After teaching Genesis 1\u20133, I\u2019m persuaded that this narrative of the primal pair teaches that God made them for mutuality. I see no indicators of hierarchy \u2014 whether in creation order or in the so-called \u201ccurse\u201d after the fall. I present today seven theses of mutuality. After teaching Genesis 1\u20133, I\u2019m persuaded that this narrative of the primal pair teaches that God made them for mutuality. I see no indicators of hierarchy \u2014 whether in creation order or in the so-called \u201ccurse\u201d after the fall. I present today seven theses of mutuality.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1750],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-women-and-ministry"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nFirst, the \u201clet us\u201d of Genesis 1:26 indicates that God\u2019s \u201crelationality\u201d creates a human relationality. Here\u2019s the appropriate line: \u201cLet us make man in our image, in our likeness.\u201d Some have said the \u201cus\u201d indicates a divine deliberative (God talking to himself; like this: \u201clet\u2019s get ourselves out of bed, Scot\u201d) or God speaking to the angelic hosts (see Job 38:4-7). But, I do think the absolute absence of this \u201cus\u201d in other passages about God in Genesis 1\u201311 may well indicate that the \u201cus\u201d of Gen 1:26 is special.
\nIf my point is sustained, the passage indicates that God is himself a relational community of persons and this inherent nature springs forth into creating humans in such a way they can enjoy a similar relationality within themselves.
\nSome will dispute this point; if one sees the \u201cus\u201d as merely a divine deliberative, there is perhaps nothing here for mutuality, or if one sees it as the \u201cangelic hosts\u201d then there is a slighter indicator of mutuality.
\nSecond, the Bible says God made male and female \u201cin the image of God.\u201d It is well known that the Hebrew word behind \u201cimage\u201d is tselem<\/em> and that this term was used in the Ancient Near East for the king who \u201crepresented\u201d his god and for his representative role in this world for that king\u2019s god. The Bible takes that category and makes two moves:
\n1. The tselem is now used for both male and female, for each male and female, and not just for kings. The tselem is therefore democratized<\/em>.
\n2. The tselem may well be feminized <\/em>here; I know of no use of this term for queens (I could be wrong). I have no intent for \u201cfeminized\u201d meaning feminism in this context; only that the tselem applies now both to males and females.
\nThird, Genesis 2 is the \u201cStory of the Adam.\u201d Now the word \u201cadam<\/em>\u201d means \u201chuman being\u201d in Genesis 1:26 and not \u201cAdam, the name, the first male created.\u201d God then \u201csplits The Adam\u201d (I don\u2019t know where I first saw this) into an Ish (male) and Ishah (female). Then God draws the ish and ishah back together to re-unionize the split Adam. This is the story of Genesis 2. I believe it indicates mutuality \u2014 the two from one and the two back into one to be a union with each being a mutual part of that union. (By the way, this has nothing to do with the viability of singleness.)
\nFourth, God gives to The Adam (the Ish) a companion in Genesis 2. After the Ish\/the Adam is given the task of naming animals, God sees that The Adam has no suitable companion (ezer kenego<\/em>). So, from Adam\u2019s side (rib: tsela<\/em>) God makes a companion suitable to The Adam. Adam recognizes the woman as \u201cThis time!\u201d I\u2019ve found one that matches up with me. In other words, this is a story of mutuality: of finding an equal, one who is a companion just like Adam. In later Hebrew terms, Adam has found his habibi <\/em>\u2014 the one he loves, his friend.
\nFifth, in Genesis 2:23 the Adam finds one who is just like him. Here are his words:
\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cThis is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called \u00e2\u0080\u0098woman,\u00e2\u0080\u0099 for she was taken out of man.\u00e2\u0080\u009d
\nThe words here indicate identity, ontological similarity, and sameness. There is a profound mutuality of existence in this verse.
\nSixth, many contend that the \u201ccurse\u201d of Genesis 3 indicates that the woman is submit to her husband. Wait a minute, I say (with many others).
\n1. The word \u201ccurse\u201d is used only of the serpent and the ground; neither the Adam nor the Eve are said to be cursed.
\n2. The impact of the Fall on the Eve seems to be multiply her efforts \u2014 she not only gives childbirth but she toils alongside the Adam.
\n3. Most importantly, the so-called curse deserves a different reading. Here is Gen 3:16:
\nTo the woman he said,
\n\u00e2\u0080\u009c Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.\u00e2\u0080\u009d
\nHere\u2019s the million dollar question: Is this a prediction of \u201cfact\u201d or a demand for order? Is this how things \u201cwill be\u201d or how things \u201cshould be\u201d? I suggest the former \u2014 this is how males will manifest themselves in sin and how females will manifest themselves in sin.
\nWhich leads to the big one\u2026
\nSeventh, we are now a \u201cnew creation\u201d (2 Cor 5:17). If so, is not the New Creation the undoing of the Fall? If so, the \u201cfact\u201d of male assertiveness over the female belongs to the Era of the Fall as does the female desire to subdue her husband, it is a manifestation of the flesh; it is not indicative of the New Creation. That is why Paul says in Christ there is neither \u201cthe Adam nor the Eve\u201d (neither male nor female). We are now one in Christ \u2014 when God \u201csplit the Adam\u201d into the male and female, that splitting did not find its final resolution until it is found in Christ.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"