Adam a hermaphrodite

Ok so Eve was created from Adam so that would make Adam and humankind originally hermaphrodic.

So for Christ to be the new Adam in a literal understanding of Genisis he would have to be a hermaphrodite or Mary or Magdalene would have had to been a co-redemtrix.

This is obviously false and opens the way for heretical thought.

Thoughts?

SeventhValley said:

Ok so Eve was created from Adam so that would make Adam and humankind originally hermaphrodic.

So for Christ to be the new Adam in a literal understanding of Genisis he would have to be a hermaphrodite or Mary or Magdalene would have had to been a co-redemtrix.

This is obviously false and opens the way for heretical thought.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I would say more like gender neutral - like a Ken doll, but more specifically like the angels.

Adam was already coupled with his "soul mate," and when God split Adam, that is when the gender specific separation happened - with male Adam retaining all qualities of a man (like a penis and testicles,) and female Adam retaining all qualities of a woman (womb/vagina/ovaries.) I think God did this for us - so that we can literally and physically enjoy "ourselves" externally and directly, rather than internally only.

This is one reason why Christ said we will be like the angels in heaven - who do not take nor give into marriage (sex.) He didn't say they couldn't; there is no need.

CryOfALion said:

I would say more like gender neutral - like a Ken doll, but more specifically like the angels.

Adam was already coupled with his "soul mate," and when God split Adam, that is when the gender specific separation happened - with male Adam retaining all qualities of a man (like a penis and testicles,) and female Adam retaining all qualities of a woman (womb/vagina/ovaries.) I think God did this for us - so that we can literally and physically enjoy "ourselves" externally and directly, rather than internally only.

This is one reason why Christ said we will be like the angels in heaven - who do not take nor give into marriage (sex.) He didn't say they couldn't; there is no need.

Click to expand...

Interesting take but that would make male and female equal. In orthodoxy male rules the female. Equality is heretical.

i'm not sure if any Father specifically says Adam was genderless before Eve was made, but St. Gregory of Nyssa does teach that the division into male and female is not a part of the image of God -- man was divided into male and female because God foreknew the Fall and knew that we would need a way to multiply. This latter point, at least, is also taught by Sts. Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 16.7-9, 17.4 NPNF 2 5, pp. 405, 407:

We must, then, examine the words carefully: for we find, if we do so, that that which was made “in the image” is one thing, and that which is now manifested in wretchedness is another. “God created man,” it says; “in the image of God created He him.” There is an end of the creation of that which was made “in the image”: then it makes a resumption of the account of creation, and says, “male and female created He them.” I presume that every one knows that this is a departure from the Prototype: for “in Christ Jesus,” as the apostle says, “there is neither male nor female.” Yet the phrase declares that man is thus divided.

8. Thus the creation of our nature is in a sense twofold: one made like to God, one divided according to this distinction: for something like this the passage darkly conveys by its arrangement, where it first says, “God created man, in the image of God created He him,” and then, adding to what has been said, “male and female created He them,”—a thing which is alien from our conceptions of God.

9. I think that by these words Holy Scripture conveys to us a great and lofty doctrine; and the doctrine is this. While two natures—the Divine and incorporeal nature, and the irrational life of brutes—are separated from each other as extremes, human nature is the mean between them: for in the compound nature of man we may behold a part of each of the natures I have mentioned,—of the Divine, the rational and intelligent element, which does not admit the distinction of male and female; of the irrational, our bodily form and structure, divided into male and female: for each of these elements is certainly to be found in all that partakes of human life. That the intellectual element, however, precedes the other, we learn as from one who gives in order an account of the making of man; and we learn also that his community and kindred with the irrational is for man a provision for reproduction. For he says first that “God created man in the image of God” (showing by these words, as the Apostle says, that in such a being there is no male or female): then he adds the peculiar attributes of human nature, “male and female created He them.

17.4 Now that we have thus cleared up these matters, let us return to our former point,—how it was that after the making of His image God contrived for His work the distinction of male and female. I say that the preliminary speculation we have completed is of service for determining this question; for He Who brought all things into being and fashioned Man as a whole by His own will to the Divine image, did not wait to see the number of souls made up to its proper fulness by the gradual additions of those coming after; but while looking upon the nature of man in its entirety and fulness by the exercise of His foreknowledge, and bestowing upon it a lot exalted and equal to the angels, since He saw beforehand by His all-seeing power the failure of their will to keep a direct course to what is good, and its consequent declension from the angelic life, in order that the multitude of human souls might not be cut short by its fall from that mode by which the angels were increased and multiplied,—for this reason, I say, He formed for our nature that contrivance for increase which befits those who had fallen into sin, implanting in mankind, instead of the angelic majesty of nature, that animal and irrational mode by which they now succeed one another.

SeventhValley said:

Interesting take but that would make male and female equal. In orthodoxy male rules the female. Equality is heretical.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was an equality thing as much as it was a headship thing - like how no angel is called a female despite their androgyny, and even though God may have both mother and father attributes, He is still a "He." You can say - to the point of equality - that males are spiritual heads, and females are physical heads. Transsubstantiated angels present themselves as men - because the mission is spiritual.

I think the serpent Satan went after Eve as the physical head because the satan knew Eve would entertain the physical creature serpent. Adam would have told the serpent to literally go to hell immediately. The satan exploited Eve. God gave Adam the directive, and it was Adam's job to keep it, and make sure Eve and his children kept it. (Notice the fall technically doesn't happen until Adam partakes, because Adam was the overall head.)

no, male and female He made them as the Scriptures say. Adam was not a hermaphrodite, he is a male. just because his rib was fashioned into Eve does not mean his gender changed. it just means for a brief period, there was only one human gender.

Interesting take but that would make male and female equal. In orthodoxy male rules the female. Equality is heretical.

Click to expand...

no, no, no, no. in Orthodoxy male has a headship that is shown by his service to His wife (like Christ and the Church). before the Fall and after the Second Coming, that headship will not exist. remember that the greatest saint, who is over all of us, is a woman.

ArmyMatt said:

no, male and female He made them as the Scriptures say. Adam was not a hermaphrodite, he is a male. just because his rib was fashioned into Eve does not mean his gender changed. it just means for a brief period, there was only one human gender.



no, no, no, no. in Orthodoxy male has a headship that is shown by his service to His wife (like Christ and the Church). before the Fall and after the Second Coming, that headship will not exist. remember that the greatest saint, who is over all of us, is a woman.

Click to expand...

But sophisty aside in reality Christ is over man. Just as man over wife.

Just as man over wife.

Click to expand...

which is only because of our fallen state and is shown by the man's service to his wife. the submission is mutual. that is why both husbands and wives are given crowns at weddings. they both equally die to each other in their unique roles. both are equal in dignity in the eyes of God, because that is how He created us.

ArmyMatt said:

which is only because of our fallen state and is shown by the man's service to his wife. the submission is mutual. that is why both husbands and wives are given crowns at weddings. they both equally die to each other in their unique roles. both are equal in dignity in the eyes of God, because that is how He created us.

Click to expand...

If a wife disagrees with a husband who must submit if the two views are equal? Who decides worldly matters?

Paul says it is a punishment for woman to have to have man over her. The literal reading makes woman is a slave to man.

Unless the church shows that some spiritual reading must take place then they are equal in submission like you said.

Literalist in my experience growing up always emotionally abuse women.

the Father is also the monarch of the Trinity, and yet the Son and Holy Spirit are His equals.

jckstraw72 said:

the Father is also the monarch of the Trinity, and yet the Son and Holy Spirit are His equals.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the sentiment but I am talking about how it plays out in reality.

A Christian household should be one of mutual submission with a couple working a one person(the pre-split Adam). Just as God works/is one God.


Any household where the woman must submit to the husband is actually a out of balance sinful relationship. But that is the literalistic mindset one of punishment and division of labor and not one of creation and wholeness.

This is the fruit of literalism those who survive turn to militant atheism:

A handy guide to ‘tough love’ teen reform homes

or this

BBC News - US 'prayer cure' couple lose appeal over child's death

If a wife disagrees with a husband who must submit if the two views are equal? Who decides worldly matters?

Click to expand...

yes, the hubby in that situation makes the call, but what he must keep in mind is her need and make the call on behalf of her.

Paul says it is a punishment for woman to have to have man over her. The literal reading makes woman is a slave to man.

Unless the church shows that some spiritual reading must take place then they are equal in submission like you said.

Click to expand...

the Church does, it's called the Orthodox wedding service. if anyone has any doubt the equality yet uniqueness of man and woman before God, he should check out an Orthodox wedding.

Literalist in my experience growing up always emotionally abuse women.

Click to expand...

that's because most folks only look at half the picture. they only look at the wife's submission to the husband, and not the husband's to the wife.

jckstraw72 said:

i'm not sure if any Father specifically says Adam was genderless before Eve was made, but St. Gregory of Nyssa does teach that the division into male and female is not a part of the image of God.

Click to expand...

I think you are reading things into St. Gregory he never intended to say. Taking a few words and running with them, and so on.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 16.7-9, 17.4 NPNF 2 5, pp. 405, 407:

We must, then, examine the words carefully: for we find, if we do so, that that which was made “in the image” is one thing, and that which is now manifested in wretchedness is another. “God created man,” it says; “in the image of God created He him.” There is an end of the creation of that which was made “in the image”: then it makes a resumption of the account of creation, and says, “male and female created He them.” I presume that every one knows that this is a departure from the Prototype: for “in Christ Jesus,” as the apostle says, “there is neither male nor female.” Yet the phrase declares that man is thus divided.

8. Thus the creation of our nature is in a sense twofold: one made like to God, one divided according to this distinction: for something like this the passage darkly conveys by its arrangement, where it first says, “God created man, in the image of God created He him,” and then, adding to what has been said, “male and female created He them,”—a thing which is alien from our conceptions of God.

Surprised I missed this thread. I want to add my two cents on this.

If Im not mistaken a hermaphrodite is a person born with portions of both genitals. A Long time ago I spoke with a WW2 medic. He claimed he was taught and possibly met one or two of these people and that they tended to be asexual. That is they had no libido, no feeling if you will (not all but many pf them). So possibly there is something plausible to that.

Now the word ADAM in hebrew simply means 'human'. It can indeed refer to a male depending on usage. St Gregory of Nyssa who understood the division of sexes as distinct from the initially created man has some scriptural support in Genesis 5.2:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Click to expand...

Now the greek word used in the LXX is anthropos. Same deal, anthropos is a generic word for human. Entymology tells us the word means upright or upward. St Gregory tells us one of the unique characteristics of man is his ability to look upward and gaze upon the heavens and the higher things. One can say anthropos denotes an 'upright creature'.

In Genesis we can say there are four creation stories about us:
1. That man was made in the image and likeness of God
2. That he was made from the dust of the earth and the life giving animation breathed into him.
3. That he was made male and female.
4. That he would leave mother and father and be joined to his wife and two shall become one and multiplying. (Procreation)

Of these the first one is the important one. Now the word 'rib' in greek (plevro) can also be translated as 'side'. Probably even more accurately, depending on translation the word side is used instead of rib many times in hymns and the writings of the Fathers.

In a previous post one said how this division of sexes shows 'inequality'. There is equality in the nature but there is an ordering of those sexes. The male was preordained and anointed to be the head. Its a heirarchial order.
As Jack pointed out God is a monarchy and a Trinity. This Trinitarian monarchy is seen in these creation stories. There is the monarchy derived from that original man; the fountainhead of which our entire human essence originates from. Then the creation stories allude to three hypostasis. The male portrayed as the unoriginate, the female as the originate of the male and the third is that offspring born through woman.

All three (father, mother, child) exist as equal in nature and share of the same essence but there is an ordering. The children are always subordinate to the mother, and she is subordinate to the man in the ordering not in nature. As St. Paul said, woman came from man, but man through woman.

SeventhValley;I appreciate the sentiment but I am talking about how it plays out in reality.

A Christian household should be one of mutual submission with a couple working a one person(the pre-split Adam). Just as God works/is one God.


Any household where the woman must submit to the husband is actually a out of balance sinful relationship. But that is the literalistic mindset one of punishment and division of labor and not one of creation and wholeness.

Click to expand...

This is not what an ordering of sexes implies. the physiological composition of man and woman is what determined the order. The man has the superior strength whereas the woman has the ability to procreate. The superior strength of man is more conducive to taming the environment around him and is a neccesity in protecting the woman in doing her thing which is nurturing the most vulnerable which is the offspring.

The inbalance comes in when the woman has to fulfill both duties. That is she has to protect and raise her offspring and if the call goes out for war she leaves her kids for the frontline. She serves two masters. St Paul said that Christ gave up his life for the Church and that a husband should likewise give up his life for his wife.

In a more realistic example the strength inherent in the male dictates that he should change the flat tire on the chevy silverado pickup truck not the woman, but the woman is obliged to do the less bestial activities such as breastfeed the baby.

SeventhValley said:

Ok so Eve was created from Adam so that would make Adam and humankind originally hermaphrodic.

So for Christ to be the new Adam in a literal understanding of Genisis he would have to be a hermaphrodite or Mary or Magdalene would have had to been a co-redemtrix.

This is obviously false and opens the way for heretical thought.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The Lost World of Adam & Eve by John H. Walton shows that "side" is a better translation than "rib"

Uncritically & literally interpreted, Adam & Eve were "joined at the hip" so to speak, and separated into separate individuals

Maybe there is some echo of an ancient tradition that humans used to be four-legged animals beforehand? The Gen 2-3 story also appears to be an etiology of why serpents have no legs & arms, b/c they lost them in punishment. Humans & snakes used to have more arms & legs???

Erik Nelson said:

The Lost World of Adam & Eve by John H. Walton shows that "side" is a better translation than "rib"

Uncritically & literally interpreted, Adam & Eve were "joined at the hip" so to speak, and separated into separate individuals

Maybe there is some echo of an ancient tradition that humans used to be four-legged animals beforehand? The Gen 2-3 story also appears to be an etiology of why serpents have no legs & arms, b/c they lost them in punishment. Humans & snakes used to have more arms & legs???

Click to expand...

no, we have never taught that humans were four legged.

Erik Nelson said:

The Lost World of Adam & Eve by John H. Walton shows that "side" is a better translation than "rib"

Uncritically & literally interpreted, Adam & Eve were "joined at the hip" so to speak, and separated into separate individuals

Click to expand...

I believe the point is that Eve is of the same nature as Adam, as are all of their descendants. We all come from the same flesh.

SeventhValley said:

Ok so Eve was created from Adam so that would make Adam and humankind originally hermaphrodic.

So for Christ to be the new Adam in a literal understanding of Genisis he would have to be a hermaphrodite or Mary or Magdalene would have had to been a co-redemtrix.

This is obviously false and opens the way for heretical thought.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The Babylonian Talmud relegates hermaphrodites to the status of beggars when their parents die, i.e., they are considered women for inheritance purposes. It's extremely doubtful that the writer(s) of Genesis would have meant for Adam to be a hermaphrodite.