When Theology Goes Horribly Wrong: The Naming Concept

Because of the absence of a biblical commandment for men to rule over women, there have been a lot of attempts to "find" the man's authority over the woman in the Bible. One of those attempts is the naming concept; by naming Eve, Adam claimed authority over her.

For example, Raymond Ortlund, in CBMW's book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, grasps the beauty of the poetry involved in Genesis 2:23 and he sees the woman as an equal because she is created from the man, for with the woman the man can experience companionship on his own level. But simultaneously he views the man naming the woman as an act of authority, a royal prerogative, since he is naming his helper.[1]

But Joey Cochran, whose article, When Adam Named Eve, is published on the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's website, doesn't agree.

"But when God brings the Woman to Adam he does not name her Eve as we would suspect. He identifies her in relationship to himself as Woman because, “she was taken out of man.” This name lacks specificity. Adam does not claim rule or authority over the woman at this point. For now she is Woman. This is how the serpent and God address her in Genesis 3. It is not until the end of Genesis 3 where Adam calls her by the name, Eve, which is the significant point to be made."

Cochran cites John Walton who points out that the Hebrew uses a different vocabulary and syntax when the naming of the animals is referred to compared to the joyous exclamation of the man when seeing the woman. But because the same vocabulary and syntax used in 2:19-20 is found in 3:20, Cochran concludes that it here that the man claims authority over the woman. He adds further that Genesis 2:23-3:20 is an "inclusio."

"However, the calling of Eve, Woman, does introduce an important point to be made about the story of the Fall. It, in a sense, introduces and forms the front end of an inclusio between 2.23 and 3.20. An inclusio is a repetition of two ideas that book end a discourse. Inclusios serve as valuable signposts. They signal an important point in the text. In this text the inclusio is the naming of the Woman."

The entire description of the fall of humankind is only an inclusio that exists to explain when and how the man claims authority over the woman?

Let's see how Cochran defends his argument. 

"The story of the Fall begins with the Woman being named categorically. At this point the Man and the Woman are naked and feel no shame. At the end of the Fall narrative the Man names the Woman Eve, offering specificity. However, everything is different. Rather than being naked and feeling no shame, the first sacrifice is made for garments of clothing. Between these two end caps is the story of what happens when man does not exercise headship appropriately. It is a story of failed leadership, leading to the man accepting responsibility for his failure to exercise authority where he ought."

Wait a minute! How can the fall narrative be a story of "failed leadership" if the man never claimed authority over the woman in Genesis 2? He never made himself the head!
 
Cochran gets into an even bigger mess when he tries to explain why the man failed to exercise authority over the woman:

"Note that God called to Adam, “Where are you?” Matthew Lee Anderson refers to this question as “the first moment of God’s redemptive activity” (The End of Our Exploring, 42). God begins his effort of redemption by addressing the one who is ultimately responsible. He addresses the one who was commissioned to rule, subdue and refrain from eating a fruit from a tree. .... Adam as head must take responsibility for the fall. God commissioned him to rule and subdue all creation. Ironically, a reptilian creature and a piece of fruit brought down the man who was meant to rule them. In the process he failed at leading his wife."

God holds him responsible for eating the fruit, but not for not exercising authority over the woman, for the mandate to rule and subdue was given to the man and the woman. Cochran has to make the woman less human in order to give the man authority over the woman and even then he finds it after sin had already entered.

"So Adam, recognizing his failure, accepts the consequence and responsibility for the Fall. He takes up his tarnished mantle of headship and names the Woman Eve. Adam naming Eve conveys his authority over her and in turn over all the living. His naming of her not only represents his commitment to his commission as head but also confesses his faith in God’s redemptive plan. As “Mother of all the living,” Adam knows she is the mother of the redemptive Seed that will crush the head of the Serpent (Gen 3.15)".

What Cochran does is assume God gave the man authority in Genesis 2, which the man then finally accepts in Genesis 3. But by doing so, he is essentially agreeing with egalitarian theology: the man claims authority over the woman after sin. Nothing is said about God giving the man the authority.

But it gets worse, a lot worse - for men.

"It makes most sense to take this phrase at face-value and understand that Adam was present during the temptation but silent. Why did he remain silent? Why did he not act? We could speculate much about this. Throughout the Old Testament there are other examples of when men fail to act and lead. Judah failed to act on behalf of Tamar, so she took matters in her hands. Barak failed to lead as judge, so Deborah stepped up to lead the army against its foes."

Even the most perfect of all men, who knew no sin, didn't know how to lead. Hence, in Cochran's mind, because men are proven to be incompetent leaders, men should have authority over women, for if men aren't given authority, women would never let them lead.

What Cochran's article shows is in the most clearest way is that when we do not accept what the Bible says about the creation of men and women, we end get a theology that goes horribly wrong in every possible way.



Source: http://cbmw.org/men/manhood/when-adam-named-eve/