Word told the truth that they were created male and female from the beginning.

65 thoughts on “Adam and his Ms. organ

  1. Cheryl,

    This is one of those things we just disagree on, and I don’t want to add to your stress by getting into a long argument about it. I’ll just very briefly make a few comments and leave it at that.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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”.

    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?

    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.

    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. 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. 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. 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. 😉

  2. Part of the challenge is that translations and commentary use the term man in 2 senses, inclusive for humans and exclusive for males.

    Gender is a type of human, however if there is no gender, there is just human.

    I do not say that there was female as a part of Adam before the split, the side was formed into a female after the split. But there was no concept of a male or female human before the split, it is not that Adam was both sexes, Adam was non-gendered, there being only 1 human. The terms male and female are only used after the split, that is my point, and trying to have those terms apply before that is not warranted by Scripture, it simply does not say that.

    One might think that if one thinks all creation is instantaneous, but that is not true, some things are said in the Bible to be created by God but the creation takes place over time.

  3. 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.

  4. ‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’

    Cheryl, what is this?

  5. ‘First of all the scriptures declare clearly that he had dominion over the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, which means he used to fly. ‘

    Ah, ha ha ha ha! LOL! Kidding me!!

    Ya no, that means he could, FLY! ROTFLOL!

  6. Don,

    I probably won’t have much more time tonight to respond so I do want to get in an answer to you before I finish other import things on my agenda.

    Part of the challenge is that translations and commentary use the term man in 2 senses, inclusive for humans and exclusive for males.

    I think the big part of my argument is that God said he created male and female. This is the original creation and gendered “male” means male sexual organs. I don’t see any place in the scripture where it says that God created a couple of male additions to Adam after Eve was created.

    Also it seems meaningless for Adam to look at the male and female animals in order to find a mate. What would he need a mate for if he was neither male or female? Which animal would he related himself to – the males or the females? When Eve was created, I don’t think he had to look her over too much to know that she was the opposite gender than he was. I don’t think he woke up from his surgery and had to inspect himself to see what extra things God gave him beyond what he took out.

    Gender is a type of human, however if there is no gender, there is just human.

    What would make us think there was no gender? When Adam was naming the animals and studying them seeing male and female how could he see that he was missing anything when he couldn’t identify with either male or female? When you match up the “no gender” to each part of the story it appears like a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit. How on earth can one explain that Adam was the only one missing a mate if he wasn’t a male? If he did have male parts, he could see all the other male parts matching up to the female parts and this would cause him to realize he didn’t have a fitting body part. But without the male attachments – it wouldn’t make sense.

    I do not say that there was female as a part of Adam before the split, the side was formed into a female after the split.

    So Eve became female after the split? Okay. That part makes perfect sense and fits with what I am saying. But when did Adam become male? Which verse tells us this and if he didn’t become male until after Eve was created, then how come God said that they were created male and female. It would make more sense if God say, they evolved into male and female. But then I don’t believe in evolution. Do you?

    But there was no concept of a male or female human before the split, it is not that Adam was both sexes, Adam was non-gendered, there being only 1 human.

    One is male when they have male body parts even if they don’t recognize that they are male. I don’t understand how you can emasculate Adam just because there wasn’t another human being around for awhile. Either Adam had male parts or he didn’t. If he didn’t have these parts, when did he get them?

    The terms male and female are only used after the split, that is my point, and trying to have those terms apply before that is not warranted by Scripture, it simply does not say that.

    Then you will have to explain why God said that he created them male and female. If it wasn’t at the creation then why didn’t God tell us the truth about when Adam became male? Is it okay if I am just a simple person and believe God for what he said?

    One might think that if one thinks all creation is instantaneous, but that is not true, some things are said in the Bible to be created by God but the creation takes place over time.

    I don’t think that creation is instantaneous although God could have done it that way if he wanted to. I believe that God took 6 days to complete creation, because I am just a simple person who accepts the text the way it is written. If I had to read into the text and figure out what God actually meant when he said something completely opposite of what he meant, I would go stir crazy because I am not smart enough to know what God meant if he didn’t say it in the text.

  7. ‘Then in verse 27 God speaks about the creation of the man (the noun is definite) and after that point, God will use the plural for male and female. This proves that both male and female were created in God’s image, not just the male.’

    I need some clarification here. I read that he made ‘adam’ (humankind’ in his image, and them (a reference to adam) male and female, therefore male and female were not made in his image – their gender was not, but only their humanity.

  8. Okay, I will take time also for pinklight tonight.

    ‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’

    This is 1 Corinthians 11. The woman is the glory of God AND the glory of man. The woman is in the image of God AND in the image of man. The woman is the only one with two glories and two images. And…she is the only one that has two heads. While scripture says that the husband is her head, scripture also says that if she is a Christian that Christ as head of the church is her head.

    It is difficult to understand some passages without also understanding that Paul never denies that the woman was made in God’s image even though he highlights in 1 Cor. 11 that the woman is the image of the man. See my post called Paul refutes a faulty tradition here

  9. pinklight,

    I need some clarification here. I read that he made ‘adam’ (humankind’ in his image, and them (a reference to adam) male and female, therefore male and female were not made in his image – their gender was not, but only their humanity.

    While God says that he made mankind in his image, he specifically goes on to say that it is male and female that he made in his image. It is not the sexual parts of male and female that were made in God’s image. However both male and female were made in their humanity and in their spiritual nature, in the image of God.

    I am so grateful to God that he specifically said that male and female were made in his image because I am certain that if he had not been specific that men would have denied that we were direct image of God. Oh, wait….so many do deny that women are in the direct image of God! But so many more would deny it if it was not clearly stated.

  10. 1a – So do you agree with me then that the words are not poetic but literal?

    But of course!

    1b – 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?

    Or neither.

    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.

    Timing is the key here. The statement “male and female he created them” is in the first, less detailed overview of creation week. Chapter two goes into detail absent from chapter one. After Eve, we have no doubt that Adam was male and Eve female. Before that, we just don’t know. The important thing of course is that Eve and Adam were made of the same flesh and bone, making them absolutely equal.

    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?

    There’s a lot God left out of the text, on a gazillion topics. I mean, come on… “there was light”. Little help, eh?

    There isn’t any other kind of creation but male and female.

    How about “human”?

    If Adam wasn’t exclusively male, then God would have told us.

    How do you know?

    I prefer to just take what God said.

    Me too! And I don’t try to supply what God didn’t say either.

    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.

    Sounds like the same thing I was saying…

    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?

    Which puts us both in the same boat. If there’s no mention of ribs anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, then how do you know it means rib and not just “side”? I considered the LXX too. And you still haven’t told me what “flesh” came out of Adam.

    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)

    Again, if the word for rib is only found here in Genesis, then nobody can say for sure what it must mean in this context. Side is the meaning in the LXX which predates (AFAIK) any Hebrew text available by several hundred years. It’s at least something to go on. If we say it must mean rib because we think the context supports it, that would be circular reasoning since there is no other context to compare it to.

    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.

    So it wasn’t only a bone after all? Just a little muscle attached to it? Can we arbitrarily decide that’s what “flesh” means here, and not anything else?

    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.

    Same thing I’m saying.

    The text does rule it out.

    I disagree.

    It appears to me that those who see another option have something that they would like to see in the text.

    Cheryl, I’ve been biting my tongue all this time so I wouldn’t accuse you of this, even though I could. Let’s not judge motives now, okay? That’s what male supremacists do to us all the time.

    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.

    And I haven’t seen any witness to say he was a male as we know them. The text just calls the pre-Eve Adam “human”. Only this, and nothing more.

    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 …

    I don’t argue that the part taken from Adam was necessarily a “female part”. It was an Adam part. Maybe it was something we associate now with the exclusively female now, maybe not.

    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.

    Are you saying I’m embracing a Greek myth, just because I won’t close a door I don’t see closed in scripture?

    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 have learned a lot from you Paula that has been a tremendous help to me. I very much value the interaction.

    You’re welcome, Cheryl. I know I’ve learned a lot from you too.

  11. ‘This is 1 Corinthians 11. The woman is the glory of God AND the glory of man. The woman is in the image of God AND in the image of man. The woman is the only one with two glories and two images. And…she is the only one that has two heads. While scripture says that the husband is her head, scripture also says that if she is a Christian that Christ as head of the church is her head.’

    Thanks, Cheryl.

    1 Co 11 says that woman is the glory of man but it does not (no way) say that she is the image of man or even made in the image of man.

    Also I see a difference in ‘being made in the image of God (humanity – Genesis) from ‘being the image of God (aner – 1 Co 11).

  12. ‘While God says that he made mankind in his image, he specifically goes on to say that it is male and female that he made in his image.’

    1 Co 11 says that the man is the image of God (doesn’t mention the man being made in the image of God). I take that to mean a human being who is male reflects the image of God.

    ‘I am so grateful to God that he specifically said that male and female were made in his image because I am certain that if he had not been specific that men would have denied that we were direct image of God. Oh, wait….so many do deny that women are in the direct image of God! But so many more would deny it if it was not clearly stated.’

    I agree with the concepts I think you are saying, I just wouldn’t phrase it as ‘God made male and female in his image’ and specificaly because I don’t find it wworded that way in Genesis. In Gen 1:26-27 we see that those terms for male and fermale are the same ones used for animals describing their sex. Since sex is not made in the image of God because God has no gender, I think that intentionaly the author of Genesis said that ‘God made adam (humanity) in his image,’ but when the author speaks of sex using the Hebrew words for male and female whether animal or human, he says, ‘male and female he made them’.

    Did I explain well enough what I’m trying to say?

  13. While complementarians can be tempted to distort the image of God by saying that God is male …
    Cheryl, many female subordinationists don’t quite go this far. Rather, they dance around it by saying that although God isn’t male because He doesn’t have sex organs like we do, he is 100% purely “masculine.” Of course, what they mean by masculine is like trying to nail jello to a wall; I’ve never received a satisfying answer. I would be interested in your take on whether or not God is “masculine” (as opposed to “feminine”).

  14. Adam (the human) said woman was taken from man (eesh, male person, male human). So I think he was a human male before woman was taken from him because Adam himself speaks as if he were male before she were taken from him.

  15. ” However both male and female were made in their humanity and in their spiritual nature, in the image of God.”

    Yes, I would not think we get our Image of God from the forming materials of dirt and bones.

    “I am so grateful to God that he specifically said that male and female were made in his image because I am certain that if he had not been specific that men would have denied that we were direct image of God. Oh, wait….so many do deny that women are in the direct image of God! But so many more would deny it if it was not clearly stated.”

    I have heard Ware teach that women are made in the ‘indirect’ image of God…a derivative. As if the forming materials used for
    Adam and Eve are where the image of God comes from. I believe his back up verse is in 1 Corin and man being the Glory of God. Talk about reading into a verse!

    on the disparity of Gen 1 and Gen 2 version, I do not know. I cannot for one minute believe that Adam (Human) was neutral, ungendered. I would be more apt to believe that because God is speaking of creating in His Image in this first part, that it would be a spritual type of being because that is the ‘Image of God’ part. (I feel strange even writing this!)

    He did give them important information in Gen 1:28+

    BTW: Since I never listen to Copeland or Hinn, it was bizarre hearing what they teach. And people give money for these guys to buy jets!

  16. Cheryl,
    You said:
    “The reason is because Eve had to be a DNA descendant of Adam’s so that the kinsman Redeemer that came through her would be traceable back to Adam before he sinned…”

    Not only traceable, but also untainted by Adam’s bloodline. This fact implies that the human female ovum is uncorrupted in its natural state.

    Why else would God choose a young virgin woman to bring his spotless lamb into the world? (Isaiah 7:14)

    I’ll issue the caveat right now that this is only hypothesis on the one hand, but not at all unreasonable on the other.

    It means that the machinery of slow death is not coded and set in motion (Romans 5:14) until the ovum becomes a fertilized zygote by a human male sperm cell.

  17. Though we attended an Assemblies of God Church, I was fed a fairly steady diet of Ken Copeland from the time I was a young teen. Later, my mother forced a great deal of Benny Hinn on me, and I’d been told from a young age that God intended that I become the next Kathryn Kuhlman, so I dutifully ate what I was fed by my parents. Unfortunately, much of that ideology has shaped my thinking, sometimes to the point that I wish I could take a toothbrush and toothpaste to scrub out my brain.

    As an undergrad, my college hired impressive people to come in to teach electives, and I arranged to study classes on Judaism (as I didn’t feel comfortable learning Christian topics from Catholics — I went for the nursing program, not the theology). I had the honor of studying with a Rabbi and notable leader in Philadelphia who traveled one night a week to teach at the school. I so wanted to take the opportunity to understand the Jewish roots of Christianity at that point in my life. I was very impressed and also enamoured by the things this Rabbi taught regarding Hebrew tradition. While between churches at different times in my life, for the novelty, I’ve attended Messianic congregations — primarily to get more expert insight into Hebrew.

    I find the Yeshivite myths of language to be very lovely about how God added the “ah” sound to Ish to make woman Isha. Woman is man with God’s breath of fire. The “ah” represents fire — the fire of life. This could also be meant as woman is man’s fire of passion, too. And I was taught that this is also what God did with Abram and Sarai when he changed their names — he breathed his life into them which allowed them to conceive Isaac. He added that “ah” to their names, heralding the that life. Again, this is not Scripture, but it is a long tradition that demonstrates a great love for the Hebrew language held by that tradition. There are some lovely observations that are thought provoking, but again, I am not stating that they are Scripture. It is just a commentary on how the Jews now understand their own language, once very near to being a dead language.

    Don mentioned one of two schools of thought in the previous thread, that one being that woman is only an understanding of “opposite” that God created, not necessarily implying anything about gender at all, save that woman was made to be “opposite”
    (ke’negdo) from man. Some say that man and woman are like mirror opposites in whom one sees a recognizable reflection of the other in a very Jewish poetic sense as described by some rabbis.

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

    Under the influence to some degree of the Ken Copeland stuff and respectful of the Jewish teachings (with some assumption that the Jews have some capacity to traditionally interpret their own language), I have always been persuaded that God transcends all gender, but has chosen to reveal Himself to us as male and not female (which includes Jesus who is not some kind of sick ESS understanding). The female symbolism and analogy is carried by the church, and gender helps teach us something about this mystery of God’s love for His creation. With the caution, fear and trembling that I have been strongly affected by some of these things, concerning Adam and Eve, I have made sense of this that Adam was made as one being that contained the seed of what Eve was in his side/rib (a supportive structure that protects man’s heart as opposed to a bone from the foot or head per Justin Martyr -I think that is attributed to him). And to that substance of bone and flesh taken from Adam, something both physical and representative of something metaphysical — whatever that means, God added that same breath of “ah” that was the very same thing that allowed Abram and Sarai to become parents. Again, anything we add to what is expressly written in the word is man’s theory, but I’ve always been moved by the parallel of the “ah” in the story of Abraham. (And I am not out publishing books about this, claiming that this is the only possible interpretation of Genesis, either.) But I do think that God is not gender-bound at all, but that we were given gender to help us understand some mysterious aspects of Christ’s relationship to us as our Redeemer. (That, again is based on some of my understanding of certain Hebrew words, but another topic for another day.)

    I’ve pulled some quotes from “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” (by orthodox Rabbi Maurice Lamb) last year and posted online, mainly to demonstrate that what was taught by Vision Forum’s weird twis of traditional theonomy with Jewish, Uber-Adam weirdness was not remotely like anything traditional Jews believe. (Vision Forum relies pretty heavily on their claims that they are following practices true to traditional Jewish patriarchy which actually proves to be more harsh than the Mishnah.) If anyone is interested, they can link over to read the blog posts here: http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/05/creation-of-eve-jewish-way.html

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

  18. My apologies to God first and everyone reading here next.

    I did not capitialize “He” and “Him” in the above comment. I really hate when I do that, as I really do endeavor to show God that respect and honor. I take great joy in doing so, and I am disappointed when I fail to follow through.

  19. The other consideration that I take to heart in some sense is the “analogy of being.” An artist or an inventor cannot create something beyond themselves or greater than themselves. Anything that I make with my hands or conceive of in my mind cannot be beyond my understanding. If I create a sculpture of myself, the sculpture can never become greater than me and cannot be greater than me (lest a force greater than I am comes and adds to my creation and changes it so that it no longer my own).

    For God to have created both male and female, He would have had to be transcendent over gender (greater than and pass beyond the limits of gender). And there MUST be something in God that defines the perfect standard of gender, though this need not mean that God has gender. Gender may be a metaphor and an allegory that God designed to reveal aspects of His character to us, and He Himself may have absolutely no gender at all. In some sense, to say that God IS male is to anthropomorphize Him.

    Gender has to be contained in God, as there can never be more of something in the creation than there is in the Creator. We are told that we are no greater than our masters or our creator. His ways and purposes transcend us, though He does give us sure truth to know Him, though some things are kept mysterious. (And that it not any kind of advocacy of “holy other.” but more of Van Til’s idea that we are like children that have the tendency to crawl up on God’s lap to slap Him in the face with our arrogance of limiting Him, telling Him who and what He is. That is not “holy other,” or claiming the “mysterium” as I have been thus accused by a disgruntled complementarian online a few months ago.) How can the finite possibly understand the infinite in fullness? Again, we only know what we have been taught. Within God, there is the ideal of both masculine and feminine. That might mean that there is no aspect of God that is literally male or female, or maybe there is an aspect of God that is the perfect male and perfect female. God is limited by neither. But what I think that we should be careful of is restricting God to our finite understanding of that which the Word has told us is, to some extent, a mystery.

  20. I hope I’m not driving you all nuts with too many early morning posts.

    I intended to say more directly before that I don’t think that it is expressly “pagan” to believe that the “they” of Genesis 1:27 means that there was one person named Adam who was a “they of male and female,” and not necessarily a reference to the species of mankind. (It may not be Eve or female, but an “Eveishness”) But to say that Adam contained something of Eve in some sense amounts to paganism is akin to a fallacy of distribution. What is true of the parts need not be true of the whole, and what is true of the whole need not be true of the parts. To believe something similar to what a pagan believes does not make one a pagan. It could well be that the pagans took the ideal and altered it. Every society tends to have an account of the great flood, but that does not make the flood pagan. So in and of itself, stating that Adam contained an aspect or quality of Eve when he was made, something that need not be a gender quality at all but “Eveishness,” is neither sacred nor profane. Again, this is so fixed on gender, and it need not be a gender quality at all. God could have added the gender aspect later.

    Some people who are not familiar with the Hebrew style of telling and retelling as a literary device understand that Eve was made after God rested, though I do not find that to be cogent, because Genesis 2 said that God rested and was finished. But the chronology is not abundantly clear, and though I ascribe to a young earth, I think that many good Christians believe that God did create Eve after day 6. I would bet that there are a great many that have not even thought about it much, and some explain it by way of an extended day earth. There are some problems with conceiving of how Adam did all that he accomplished on the first day. How clear is the chronology, and how much credulity can some find in that chronology? I don’t know, but I think it might be an intramural consideration.

    The question is whether or not it makes any kind of difference to anything later on. Why would it matter one way or the other? I think it makes a big deal if you are fixated on anthropomorphizing God, and egal and comp can do that both alike.

  21. Misuse does not deny correct use. Even if something is shown to be pagan before Moses does not mean Moses could not use it.

    1. Gen 1 and 2 are not in chronological order. Gen 2-4 is in chronological order, but how Gen 1 and Gen 5 harmonize is not stated, this is left to the reader.

    2. When God creates something in Gen 1 it cannot be in contradiction to him forming the same thing in Gen 2; they are different ways of expressing the same thing. In other words, forming something can be PART of the act of creation, it does not need to be ex nihilo, from nothing, or instantaneous.

    3. Gen 1-11 are poetic narratives or narratives with poetic elements, the more historical and less poetic narratives start with Gen 12. I use the term poetic broadly, there are MANY understandings of how Gen 1-11 teaches us about reality. Some believers can think something in Gen 1-11 is more poetic and some can think it is more historical but I do not think this should divide believers, just like I do not think end times things should divide them. For example, I do not believe the Gen 1 days are 24 hours and my sis does, we do not let it divide us, altho we do discuss it sometimes, never changing the other’s mind, yet we both agree God is Creator.

    4. When Moses does not say something, we need to respect him NOT saying it. As Moses never says Adam/human was male before the split, we do not need to think he was or was not, it is simply not stated. We do know both the male and female were named Adam by God. We do know they were made of the same stuff. There is a lot that is taught and if something is not taught that we wish were taught, then God is telling us we do not need that for our faith, instead, look at what is taught.

  22. Don said: There is a lot that is taught and if something is not taught that we wish were taught, then God is telling us we do not need that for our faith, instead, look at what is taught.

    Ah, here is wisdom. It is so difficult to think apart from that which we were taught or how we first conceived of something.

    Gen 1 and a good part of Gen 2 says “man” multiple times, but we know not if it means man as male or man as species. So we do add that to the text, probably interpreting gender because the distinction is soon made when female is introduced. Ah, so much to ponder.

    The bottom line is that we don’t know any more than what we’re told, and we have a limited number of possibilities of what could have possibly happened based upon what we are clearly told. The creation order is problematic for evolution, because some creatures were made before their food would have been created, so they would have either have been divinely sustained if there was a long earth day versus 24 hours. I had not considered this morning also that ex nihilo could have been complete on day six with Eve created later as made from something as opposed to nothing. No?

    I just (personally) do not agree that right about calling a particular group of JudeoChristian beliefs as pagan (that Adam was a “they” of male and female and then the flesh drawn out of him with an aspect of him that would have been notably Eve’s essence, equal in flesh and any other metaphysical property that was expressly Eve or just a portion of Adam). As I understand it, God would have to be greater than both male and female, so it would not necessarily be evil to say that viewing Adam this way (pre-split) necessarily violates God’s nature or other Scriptures. In what terms was Adam made in God’s image, exactly, and is this reflected in a gender expression? I guess that’s the real issue. (Maybe not?) And I could be entirely wrong.

    Ken Copeland has another teaching that because God stretched out the heavens with the span of his hand, Copeland calculates that God, in the form of Jesus, was a certain height and would have been a certain stature. (Isaiah says God is 6’4″ or something like that.) It makes for interesting academic speculation and muse, but not doctrine as Copeland teaches it. And we get ourselves headed into error.

    I don’t know. We hit a point where the poetic nature of the language gives us over to speculation. Hhmmm.

  23. So Don,

    All that to say, where am I going off center or am I going off center?

    I’m just trying to make sense of things based on what I understand, and that may or may not be accurate. Do I jump ship from the Scripture anywhere?

  24. Love God and people and you cannot go far wrong.

    I think possible scenarios are fine to discuss, as long as they are claimed to be just that.

  25. Paula,

    I am going back to the comments from #10 as I took a break for a few days to deal with other matters.

    I am glad that you agree with me that the passage is literal. I asked you “what was Adam in the creation male or female or both” and you answered “or neither”. If your answer is neither, then God created a human without gender.

    Timing is the key here. The statement “male and female he created them” is in the first, less detailed overview of creation week. Chapter two goes into detail absent from chapter one. After Eve, we have no doubt that Adam was male and Eve female. Before that, we just don’t know. The important thing of course is that Eve and Adam were made of the same flesh and bone, making them absolutely equal.

    Yet Jesus told us that God made them male and female “from the beginning” so we cannot say that we don’t know what there was before Eve was created.

    Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

    Jesus didn’t say that “from the beginning” man was an ungendered person AND female. He said that “from the beginning” he made them male and female.

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

    We don’t have to help God out at all. Jesus said they were male and female “in the beginning” and he didn’t make a mistake since he was there “in the beginning”. The scripture does not contradict Jesus by telling us that Adam wasn’t exclusively male. Neither does Jesus say that “after the split” there was male and female. He said “in the beginning” and I believe him.

    There’s a lot God left out of the text, on a gazillion topics. I mean, come on… “there was light”. Little help, eh?

    I agree that there is a lot left out, but what is there is enough and what is there by the testimony of two of three witnesses will not contradict what we think God meant. If God didn’t say that ungendered was there “in the beginning”, and he said “male and female” then we can cross “ungendered” off our list of possibilities. Jesus has never misled us yet and I would rather trust him than the word of any mere man.

    And I don’t try to supply what God didn’t say either.

    But that is what you appear to be doing. You are saying that Adam was NOT male in the beginning. Please show me a verse that will contradict Jesus’ testimony and then please explain how Jesus was wrong.

    If there’s no mention of ribs anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, then how do you know it means rib and not just “side”? I considered the LXX too. And you still haven’t told me what “flesh” came out of Adam.

    Adam’s testimony has not been impeached. He said that what Eve was made from was his flesh and his bone. The only bone in the side of man is rib. In the LXX it renders it as something “angular” and the word “organ” is not in the original. Everything meshes with Adam’s rib. Since there is flesh attached to the rib and God apparently did not scrape the flesh off the rib, it makes perfect sense.

    There is also not one reference in the Old Testament to a side chamber inside a person. The only reference is to an “angular” “board” “rib” which shows something hard. If I saw actual evidence there there was a female organ attached to the rib I would consider it. However there is no evidence in the scripture nor from Adam’s testimony. Adam did not say that God took out an organ. He said “flesh” and “bone”. An organ is not usually called “flesh”.

    Again, if the word for rib is only found here in Genesis, then nobody can say for sure what it must mean in this context. Side is the meaning in the LXX which predates (AFAIK) any Hebrew text available by several hundred years. It’s at least something to go on. If we say it must mean rib because we think the context supports it, that would be circular reasoning since there is no other context to compare it to.

    There is no doubt that the rib was taken from Adam’s side. But to take the location (side) and try to prove that it is an organ just doesn’t make sense to me.

    So it wasn’t only a bone after all? Just a little muscle attached to it? Can we arbitrarily decide that’s what “flesh” means here, and not anything else?

    It wasn’t just a bone. I never said it was just a rib. The text says it was flesh and bone. Flesh is defined as: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flesh

    the soft substance of a human or other animal body, consisting of muscle and fat or skin.

    Again, very consistent with the the rib and the flesh around it and not consistent with an organ.

    Cheryl, I’ve been biting my tongue all this time so I wouldn’t accuse you of this, even though I could. Let’s not judge motives now, okay? That’s what male supremacists do to us all the time.

    My intention was not to offend you and if I have, I apologize. When I said that there is no evidence for an ungendered human and those who see it that way, it appears to me that they would like to see this in the text, I was not intending to judge anyone’s heart. I was making an observation about the fact that there is no evidence. I have given evidence to the contrary by quoting scripture and I have now buttressed this with Jesus’ words who tells us what there was “in the beginning”. If there is any evidence for the contrary then I want to see it. However without evidence, it appears to me that people who have a good heart and good motives, want to see something in the text that is not there. I also believe that adding in an ungendered human “in the beginning” messes up God’s good intention for the genders. God’s intention was not an after thought because male and female was his purpose “in the beginning”. If I offend someone with these words, I truly do not mean to be offensive. I would like to push you to prove your point from evidence instead of from silence. If the point cannot be proved, I would like to push you to see the beauty of gender right from the beginning. It does not lessen my value because I am female. In fact I believe it gives me more value. I was made with a purpose and I was meant to add value to the man because I am one of those whom the man needs.

    And I haven’t seen any witness to say he was a male as we know them. The text just calls the pre-Eve Adam “human”. Only this, and nothing more.

    If this is the case then perhaps Adam became nongendered again when he got kicked out of the garden because God did not call him “male” but THE human. When God called Adam “THE human” and kicked him out does this prove that Adam was non-gendered? If not, then how could it prove that he was non-gendered in the beginning?

    I really think that these are valid points because honestly this belief makes me feel somewhat embarrassed. I know that complementarians make fun of those egalitarians that believe that Adam was non-gendered or male/female gendered in the beginning. I think that they have a point. There is no evidence for this in the text and they see those who believe this way as trying to make us all non-gendered now. I know that this is not the case but their concern that if one can read into the text about a non-gendered human in the beginning, what else do we read into the text? I do not want to be accused of this because I value evidence that has two or three witnesses so that I can be sure of what I believe.

    I don’t argue that the part taken from Adam was necessarily a “female part”. It was an Adam part. Maybe it was something we associate now with the exclusively female now, maybe not.

    I agree that it was an “Adam” part. It was his own flesh and bone and not hers in the beginning. But it makes no sense at all to say that what was taken out was not necessarily a “female part” but could be now exclusively female. What on earth is a female part now that wasn’t female before? This just appears to be stretching things farther and farther into speculation and conjecture and farther away from the actual text especially since we have a solid word from Adam about what was taken out.

    Are you saying I’m embracing a Greek myth, just because I won’t close a door I don’t see closed in scripture?

    No, I don’t think you are necessarily embracing a Greek myth. What I am saying is that the only backup we have is from mythology. Even the Jews had a great amount of mythology including the addition of a “first wife” to Adam. According to their myth, Lileth was the one created equal to Adam, but Adam needed another wife created from his side to be in submission to him because the first one who was equal wouldn’t submit to him.

    You can read about Lileth here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#Folk_tradition

    The idea that Adam had a wife prior to Eve may have developed from an interpretation of the Book of Genesis and its dual creation accounts; while Genesis 2:22 describes God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, an earlier passage, 1:27, already indicates that a woman had been made: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” The text places Lilith’s creation after God’s words in Genesis 2:18 that “it is not good for man to be alone”. He forms Lilith out of the clay from which he made Adam, but the two bicker. Lilith claims that since she and Adam were created in the same way, they were equal, and she refuses to submit to him:

    I am fully honored to have such intellects who come here and who are so far above me that I look like a country hill-billy. There is no doubt at all in my mind that you are way smarter than I am. But even with your intelligence, there may be something that I can challenge you on and help you to unlearn. If I am right, then the challenge is a good thing and it is godly. If I am wrong, then I submit to learn from real evidence. In your evidence to me you will have to deal with Jesus’ words that “in the beginning” God created them male and female and you need to teach me why I should see Jesus’ words differently. I do not want to be misled by mythology or anything of my own flesh that would like to make myself created for a different purpose than I have been created. I am happy and content to be what God created me to be and I am happy and content to believe God. If I can be persuaded by God’s word that there is another option and the persuasion comes from clear texts that show that from the beginning they were not gendered, at least there was one ungendered human, then I am happy to admit that I may stand to be corrected. Until then I would like to encourage everyone to study hard. Study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. Don’t look at scriptures through your emotions. Test all things and hold fast to what is good.

    It will take me awhile to answer the rest of the comments as this is a very busy week for me, but I do intend to work my way through them all. If a biblical proof for an ungendered human “in the beginning” pops up in the text and anyone has the ability to correct me on this one, feel free to proof text away. In the meantime I stand firm that Jesus and Genesis are correct as gendered humans (male and female) were “in the beginning” and the other view is only supported in the myths.

  26. Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

    We know that this was not on day 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the creation account of Gen 1.

    Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

    So Mat 19:4 and Mar 10:6 are saying the same thing in different ways.
    They are both speaking about the time of origins and saying in this period of time, God “made” them male and female.

  27. Don,

    Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

    We know that this was not on day 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the creation account of Gen 1.

    Could you please write this statement how God could have written it if the man and the woman were created as male and female? How could he have written it so that we understood that?

  28. #12 pinklight,

    You said:

    1 Co 11 says that woman is the glory of man but it does not (no way) say that she is the image of man or even made in the image of man.

    Also I see a difference in ‘being made in the image of God (humanity – Genesis) from ‘being the image of God (aner – 1 Co 11).

    You are right in that it doesn’t directly say that the woman is made in the image of man. However it does say that she is the glory of the man. What does this mean? How come scripture never says that the man is the glory of the woman? Next question, if the woman is made from a part of the man, could this be thought to be made from his image?

    Man is said to be the glory of God. As the glory of God, does this mean that he was made in God’s image? If so, does this mean glory = image of ____ ?

    Thoughts?

  29. #13 pinklight,

    1 Co 11 says that the man is the image of God (doesn’t mention the man being made in the image of God). I take that to mean a human being who is male reflects the image of God.

    What we do is compare scripture with scripture. 1 Cor. 11 says that man is the image of God and Genesis 1:26 God says “Let us make man in Our image…”

    Image of God then equates to “made in the image of God”.

    I agree with the concepts I think you are saying, I just wouldn’t phrase it as ‘God made male and female in his image’ and specificaly because I don’t find it wworded that way in Genesis.

    We actually do find this in Genesis 1:26

    Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

    When God said “Let Us make man in Our image” man here is to be taken as mankind. This is the way that the church has always taken the verse, except for a few hierarchists who women are subordinate to men because of their nature. God then defines the category of who will rule. The “mankind” is “they” who will rule over the creation. Women certainly are made in the image of God just as men are.

    In Gen 1:26-27 we see that those terms for male and fermale are the same ones used for animals describing their sex. Since sex is not made in the image of God because God has no gender, I think that intentionaly the author of Genesis said that ‘God made adam (humanity) in his image,’ but when the author speaks of sex using the Hebrew words for male and female whether animal or human, he says, ‘male and female he made them’.

    The terms “male and female” are identifying that “they” is not “men” but both men and women. It adds to the meaning and is not intended to mean that God has one or two genders.

  30. #14 Light,

    You said:

    Cheryl, many female subordinationists don’t quite go this far. Rather, they dance around it by saying that although God isn’t male because He doesn’t have sex organs like we do, he is 100% purely “masculine.” Of course, what they mean by masculine is like trying to nail jello to a wall; I’ve never received a satisfying answer. I would be interested in your take on whether or not God is “masculine” (as opposed to “feminine”).

    If one means that He has character traits that are often found in men, then yes He has masculine traits. But God has also revealed that he has feminine traits. I believe that these traits that we would identify as primarily masculine or primarily feminine are reflected in the whole of humanity. No one sex can say that God only fully represents their sex because God is more than one set of traits. I think this is why some want to call Him “Mother”. I disagree with this only because God has chosen the image of Father to reveal himself to us and the image has meaning and a specific purpose. Yet his personality certainly does embrace all of the mothering characteristics too and that should be very comforting to us.

    I hope I adequately answered your question. If I missed what you were getting at, please push me further on this one.

  31. #15 pinklight,

    Adam (the human) said woman was taken from man (eesh, male person, male human). So I think he was a human male before woman was taken from him because Adam himself speaks as if he were male before she were taken from him.

    Amen! I agree.

  32. #16 Lin,

    on the disparity of Gen 1 and Gen 2 version, I do not know. I cannot for one minute believe that Adam (Human) was neutral, ungendered. I would be more apt to believe that because God is speaking of creating in His Image in this first part, that it would be a spritual type of being because that is the ‘Image of God’ part. (I feel strange even writing this!)

    Yes, absolutely. God IS Spirit. Yet ai also think that our being a triune being is also part of the equation.

    He did give them important information in Gen 1:28+

    I am not quite sure what you mean with the above statement.

    BTW: Since I never listen to Copeland or Hinn, it was bizarre hearing what they teach. And people give money for these guys to buy jets!

    Yes, bizarre, eh?

  33. #17 Greg,

    You said:

    I’ll issue the caveat right now that this is only hypothesis on the one hand, but not at all unreasonable on the other.

    It means that the machinery of slow death is not coded and set in motion (Romans 5:14) until the ovum becomes a fertilized zygote by a human male sperm cell.

    I can tell that you have been reasoning this one through.

    Cindy K,

    I have run out of time for tonight. Will try to get to your posts in the next day or so. No problem with your multiple posts as I can see that your brain was really processing all of this and your ability to be respectful and thoughtful early in the morning is amazing!

  34. Cheryl,

    My cats think it’s two hours later than it really is and started the morning routine, and now I find myself awake in the middle of the night. So only heaven knows what my demeanor is like at this odd hour. (The internet is a nice and quite occupation now…) And I’m glad you’re catching up and specifically said so, as I had a tiny twinge of concern that I might have shut down the discussion, (even though I found that unlikely).

    In the event that I didn’t state it succinctly, my goal here is to see the Word clearly and discern the truth. I take more of an Augustinian approach to things, tending to be less presumptive about God. That has its pitfalls, because one can lean more towards the idea that God is holy other and too mysterious to know. On the other hand, I am very disturbed at the practice of some who put God in a tiny, human box, presuming to have God’s perspective. Aware of the pitfalls of my natural bend, I try to find balance, but it is always a very dynamic process for me.

    My other concern is that at certain impressionable times in my life, I drew from the Word of Faith teachers and was taught by my parents that I never had any right to question the teaching of anyone who called themselves an anointed pastor. Sometimes those influences are those things to which we are most blind because they form our first views of things and are the foundation for what we add to them. I have Copeland’s voice printed on my brain in association with very good memories, and I can hear the tenor of his voice saying “Adam committed high treason….” and other such things. And I loved the poetic and delicate beauty of some of the things I learned from the Jews I’ve studied with over the years (some Christians and some not). So as much as I am trying to bring up ideas here, I am also trying to make sure that I am letting the Word and the Spirit wipe the scales of flesh from my sight.

    That said, my reasons for posting here at all are probably more selfish than anything else. If I come across as hard or pushy, I think that would be more a sign of my own discomfort in trying to sort out right thinking from wrong thinking in myself. It is terrifying to consider that I have a Right Brained tendency to be more intuitive, and that can be a terrible trap. I do not want to be a mystical Christian, save when it is appropriate for the discussion of what is truly mysterious. For example, the other morning when discussing this subject with my husband, checking with him about my comment about the distributive fallacy (if that was fitting or not), we discussed the mystery of marriage and why God chose to do things the way he did or to not be more bookish in the Genesis account so that we could have a “clear formula” with analytical exactness. And both of us came to tears, talking of Jesus’ great love for us, and how significant that is as seen in Adam’s statement of “flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone.” That is mystery.

    So if I do come across as some kind of bully at any point, I apologize. But it is always pretty terrifying when I look back at some of these things, wondering if I’m clinging to things I like as opposed to truth because they are easy and familiar. But that consideration has its benefits in this discussion, as this is exactly what we hope that the complementarian will do — consider whether their presuppositions have tainted their reading and understanding of the Word. It is a threatening process to consider that you’ve chosen a foundation stone that needs to be hewn out and replaced. God have mercy on us all as we look at the foundations we’ve chosen with the best of intent.

  35. Don said: “Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’

    We know that this was not on day 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the creation account of Gen 1.”

    Cheryl: “Could you please write this statement how God could have written it if the man and the woman were created as male and female? How could he have written it so that we understood that?”

    Creation can take time and forming can take time. Moses could have written that Adam before the split was ish, but did not, Adam is simply human and both the man and the woman have that name after the split. The point is to not go beyond the text, going beyond the text in ANY way is speculation; and as long as it is called speculation, I do not see a problem. For our faith, it simply does not matter what type of human Adam was before the split, since it does not say. Since there was only one, it is not even clear what the meaning of type is, type only has a meaning when there are 2 types.

  36. I think Don has a valid point about the fact that “male and female from the beginning” cannot apply to the time before Eve was created. But I also want to clear up one thing:

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

    We don’t have to help God out at all…

    Cheryl, the first paragraph is a quote from your earlier comment, that you made. It was one of the quotes that I didn’t do right. Sorry for the confusion. I replied right after that. So the second paragraph is your rebuttal to your own earlier quote about presuming God would have told us more.

    But that is what you appear to be doing. You are saying that Adam was NOT male in the beginning. Please show me a verse that will contradict Jesus’ testimony and then please explain how Jesus was wrong.

    Cheryl, I could say you’re doing this too. You’re saying that Adam was male, and at the same time, that he was male and female from the beginning. Both can’t be true. And I’m not insisting on anything except this: that we are not told in scripture the physical makeup of Adam before Eve was created, unless you believe that Adam was “male and female from the beginning” even before Eve was made.

    Adam’s testimony has not been impeached. He said that what Eve was made from was his flesh and his bone. The only bone in the side of man is rib.

    All I’ll say is that there are experts who disagree on this, and there just isn’t enough to dogmatically state what the word must mean. Again, I’m not saying one way or the other about Adam before Eve, because scripture does not tell us; it is completely silent about Adam’s physical makeup before Eve was made, beyond his being made from dirt.

  37. #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!

  38. #20 Cindy K,

    For God to have created both male and female, He would have had to be transcendent over gender (greater than and pass beyond the limits of gender). And there MUST be something in God that defines the perfect standard of gender, though this need not mean that God has gender. Gender may be a metaphor and an allegory that God designed to reveal aspects of His character to us, and He Himself may have absolutely no gender at all. In some sense, to say that God IS male is to anthropomorphize Him.

    Gender has to be contained in God, as there can never be more of something in the creation than there is in the Creator.

    I would say that “gender traits” are contained in God, but gender is not. Our understanding of gender is mostly physical and God has no physical body parts to make him male or female. Character traits – yes he does have those.

    How can the finite possibly understand the infinite in fullness? Again, we only know what we have been taught. Within God, there is the ideal of both masculine and feminine.

    Yes, I agree and very nicely put!

  39. #22 Cindy K,

    I intended to say more directly before that I don’t think that it is expressly “pagan” to believe that the “they” of Genesis 1:27 means that there was one person named Adam who was a “they of male and female,” and not necessarily a reference to the species of mankind. (It may not be Eve or female, but an “Eveishness”)

    In Genesis 1 God reveals Himself as “Us” and it is not without meaning that he speaks of the creation of mankind of both male and female. The problem with making Adam a “they” instead of a grammatically correct “he” is that it would not only be incorrect grammar for a human, but it would make the human a God with a multiple with one person just as God is. This is not the way that the passage reads of the way that the church has understood it.

    The NET bible translator notes reads:

    The Hebrew word is ??? (‘adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in Gen_1:26 (i.e., Genesis 1:26b)) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in Gen_1:27. Usage elsewhere in Genesis 1-11 supports this as well. In Gen_5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ [???].”

    So according to the translator notes, “Adam” is not to be considered a single man here but humanity and male and female is thus more than one person. I concur with their understanding of the Hebrew.

    But to say that Adam contained something of Eve in some sense amounts to paganism is akin to a fallacy of distribution.

    If one says that Adam contained something that God created into Eve is perfectly fine. But to say that Adam contained the female or her body parts of part male and part female or 100% male and 100% female (like Jesus was 100% God and 100% man) has no foundation in the scriptures. The only foundation it has is in mythology (mostly Greek) and Jewish story telling.

    To believe something similar to what a pagan believes does not make one a pagan. It could well be that the pagans took the ideal and altered it.

    I agree. To believe something similar or even to believe something exactly as the pagans, does not make one a pagan. I do think, though, that we should be concerned about what our beliefs might distort. To me it is like people calling God “mother”. That has similarities with pagan mythology too but it doesn’t make a believer a pagan. But removing or adding to God’s only image of Fatherhood, may very well cause us to see God differently than the inspired image He has created for us. It may also stop us from seeing other related things that He has prepared for us. I don’t want to be in a position to miss out on anything that God has for me.

    So in and of itself, stating that Adam contained an aspect or quality of Eve when he was made, something that need not be a gender quality at all but “Eveishness,” is neither sacred nor profane.

    The problem here is that scripture gives no indication that Eve was made from anything metaphysical. It only mentions “flesh and bone” not “flesh and bone and Eveishness”. God could have said something like that if there was more to it. But He didn’t. I don’t want to distort what He has given us to turn it into a story that is based on conjecture instead of solid fact. Many have followed that path before. I know because I have specialized in dealing with the cults.

    Some people who are not familiar with the Hebrew style of telling and retelling as a literary device understand that Eve was made after God rested, though I do not find that to be cogent, because Genesis 2 said that God rested and was finished.

    This would be an instance of a story telling that would contradict the revealed facts.

    But the chronology is not abundantly clear, and though I ascribe to a young earth, I think that many good Christians believe that God did create Eve after day 6.

    While I do believe one can be a good Christian and be an old earther, I would have trouble with any distortion of the text when Exodus says that God’s physical creation was “in six days” and having creation go past the “six days” would distort the sabbath.

    Exo 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

    The question is whether or not it makes any kind of difference to anything later on. Why would it matter one way or the other? I think it makes a big deal if you are fixated on anthropomorphizing God, and egal and comp can do that both alike.

    I think it matters because it becomes the foundation for other doctrines. If the text is rendered as “unclear” on the creation of the first man and first woman what else is now unclear? Perhaps marriage is no longer clear between one man and one woman and perhaps the issue of sin is no longer clear?

    You have been very gentle and respectful. I really appreciate that. My bottom line is that I want to be persuaded by the text. If we can make one human as “they” then we can no longer trust Paul’s wording in 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul writes “she” AND “they”. Now the language becomes nonsensical and it appears to me that the Holy Spirit would be more willing to confuse us that give us the straight truth. I prefer to let the language speak for itself and just accept that “they” is more than one person.

    Okay, that’s all I can deal with tonight. I will get to the remaining comments likely tomorrow.

  40. “He did give them important information in Gen 1:28+”

    What I meant was that God gave them important information in Genesis 1:

    Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
    29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

    He told them to be fruitful and multiply, He told them about the food, etc. And He is telling them this before we read about either of them being formed. Is there any significance to this? I have no idea.

  41. Hi it’s the first time I post here. I was just wondering what do you make of genesis 27 stating that when God formed man He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul”, but when He forms the woman those words are missing? Are we just to assume He did the same in her case? Or isn’t it there because He took her soul out of the man? How would you interpret it? Just wondering.

  42. J,

    Welcome!

    The question you ask is relevant also to our spirit since we all created from the body of another human being(s). My answer to this question would be that what is born of flesh is from the flesh. What is born of the spirit is from the Spirit. In other words our human nature and our body comes from our parents but our spirit can come only from God. That appears to be an individual miracle with each person.

    While the scriptures is silent on whether or not God breathed life into Eve in exactly the same way as he did for Adam, we can be assured that they were created equally in the image of God and this is the bottom line.

    I hope this helps!

  43. #23 Don,

    You said:

    Misuse does not deny correct use. Even if something is shown to be pagan before Moses does not mean Moses could not use it.

    While I can agree with the basic concept, the fact that something has a pagan use/origin should cause us to want to make sure that we are not following the pagan view. This makes it doubly important to search out whether such a thing is there in scripture or not.

    Genesis 1 is an overview of creation, while Genesis 2 is the details that are important for us to understand the creation of humanity.

    2. When God creates something in Gen 1 it cannot be in contradiction to him forming the same thing in Gen 2; they are different ways of expressing the same thing. In other words, forming something can be PART of the act of creation, it does not need to be ex nihilo, from nothing, or instantaneous.

    Unless otherwise shown, creation and forming are words that are interchangeable with the creation of man. God can create through speaking or He can create through forming.

    3. Gen 1-11 are poetic narratives or narratives with poetic elements, the more historical and less poetic narratives start with Gen 12. I use the term poetic broadly, there are MANY understandings of how Gen 1-11 teaches us about reality.

    We can’t go wrong in understanding the historical story of Genesis need to be seen as anything other than history unless scripture shows us it is something else. I know that some see Genesis as a story that is not historical or true but merely a creative form, but in doing so the foundation for much of the rest of scripture is removed. For example, some believe that Adam and Eve of Genesis 1 and 2 are figurative for _____ (fill in the blank), yet if we remove the historical account of the first man and the first woman we have no basis to understand how sin entered the world or how God originally gave mankind freewill, etc. It is very easy to be tempted to treat scripture as poetry when the scripture taken literally says something that doesn’t fit our worldview. I would rather adjust my own worldview than force the historical beginnings (this is what Genesis means) to be a fairytale meant to teach us whatever we think we want it to mean.

    Some believers can think something in Gen 1-11 is more poetic and some can think it is more historical but I do not think this should divide believers, just like I do not think end times things should divide them. For example, I do not believe the Gen 1 days are 24 hours and my sis does, we do not let it divide us, altho we do discuss it sometimes, never changing the other’s mind, yet we both agree God is Creator.

    I do agree with you that we should not let these issues divide us, however I do believe that there is much reason to earnestly contend for the truth so that we can rightly divide the world of truth. Whenever we lay aside something that God has given us as a foundation and we replace it to make it a piece of poetry, we remove fact and replace it with feeling. Poetry is meant to have imagery and feeling and thus can mean many different things to different people. One apologist in an attempt at refuting my exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:15, said that this verse should be taken as poetry. This was the excuse taken to get out from the clear grammar that is specifically worded to create a one-of-a-kind ending to the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12. This just doesn’t work, nor does it work to take history from the scriptures and make it poetry.

    4. When Moses does not say something, we need to respect him NOT saying it. As Moses never says Adam/human was male before the split, we do not need to think he was or was not, it is simply not stated.

    God is the one who said that the Genesis of humanity was male and female. We need to respect God. If he said that it was male and female in the beginning, we need to believe that. He is completely silent on any pre-male form and so we need to respect him NOT saying there was anything before the genesis of his creation in humanity.

    We do know both the male and female were named Adam by God. We do know they were made of the same stuff. There is a lot that is taught and if something is not taught that we wish were taught, then God is telling us we do not need that for our faith, instead, look at what is taught.

    Yes, this is true. This is the genesis of humanity and it is history and it is fact. God did name them both Adam and they were created of the same stuff.

    This is one of the key reasons why I reject an a-sexual or bi-sexual Adam. In the historical record, God did not tell an a-sexual or bi-sexual being to be fruitful and multiply. (Genesis 1:27, 28) This would make God appear to be unreasonable. He did tell the male and female (them) to multiply.

  44. #24 Cindy K,

    You said:

    Gen 1 and a good part of Gen 2 says “man” multiple times, but we know not if it means man as male or man as species. So we do add that to the text, probably interpreting gender because the distinction is soon made when female is introduced.

    We can know when God means both male and female when He says “them” and “you (plural)”. We can know He means the male alone when he says “the man”.

    The bottom line is that we don’t know any more than what we’re told, and we have a limited number of possibilities of what could have possibly happened based upon what we are clearly told.

    I agree. We need to just read the account and not add to it. However if we read the account and very carefully map it out, I think that God did a good job of letting us know what He meant.

    The creation order is problematic for evolution, because some creatures were made before their food would have been created, so they would have either have been divinely sustained if there was a long earth day versus 24 hours.

    Amen!

    I had not considered this morning also that ex nihilo could have been complete on day six with Eve created later as made from something as opposed to nothing. No?

    I had not heard this one before, but I don’t think that there is merit in the text for seeing Eve created after God rested. How could God have blessed them (plural) and told them to multiply if there was only one person in creation? I just don’t think it fits.

    I just (personally) do not agree that right about calling a particular group of JudeoChristian beliefs as pagan (that Adam was a “they” of male and female and then the flesh drawn out of him with an aspect of him that would have been notably Eve’s essence, equal in flesh and any other metaphysical property that was expressly Eve or just a portion of Adam).

    Perhaps you misunderstood me. I didn’t say the belief was pagan but that the only support for the belief came from pagan sources. What I did say was that it was a myth. If someone can show me that it has real support in the scriptures instead of an argument from silence, then I would retract my comments about “myth”. However I am not calling people who believe this way as “pagans” or their belief as “pagan”. I am trying hard to encourage all to be bible bereans and to work hard at seeing what is actually in the text so that we all can be assured that there is nothing for us to be ashamed at because we have rightly divided the word of truth. I am working hard to challenge those precious people who come to my blog, to see that God says what He means and means what He says. When he said “them” and “you (plural)” he was not referring to a single person but to the man and the woman. There is no biblical precedent to allow a single person to be called plural. That is except for the one God who is three persons in one and who can rightfully be spoken of in the plural form for plural persons.

    As I understand it, God would have to be greater than both male and female, so it would not necessarily be evil to say that viewing Adam this way (pre-split) necessarily violates God’s nature or other Scriptures. In what terms was Adam made in God’s image, exactly, and is this reflected in a gender expression? I guess that’s the real issue. (Maybe not?) And I could be entirely wrong.

    The question here is what can we add to the account? Can we say that God made Adam to be an angel first and then his humanity came next just before Eve was create? This would also be adding to the text.

    Ken Copeland has another teaching that because God stretched out the heavens with the span of his hand, Copeland calculates that God, in the form of Jesus, was a certain height and would have been a certain stature. (Isaiah says God is 6?4? or something like that.) It makes for interesting academic speculation and muse, but not doctrine as Copeland teaches it. And we get ourselves headed into error.

    I agree that this would be speculation, however it also is blasphemy making God in our image. God fills the heavens and the earth so it is impossible for God to have a size and to bring Him down to our size would cause us to see God like a man instead of seeing Him as the awesome Deity that He is.

    I don’t know. We hit a point where the poetic nature of the language gives us over to speculation. Hhmmm.

    You hit the nail on the head. Poetry causes us to speculate. Unless the text is clearly poetry, we can find ourselves pulled away into speculation and for some this can ruin their faith.

  45. #26 Don,

    Love God and people and you cannot go far wrong.

    I think possible scenarios are fine to discuss, as long as they are claimed to be just that.

    We should add a respect for God’s word and a desire to know truth. Without a love for truth, we can be drawn into error.

    I also think that it is fine to discuss possible scenarios, but we should have a solid basis in the text so that we can give a reason for our faith. Speculation can be dangerous without a firm basis in scripture, because it can erode the foundation. In 1 Timothy 1 Paul warns against speculation that came from myths and many had already been deceived by the myths and speculation which were falsely called knowledge.

  46. #36 Cindy K,

    And I’m glad you’re catching up and specifically said so, as I had a tiny twinge of concern that I might have shut down the discussion, (even though I found that unlikely).

    If you were a show-stopper, it would only be because of your wisdom! Not to worry. I have been behind in my responses because my life has been out of the ordinary for weeks now and for periods of time I need to ignore my blog in order to give attention to other pressing matters. I am not quite sure when my life will be back to normal, if I even know what “normal” means anymore!

    In the event that I didn’t state it succinctly, my goal here is to see the Word clearly and discern the truth. I take more of an Augustinian approach to things, tending to be less presumptive about God. That has its pitfalls, because one can lean more towards the idea that God is holy other and too mysterious to know. On the other hand, I am very disturbed at the practice of some who put God in a tiny, human box, presuming to have God’s perspective. Aware of the pitfalls of my natural bend, I try to find balance, but it is always a very dynamic process for me.

    I can understand your concern. I am one of those who believes that the scriptures are so full of the depth of God’s revelation to us that we can be continually awed when we plumb the depths as we find more and more of what God has revealed. But in plumbing the depths, we need to be cautious not to go beyond what is written.

    My other concern is that at certain impressionable times in my life, I drew from the Word of Faith teachers and was taught by my parents that I never had any right to question the teaching of anyone who called themselves an anointed pastor. Sometimes those influences are those things to which we are most blind because they form our first views of things and are the foundation for what we add to them.

    We always have the right to question a person’s teaching, no matter who they are. If Paul commended the Bereans for testing him with the scriptures, then certainly no one today should be offended when we take anything that another believes or teaches and test it against God’s word. If it holds up to the test, praise God!

    So as much as I am trying to bring up ideas here, I am also trying to make sure that I am letting the Word and the Spirit wipe the scales of flesh from my sight.

    I greatly respect this attitude!

    That said, my reasons for posting here at all are probably more selfish than anything else. If I come across as hard or pushy, I think that would be more a sign of my own discomfort in trying to sort out right thinking from wrong thinking in myself.

    I have never seen you come across as pushy or hard at all. I think you do come across as one who is a truth lover and open to either proven wrong or shown what conforms to the scriptures.

    So if I do come across as some kind of bully at any point, I apologize. But it is always pretty terrifying when I look back at some of these things, wondering if I’m clinging to things I like as opposed to truth because they are easy and familiar.

    I for one would never consider you a bully. All I see is a precious sister in Christ.

    But that consideration has its benefits in this discussion, as this is exactly what we hope that the complementarian will do — consider whether their presuppositions have tainted their reading and understanding of the Word. It is a threatening process to consider that you’ve chosen a foundation stone that needs to be hewn out and replaced. God have mercy on us all as we look at the foundations we’ve chosen with the best of intent.

    This sums up the key to what I am trying to do. It is certainly painful to have to rethink things through especially if one has built on the foundation already. But truth should always be more important than our discomfort at having to replace faulty stones that we have used for building material.

    I see myself as someone who wants to forcibly pry open my own chest to allow truth to get in even though I am uncomfortable with having to rethink my position. I want truth more than I want anything else. But that truth will only be convincing if it is provable by the only true measuring rod there is. I want to see it from the bible. One can never convince me through logic alone or through history or important men from the past. If the scripture is not a solid foundation for the “truth” then I just cannot accept it. I do not believe that in the judgment that I will be chastised for accepting God’s word as the test. Everything else can be a rubber ruler used alone.

    Thanks for all your comments and your participation. I love every opportunity here to challenge others and to be challenged. We can love and respect one another and yet still push for truth. In the end whether one changes their point of view or just agrees to disagree, at least we had the opportunity to dialog with respect. This isn’t always possible in other forums where opposing views are not allowed and people are not tolerated. I love this community!

  47. #37 Don,

    Creation can take time and forming can take time. Moses could have written that Adam before the split was ish, but did not, Adam is simply human and both the man and the woman have that name after the split. The point is to not go beyond the text, going beyond the text in ANY way is speculation; and as long as it is called speculation, I do not see a problem. For our faith, it simply does not matter what type of human Adam was before the split, since it does not say. Since there was only one, it is not even clear what the meaning of type is, type only has a meaning when there are 2 types.

    The scripture never lists Eve’s creation as a “split”. When you have surgery and the surgeon removes something from you, it is never called a “split”. This implies something that is not said.

    Since creation and forming are one-in-the-same for mankind and since God said he did it in the sixth day, we can be assured that the forming took no longer than the sixth day. I do think that terming this creation as “splitting” is going beyond the text. Is it okay if it is called “speculation”? Perhaps, perhaps not. There is so much in the scriptures that is not speculation, that perhaps we should start there first. Paul did say that things that result in speculations which can produce doubts (1 Timothy 1:4). I do not agree that it doesn’t say what kind of human Adam was. God specifically said that the original creation of mankind was male and female. Adam was not female.

    I don’t think that we need to be concerned that Adam was male and think that this is putting females down because they weren’t created first. This is an argument that the hierarchists make about the importance of male over female, but God doesn’t make such a distinction that removes the ability for the woman to function in complete fullness and wholeness in her gifts and equal spiritual calling. Adam’s maleness was God created and it was God’s plan for both male and female to work together.

  48. #38 Paula,

    I think Don has a valid point about the fact that “male and female from the beginning” cannot apply to the time before Eve was created.

    Since Eve is part of the original creation of mankind, the “male” from the beginning was the original creation of Adam and the “female” was the original creation of Eve. “From the beginning” cannot be a term that does not include the creation of Adam. This is why I am confident that God created just as he said he did with two genders not one and a half.

    Thanks Paula for correcting the quotation error. Sometimes when the blockquote gets misplaced, it can be easy to miss. I appreciate you pointing out the correction.

    Cheryl, I could say you’re doing this too. You’re saying that Adam was male, and at the same time, that he was male and female from the beginning. Both can’t be true.

    Thanks for summarizing your view of what I said so that I have the opportunity to clear up any confusion. I am NOT saying that Adam was both male AND male and female, as if the male was both male and female. When God said “them”, he was referring to both of them – humanity as male and female, not one person as male and female.

    And I’m not insisting on anything except this: that we are not told in scripture the physical makeup of Adam before Eve was created, unless you believe that Adam was “male and female from the beginning” even before Eve was made.

    We are told that God’s original creation was male and female. That we can take to the bank as full truth. Genesis chapter 1 takes man from the the original creation of humanity in one person to the plural with the creation of Eve. I did post a quote from the NET translator notes that show that God is talking to BOTH the male and female in Genesis 1:28 and verse 27 refers to both the original man and both humans. Because Genesis attaches “him” and “them” together so closely shows that woman is not a separate creation, nor does she have a separate rule or spiritual function. Together they are that humanity that God originally planned as two people.

  49. Lin #42,

    He told them to be fruitful and multiply, He told them about the food, etc. And He is telling them this before we read about either of them being formed. Is there any significance to this? I have no idea.

    This proves that creation = formed. It is not different but the same thing as far as humanity goes. We do know that God is the creator of language and when he calls them, “them”, we can be assured that he was speaking to more than one person. He was speaking to both Adam and Eve and of course this gives us great confidence that when Eve quoted God later as having spoken to her about what she could and couldn’t eat, we can be assured that God did speak to her too. Some would like us to think that God would not stoop to speak to the first woman and he would only communicate to her through the man. This is not the truth from scripture.

    Good thoughts, Lin.

  50. Since Eve is part of the original creation of mankind, the “male” from the beginning was the original creation of Adam and the “female” was the original creation of Eve. “From the beginning” cannot be a term that does not include the creation of Adam. This is why I am confident that God created just as he said he did with two genders not one and a half.

    This is one possible interpretation, but still an interpretation. It is equally possible to interpret “male and female from the beginning” as from the time both a male and a female existed. To assign meaning to a phrase is to interpret. Many, such as Calvinists, insist that certain things are inescapable logically and that we therefor must accept their conclusions. Likewise, though it looks to you that your conclusion is inescapable, I don’t agree. And that’s okay. And it doesn’t mean I have a low view of scripture or read any more into it than you or anyone else.

    When God said “them”, he was referring to both of them – humanity as male and female, not one person as male and female.

    Right. But whether this applies to the time there was no female is still not specified by scripture, but is instead a matter of interpretation.

    We are told that God’s original creation was male and female.

    What about timing? Consider the phrase “slain from the foundation of the world”. If I apply your method I must believe that Jesus was slain when the world was created. Now in this case we know it didn’t actually happen till Jesus came “in the fullness of time”. But with Adam before Eve, there are no statements to clarify. Timing does matter.

    I did post a quote from the NET translator notes that show that God is talking to BOTH the male and female in Genesis 1:28 and verse 27 refers to both the original man and both humans.

    This same NET also has footnotes that are male supremacist. Point being, they are not infallible, and when experts disagree on a point, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It’s still an interpretation.

    All I’m saying in all this is that we have to be careful not to mistake an interpretation with what is actually stated, nor argue from silence about Adam’s condition before Eve. It all hinges on how one interprets “from the beginning” since that phrase always mentions both male and female, and there was a period of time when no female existed. Again, your interpretation could very well be right; but so could mine.

    More importantly, this debate has no bearing on the question of male supremacy. As you pointed out, scripture is silent about whether God breathed into Eve the breath of life, or whether she got that existing breath from Adam. Yet this silence does not force us to conclude that Eve is somehow less than Adam. In the same way, and by the same principle, we have silence about the time when there was Adam but no Eve as to Adam’s physical makeup, yet no matter how we deal with that, it does not force us to conclude that Eve is somehow less than Adam. It’s really irrelevant, and for that reason I will make no more rebuttals about it.

  51. Paula,

    You said:

    This is one possible interpretation, but still an interpretation. It is equally possible to interpret “male and female from the beginning” as from the time both a male and a female existed.

    Since both the male and female were created on the 6th day and “from the beginning” for humanity began on the 6th day, we can rightfully just accept what God said in Genesis that they were created male and female and Jesus’ words as a second witness. If this is not the truth, then saying there is another interpretation is needs to have a solid basis on fact. I have not seen two witnesses that show that Adam was created either an a-sexual human or a bi-sexual. In fact I haven’t seen any witness at all except for the witness of silence. That isn’t good enough for me because it doesn’t fit with Jesus’ witness. For me, I don’t accept an alternate view that doesn’t have a solid basis in the OT text or Jesus’ interpretation of the OT text nor does the alternate view have acceptance through church history. It does have acceptance in mythology and that raises a red flag for me that I cannot ignore.

    To assign meaning to a phrase is to interpret.

    I believe that this is why Jesus made the comment that he did. Jesus interpreted the Old Testament Genesis account so that we can be sure that God created them male and female and if it was not so, then Jesus would have told us.

    Many, such as Calvinists, insist that certain things are inescapable logically and that we therefor must accept their conclusions.

    This is why I refuse to rely solely on logic. The text must state the genesis (beginings) account without relying on silence just as Jesus stated the account without relying on silence of the text.

    Likewise, though it looks to you that your conclusion is inescapable, I don’t agree. And that’s okay.

    I am glad that you can agree with me that it is okay. I am open to hearing further facts if there is something that I have missed.

    Right. But whether this applies to the time there was no female is still not specified by scripture, but is instead a matter of interpretation.

    Scripture is not subject to private interpretation. There is no basis in calling a single person “them” and doing so would make the man a God in the category of God himself. Where does scripture ever call a single human “them” or where did Jesus interpret the Old Testament Genesis account as a human unlike other humans? Jesus came as the last Adam. Did Jesus call himself “we” or did the disciples refer to Jesus as “them”? If we make Adam to be in a category that Jesus was not in (other than sin) then it appears to me that we destroy the “last Adam” analogy. Jesus then is an inferior “last Adam” from the original creation of the first Adam who was a multiply person being? I don’t think so. Jesus never gave one piece of credibility to that view and so without evidence I can have no other interpretation.

    What about timing? Consider the phrase “slain from the foundation of the world”. If I apply your method I must believe that Jesus was slain when the world was created.

    Jesus was both man and God. As man he was slain at a specific point in time. But as God he is not the “I was” but “I AM”. He is outside of time and his “slain from the foundation of the world” is just as much as the “now” as the past and the future is to him. Even before creation God’s plan was to redeem mankind because he both exists in the past, present and future at the same time so that God’s plan was a “done deal” before the world began. “Before the world began” is God’s view of time. There is absolutely no problem with God’s view of time. However the book of Genesis is stated in our view as events in time. “in the beginning” is our view of time and God steps into time to create.

    But with Adam before Eve, there are no statements to clarify. Timing does matter.

    There is a statement to clarify. It is the testimony of Jesus that “in the beginning” (our view of time) God created them male and female. There is no other testimony, no other second witness from one who was there, other than that and the account stated in Genesis. I choose to believe the one who was there as giving me all the truth I need to know. In the beginning…..God created……male and female.

    This same NET also has footnotes that are male supremacist. Point being, they are not infallible, and when experts disagree on a point, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

    No one is infallible but their view is not impeached. Please show me the expert in the biblical text that say that Adam was created as a hermaphrodite. I have seen no such “expert” in the biblical text and since no such expert has been appealed to, it is not a logical fallacy.

    All I’m saying in all this is that we have to be careful not to mistake an interpretation with what is actually stated, nor argue from silence about Adam’s condition before Eve.

    This is my exact point. Jesus is the one who interpreted the Genesis account and another view is an argument from silence.

    It all hinges on how one interprets “from the beginning” since that phrase always mentions both male and female, and there was a period of time when no female existed. Again, your interpretation could very well be right; but so could mine.

    “in the beginning” for the male is his creation. “in the beginning” for female is her creation. There is not even one iota of proof that “in the beginning” means after original creation to include a complete change of creation for the first man. If we do this to the “first Adam”, what will we do to the “last Adam”?

    More importantly, this debate has no bearing on the question of male supremacy.

    I would say yes and no. Yes, it doesn’t directly have a bearing on the question of male supremacy. However at the same time if we hold onto a belief in a myth that only has the “proof” from silence and in direct opposition to the testimony of Jesus, then those who have believed in hierarchy but whose hearts truly are open to truth that resides outside of hierarchy, may dismiss everything else we say. They may see through the argument from silence and come to the conclusion that we do not have a solid argument about the equality of men and women. Instead, if we are willing to admit that the position that the first man was either both male and female or an a-sexual being is not verifiable in the text nor does it have a second witness and is not worthy to be a foundation for our view of gender in the rest of scripture, then perhaps they may respect us enough and our love of truth enough to listen to what else we have to say. That is my point and I think it has validity. Anyone else agree?

    It has been my habit of testing all things by the scripture and rejecting anything that doesn’t match even if it is an egalitarian view. I am not an egalitarian because it is a world view that I like. I am an egalitarian because it is the view that fits scripture in context with the inspired words and the inspired grammar. Anything that doesn’t fit, I am not willing to hold onto tightly. I can and will reject what isn’t truth. I do not have an emotional hold onto teachings that do not line up with the biblical test for truth. Every judicial and foundational point of doctrine should have at least two or three witnesses.

  52. I did make a note the issue that I wanted to tackle next, but for the life of me I can’t find my note nor can I see where I responded on my blog where I commented to someone about the next issue for a new post. If anyone remembers what I said, please let me know what it was. Sorry for being so scatterbrained. I think this past issue was a lot on my mind plus other issues that we are going through here, that it completely slipped my mind and I can’t make myself remember 🙁

  53. ‘When God first created Adam, he created man in His image and then God created the woman in both the image of God and the image of man.’

    Cheryl,

    I don’t understand this. Why do you say that the woman was made in man’s image? I can only say that she was made in God’s image. How and where does the image of man come into play?

  54. ‘In verse 28 we can see that the rulership of the creation is given when both male and female are together. The male does not get rulership given to him before the time that the female is created. This is clear from the text because it would make no sense to tell a single human to “be fruitful and multiple”. This is spoken to both the man and the woman. God also tells both of them what they can and cannot eat by giving them parameters for food. The word “you” in the Hebrew is plural. God gives the man and the woman only the plants yielding seed and only the fruit from the trees which yield seed.’

    I totaly agree here and have known that God did not give rule to Adam untell the woman was created according to the reading of Gen 1 and 2.

  55. ‘Adam concurred with God, agreeing that the female was taken from the male.
    Adam’s testimony is that the female was taken out of the the male (Hebrew ish). Adam does not use the generic term for mankind.

    Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman (ish-shaw), Because she was taken out of Man (eesh).’

    This is how I understand Gen 2:23 also, but for some God needed to call Adam, ish in order for him to have been ish (male) before she was taken from him. But I don’t see why Adam’s testimony would not be good enough.

    just some thoughts…

  56. ‘Adam concurred with God, agreeing that the female was taken from the male.’

    I don’t understand perhaps what you mean here, but what I’m seeing is that since God didn’t say anything regarding the matter it is an assumption that Adam ‘concurred’ with God, but since God never showed disagreement as he did not correct Adam it’s safe to assume that Adam ‘concurred’ with God.

  57. ‘4. Is there a New Testament “proof” that Eve was made from the male and not divided from an androgynous human?

    In 1 Corinthians 11:7-8, Paul states that the woman is the “glory” of the man (aner).

    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man (aner)
    1 Corinthians 11:8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man (aner);

    If the woman did not come from his own flesh as Adam declared she did, she wouldn’t have been his glory. She would have been her own glory.’

    Love this part! Sorry for all the many comments… 😛 ‘Woman’ is contrasted with aner therefore is certainly means ‘male’ here in 11:8.

  58. #56 Pinklight,

    I don’t understand this. Why do you say that the woman was made in man’s image? I can only say that she was made in God’s image. How and where does the image of man come into play?

    Image and glory go together. It is because man is made in God’s image that man is the glory of God. Since woman is the glory of man and we know that she was made from his DNA, his very own body, we can also say that she is made in his image. She is like him, made to be his mate, therefore she is in his image and is his glory.

    Does this make sense?

  59. Then he came up to create man and said, God said “Let us create man in our image. Let him have dominion.” Those were the words that he used to bring Adam alive.

    On Copeland’s quote – No, God did not say that. Copeland has swapped out “them” and replaced it with “him” when he is speaking of Gen 1:26 here.

  60. And then he created Eve out of Adam. Actually God didn’t name her Eve. Adam named her Eve later. That wasn’t her name. Her name was Adam. When God said Adam, they both came.

    Her name was not “the man”. Her name was only “Adam” collectively with the man, but her name is not “the Adam” or “Adam” singularily in the creation/fall accounts. Genesis gives it only as the male’s name. But this is not to say that she was not “Adam” as in “human”. It’s just that God has his reasons for the author under inspiration using ha’adam only in reference to the man, singularily throughout the Genesis accounts of creation and the fall – so that we don’t end up thinking from the text that ha’adam when used means both collectively.

  61. Making an addition to my first statement in my last comment:

    Her name was only “Adam” collectively with the man, as a name of their race (Gen 5), but her name is not “the Adam” or “Adam”…

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: