Written by Peter J. Gentry |
Thursday, July 13, 2023
Conway is right that to describe the woman as a helper does not indicate inferiority. She has strengths that match the man’s weaknesses, and vice versa. They will have to work as a team, but this does not rule out the possibility of the man having a primary responsibility or servant leadership in the relationship. We are getting a one-sided picture from Conway, even if the woman pays a higher price than the man in the task of being fruitful and multiplying.[9]

Chapter two of Discovering Biblical Equality is on “Gender in Creation and Fall” and is authored by Mary L. Conway. Much of her exegesis and interpretation represents a fair treatment of the text. Nonetheless, she summarises the teaching of Genesis 1–3 as follows:
In Genesis, before the fall, there was mutuality, equality, and harmony between men and women. Incorrect understanding and false teaching were influences contributing to the sin of Adam and Eve, although deliberate disobedience was certainly a major factor. The fall destroyed the mutuality and harmony between men and women, resulting in millennia of male domination in both the church and in marriage. In Christ, that consequence is undone, and the mutuality and harmony of marriage is potentially restored . . . if the church allows it (52).
So, neither male nor female has a leadership role in relation to the other sex or a responsibility that differs from that of the other sex in marriage. In the following essay, we shall consider features of Genesis 1–3 that suggest differences in leadership roles and responsibilities, although the term “domination,” in a negative or patriarchal sense, need not be invoked in any way.
We shall evaluate in particular Conway’s treatment of ’adam, the image of God, helper, the enticement by the serpent, and the consequences of human rebellion.
’adam
As Conway observes, the Hebrew term ’adam must be interpreted properly. She is correct to explain that “the Hebrew lexis ’adam is most often a nongendered/collective term for a specific human or humanity in general, male and/or female, unless its meaning is restricted by context” (36). In Genesis 1–5, this term shifts in usage from referring to humanity in general, to referring to the primal or archetypal man to use as a proper noun, i.e., Adam. Normally when this term has no article, it is used as a name. She does not refer to the definitive study by Hess that details this usage, which would have been helpful.[1] In 3:17 she follows a note in the apparatus of BHS to articulate the noun, although absolutely no witnesses support this in the entire textual tradition.
The Image of God
Anyone attending to the text in Genesis 1:26-27 ought to affirm as Conway does, as well as all complementarians,[2] that both male and female are made as the divine image and neither is inferior to the other — both are equal in being (ontology) and worth before God.
To explain “being made in the image of God,” Conway appeals to Middleton’s work as definitive proof that the implications of being created in Yahweh’s image are functional: “the imago dei refers to human rule, that is, the exercise of power on God’s behalf in creation” (38).[3] She rightly rejects the claim that being male and female defines the image of God. She could have strengthened her position by reference to our work in Kingdom through Covenant. Two clauses at the end of Genesis 1:27 are marked by discourse grammar signals as comments or explanatory footnotes that prepare the reader for the commands in v. 28. Also note the chiastic structure:

God created mankind in his imageaccording to his likeness:A in the image of God he created himB male and female he created them======B’ be fruitful and increase in numberand fill the earthA’  and subdue itand rule over the fish/birds/animals

Binary sexuality, i.e., duality of gender, is the basis for being fruitful, while the divine image is correlated with the command to rule as God’s viceroy. These observations from the discourse grammar of the narrative are crucial. They are decisive in showing that the divine image is not to be explained by or located in terms of duality of gender in humanity.[4]
Nonetheless, significant further light has been cast on the image of God since the work of Richard Middleton was published.[5] A merely functional interpretation is inadequate; we must view humanity in holistic terms as the divine image. The image describes not only function, but also human ontology and structure. In particular, it describes a covenant relationship between God and humanity on the one hand and humanity and creation on the other. The former portrays humanity as obedient sons and daughters while the latter depicts humanity in terms of servant kingship or leadership. Understanding the divine image as entailing a covenant relationship means that this applies not only to the human-God relationship, but also to the relationships in the human family. Not only in the Bible, but all across the ancient Near East, familial relationships were considered covenantal. This is why family language is used in international treaties (where the partners are called “father” and “son”). I have also shown from Genesis 2 that the image of God assigns the role of priest to humanity and that Adam must give leadership in this role.[6]
The image of God means that humanity is not only connected to God but must reflect him. Later revelation of the economic doctrine of the Trinity shows equality among the persons of the Godhead but also different roles in the economy of salvation. Why shouldn’t we expect this in the human family as well?
With regard to “naming” in Genesis 1–3 Conway asserts: “that the man (ha’adam) names the woman, as he previously did the animals, however, is also not a sign of the man’s superiority or dominance. Naming in the Old Testament is an act of discerning a trait or function or ability that already exists in the person being named, not a sign of authority over that person” (48). Her examples from Genesis 16:13 and Judges 8:31 are not particularly persuasive. She does not account well for the context of Genesis 1–3. In Genesis 1, God names entities and structures created on Days 1–3 while Adam names entities filling the structures created on Days 4–6.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Saturday, October 26, 2024
For Adam to be our head he must be our ‘father.’ If he isn’t the father of all he cannot be the head of all. That’s the logic of it, that’s why genealogies matter so much in scripture: we’re bonded to one another. Federal heads are always related by lineage. It’s not divine fiat, it works on ordered rules. God comes to reshape these familial ties by making the Father our father and Christ our brother.

I was chatting with a friend about Genesis 1 and whether the earth is young or old the other day. I don’t find it a particularly interesting question, not because there isn’t an answer (there must be) and not because it’s not important (the truth is always important) but because there are so many more interesting things to say about that chapter of Scripture.
I’ve touched on some of them before, but we could include: creation ‘from the head’, the patterns of seven, the baptism of the land, the third day trees, the constraining of chaos, the ‘dragons’ on the fifth day, the sixth day trees, the ten times God speaks, creation through division, and more besides.
Even most of those are fun details we’re supposed to notice and meditate on in light of the rest of the scriptures, the narrative itself is worthy of much reflection on its own terms. God is the creator. God spoke creation. He didn’t slay a dragon and make creation from her corpse (this is a Babylonian creation myth), he spoke it into being. Creation is ordered. It’s spoken from nothing. It took a ‘week.’ He rested when he was done. It would take us a long time to reach questions that might relate to modern scientific ideas of the age of the earth.
I briefly outlined my own position with my friend, which I don’t hold that strongly, while expressing respect for those with convictions different to mine. I mostly expressed that I don’t find it that interesting a question and pointed to many of the more fun things in the text that I’ve alluded to above. There was one point I wanted to stress as important though, concerning Adam.

It is biblically and theologically necessary for Christians to believe in Adam as first, a historical person who second, fathered the entire human race.
Mike Reeves
I agree. Adam was a real man, now dead (and I assume in the presence of Jesus). More than that though, he was also the first human, and the father of all mankind. I think each of these convictions is important.
What does the Bible say.
This is, in part, a matter of trusting the Bible. We should read according to genre, of course. We should read carefully to see that the text says what we think it says. My argument is that the Bible always assumes Adam was a historical man, and the first man.
We start where we always should, with Jesus. Jesus taught that the first man and woman were made by God and were married. In his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19 he turns to Genesis 1 as clearly answering their question.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Because Churchill insisted on fighting, Cooper [popular historian] suggested, he is the real villain of the war. Churchill, he said, wanted war to make up for his part in the disaster at Gallipoli in World War I. Though nothing in Churchill’s writings suggests this, Hitler clearly articulated his intentions and, despite what Cooper claimed, it was not to pursue peace.

Last week’s online controversy was the interview with Darryl Cooper, whom host Tucker Carlson called “(maybe) the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” In the interview, Cooper not only claimed that Winston Churchill was a psychopath but also that he was “the real villain” of World War II. Though Cooper admitted Hitler was evil, he also argued that history’s most notorious villain was, in fact, backed into a corner by Churchill, who was bent on war from the beginning. Thus, it is Churchill and not Hitler, Cooper claimed, who should bear most of the blame for the war and the Holocaust. Cooper, during the interview and afterward, chalked up opposition to his telling of the story to core elements of American identity since the war that are too deeply engrained to be questioned.
Typically, claims like these would be unworthy of a response, other than perhaps an eyeroll and quick dismissal. However, this interview has been viewed by millions and was conducted by the most popular news personality in the United States. Also, Cooper has since doubled down on his claims on X.
In his misrepresentation of the two most important figures of World War II, Cooper obscured several basic facts. First, in a claim that reveals his “extensive research” failed to consider basic history texts, he posited that historians never talk about why Hitler rose to power in Weimar Germany. In fact, many have and still do.
Cooper also argued that Hitler’s anger was the fault of England and France because they declared war on Germany after his invasion of Poland. Had they not, he claimed, the war would have been over before it really began. However, this claim ignores Hitler’s repeated goal of building “living space” for Germany in Eastern Europe, how he broke his word before the war by taking all of Czechoslovakia rather than just the German-speaking areas, and the treaty obligations England and France had to Poland.
Read More
Related Posts: