According to Genesis 2, God created the earth and shaped a person from its soil. He also established a garden and placed the person there to tend to it (Gen. 2:15). Recognizing that it wasn’t good for the person to be alone (Gen. 2:18), understanding that assistance was necessary for fulfilling the tasks assigned and for realizing the vision for humanity, he decided to make a helper who could compare with the human.
Thus, the Lord fashioned every animal of the field and all the birds of the air, presenting them to the human, who named each creature, giving them their identities. However, no fitting companion was found for the human (Gen. 2:19-20).
As a result, God created a woman and brought her to the man, who acknowledged her as a perfect partner. She was of the same essence yet distinct. Formed from the same substance, she was the ideal complement to him. Adam recognized that this creature, made from the same flesh and bone as he, was precisely what he needed, calling her “woman” because she was taken from a man (Gen. 2:23).
I would like to highlight a significant yet often overlooked aspect of this passage. It’s important because many people use this passage to assert that by naming the woman, the man had authority over her. However, I don’t believe that was the case.
Did Adam’s naming of his wife “woman” imply control over her? To answer this question, let’s look at some biblical and historical truths, starting with why Adam named the other creatures.
Why Did Adam Name The Other Creatures?
It’s more common today to name a child after their father or grandparent, after a famous person, after one’s own name, or just a name they heard and liked. However, in the Hebrew Bible, names were assigned based on the characteristics or purposes of individuals or objects (Gen. 5:28-29; Gen. 25:25; 1 Chron. 4:9; Matt. 1:21).
For example, the name “adam” is thought to mean “earthling” or “one from the soil” referring to the first human’s composition. In English, we commonly translate “adam” to “human” or “mankind” or we use it as a given name for the first person (Adam) since he never received one.
With this understanding and in light of the context, it’s clear that when the man named the animals, he was looking for a companion who resembled him and could assist him. He likely assessed each creature to determine their usefulness and attributes. By assigning a name to them based on their characteristics, he was evaluating their potential as suitable helpers.
However, it isn’t just why he named the creatures that matters, but how he named them as well. In other words, I’d find it hard to believe that Adam named a deer “Bambi” or a rabbit “Thumper”; instead, he likely referred to them with general terms such as words like “deer” and “rabbit.” Similarly, when naming the woman, he wasn’t giving her a unique name, but rather assigning a general term, just as he did with the other creatures—it’s the same way an individual would name a new type of star or species.
It’s not that they have control over the subject; they’re simply the first to see it, so they label it as they see fit, and those who follow tend to adopt that name. This was the situation with Adam. As the only human present, whatever he called a creature became its name, simply because, that’s what he called it. That’s the way he identified it. Was anyone going to object?
As the woman was taken out of an ish (man), she looked just like an ish, and she functioned like an ish, but she was different. Nevertheless, as Adam observed, this particular creature was “of an ish.” Therefore, he named her woman or ishah which, according to Scripture, means “from, or of, an ish” (Gen. 2:23). The designation of “woman,” therefore, didn’t serve as her “given name” but rather described her nature and capabilities. It was a term that would be applicable to all beings in this category.
This diminishes the argument that assigning a name to the woman implied authority over her, as this argument primarily relies on examples from Scripture where individuals were given distinct personal names rather than a general term that specified they belonged to a particular group or class of people.
Let’s now examine arguments used by those who promote the idea that naming someone equals authority. The first argument uses God’s naming of creation, both people and things, in order to assert that naming equals authority. By naming his creations, did God exercise power over them?
By Naming His Creations, Did God Exercise Authority?
Some may argue that God’s act of naming the sky and the earth is indicative of his authority over these creations, and in the same way, Adam’s calling his wife “woman” reflects his authority over her. Additionally, references to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation narrative, are often made to draw parallels with God’s creation in Genesis, reinforcing the idea that naming equates to authority in ancient cultures.
“When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven,”
(Enuma Elish Tablet 1, lines 1-9) (source: sacred-texts.com)
But let’s take a closer look at this argument. First, it’s essential to recognize that people are not inanimate objects like land, water, or the sky; we are human beings. Second, God’s act of naming his creations doesn’t correlate with a human naming God’s creations. It seems we’re always comparing ourselves to God as if we’re trying to be “little gods” which was originally a factor in humanity’s downfall (Gen. 3:5). However, please note: We are not God.
Therefore, this comparison is invalid. For, in what way can you compare God naming things he created, with humans naming humans God created? Where does the resemblance begin? In order for a connection to be established, there must be similarities between the two, and here, we have none.
Now, it’s true that God named a number of people in order to indicate their new purpose (Gen. 17:4-6; Gen 17:15; Gen. 32:22-28; Jn. 1:42); but again, this doesn’t come close to our normal experiences, nor does it prove any rule about authority to be true.
So, to reiterate, we are not objects and we are not God. As a result, any claim that God names his creations in the same way the man named his woman is absurd. No matter how one tries to twist it, neither situation can be compared with the other.
Last, what should be clear, is that while God indeed possesses authority over the sky, earth, humanity, and all creation—a fact we acknowledge—this doesn’t establish a connection between naming an entity and having authority over it. Such interpretations are merely personal perspectives on these occurrences.
To put it more simply: The sky is under God’s control. The sky was named by God. However, these two things are unrelated. It’s not the Bible that creates the connection, but the human mind. Thus, Adam’s calling his wife “woman” wasn’t indicative of him having authority over her.
Later, he named her “Eve,” or “Chavah/Havah” but this still doesn’t indicate dominance, and no evidence suggests that it does. He merely gave her a unique name, to describe her purpose and function, which was to be the mother of all living.
This name would have also been necessary to properly distinguish her from others, just as our names do for us. Without the designation of “woman” or “Eve,” what else would he have done to get her attention? What was he supposed to do? Snap his fingers for her to come? So, her name both identified her and described her destiny.
Even in the context of the aforementioned passage from the Enuma Elish, the term “name” corresponds to purpose and identity. Since none of these entities were named, they lacked distinction from one another and were devoid of purpose or function. Therefore, in ancient societies, it seems that to possess a name was to possess a purpose.
What’s more, is that what Jesus assured his disciples, and what I believe remains a promise for us today, was that if they asked for anything in his name, he would do it. This isn’t about calling upon a specific name in our prayers or during water immersion in order to be “baptized in the name” as many of us were taught; but rather, it’s about asking in accordance with his purpose, and being “immersed” in his power and mission to continue his work.
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19 NIV).
Per merriam-webster.com, a disciple is “one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another.” In essence, making disciples, then, is involving or “immersing” others, into the purpose and activities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). As I’ve mentioned previously, baptism has never been centered around water.
So, what does any of this mean when it comes to authority over another? The answer is: “absolutely nothing.”As a next step, let’s analyze where people named other people in Scripture to determine if the namings were expressions of power.
Did Naming Other People In Scripture Imply Authority?
Authority can be defined as the permission, right, or power (influence) to take action. There exists both divine authority, bestowed by God, and human authority, granted by people. The authority granted by God enables individuals and organizations to carry out his will, as seen in Pilate’s authorization to crucify Jesus (Jn. 19:11), which was in accordance with divine purpose (Jn. 3:16), or in Jesus empowering his disciples against the adversary (Lk. 10:19).
In contrast, human authority often involves the right to exert control over others and issue commands. It seems that our primary focus tends to be on this latter form of authority. Many times, we mistakenly equate this human control, with a God-given power over others.
When discussing authority, even within the church, we often refer to a type that is not derived from God, but rather rooted in societal norms, such as the longstanding practice of men dominating women. This represents a permission granted by society rather than by God since you won’t find it anywhere in the Bible, unless you rely on the teachings of those who distort certain verses.
Moreover, some human authority may be a distortion of a God-given authority. For example, the fact that parents have control over their children is one argument for believing that naming people equals authority. The line of reasoning goes something like this:
Parents are the ones who give names to their children. This is a right and power they hold. As a result, naming their children signifies their control over them, because by naming them, they have exercised this power. Thus, naming a person implies having authority over them.
This superficial understanding along with similar assumptions have led some to adopt unbiblical beliefs. But even when it comes to parents naming their children, it doesn’t imply that they wield authority in the traditional sense. Rather, it’s a responsibility.
During their early development, children, who lack knowledge and experience, must rely on their caregivers for their needs, similar to the biblical idea of entering the kingdom of God as innocent children. In addition to being vulnerable and humble, they are also trusting. This delicate frame of mind leads them to naturally look up to, and submit to their parents. (disclaimer: I’m no expert on children! Just making an observation!)
Parents, therefore, are not only responsible for giving their child an identity by naming them, but they’re also entrusted with a God-given duty and a societal obligation to nurture and educate their offspring, guiding them to discern right from wrong and good from evil, ultimately preparing them to find their own roles and purposes in life.
It falls upon parents to raise their children—these tiny humans—in a manner that ensures these moral values, principles, and teachings are deeply ingrained in their identity as they grow. So, in being a parent, the focus is not on exerting control over one’s children, but rather on fulfilling a vital responsibility. Thus, parental “authority” derived from God is a form of influence.
But, just as with the relationship between men and women, some parents misuse their authority. For example, growing up, many of us experienced threats from our parents like, “I brought you into this world, I’ll take you out!” But the fact that you brought someone into existence doesn’t give you the right to end their life. This is a clear abuse of power.
On a more serious note, I believe this kind of authority misuse is a factor in why many children, who are compelled to follow a religion and adhere to the traditions of men without receiving true biblical education, grow up to resent God and the Bible. They never had the chance to form their own beliefs and relationship with him. Instead of being properly guided and encouraged to seek the correct path, they were, in a way, “forced to believe.” (Which to be clear, isn’t possible).
The Scripture says to “Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.” (Prov 22:6 NKJV) It doesn’t say to force anyone to do anything. Furthermore, if you have to force them to believe as children, you’ll also have to figure out how to force them as adults when they have their own free will. I’m guessing that’s why many “fall away.”
But I digress. The point is, as humans, we often have a tendency to misuse our positions and overestimate our importance. That’s where most of this so-called “authority” comes from— unfortunately, it’s become a part of our human nature, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. However, for the people of God, to believe that naming a child or anyone else, bestows special privileges over them, and to use that to argue that women should be subject to men, is not only unacceptable, but quite absurd.
But, in all fairness, it does appear, on the surface, that naming people in Scripture equals power over them. However, while individuals in positions of power often named or renamed others—such as parents naming their children (Genesis 5:28-29), kings renaming conquered peoples (Gen. 41:45; 2 Kgs. 23:34; 2 Kgs. 24:17), and God renaming individuals (Gen. 32:28)—it doesn’t automatically suggest that they had control over them.
For instance, as noted in Genesis 16:13, Hagar, an Egyptian slave who bore Abraham’s first son Ishmael, referred to God as “El Roi,” which translates to, “God who sees.” Now we know Hagar possessed no authority over God; she merely expressed her perception of him, attributing a name based on his actions and nature. In other words, she called it like she saw it.
Beyond this biblical evidence, supporting the idea that naming does not equal authority, significant questions emerge when one considers the contrary viewpoint. For example, if God’s act of naming or renaming individuals signifies his authority over them, what does that suggest for those of us who retain the names given to us by our guardians at birth? Are we not under God’s authority?
Furthermore, were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego under the authority of the chief officer of King Nebuchadnezzar, rather than the king himself, since it was the officer who actually named them? Knowing the end of the account, did either one ever have true authority over them? (Daniel 3) I would argue that they didn’t. Human power, maybe. But no authority was given by God except to conquer.
Should anyone claim otherwise, they will need to explain the type of power we’re dealing with. In a nutshell, this authority was used to abduct and integrate God’s people into a culture where they were forced to worship other gods, facing death if they refused. While the Lord allowed his people to be captured by these kings, he wasn’t the source of the human power that they wielded.
Furthermore, how does the ability of a pagan ruler to strip an individual of their identity and rename them according to their own gods, compare to a “supposed God-given authority” granted to a man to guide his wife and God’s people in his principles? How does one make that comparison? The truth is that they can’t.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Adam naming his wife indeed signified his authority over her. If this supposed “authority” that Adam, and by extension all men, have over women, mirrors the control exerted over the Hebrew boys, does that mean women can also choose to disobey their husbands as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego disobeyed their leadership?
If their husbands and male church leaders are not adhering to God’s ways, like King Nebuchadnezzer, shouldn’t they have the right and the responsibility to advocate for God’s truth? To rise up and speak out for righteousness just as this trio did? Isn‘t that precisely what we observe in today’s world? Many women standing up for truth and preaching better than some men?
There is a lack of biblical truth being taught, and the people are desperately hungry. What starving individual is picky about where their next meal comes from? The focus should be on ensuring that the needy are fed, regardless of who provides the food. So, why do women continue to face condemnation from their so-called fellow believers, for sharing God’s truth amid this spiritual famine?
Can someone please explain?
Thankfully, although true laborers are scarce (or scared), a small group of both men and women, bold and unashamed, are stepping up to fulfill this need.
Conclusion
The act of naming the woman, doesn’t imply that the man held authority over her, as some suggest, nor does it indicate authority over the animals. Instead, the context suggests that he was evaluating their nature, function, and capabilities to determine what they could bring to the table. However, none were suitable, so ultimately, the woman was created from a part of the man and became his helper.
The man referred to her as “woman” to classify her within a certain category of beings, and in order to give her an identity, he gave her a name. Lacking a prior list of names to select from, the name he chose for her reflected her purpose and the destiny that God had declared for her. This passage contains no hint of dominance over another.
According to some, God’s naming his creations was an act of authority, and the same principle applies to naming a spouse. However, the naming of God’s creations cannot be compared to a human naming God’s creations, since we are not God.
When a person in Scripture names another, some interpret this act as a sign of authority. This interpretation is not necessarily accurate; it arises from the common biblical pattern of those in authority naming individuals under their control.
However, this scenario is not always the case, the reasoning is rather superficial, and I have yet to find any genuine biblical or historical evidence that supports the idea that naming someone implies authority over them.
Moreover, the people who named people in Scripture were mostly pagan kings who renamed God’s people according to their own gods, and their evil authority is nothing to compare with an authority God grants for leading his people.
Furthermore, Hagar, who named God, was neither superior nor equal to God.
Thus, regarding Adam’s naming of Eve, it doesn’t suggest he had authority over her, nor does it imply that men today possess special control over women. The arguments and examples presented in support of this idea fail to substantiate such a claim.
In the end, this argument cannot be used to support men dominating women in the world and in the church, since Adam and Eve’s situation was a unique one-of-a-kind ordeal that was not passed down to the rest of mankind.
All women weren’t made from a part of a man, all women aren’t the mother of all living, and all women don’t have grief in childbearing. In addition, only one man has ever named his own wife—at least, under decent circumstances.
So, regardless of if the man’s naming of his wife implied authority over her or not, none of this story is about you and I, and therefore doesn’t apply to us. Rather, we should take it for what it is: a historical account of the first human couple, without trying to read extra meaning into it.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In