BM&W (pt 4)

E.  God gave the man the right to name the woman.  Genesis 2:23, Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”  The same Hebrew word is used throughout Gen 1-2, qara, meaning to call or to name.  After the fall Adam “called” his wife a personal name.  We read about this in Genesis 3:20, The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.  In Genesis, the one who names a thing or a person has the authority or power to name.  If you don’t believe me check out the following examples: Genesis 1:5, 8, 10; 2:19-20.  In our country the parents (not the government, not the elder board, not the in-laws, thankfully); have the authority to name their own children.  Genesis 4:25-26, And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’  To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.  Genesis 5:3 records, When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.  In unique situations, God changed the names of persons (for an example check out Genesis 17:5, 15).  Dr. Grudem adds this helpful thought, “In every case the person who gives the name has authority over the person who receives the name.”

 

F.  Adam was given the distinct role of representing the human race.  Who sinned first according to Gen 3:6?  It was Eve. Yet who is ultimately held responsible for the fall of the human race? Adam was held responsible.  1 Corinthians 15:22 , For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:45-46 records,  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;  the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.  46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. Paul shares some wonderful truth corresponding to this point in Romans 5:12-21, Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned –  13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.  15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.  16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.  17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  18 Therefore, as one trespass1 led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness2 leads to justification and life for all men.  19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.  20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,  21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Man had a unique position as leader and head.  Therefore God holds Adam responsible for the sin of all mankind.  God comes looking for Adam, not Eve, in Genesis 3:9.  But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”  Being the “head” is a privilege that carries with it many unique responsibilities.  One day all men will give a special account to God by virtue of their role.  Adam was given the special role of representing the human race. By way of a footnote, the doctrine of federal representation is actually a very good reality because Jesus Christ came and did what we could never do.  Jesus Christ is called in Scripture our 2nd Adam.  In Adam, the world fell.  In Christ, the elect are saved.  Our righteousness is imputed to our accounts through faith in Christ.  The ground of our justification is not our faith but the perfect righteousness of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 5).  Let’s return now to the discussion at hand.

 

G.  God named the human race “Man” not “Woman”.  Genesis 5:1-2 notes, This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.  2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.  Genesis 5 records some of the events that happened before the fall.  The Hebrew word translated “Man” is adam.  The word man represents the Hebrew word adam in Gen 2:22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, and 20.  I would encourage you to check these verses out for yourself.  Dr. Grudem explains the significance of adam, “In the early chapters of Genesis, the connection with the man in distinction from the woman is a very clear pattern.  God gave the human race a name which, like the English word man, can either mean a male human being or can refer to the human race in general.”  Ray Ortlund Jr notes, “God’s naming of the race ‘man’ whispers male headship.”

 

Genesis 1-2 help us see the following observations:

A. God made Adam the central character. 

B. God created Adam first (the creative order). 

C. God formed the woman out of the man. 

D. God created the woman for the man. 

E.  God gave the man the right to name the woman. 

F.  Adam was given the unique role of representing the human race. 

G.  God named the human race “Man” not “Women”. 

Next time we will look at Genesis 3 and examine some of the consequences of the fall.  Don’t forget in all this the first key we observed from the first chapter of Genesis.  Men and women are equal in value, dignity, and personhood.  Different gender defined roles do not undermine that central truth.

Advertisements

6 responses to this post.

  1. Excellent post, Caleb. Great insights. Great truths!

    Thanks for the helpful points.

    Geoff Kirkland

  2. Thank you sir.

    CK

  3. Posted by Faye on August 13, 2007 at 4:14 am

    Thank you for this post. I am married to a very wonderful man. I am so sad at how our culture holds the father, husband, man is such a disrespectful disregard. My children would have not become the responsible and productive and caring adults without the guidance that their father provided.
    I feel like I am in the eye of the storm. Half of my close relatives are in the process of leaving their marriage vows in the dust because the lady wants something more out of life. One I can understand because she was lied to by the groom who claimed to believe in God only to be told on the honeymoon that he was an atheist. She stayed with the marriage for more that 25 years even through multiple affairs by her husband that began soon after the honeymoon. But the other two are for very selfish reasons. They both wanted something new, they were tired of the marriage. Their husbands have been caring, responsible and good husbands and fathers. Why now in their mid 40’s do they want to rip their children’s lives apart by having affairs and wrecking their marriage? I stopped reading modern magazines and watching those talk shows on t.v. that feed the women of our culture poison
    on how unhappy their are supposed to be many years ago. Maybe that is what helped my sister-in-laws to behave the way the have.

  4. Posted by CalebKolstad on August 14, 2007 at 2:39 am

    Faye,

    Thanks for your post. I will stop now and pray that the Lord uses you as an instrument in His hands. Blessings to you and your husband.

    Caleb

  5. Hi Caleb,

    There is a detailed paper which I link to here:
    http://unrelatedramblings.blogspot.com/2007/08/martin-shields-man-woman-in-genesis-1-3.html

    That goes through each point you’ve raised in this series and refutes (firmly, I think) a hierarchal interpretation.

    Note that it does not side with an ‘egalitarian’ interpretation either.

  6. Posted by CalebKolstad on August 18, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Sam,

    I don’t know if i will have time to research this paper or not. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Have a great weekend.

    Caleb

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: