Naming of the Woman

Raymod Ortlund grasps the beauty of the poetry involved in Genesis 2:23 and he sees the woman as an equal because she is created from the man, for with the woman the man can experience companionship on his own level. But at the same time he views the man naming the woman as an act of authority, a royal prerogative, since he is naming his helper.[1] Ortlund’s reasoning makes the woman the man’s slave, since the “naming concept” is adopted from the ungodly Babylonian practice of depriving the slave of his or her previous identity through the imposition of a new name. Theologians have used the argument indiscriminately as seen in Henry’s Commentary, “It is an act of authority to impose names (Dan, 1:7), and of subjection to receive them” [2] The biblical practice of name-changing is, however, not an act of authority, for names were changed as a sign of a changed situation. Hence Adam named the first woman Chawah (“Eve”) because she was to become the mother of all living (chay) (Gen. 3:20). Also Sarai was re-named Sarah as she was to become the mother of Isaac (Gen. 17:16).

Wayne Grudem suggests that the naming of various people by God and the name giving of children by their parents are examples of an act of authority. However, God owns us as our Creator, and children need parental authority for their own protection. The man does not own the woman nor is she a child, wherefore the comparison fails.[3]

    Because the woman was not created to be a helper, Ortlund’s statement lacks a solid foundation but his belief that Eve understood who she was by the man’s definition, instead of God’s, reveals the true nature of complementarism: the woman is said to be what the man wants her to be – his helper instead of his equal.[4] 

           

There is also the added problem of Sarah’s slave-girl Hagar naming God:

She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: "You are the God who sees me," for she said, "I have now seen the One who sees me." 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.  (Gen 16:13-14, NIV)

If giving someone a name is an act of authority, did Hagar have authority over God? Or should we restrict the naming of a subordinate only to the man? If so, we have committed the fallacy of circular reasoning: the man is proven to have authority because he names the woman; the man names the woman because he has authority. Either way, the man just has authority, regardless of how we look at the subject. Such reasoning can safely be excluded, for more than unproven axioms are needed to prove that God gave the man authority at creation.

---

[1] Piper and Grudem, ed. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [Crossway, Wheaton Illinois, 1994] 101-102.

[2]  “Gen 2:18-20,” Matthew Henry Commentary On the Whole Bible.

[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic theology, (Inter-Varsity Press (UK) and Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994), 462.

[4] Piper and Grudem, 103. The man did not define the woman, for God had already defined her before bringing her to the man by calling her “woman” (Gen. 2:22). The man simply recognized who she was: a female human being.