Adam’s Taxonomy
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2:19 NASB
Name – Adam must have worked overtime. Can you imagine how long it would take to name all the living creatures? Considering that there are approximately 30 million species of insects alone, Adam’s task would have taken more than his lifetime. Obviously, this verse is not about identifying a Genesis taxonomy. But if it’s not about giving names to every living creature, what is it about?
To answer this question, we need to investigate the difference between our view of the structure of the world and the ancient Near Eastern view of the structure of the world. Our view is based on individualization and identification of things. A taxonomy is a list of individual creatures according to identifiable similarities and differences. Our Western worldview sees the world as a collection of entities, causally related within a closed box called the universe. The categories we use to define the world rest on this idea of individual peculiarity. From a linguistic point of view, we see the world as nouns tied together by verb relationships.
But that’s not the way the ancients saw the world. In the ancient worldview, the cosmos is the functional expression of the gods. What mattered was not the existence of individual things but rather the function and role assigned by the gods to various entities. In fact, according to ancient cosmologies, existence itself was tied to function and role. In other words, something came into being when it had a function in the world. This means the existence is defined in terms of external relationships, not in terms of internal concepts. What exists is what can be seen in its function in the world. We actually see this perspective in Genesis 1. The sun does not come into existence until it has a role to play (a sign in the sky), but light comes into existence when it separates. That’s why light can exist without the creation of the sun. Read the opening verses again and you will see that each step of creation is about function. What exists exists because it does something, and that “something” can be observed! Nothing exists without purpose.
When Adam names the living creatures, he does something that is not found in other ancient cosmologies. He functions in the role usually assigned to the gods. He brings into existence what he names because he identifies function. Usually only the gods can do this, but in Hebraic thought, Man cooperates with God in determining the function of other living creatures. In other words, what Adam names expresses the relationship of that creature to Man. What Adam names is what that creature does for him. The point of the verse is not to provide a taxonomy but rather to establish a relationship. Living creatures named by Adam play a role in Adam’s life. Those not named simply don’t “exist” for him. This ancient Near Eastern concept is crucial for understanding the statement that Adam names Havvah.
We tend to think that the Hebraic view of naming is about identifying the essence of the thing named, but what we imply is that naming identifies some internal inherent property of the thing. This is a Greek worldview. What we must realize is that Hebraic naming establishes the external function of the thing named. Naming gives the thing purpose in relationship to the one who names. Naming is about what the thing does because what it does is what it is. It does not exist apart from its purpose. And that purpose can be observed.
Did you get that? Do you see the difference between our Western view and the ancient Semitic view? Now apply this difference to Genesis 1:26. What does it mean to be made in the likeness of God? What does it mean to be named male and female? In other words, what is your purpose? How are you related to the One who named you? What do you do for Him? What are the external, observable functions you fulfill?
Our typical religious language about internal changes and heart relationships, about hidden transformations and spiritual restoration of the soul has no meaning in an Hebraic worldview unless it is accompanied by external, functional, observable evidence. In Semitic thought, no man is saved because his soul is saved. Men are rescued when their lives demonstrate clear differences. Men are verbs, not nouns, and verbs are actions. If you have been rescued, you will act differently because your purpose has changed. It will be obvious to others. You can’t go in two directions at the same time.
Topical Index: name, purpose, function, worldview, Genesis 2:19
In this context, what does the word ‘god’ or ‘gods’ mean here?
Does the creation of “function” in the Genesis account prohibit a metaphysics and a chronology? Or do the three work as one?
Ian, that’s an interesting question. When you look at the text and see that it reads that Adam CALLED them their names, you sense a POTENTIAL. Just like everything else in Genesis (even man), everything is supplied (light AND it’s funtion) in core form and given to the man to subdue (bring into it’s proper place) Time is secondary to the the command to subdue or have dominion.
It’s interesting to note that in Gen. 1 the beasts are made before Adam, while in Gen. 2 God formed them out of the ground and brought them to Adam. Who was created first!? Where is/does chronos and metaphysics fit in there, it’s exactly opposite in statement. 🙂
Hi Robert. thanks for the reply.
“time is secondary . . .”
Is that “in” the text or an induction “from” the text?
I wouldn’t say it’s an induction, because the “order” is obvious in both texts. Take for example the statement, “and was evening and was morning, day one”. The natural reading of it assumes a chronological order of the events preceding, ie: God called light THEN He made a distintions between it and between the dark, going forward from evening (the beginning) and moving toward the end.
Day six is the same, beasts were created first THEN Adam (man). This is all fine and well until you read in Gen 2:19, where it is stated very clearly that God forms the animal out of the ground AND (vav) brings them to the the Man…which is a reversal of order.
Whichever arguements are applied for or against order has to be applied equally to both texts. So I would say that the contradiction is obvious so as not to be induced. To say it’s on purpose, however, is an induction.
Consider this passage,
2Pe 3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
The coming of the day of God is premised not on a certain passage of time but rather on the FUNCTION of His people. It’s perfectly in line with the testimony of God in Genesis, as is the rest of the whole of scripture.
During my time learning from a Hebrew scholar and rabbi, I learned the exact opposite of what you are teaching on this topic, and I think that opinion is upheld by the Scriptures. What was taught is that in the beginning, Adam named everthing according to its spiritual essence, NOT its function. Why is a cow a cow and not a milkmaker? And so forth. More than that, however, we see that the woman is first named Isha according to her spiritual essence. Only after the Fall is her name changed to become Chava (mother of all living), in accordance with her function. Furthermore, this is continued on in the NT where we are told to “know no one after the flesh”. I would submit that this dovetails perfectly with the Creation record, ad that God is calling us to once again have the pre-Fall mentaility of not recognizing people after their function (what can you do for me), but after their spiritual essence(who are you in in the household of God).
So, our essence would be son’s of YHVH and our functions would be as YHVH’s image bearers. As His image bearers we would function in the gifts of the Ruach HaKodesh.
1 Samuel 16:7
New International Version (NIV)
7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
Hi Dot,
I realize that much Christian and some rabbinic teaching has focused on the “essence” idea, but the point is that this is not Near Eastern Semitic cultural paradigm. Of course, since Greek rationalism has influenced both Judaism and Christianity, a lot of older cultural paradigms have shifted. Maimonides, for example, is very Platonic in his distinction between body and soul, something that simply isn’t part of the Near Eastern metaphysics. So we have to rethink both Judaic and Christian teaching by asking what this would have meant to the people who left Egypt in the 14th Century BC.
Secondly, you have confused the text a bit with the words used to describe the ezer kenegdo. Ishsha is not what Adam NAMES her. This is a linguistic device to create a connection between the source of man (ish) and woman (ishsha). The pun in Hebrew is actually forced since the two words do not have the same root. Adam NAMES the woman Havvah in a deliberate act of establishing hierarchy and submission, thereby announcing her FUNCTION in his world. This is also deliberate. The explanation in the text as to the meaning of the name certainly indicates that the word’s origin is not Hebrew since if it were the explanation of meaning would be unnecessary. There is lot going on here that is NOT on the surface. Everything in the Genesis account is about ORDER and PURPOSE. It takes Greek metaphysics to turn it into essence, a paradigm that was not part of the original Near Eastern world.
Robin, well, yes and no, because our funtion in the Body of Messiah (using the gifts and manifestations of the ruach ha kodesh) is a spiritual thing manifest in the physical realm. I this case, I believe the function comes down as close as possible to pure physical (not that the two can be entirely separated, of course)…are you the one who always does the cooking? The bricklaying? The teaching? Are you the organizer, the loadbearer, the coffee bringer? All inspired by the spirit, to be sure, but these become our funtions and shape how people see us. “Oh, yes let’s ask Robin to bring the strudle that takes 15 hours on her feet to make, she won’t mind” type of mindset. This really begins to take shape when a man loses his job (his primary function, in his mind) or a woman is laid low with health issues and cannot do for her loved ones as she would like. When we cannot function as we are accustomed to functioning in the physical realm, we often feel useless in the Kingdom. This is WRONG THINKING, but is fostered because we have not recognized our primary existence as spiritual beings in physical bodies. We must return to the Garden, knowing no one after the flesh (even ourselves), and recognize that the walk of love does not restrict us to walking in this gift or that gift…all of them are available to us and to all who would seek. When I get irritated with my spouse, I am not recognizing his essence as a child of God and bearer of the image of YHVH…I am seeing him in the flesh that he did’t take out the trash (for example). This of course does not exempt anyone from doing the right thing in the physical realm, but it helps ease the way for much better personal relationships.
MOST ASSUREDLY SEEING/THINKING WITH GOD’S EYES/MIND… ♥ J
You wrote: “Adam named everthing according to its spiritual essence, NOT its function. Why is a cow a cow and not a milkmaker?”
Just a cursory examination of the Hebrew roots of this word to me strongly suggest function and not essence: “Modern Hebrew for cow is parAH, the female form corresponding to par ‘bull’ and may be related to the bqrroot. It was also used in Biblical Hebrew where it is suggested that parah is related to an adjective meaning ‘fruitful.’
The immediate source of the bqr trilitteral verbal root might be a Hebrew verbal root like *bq ‘to pour out, to empty, hence ‘to milk a cow.’ ”
However, my main concern and strong disagreement with your posit is in your statement to Robin that: “we have not recognized our primary existence as spiritual beings in physical bodies.”
The red flags in my spirit have not yet ceased to stiffen from the winds of that “new age” false doctrine. It may well be time to reexamine your rabbinical sources. Not all Rabbis are sent by Yah and just as Hasatan can appear as an angel of light and his ministers (rabbis?) masquerade as servants of righteousness, so can we be led astray by him in our best efforts to study and understand Torah.
Brother, I am not trying to “stone you” (in the past my every attempt to stone others always ended up with the self righteous me picking up the heaviest stone to execute judgement, but because my stone was so hefty it would fall upon my own foot as I attempted to throw it! So please take this in the spirit it was attempted to be brought forth- in love and concern. Shalom.
I concur here. We MUST recognize the influence of Greek metaphysics and mystery religions in the separation of the nephish into compartmentalized divisions. Christian doctrine is saturated with this mistake, as is Hellenized Judaism (see my remark about Maimonides earlier). There is no disembodied existence in Hebrew. Start there and rethink what that means for who we are in this world and the olam ha-ba.
A comment following the previous reply. I believe that you have confused FUNCTION with TASK. They are not the same. Tasks can be distributed across genders, status, social position, etc. But function is unique to the being. The FUNCTION of the woman is to act as the ezer kenegdo. No other being has this function to play. It was established by God. It has nothing to do with who does the cooking, the trash collecting or the income earning. Function is established by God’s DESIGN. It is not dependent on the impartation of the Spirit. It is given to each person regardless of that person’s relationship with God. The woman is designed to act as the ezer kenegdo even if she never accepts her standing before YHWH, for example.
@ Jan: exactly. There are many confirming verses. @ Michael: thank you. I do not feel ‘stoned’ (in any sense of the word, hahaha). One poitn to consider is all of the confirming verses about looking on the heart, not looking at the flesh, etc. Since Adam named all the critters while he was in the sinless state, would it not make sense for him to follow in the footsteps of God and look on the heart/spirit/spiritual essence and use that for the criteria of giving the name? And looking at the Genesis pattern of naming the woman Isha and then changing it to Chavah to me confirms this point. I certainly do not buy into everything the rabbis teach…I am well aware tham many of them have ered from the truth. RE: your concern about my statement as you mentioned above, my opinion is that Messiah in us has preeminemce ofver me being wrapped around Messiah. the goal is to let His light shine through. It is the spirit within us that will last throughout evternity, this shell will pass away and be raised a spiritual body. Thus yes, I stand by what I said. We are spiritual beings in physical bodies. Since in my flesh dwells no good thing and the spirit comes form On High, it is the spirit that must be recognized first. Gotta run, busy day today. let’s keep talking! All blessings ~ dot
Once more, please pay strict attention to the text. Adam does NOT name the woman ishsha. Naming is a special action described by specific verbs. Don’t let this sidetrack you. Read the text!