Revisiting Genesis: A Selective Commentary on Certain Words

Genesis Chapter 2: Metaphorically Speaking

And the LORD God (a) formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (b) (Gen 2:7).

a) “And the LORD God”

In Genesis 1, the name ‘Elohim’ the Creator God is used. Now, at the beginning of this early portion of chapter 2, our attention is drawn to the divine name YHWH. This is the first time this name is disclosed.

The mysterious name ‘YHWH’ came to be regarded by the Jews as too sacred to be spoken (c. 300 BC). The vowel sounds, e, o, a, from the Greek ‘adonay’, ‘lord’. were later added to YHWH to read YaHWeH. These added vowel sounds are generally present in any translation 1

In basic translation of the Hebrew the vowels, a, e, i, o, u, are added to the consonants. These added vowels help to make up any Hebrew word, thus building them up to make them pronounceable [i]. This means in essence any translator can add individual vowel sounds to Hebrew consonants to make up words to add the meaning to suit their theological perspective. 2

This should alert us that the translator’s choice of vowels makes the English text uncertain.  The original translators were predominately male and working from a patriarchal perspective. 3 Further, we cannot discount a misogynist bias.

In my writing, I bring to the fore some of these ambiguities in the hope of providing an alternate reading. To do this I simply use Strong’s concordance and make different choices of the available meanings. Anyone that can read can do this extra research. I will show how the Hebrew scriptures can just as easily be translated from a  matriarchal perspective as they are patriarchal [ii].

My understanding of YWJH, the wonderful name of God is as follows: In the beginning, the unpronounceable, ineffable name YWJH required further revelation. ‘And Moses said unto God, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them”?  “Who shall I say sent me?”  Here Moses received, ‘I Am’  (to be, become, come-to-pass, exist. Heb. ‘eh yeh’ Strong’s #1961): “this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” This may be translated as future tense, ‘I Will Be What I Will Be’ (Ex 3: 14).

And God said unto Moses, “I AM THAT I AM”: and God said, “Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”.  (Exod. 3: 13–15).

The revelation given to Moses suggests God does not want to hide or have secrets from us. It is just that at that particular time it was all that could be given. It would take the whole of history to unravel the mysteries of God shown in one name. God’s name at that time was unchangeable, it still is. Further progressive revelations enacted on the human stage would bring greater understanding until the set time had come for the fullest revelation in Christ.

To understand better how to pronounce the unpronounceable name of God see here video by Richard Rohr, demonstrating the way the Jews express this unpronounceable name.

Finally, Mary received the name ‘Jesus’ (Joshua), a usual name amongst the Jews. ‘He shall be called Jesus for he will save … ‘. Finally, this Jesus, the man/God lived and died in faithful obedience to the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father. Then the name YWJH finally came into its full revelation and became the ‘name above every name’: Lord Jesus Christ. This name has been given to us to use. was conferred upon Him when He was resurrected from the dead by the action of God the Everlasting Father. Jesus returned to the Throne room of God, in the Kingdom of God in heaven until he comes again.

When God came in the flesh, our understanding of God changed through Jesus’ life and teachings. Once all was accomplished through the death of that sinless human and of His resurrection from the dead everything changed. The name above all names could finally be bestowed upon Jesus. Death was conquered. ‘O Death where is your sting, O Grave where is your victory’. Now we have been given that name above all names to call upon and do mighty deeds in that name. Believe in it.

To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours (1 Corinthians 1:2). 4

Long before Moses however, the indescribable, inexpressible, unutterable, unspeakable, ineffable name begins to express itself in ways that were able to reach Sarai and Abram. When we read of Sarai and Abram being called to go to a land they did not know and they obeyed they also received the gift of faith.  This faith and growing relationship with one God had begun. The creation has always revealed God’s eternal power.

For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power, and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:19 – 20)

God continued to reveal Godself through expressible names though the prophets. Isaiah, no doubt in rapturous wonderment, expressed:

“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

So limited are we in our humanity, the name would never have been understood or pronounceable had not God come in the flesh. In these last days, the unpronounceable name has been fully revealed: ‘Jesus is our Prince of Peace’.

‘For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility’ (Eph. 2:14).

‘Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, ‘that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’ (Phil 2: 9-11).

Now the unnameable incomprehensible name is easily pronounced and understood not by the thinking mind but rather by the spirit of our mind. In the deep recesses of our very being, God has reached down to humanity and, indeed, we have tasted the goodness of the Lord and the powers of the coming age (Heb 6:5).

Now that you have tasted that the Lord is good if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good (1 Pet 2: 23) etc.

I hope we meet up again over the next reading, when I continue to show Adam was not ‘created’ first, as the patriarchs teach, but rather he was ‘formed’ first. There, I will comment on the man who was ‘formed first’ according to the Apostle Paul’s standard of interpretation: the First man (the natural) and the Second man (the spiritual).

I will also show that woman was not ‘second in creation’. That also is an invention which leads nowhere spiritually, but rather, when interpreted metaphorically, it shows the woman was ‘built’ and not ‘created second’ to the man. Nor was the woman ‘formed’ like the human-made of clay, but rather just as she began so she is being ‘built up’ to this day.

Don’t miss it!!!!

Next reading: Gen 2-7 (b)

“And the LORD God (a) formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (b) (Gen 2:7).

P.S: A word in season to them that are weary… “You’re just now turning a corner” : )

Heaps of blessings and good things ahead,

Patricia – Run with The Vision!



[i] The Hebrew Alphabet and the Power of the Vowels. The Hebrews were the first to incorporate vowels in their written text (not to be confused with the vowel pointing of the medieval Masoretes), and by doing this the previously esoteric art of writing and reading became available to the masses. The seemingly casual command to ‘write’ something on doors or foreheads included the invention of a writing system that could be learned by everybody. A very big deal and resulting in the most powerful tool of data preservation up to this common age.

Hebrew theology is by far the most influential ever, and this is in part due to the Hebrew invention of vowel notation. This power (this theology) contrasted others by use of the vowel notation, using symbols that were already used and until then only represented consonants: the letters ו (waw), י (yod) and ה (heh), and to give an example: the word דודis either the word dod, meaning beloved (and the ו is a vowel), or it is the word dud, meaning jar (and the ו is again a vowel), or it is the word dawid, which is the name David (and the ו is a consonant). These letters became markers for both the Hebrew identity and the Hebrew religion, including the various names for God.

One of these names is the famous Tetragrammaton יהוה ( YHWH) which actually exists only of vowels, and is utterly exceptional in many ways, including the fact that it cannot be pronounced. The word אל (El) was the name of the prominent Canaanite god, whose name was either derived of or became the common word for god in general. The plural of this word is אליםelim, gods. With the addition of the letter ה, creating the word אלהים, the Hebrews not only stated essential monotheism (by naming a single God after the plural word “gods”) but also marked their God as theirs: Elohim is the singular pantheon of the vowel-people.

Something similar occurred when the name of patriarch Abram (אברם) was expanded with the heh into Abraham אברהם, and the name of matriarch Sarai (שׂרי) was expanded with the heh to Sarah (שׂרה).

Since the formation of the alphabet is such a feat and also because in those days nothing at all was without meaning, many people expect that the arrangement of the letters have meaning. Why was the aleph made the first letter? Why beth second? These are intriguing questions and (try a Google search for “Hebrew alphabet meaning”) many project the most complicated (if not far-fetched) spiritual journeys upon the alphabet. But before such an attempt is made, the following should be taken into consideration: Hold these thoughts (before reading meaning in the Hebrew Alphabet as follows…)

The alphabet was compiled long before the Torah was written. The monotheistic idea had hardly surfaced (Abraham was a monotheist but no mark on history remains), and monotheistic theology did not exist. Although the Bible recognizes the Hebrew alphabet (see psalm 119), there is no Biblical indication that the formation of the alphabet was inspired by God or that any possible meaning is truthful.

The fact that the alphabet is used in the Bible does not per definition mean that it co-holds the status of infallibility. It is very well possible that the alphabet grew slowly; that letters really are nothing but abstract notations that received their name afterwards because they resembled familiar items. It is evenly well possible that the letters existed but without an arrangement. They may very well have existed like marbles in a bag. Perhaps the existence of the various letters was agreed upon long before any formal order. There may even have been more than one order commonly accepted, and only one form survived.

The Book of Lamentations, for instance, features a few acrostic poems that follow more than one order of letters. Perhaps the alphabet is not simply an abstract order, but an already spoken word that was discovered to be the mother of all words; a magic word that held all letters and only once. Perhaps it’s a name. Perhaps an incantation… We simply don’t know why the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were arranged like this. Any meaning that is ‘found’ is conjecture and says more about the enthusiasm of the explorer than about the alphabet. God is typically not in the habit of hiding information.

The alphabet is like a painter’s pallet and any arrangement of paints before they are arranged into a painting may be cute to know but is fully irrelevant to the actual painting. The saying ‘to worship the ground someone walks on’ may indicate veneration in English, it certainly does not in the Biblical arena. The Bible is clear about it: any information you need is openly addressed in the narrative surface of the Bible. Any phenomenon that emerges at manipulating the letters or words beyond their function in the story, is either contrary to the narrative and surely hasn’t been put there by God, or it conforms to the narrative and you could have learned it from simply reading Scriptures at much less trouble.

In a text as large as the Bible anything can be found if one wants it bad enough, especially if there are no limitations in methods and mechanisms used. ‘Finding’ something in the Bible is no proof that it actually exists, especially within the Bible’s intended message.

[ii] This alternate reading to the mainstream in which I show how the Hebrew scriptures can just as easily be translated matriarchal as they are patriarchal is shown in my commentary on the first three chapters of Genesis followed by my rendering of the matrilines of Israel’s early Mothers, particularly Sarah. There, I show that the matriarchal society was instituted in Genesis and that Israel and other tribes of that era were uniform in this.

They were matriarchal in their early formation and it can be traced in other books of the OT. The depiction of a patriarchal society, of the husband/father as head of the house, of sons as firstborn and superior in inheritance laws, of women leaving their family and joining her baal, her overlord, subject to abuse at his will, as a foreigner in her husband’s household, producing children at his will, used as fodder for his tribal wars, cannot be verified by scripture.

Furthermore, considering the overall plan of God, that is, redeemed humanity, those that make up the body and ultimately, the bride of Christ. Such a society can, in no way, shape, or form, ‘fit’ patriarchal imaging: the church as the bride of Christ, as the body of Christ, without gender, nevertheless, a woman having a womb (grace), giving birth to spiritual children. Further proof of this image shows there is not one example of a woman in the Hebrew scriptures who left her maternal kinship group, her maternal clan, her maternal tribe, and maternal mother’s house and crossed borders and tribal boundaries to marry another Israelite, let alone a foreigner. If you wonder about Sarah read my paper of the same name (due out in December 2020). Even those women who were political envoys did not join their husband’s household but maintained their own.

It is claimed and believed that all scripture plainly declares Israel was a patriarchal society. This is absurd. A patriarchal society does not and can never mirror the NT teachings of the Apostle Paul regarding the wonderful image of Jesus leaving his family in Glory, coming to seek a bride on her home turf, winning her and having betrothed her to Himself, who has promised to return to live with her, and her close kin and friends of the bride on her home turf, albeit new heaven and earth.

There is no patriarchal bridegroom carrying off his bride to the father’s house to join his family. The true image of Christ and His bride has been marred by the patriarchal representation of the man as head of society and house. It is as if we are all in a dream. I want to shout here “wake up”! No metaphorical visual representation of Christ and His bride can emerge out of this OT patriarchal image. We have been duped!

The way this has been accomplished is in the translation of certain keywords which I point out in all my writings. They act as shibboleths; Those work by employing a custom, principle, and belief that distinguishes a particular group of people (men) as deemed special by God. Thus it becomes standard for everyone to believe it. So ingrained is it and so encultured are we by its practice in society and especially in church society, we no longer question it. The final outcome of this is, in the NT the words of the Apostle Paul concerning women have been perverted to fit that false patriarchal image. To be very blunt here, we have been had! NT

But the prophet Isaiah received an inkling of what was ahead (Isa 52: 14) …‘Just as many were astonished at you, (Just as many were ruined, devastated, ravaged, made desolate, together with you) So His (your) visage (supernatural vision, what is seen) was marred (corrupted) more than any man (ish ‘man, male’), And His (your) form (his outline drawn, marked out,) more than the sons of men; (beyond human likeness: mortal). RBW paraphrase: Reading the Bible as a Woman paraphrased by Patricia with reference to Strong’s Concordance.

Once we wake up out of our trance, we can see the way forward. Indeed, the scriptures alert us to the way in which patriarchy began to make its inroads in early Genesis. We can then follow this thread to see how it continued to grow. My series, now being released in chronological order, The Mothers and the Kenites (published November 2020) and Commentary in the Book of Judges (published early 2021) is a clear example. Watch this space: published in early 2021.

Eve had already been given the pattern of Jesus’ coming and His return. Hence the command to her of an endogamous marriage relationship“. ‘For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”’ (Gen 2: 24). The reason mentioned there is Christ coming to join us the first time and betrothing us to Himself, his second coming will be the marriage supper of the Lamb and His bride, those ‘called out ones’, those blood washed obedient people that make up the body of Christ.

The endogamous marriage relationship portrays the society where the bride remains with her people. Patriarchy does not portray this. The endogamous marriage relationship portrays the women owning the land (inheriting the earth). The early chapters of Genesis portray such a society, the practice of the building of the mother’s house to formulate it. Israel was and is to this day a matriarchal society. You are a Jew if your mother is. What God has ordained cannot be erased. As proof, up to today, the infant male of a Jewish mother is circumcised as a testimony of his belonging.

No such insignia in the flesh is required for any baby girl, Jewish or otherwise. The Scriptures show all foreign women who believed were readily accepted into Israelite society. Not so foreign men! The female’s very anatomy displays externally through the visible portions of the vulva. The separated labia show the sign of a cut in her flesh at her creation: signifying she is already marked with a sign, accepted by Her Maker without any need for the physical representation of the covenant between God and Abraham. God then shows off such marvelous and wonderful creative handiwork in fruit and flower.

The woman was warned of an impending war against her and patriarchy was and is that enemy. ‘To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain, you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” ‘(Genesis 3: 16). In later readings, we are alerted to this monstrous modification in Israel’s early society, the people have chosen to image God’s plan for the ages. As a result of sin working initially in the garden, through Adam, the man’s ego, pride and downright slander and malicious intent, and ultimately, visible through the human race fallen from grace.

To interpret the scriptures in this way, I always approach the presented text on the page with wariness. I engage in what is known as a ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ where my own translation work on the women of the bible is concerned. I do this in an attempt to combat this negative effect that the patriarchal translation of the scriptures has brought upon woman in particular. Although it benefits the male of the species initially it also turns out to be their adversary.

I draw the reader’s attention to take special interest regarding women’s faith, to take note of the way in which they keep the vision of the Coming One alive. Note the women’s courageous actions to save Israel from extinction. Their leading position in early Israelite society is revealed through their land ownership and the toponomy, such as towns and regions named after them. Only those of the Mother’s close kin are known as ‘bone of bone and flesh of flesh’. These close kinship groups lead to the growth of larger clans and finally tribes, all of which individually and at a microcosm level, the scriptures show relate to their individual mothers.

The gender issue is also considered where clearly women are ruled out of the mainstream of Israelite society due to misogynist biased translation and commentary. Finally, I show how this leads to (false) Christian doctrines, built on fabricated premises and rest upon shaky patriarchal foundation stones to which the following scripture allude. The Freedom Papers ‘If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord is on his heavenly throne. his eyes are watching closely; they examine the sons of men (Ps 11: 3).


REVISITING GENESIS: A COMMENTARY – Chapter 1 – The Creation of the Natural World


GENESIS Chapter One: The Creation of the Natural World

(Letters in brackets refer to the numbered commentary – (a), b, c, etc. Footnotes – (f/n 1) ,2,3 etc. Endnotes – roman numerals – (e/ni,) ii, iii etc). RBW paraphrase: (Reading the Bible as a Woman paraphrased by Patricia).

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God (f/n[1]) created (a) the heaven and the earth.

RBW paraphrase:

In beginning to execute the plan of the ages, God-whose-name-is-holy, Elohim[2] created the heavens and the earth. Elohim’s earthly name was Jesus. Jesus came as a human, like any other, made of clay, born of a woman. Jesus, whose first coming to this world was as the Messiah of the Jews.

He was first revealed to Eve and she named the One who is to come, ‘The Coming One’. Jesus Saviour, Christ, Messiah, also named the ‘Seed of the Woman’.

For this cause, God created people in the image of God Self, in the image of God-whose-name-is-holy, Elohim created them the female and the male. Jesus, Creator and lover of our souls, created everything visible and invisible, by the power of Ruah (Holy Spirit). 

a). CREATED: Heb. bara: to prepare, form, fashion, create  (f/n [3]) To make something out of nothing. 

The first divine action occurred (f/n [4]). This Hebrew word, bara, translated ‘create’, is used selectively throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and only in association with original creation. It is mentioned in Chapter one verse twenty-one: ‘great whales’, and later, in verse twenty-seven: ‘God created man (sic, e/n [i]) (woman and the man) in His own image’. It is again used in reference to God creating a new heart (mind): ‘Create in me a clean heart, O God’ (Ps 51:10). 

The Hebrew word bara, for the English word, ‘create’,  is used only in Genesis chapter one concerning the creation of the woman and the man (and importantly, not chapter two). It is used there when describing the original creation. I make this point, as it is important to understand the terminology changes when we start interpreting chapter two.

Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form (b) and void (c); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit (d) of God moved (e) upon the face of the waters.

RBW paraphrase

Gen. 1:2 And Mother Earth[5] was without form, not unlike a woman’s egg when first impregnated. It takes your breath away to consider the nano-second the ovum is enriched. Ruah, breathes upon it and life begins. At the earliest stage of conception, a feminine embryo  (f/n [6]) is without human shape. And darkness enveloped Mother Earth and her seed waited until Elohim spoke. And darkness also was brooding upon the face of Mother Earth’s deep dark pregnant womb. And the feminine Holy Spirit of God, like as a mother eagle hovers, trembles, flutters, as she covers her young with her wings,[7] so too, Ruah. She brooded over and moved upon the face of the waters ready to bring to birth all that was to be. 

(b) FORM: Heb. tohu   an unused root meaning to lie waste

(c) VOID: Heb. bohu emptiness, ‘that which is laid waste, desolate’. The earth and the heavens had not yet been formed (fashioned, framed), into any shape. There were no mountains, rivers, hills, and valleys on the surface of the earth, nor any living creatures, herbs, bushes or trees. The heavens had no clouds, stars, moon or sun. ‘And darkness was upon the face of the deep’ (sea).

 (d) SPIRIT: Heb. ‘ruah’, ‘ruwach’ feminine noun, by Old Testament writers, to denote the animating principle in both God and human beings, with all that it implies. It means that which gives life and personality and meaning to a person. It is what makes a creature a recognisable human being, with all that infers. The usage of this metaphor is likened to a woman travailing to bring to birth. Once again, ‘like a female eagle, to brood over young ones; to cherish young’ (Duet 32:11). It is figuratively used of the Spirit of God, who brooded over the shapeless mass of the earth, cherishing and vivifying.

Wherever ruah is used and however it is used, in the Hebrew Scriptures, it is in this feminine sense and never referred to as a depersonalised force. (f/n [8]) Just as ‘father’ and ‘son’ are metaphors when applied to God-whose-name-is-holy, as ‘Father’ and ‘Jesus, Son of God’ so Spirit, Ruah, as Mother. Ruah is feminine singular active verb articulating divine action ‘she-pulsed’, (r-ch-ph_ (hover, flutter, tremble Deut 32: 11, Her 23:9), She is revealed in the feminine likeness. As a Father, Child and Mother,  this family imaging of roles in our language together with our human understanding allows us to comprehend  something of the triune God by reference to our own human experience.[9]

(e) MOVED: Heb. rachaph: a primitive root; to brood; by implication, to be relaxed: flutter, move, to shake, to hover. (f/n [10]) It only occurs three times in three verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV. (f/n [11]). 

Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his  kind (f), whose seed is in itself, (g) upon the earth: and it was so. 

RBW paraphrase:

Gen. 1:11 And God said, Mother Earth, let your seed spring into life. Let the fruit trees bear seed and fruit, wherein, the seed is in itself. All of nature, reproduce after your own kind. And it was so, and so it is

(f) AFTER HIS KIND’: translated from a Hebrew phrase: species kind, sort. This principle ‘like produces like’ recurs throughout all of creation It is established as a law in Genesis chapter one; it will never be changed by man’s engineering. 

 ‘AFTER HER KIND’: Mother Earth is producing seed after her kind also. (f/n [13]).  Women, their kind. Male species do not have seed, whose life is in itself. Rather they have sperm or issue; it is neither seed nor egg. (f/n [14]). Thus begins the largely unnoticed never commented on patriarchal misnomer and the gradual enculturation of Bible students.

This is where we learn the norms and values of the dominant patriarchal culture and its language through unconscious repetition of words and phrases. All of the original interpreters of the bible were male and knowingly or unknowingly, manipulated the text to engender masculine language and metaphors in the translation of the original.

Here, one is reminded of the abundance God planned for the earth. This abundance reveals the hidden truth of the Realm of God-whose-name-is-holy for the Daughters of God. There is no hint of restriction placed upon any of God’s creation. It is not in God’s nature to restrain, prevent, or prohibit growth or multiplication. (f/n [15]). Expansion, consolidation and multiplication are all introduced here in God’s economy of fruitfulness, for the Daughters of God. Anything that restricts this is not of God’s making. Be aware. Patriarchy reproduces seed after its own kind. 

(g) WHOSE SEED IS IN ITSELF: Every bible version has a doctrinal basis which you can discover by reading the inside cover. Their doctrinal slant is then carried and is embedded in the text. Whether the version you are reading is accurate or inaccurate it is interpreting the original Word in its own doctrinal language and slant and it will produce fruit after its own kind: The principle is repeated in the teaching, ‘whatsoever you sow, so shall you also reap’. What a person thinks, so they are’. 

We all are reaping the whirlwind in this generation of the male leadership institution of all religious organisations. Allowing the male-only priesthood in the Christian church and excluding women from officiating is now visible as one of its inherent weaknesses. That, along with not allowing female leadership is the greatest heresy in the twentieth century. Their reasoning finds its roots in a bias which they justify as women’s biological ‘uncleanness’, her menses, and women’s inherent spiritual weakness and evil: they teach that Eve caused the fall. (f/n [16]).

However, they are careful today not to say this publicly. Rather they reason that Jesus was a man, therefore, only the male gender is acceptable to minister. This is skewed doctrine. Along with genuine men who answer the call to serve the Lord it has also served to attract the sort of men that are morally unsavoury in the extreme. Without women functioning alongside men in any Christian setting, that destructive seed sown centuries ago, of male-only priests serving at the altar, has come to full bloom. Now its harvest is plain and what an unnatural harvest! 

The seeds of that tree are of the same kind: patriarchy and deception: vain philosophies of the world that lead people astray. It produces its own fruit in the church, marriages and families. That seed, having been dispersed throughout the whole world, has defiled many. It has tainted whole races of people by its odorous, rotten stench. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It is like the misnomer of the little mustard bush that finishes up growing into a huge tree! Finally, rotting-flesh-eating carrion, the birds of the air, build their nests in that tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (f/n [17]).

This is the world’s organised church whatever its brand name. It is false religion. It is tradition. The Christian message on the other hand is like the mustard bush, local, and look no different to the locals they dwell amongst. It allows all believers, regardless of gender, class or race, to function together, side by side, in oneness, in the local community. Such a united community provides healthy checks and balances. The missing ingredient is plain enough to the discerning. 

The plumb line, here in these early chapters, was not followed straight by the translators and commentators. As a result, the ‘hidden truth’ Paul speaks about and is imaged for us is in Genesis chapter two. Alas it has been overlooked. It is lost to us. 

Their myopic misogynist view prevented them from discerning it. This and other ‘hidden truths’ (mysteries) are fully revealed in the New Testament, but still, female metaphors and their embodiment remain covered to those who disdain them as ‘only women’. The seed sown can only reproduce itself. Corruption cannot inherit incorruption. (f/n [18]). The natural person cannot receive the things of the Spirit. (e/n [ii]) The mind of the flesh, without the spirit of God, cannot discern spiritual things. (e/n [iii]).

Gen. 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser (h) light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 

(h) LESSER: Teachings taken from ancient bible commentary sources are still being spread that make reference to man as the sun, woman as the moon. I have heard it with my own ears. This kind of teaching is derived from myths and fables. Note, up to now, there is as yet no mention of time. 

Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us [iv] make man (i) in our image, after our likeness:  and let them (j) have dominion (k) over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

(i) MAN: Heb. adam: man, mankind, people, human species. (f/n [19]). There is also, ha adam: ‘the man’: the human being. Here, ‘the man’ is used in reference to the woman and the man as humankind.

These words, adam, man, mankind, (especially in the KJV), all indicate humanity. It is better to say, ‘person’, or ‘people’. In Gen 1:26, it is used in relation to this human pair in the day they were created. It is very confusing but even the most recent bible interpreters refuse to let it go. The Hebrew word, adam, is applied sometimes to the individual, and at other times, to more than one human.

Where the Hebrew word ‘ish’ (husband) is translated into English, although we understand it to mean ‘husband’, it is also translated in other ways such as, man, or ‘male individual’. (f/n [20]). This has helped, to some extent, to strengthen prejudiced sexist outlook.  

(j) THEM There we have it, plural, female and male: created simultaneously co-equal. 

Gen. 1:26 Although it is not written as such in the Bible, we shall see that various names have been thought up to invent masculinised doctrines to shore up male domination. This is one of those times. it is referred to as the ‘Dominion Charter’. (f/n [21]). Here the divine purpose of God is made known ‘the day they were created’ in the counsel-chamber of the Most High.

Whenever teaching on the subordination of women is expounded it comes with the ruling, ‘from the beginning the man was created first’. The problem here is these teachers are referring to Genesis chapter two, which nowhere uses the word ‘creation’. This does not matter to them. It has been decided and so that seed is propagated. This we will go into more in the next chapter. 

When we turn to the confirmation of this original decree, in chapter one, it is clear. The male and the female were created simultaneously and equal and together given the dominion charter. However, it does recur and is found in the New Testament. This is when referred to by the Christian Jews,  in the New Testament. Those who insisted they still held to their ‘laws’ and traditions and argued with Paul about women’s place in the church and home. (f/n[22]).

 Be that as it may, its again made clear in Genesis chapter five verse one ‘In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them, and blessed them and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created’

It may surprise some, but there are no actual words of authority in the bible given to the man to rule over the woman. (e/n [v]).  It is a doctrine developed by men as is the teaching, that was developed in the early Church of Rome, that claimed the Jews murdered Jesus. Both these were manufactured by the early church fathers to rid the church of the Jews and women’s leadership. (f/n [23]). 

Consider instead that both the woman and the man are told to rule over creation. Nothing is said of the ‘Creation Order of God’,  (f/n [24]),  or, ‘first created carries the authority’. These are old, worn out castoffs from those patriarchal ancient teachings. But they are still defended vigorously by male leaders in most churches today. We have not come very far. You have only to read the account from an unprejudiced perspective to see that no such argument can be established here. 

However, there is another argument that is at times made, that God worked creating in ascending order of importance and sophistication. Well, let’s take a look at that. Beginning with inanimate matter, then the realm of vegetation, next the animal kingdom and finally human beings with the woman last. 

Conversely if chronological priority implies superiority or greater importance, then, it stands to reason that the animals would be the superiors of human beings. Both arguments arise out of the idea of hierarchy, which has no place in the Realm of God. When mothers bear more than one child, unless they are following as a family the old order of patriarchy and the first born, they do not place their children in a hierarchy of age and who is in charge and who inherits. God did not ordain that, and we can see through it. Indeed, they are all equal.

There is no actual hierarchy of men over women taught in the Old Testament, it is rather what patriarchal interpretation has done with the translation and by distorting the original matriarchal society to a patriarchal one. (f/n [25]). Patriarchy has built a male dominant hierarchy through translation, with the Hebrew, ‘ben’  (f/n [26]) being an example. 

The Hebrew, ben, means child. Not male child. Nevertheless, you may be surprised to learn this is such an issue today, a bible translation was barred from entering the United States from Great Britain because it was translated as the original reads, without prejudice. Whole denominations in the States refused its entry through voting against it. (f/n [27]) Patriarchy is alive and well in today’s Christian church. In a patriarchal worldview, men are on the top and woman are their servants and some men will do anything to keep women in that place. 

Gen Ch. 1 is at the early stage of the unfolding plan of God. All of the present-day teachings where women are on an unequal footing with men is based upon the heretical patriarchal doctrine, termed the ‘Creation Order’  (f/n [28]). These are theories and are not based upon the plain reading of Scripture, nor divinely ordained. 

(k)  DOMINION: Heb. radah: to have dominion, dominate, tread down, rule, subjugate, bear rule, reign, rule over. (f/n [29]).  God’s creation was given to the woman and the man, as God’s vice regents, to have jurisdiction over it (Ps 8). 

Gen. 1:27 So God created man (l) in his own image (m), in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (n). 

(RBW paraphrase)

Gen. 1:27 So Ruah created people in God’s triune image, that expression of the female and the male, and breathed upon them the breath of life. Yes, Ruah, was in them both, giving them animation, soul, and life. 

(l)  MAN: Heb. ‘adam’: as above. ‘So God created the woman and the man in God’s own image’. 

(m)  IMAGE: Heb. tselm As we change our language, metaphors, and other patristic ways of viewing God and the world, so the image we hold in our subconscious of God will change. Obviously here in this Scripture as elsewhere there is no speculation on God’s own form. The main point is that humans belong by nature to the divine sphere. Humans have a glory of outward appearance, ‘we are fearfully and wonderfully made’, yet their true glory lies in the unseen inner force that is intrinsic to them (Ps. 8:5-6). 

As we move into Genesis chapter two, we shall see that God commanded the couple in the garden to perform two specific functions: to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the earth, thus reflecting God’s image. We have all received God-ordained authority to rule over the rest of creation but not over each other.

Woman was created in the image of God. Thus, that invisible image of God is as distinctively female as it is male. This in no way infers that God has an appearance or gender. Jesus is the precise image of the invisible God. (f/n [30]). God, come in human form. It doesn’t matter what Jesus looked like outwardly, although we do know he was a male Jew. It is what was on the inside that bore the express image of God. 

From this we understand the incarnation is not an invisible male god being made visible. Jesus did not come in the outward form of a man because God is male. However, we will later examine the reason why Jesus came in the outward appearance of a Jewish male, of the tribe of Judah, rather than a female in appearance of the same tribe.

‘We have seen his splendor, the splendor of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of favor and truth’. (f/n [31]). 

God became flesh in the person of Jesus and dwelt amongst us. He lived his life among his own, and yet, unlike us, he chose not to sin. We see Jesus’ patience, concern and love, his compassion and empathy, and all of his emotions and caring for lost humanity, and we see the invisible God.

God has no gender, God is Spirit. This is seldom expressed from the pulpit. (f/n [32]). Most readers and listeners, therefore, assume God to be male and Jesus as a man and as the ‘son’ of God’s express image of a male god. (f/n [33]). This argument is still widespread in church thought and deed. It is the prevailing argument held by churches that refuse either to ordain or recognize the ordination of women priests. [vi] Few dare say it openly, but gender is in the foundation stone of their misogynist teachings. 

Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them (n), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, (o) and subdue it: and have dominion (p) over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 

RBW paraphrase.

The Conservation Charter: Gen. 1:28 And God blessed the woman and the man, and God said unto them, be like a fruit bearing tree, whose seed is in itself. Grow and be exceedingly abundant in every way, bring in Mother Earth’s abundance and store, and give back and nourish her. Do not hold back, multiply and replenish her that she may give back to you more abundantly. And mollify and soothe her: disregard and do not avenge. (In as much as ‘the Lord treads down (subdues) our iniquities, tramples them underfoot and does not hold them against us). Increase exceedingly and direct by your guidance so as to preserve and not destroy the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and every living thing that move upon the earth, and not with force and cruelty, (Ezk 34: 4) that you may have peace (1 Kngs 4: 24). Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God. (Lev 25: 43).

(n) THEM: The plural pronoun ‘them’ can only refer to both

(o) BE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY, AND REPLENISH THE EARTH Men have always held to the idea that women’s fruitfulness in bearing children was for their entitlement. The Mother’s Day Proclamation, in the endnotes, says it better than I ever could. (e/n [vii]).

 (p) ’DOMINION’: Here is this hostile word again. Named as the ‘Dominion Charter’ by the patriarchs: they interpret this to mean to subdue, to rule over, to cause to dominate. The supporters of the doctrine of the subjection of women to men forget or ignore that this command was given to the woman and the man when they were created. Instead, they claim it follows, that  all women everywhere are to be in subjection to all men, and under their rule, dominion and domination.

Those who believe man has been given by divine decree the inherent right to dominate, will treat women accordingly. There cannot be any other outcome but that they dominate and in so doing, hold women in contempt or pity. They blame the fall on the woman. But even if this were so, one would expect that  the second Adam, Jesus Christ restored all that was lost, Eve and her daughter’s full redemption was accomplished along with the man’s

Gen. 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit (q) of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

(q) FRUIT: The fruit in the garden is a tree yielding seed. It is in accordance with all of nature: the seed is the feminine principal in creation. Every living thing comes from a seed. Seed reproduce ‘after its own kind’. 

Gen. 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good (r). And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

(r) VERY GOOD’ Here is the pleasure and the pronouncement of the divine Creator. (e/n [viii]) All of the natural visible creation was ‘very good’! Next, in Genesis chapter two, we discover why this original creation became ‘not good’, and why it disintegrated from its perfect state. We will discover the divine solution not only to restore it but its final glorious outcome. The divine mystery which the Apostle Paul interpreted for us in the New Testament.

[1] In chapter one, God is called ‘Elohim’—a God of power. The first word Heb. b’reshiyt is a beginning, not the beginning. It could read, in – beginning, or, when – beginning

[2] The singular Israelite ‘God’ of Power, with a plural grammatical form, (also, ‘gods’, in non-Israelite contexts) is gendered in Biblical Hebrew. We are assured it is less so in English. However, this is a claim that can’t be backed up in every-day language used and our understanding. Certainly, some may hear ‘God’ as gender neutral, but the masculine emphasis given ‘father’ and ‘son’ gives the common understanding of God as male, and as such should not carry the capital ‘G’ as God. This will be discussed more in-depth in chapter two.  

[3] The second word, Heb. ‘bara’, ‘create’, ‘created’:  occurs about 50 times in Old Testament with deity always the subject or the implied subject – therefore, inherently a divine activity and not one that humans can perform or participate in. 

[4] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John Ch 1:1)

[5] ‘earth’, Feminine singlular. 

[6] Geneticists have discovered that all human embryos start life as females, as do all embryos of mammals. About the 2nd month the foetal tests elaborate enough androgens to offset the maternal oestrogens and the embryo changes to a foetus and maleness develops.

[7] This word, Heb,  

[8] The ‘Spirit of God’, ruah’ (and rarely the Holy Spirit of God), is used 89 times in the KJV. When used as the Spirit of God, it denotes, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son, by which all the universe is animated, filled with life and governed (Gen 1: 2; Ps 33: 6; Job 26:13. The ‘Spirit of God’(Ps 51: 13;Isa 63: 11 12) he divine power, which like the wind and the breath cannot be perceived and by which animated beings live (Job 27: 3; 33: 4). Bearing in mind the way in which bible translators, to masculinize language used, ‘ruah’ is also used as 1) inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy. 2)  impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning 3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power 4) as endowing people with various gifts 5) as energy of life 6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory. 7)  referred to as a de-personalised force. ‘Shekinah’ is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning ‘dwelling’ or ‘settling’, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of God, as in the cloud that followed Israel and provided shade, and the presence of God in the Tabernacle in the wilderness, the Jerusalem Temple, etc.

[9] More will be said about this is chapter two. 

[10] God was said to make the world by God’s Spirit, ‘ruah’: Ps 33:6; Job 26: 13. and the creation is. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep. This is in the same vein as the ‘hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and hovers over them, to warm and cherish them ‘MT 23:37, as the eagle ‘stirs up her nest, and flutters over her young’ (this is the same world that is used) Deu 32:11. 

[11] Gen 1:2 (‘moved’). Jer 23: 9 (‘shaking’ bones). Deu 32: 11 (‘Flutter’) ‘As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth’, Young’s #H7363 over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings. A feminine singular verb r-ch-ph. 

[12]  Groups of living organisms belong in the same created ‘kind’, if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved , not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated, and inbreeding occurs. By this definition ,a new species is not a new kind but a further partitioning of an existing kind. (Strong’s Definition).

[13] Given that metaphorical thought and language arises from and is grounded in embodiment, the way in which translators use gender is not without purpose (see endnote iii).

[14] Pipefish, sea horses, and sea dragons belong to a family in which the males carry the female eggs and once transferred to them they fertilise them and carry them to birth. The female transfers the eggs into two rows along its mate’s body. 

[15] “This knowledge is derived from the creation: the invisible things of God. God’s eternal power and divinity are clearly seen in the world, in the creation. Thus, the mind sees the visible, the creation of the world, and understands the invisible, the things of God.” Rom 1: 19-20.

[16] The scriptures teach that Adam caused the fall. (Job 31: 33; Rom 5: 12, 15, 17-19)

[17] Mt 13: 31-32.

[18] So too the Scriptures say, ‘the first human Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a living spirit.The first man was from the dust, the second from heaven. All those of natural birth, are like the person who was from the dust all those of heaven are like the Person who was from heaven. And just as we have worn the likeness of the dust, so too will we wear the likeness of the Person from heaven. Fellow believers, this is what I mean, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Realm, nor is the perishable able to inherit the imperishable. Dr Ann Nyland: The Source New Testament. 2004. Smith and Stirling Publishing. 

[19] Strong’s H 120 occurs 552 times in 527 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV.

[20] Heb. ‘ish’: ‘husband’ of Eve: Gen 2:23,24, 4:1, 4:23, 6:0

[21] Here is the next usage of a Hebrew word that could have been translated in the feminine sense, but instead, is translated to convey the idea of ‘ruling over’, ‘dominating’, rather than ‘nurturing and giving back’. 

[22] ) NT ‘Women in Ministry’: Reading the Bible as a Women (RBW)

[23] I won’t expand on this here, but the readers can easily carry out their own online research

[24] This is a doctrine taught in the church. Request paper on same from

[25] My books are all written from this perspective. Goto: RBW: OT. Early Matriarchs of Israel (

[26] The reader might recall in the OT scriptures: the first-born son’ is given the double portion. In the first place, the Heb ‘ben’ is translated ‘son’ but this is controversial as since it means ‘child, children, etc., it can also be translated sons and daughters and where appropriate ‘daughter’. However, in keeping with my argument of enculturation of the reader, and that the male translator’s accent is on the male gender, it is nowhere translated ‘daughter’. Here is the breakdown: son (x 2,978), children (x 1,568), old (x 135), first (x 51), man (x 20), young (x 18 & x 17) with young (Young’s H 1241), child (x 10), stranger (x 10) people (x 5). This means everywhere ‘ben’, is translated, it can be read to  mean ‘daughter’(s), or ‘child’, children, etc. When I say this, some might bring an argument that it must be translated in context. But, if the context is that only Levite males of the Aaronic linage are priests, this argument has no bearing. Further, you are Jewish if your mother is Jewish, and although it’s called the Aaronic (Aaron, son of Levi) priesthood, this is in context with tribal identification, and not the mother’s linage. The source of any descent group is reckoned through only one parent. In Israel, that descent group is the mother. Israel is a matriarchal society up to this present day. Aaron’s matrilineage stems from Leah, whose matriarchal genealogy goes back to Sarah’s house in Ur of the Chaldees (request ‘Sarah OT’: Leah’s great granddaughter, Jochebed, married her nephew, a Levite, (Amram). Miriam, (Prophet), elder sister of Moses (Law giver), and Aaron, High Priest), being a Levite, no doubt served as a Priest in the Tabernacle in the wilderness (see above f/n 25: comment on Heb ‘ben).

[27] ‘More Than Meets the Eye’ Dr. A. Nyland. Kindle Edition. Amazon. 

[28]  NT:‘The Creation Order’,(

[29] In the Syriac sense, a notion: ‘to teach’. The KJV translates Strong’s H 728 in the following manner rule x 13, dominion x 9, take x 2, prevaileth x 1, reign x 1, ruler x 1. ‘The priests’: there were men and women priests. The translation of the Hebrew word, ‘ben’, actually means sons and daughters f/n 25 above). Priests bear ‘rule’ (‘radah’) by their guidance’ (Jer 5:31).

[30] Coll 1: 15.

[31] Jn 1: 14.`

[32] Interestingly, Gnostic writings elaborate on God being genderless, just as they, largely, honor the women in their midst.

[33] The recent split in the Church of England was brought about by those who could not accept women in a place of authority based on this reasoning P.P. Vol 6, No 4). ‘Mystical Masculinity: The New Question Facing Women’, Faith Martin.


[i] ADAM, ‘man’ ‘the man’, ‘mankind’, ‘person’, ‘persons’ human, etc. ADAM’: ‘man’, or Adam, the couple. Look at the context and look for the indefinite article ‘the man’ ‘ha adam’. It could be referring to either an unspecified man or to humanity as a whole, depending on context, whereas ‘adam‘ without ‘ha’, is translated as, ‘Adam’ (referring to the specific man by the name). Some translations give ‘Adam’ for ‘ha-adam’in Gen 2:19 or 2:20. We have ‘adam’ (with no ‘ha’), which most English Bibles translate as ‘Adam’ in Gen 3:17, and Gen 3:21. There is one more exception in this section of Scripture, which can only be understood in context. Gen 1:26 says ‘And God said, ‘let us make man ‘adam’, (with no ‘ha’ before it,) in our image’. And Gen 1:27 is parallel to verse 26, giving more definition and precision to the statement. Then in vv 26 – 27, says so God created man “ha-adam” the human, in His own image, in the image of God he created him (singular).’ But then it adds ‘male and female he created them’ (plural).  

PLURALITY IN UNITY: ‘adam’ is also used to convey plurality in unity. It means a single person (say, a female member of the human race) or it refers to a plurality in unity (representing the whole human race, just as in English some still use the outdated ‘man’ to mean the human species or in representing male and female together.

These verses about the creation of man and woman, when taken in harmony with the rest of the teaching of Scripture, convey the oneness of female and male humans as equal bearers of the image of God and equal in status before God equally able to have a direct personal relationship with God.

[ii] PARABLES: When Jesus talks he often uses metaphors of daily life to explain our relationship with God. Jesus also taught in parables about the visible world to help the hearers learn about the invisible Realm of God. Paul taught that the way of learning about God’s secret hidden truths of the Realm of God, is, ‘first (understand) the natural world all around us, created by God to reveal to us spiritual realities’, ‘then (you will understand) the spiritual’. In 1 Cor 2: 6-16, the ‘natural person’ or, the ‘carnal person’ as well as the ceremonial, the laws of Moses, are also spoken of as carnal. This is to do with the outward person, and to things outward, the bodies of humans and of animals, and the works generated through the mind and the members of the body: spoken of as the ‘flesh’.

A carnal person is understood as either unconverted, or a Christian with no understanding of the spiritual internal workings of God within their spirit (their mind). They may act like a Christian, (have a show of godliness), but deny the power of the workings of God the Holy Spirit in their mind. The ‘spiritual person’, on the other hand, spiritually appraises all things. 

‘A natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to them; and she cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised’.

[iii] GENDER HIERARCHY. Patriarchal adherents teach that the Lord God created the man first, and the woman second, thereby intentionally instigating a gender hierarchy. They draw that line from Gen. 2. Further, they believe Adam the man was divinely ordained the Federal Head of Humankind, to rule and reign. The woman, on the other hand, was divinely purposed to follow him in everything and to be his ‘helper’. To retain this blinkered view, they are obligated to overlook Gen. 1 where it clearly states the man and woman were created, simultaneously, and equal.

In contrast to this, in keeping with New Testament teachings, rather than this skewed idea, (with all men following Adam the man), my proposition is this: that Jesus is the Federal Head of the Universe and rather than the woman as man’s helper, Jesus promised to his disciples that on his departure he would send us another Comforter, the Holy Spirit, as our Helper. This proposition will be explained further in Genesis chapter two.  

[iv] THE TRINITY: Who is speaking in Gen. Ch ‘In the beginning God’? The Hebrew word for God in this first chapter is ‘elohim’. This a plural form of the word ‘el’. In other contexts is sometimes translated as ‘gods’, referring to heathen deities. Later in the same chapter we have one of the most striking statements of diversity-in-unity: Note the shift in Pronouns: US, OUR, HE.

Gen 1: 26-27. God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground’. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. This is known as ‘diversity-in-unity’ within the ‘Godhead’.

In the New Testament, all Three Persons are called God in different places in the Bible. Father Galatians 1: 1.; Son John 20:29; ‘ruah’, Spirit Acts 5:3-4.  Finally, all three Persons are associated together on an equal basis in numerous passages: Jesus’ baptism: Mt. 3:13-17, (voice of the Father, Son baptized, ‘ruah’, Spirit descending like a dove).  Salvation: 1 Pet 1:2 (chosen by the Father, sanctified by ‘ruah’, the Spirit, sprinkled with the blood of Jesus).  Sanctification: 2 Cor 13:14 (grace of the Lord Jesus, love of God, fellowship of the ‘ruah’, Holy Spirit.  Christian Baptism: Mt 28. : Persons—Father, Son, and ‘ruah’, Holy Spirit.  Prayer: Eph 3:14-21. Strengthened by ‘ruah’ his Spirit, know the love of Christ, filled with the fullness of God.  Christian Growth: 2 Thess 2:13. (Chosen by God, loved by the Lord, sanctified by the Spirit‘ruah’. Assumes their equality of nature while preserving their distinct personhood. Having said that, I admit that no one fully understands it. It is a mystery and a paradox. Yet I believe it is true from my own personal study of the Scriptures. One in Essence Three in Person. When we say these things, we mean that the Father is God, the Son is God, and ‘ruah’, the Holy Spirit is God, but they are not three gods but only one God. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not ‘ruah’, ‘ruah’, the Spirit is not the Father or the Son, but each is God individually and yet they are together: the one true God of the Bible.

Have you ever seen the word ‘Godhead’?  Theologians sometimes use that term when they want to refer to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as three divine Persons in one God. In Gen 2: 4-7, these verses, here is a name given to the Creator which we have not yet met with, and that is the LORD God, in capital letters, which are constantly used in our English translation to intimate that in the original it is YHWH. All along, in Gen 1, God was called Elohim, God of power; but now, The Lord God Elohim God of power and perfection, a finishing God. As we find God known by the name Lord when he appeared to perform what he had promised (Ex. 6:3), so now we have God known by that name, when God had perfected what God had begun. The Lord God, or, YHWH, is that great and incommunicable name of God which denotes God having God being of himself, and God giving being to all things; fitly therefore, is God called by that name now that heaven and earth are completed and ‘very good’.

[v] HEADSHIP: Here is an excerpt common in commentaries by Terry Mortenson, a patriarchal adherent: but rejected by those who believe in biblical equality:

Mortenson writes “but they also teach the headship of the male in terms of roles in relationship. See for example, Gen 2:7, and Gen 2:22, (where Adam is created first and then Eve is made from his rib), Gen 3:8-17. (Where Adam is held ultimately responsible for the sin), Gen 3:20 (Adam named Eve, just as he did the animals) Gen 5: 1-5, (Adam is the fountainhead of the genealogy of the human race traced through men) and so on. The New Testament picks up this teaching and affirms the headship of the male in the home and in the church (e.g. Eph 5:22,1 Cor 11: 3-12,1 Tim 2:11-15, Rom 5:12, 1 Tim 3:1-2. and so on). According to the Bible, men (whether in the home or in the church) are to exercise their headship in a loving and sacrificial manner, looking out for the best interests of those under their authority and recognizing their accountability to God Almighty for how they lead and care for others. They are not to be totalitarian dictators but rather gracious, serving leaders, like the Lord Jesus Christ. (Dr. Terry Mortenson, AiG–US)

My comment: I’ve researched and penned papers since 1985 with up to date translation, which brings Terry Mortenson’s rendering of the subject of male headship into disrepute. My work, available,, has been thoroughly researched drawing on my own thoughts and experience along with leading scholars, woman and men, in their own field of expertise. 

[vi] WHY ONLY MALE PRIESTS: The reasons given as to why women cannot be what a priest: The simple answer for Roman and Anglican and no doubt others in all denominations is: Jesus’ gender was male, their gender is male. Here is one idea that fits most …


[viii] DIVINITY OF JESUS: Jn 1: 15: pre existence of Mt 1:21; eternity of  Mt 1:21; divinity of  Mt 1:21; Creation by  Mk 13:19 Mt 1:21: And she shall bring forth a son and thou shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.


End Genesis chapter 1. 

Reading the Bible As A Woman

Revisiting Genesis: A Commentary on selective readings in Genesis 

God, the Divine Lover, the Self-Sufficient One, the Infinite One, Omnipotent One, Omnipresent and Omniscient One, Elohim, the Creator, Owner of Heaven and Earth, wants for nothing and lacks nothing. God is complete.  

Yet, God’s yearning to share the power of love knew no bounds. For love to be love, it must be expressed. God’s supernatural divine love is expressed in God Self.  

But how to convey such profound concepts when they are beyond human comprehension? We have no words that are adequate and yet we have to use them. We are trying to define that which is beyond concepts and whatever words we use they limit and constrict our understanding.  

Clearly, the problem is language, then and now, in naming un-nameable and having to resort to human ideas which are not only imperfect but limited to time and culture. Once we accept this, we need not feel apprehensive about opening our mind to new perceptions. We can begin to read the biblical text afresh and allow new creative thoughts to emerge and take shape. We can even find new ways to describe God and what Genesis can convey beyond the traditional interpretation.  

Genesis chapter one is the account of creation. The ideas it conveys are immense and we are immediately cast into the role of interpreter. Those who wrote did the best they could but that’s only the beginning, not the end. 

Toward the close of chapter one, we read simply, ‘male and female, created He them’. This confines the human species into two fixed sexes. It does not allow personal gender identification. Further, the interpretation, ‘created HE them’, immediately imposes onto the creator’s divine image male identification.  

Genesis chapter two is confusing as it appears a repeat, albeit in another version, of chapter one. Various hypotheses have been suggested to explain this. For example, that the texts known as J and P, are two accounts but from distinctive backgrounds which have been brought together. However, I am not following this line of thought in my commentary here. 

The traditional marriage union as the relationship between a woman and man finds its biblical origins here in the chapter’s latter verses. All of the above can affect the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. It is also critical we bear in mind the phenomenon of ‘translator’s bias’, particularly when reading the bible as a woman. 

From the above, we can see some ways in which ongoing translation and interpretation has had its effect. Those who originally wrote reflect the human experience of their times. The translators, interpreters and commentators following them were a product of the cultural narrative in which they lived. These differences are reflected today in our accepted mores in the way scripture is taught. Finally, the effect of these deeply entrenched values and ideas go beyond the church

This means, today’s preachers and teachers do their best to teach Genesis from all of the above challenges of language, and an understanding of a Trinitarian God. When we read the bible, we have to bear in mind how far we have come with the development of Christianity and our understanding of God. It is easy to make the mistake of reading about the early biblical characters and forget that monotheism, for example, was not a given but rather, a developed concept. Abraham and Sarah did not have a developed theology about God any more than we, and the revelation is ongoing.  

The early decipherers of the bible could not step outside of the culture and society in which they lived any more than we can. The problem we face is that bias has not been corrected. It is carried forward into today’s translations and commentaries. However, recognising that we are constrained by both history and our own limited thinking will hopefully spur us on to question, examine, and consider. 

As believers we need the courage and energy to open our minds to new thoughts and concepts; to give time to allow our thinking, and thereby our understanding and believing, to change. Not only will our image of God expand but also the wonder of God’s relationship with us. 

The Apostle Paul writing to the Church prays ‘…that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being planted, like a tree, say, which you must first throw down deep roots into the love God has for you and shown you by sending Jesus to die for you, this is called being ‘rooted and grounded in love’. I pray that you may do everything in your ability, the power, to make sense of this, with all the saints, to understand what is the capacity of your mind, to understand the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of God, and to know beyond the knowledge you can gather through listening to others or reading or other’s teaching you about God’s love, but to know and experience the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge. In this way by actively exercising your faith by putting into daily practice the teachings of Jesus,  you may be filled with all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3 17-19 RBW Paraphrase)

We are limited to the time in which we live and the human modelling we have created by which we attempt to define spiritual concepts. We are squeezed and constrained by our own life experiences and our understanding of human relationships. 

To the best of our ability let us not limit God. Let us pray Paul’s prayer above with him. Let us open our hearts and minds to learn more.  Let us never get to the place where we believe we have arrived. There is so much more.