REVISITING GENESIS: A SELECTIVE COMMENTARY ON CERTAIN WORDS

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. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4470128

^[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) rwvm.online

^[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 rwvm.online

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

^[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’: rwvm.online). 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’,(rwvm.online)

^[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.

---

ENDNOTES

^[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) https://answersingenesis.co.uk/bios/terry-mortenson/

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, rwvm.online, 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 …https://www.catholicstand.com/why-priests-are-men/

MOTHER’S DAY PROCLAMATION:  https://cpt.org/resources/worship/services/jochabed_miriam

^[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.

Patricia

End Genesis chapter 1.