Husbandry

"Mr." and "Mrs."

Douglas Wilson

n some ways, feminism has been very valuable. Throughout the history of the church, the sovereign God has used destructive heresies to force the church to define things that needed to be defined. The heretic Marcion provoked the church into identifying the canon of Scripture. The heretic Arius forced the church to testify clearly to the full deity of the Lord Jesus. In our day, feminism is providing that same service. Those who love the truth must commonly testify to their love in the face of terrible error. And, just as in past conflict, a significant portion of the church has compromised with the heresy. Nevertheless, Christ is the Head of the church, and He will not suffer His bride to be led astray.

Without a challenge from error, we can easily drift along, doing what seems "natural" or "traditional." Countless thousands do quite a number of things because it "just seems right." When and if that practice is ever challenged, however, the traditionalist is nonplussed. "Well, I'm not sure why I do that, really . . ."

Take, for example, our practice of a woman who marries taking her husband's last name. Why do we do that? Why does Susan Miller become Susan Carter? Does the Bible require it?

Surprisingly for some, the Bible does teach that God calls a husband and wife by the same name -- the name of the husband. This fully supports both our particular custom of taking a new name, as well as the foundational truth that custom represents.

"This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created" (Gen. 5:1-2). In Hebrew, the italicized word translated Mankind is Adam . In other words, God created Adam and his wife male and female, He blessed them, and called them Adam. She was, from the beginning, a covenantal partaker in the name of her husband. God does not call her Adam on her own, He calls her Adam with him .

Adam had first noticed that there was not a helper suitable for him as a result of naming the animals. "So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place" (Gen. 2:20-21). When Adam was naming the animals, he was not just attaching labels randomly. In the ancient world, names were extremely significant and represented the nature and character of that which was named. This significance is very clear in the Genesis accounts of the naming of Adam's wife. In naming the animals, Adam saw that there were none who could be appropriately named as a helper suitable for him.

After the creation of his wife, Adam receives her, and names her. "And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman [ Ishshah , not Eve], because she was taken out of Man' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:23-24).

As verse 24 shows, Adam and Ishshah were a paradigmatic couple. They were not just any two individuals. In this passage, we are taught that Adam's reception of the woman, and his naming of her, were to be a pattern for all marriages to come. " Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother . . ." Now at this point Adam has not yet named his wife Eve . Adam gave his wife two individual names. The first was Ishshah, or Woman, because she was taken out of man. The second was Chavvah -- life-bearer, or as we say it in English, Eve. "And Adam called his wife's name Eve [ Chavvah ], because she was the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20).

Both passages clearly state that her two names reveal truth about her. The first reveals her dependence upon man -- she was taken out of man. The second reveals man's dependence upon her -- every man since is her son. Millennia later, the apostle Paul teaches us that we are continually to remember these two truths in our marriages. Each wife is an Ishshah , and each wife is a Chavvah . Each is Woman, and each is Eve.

"Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God" (1 Cor. 11:11-12). Notice that the progression of Paul's thought follows the same pattern seen in Genesis. Woman "came from man ( Ishshah ), even so man also comes through woman ( Chavvah ); but all things are from God" ( Adam ).

God is the one who called our first parents by the collective name Adam. Now Adam is also a generic term for man or mankind . This shows clearly the biblical practice of including women under such a description. Our English use of the generic man and mankind follows this biblical example exactly. Far from being insulting to women, as feminists want to pretend, it reflects a biblical pattern of thought. The feminist reaction against this and their rejection of taking a new last name (in order to keep their father's name!) is not just a small bit of modern silliness. It is a fundamental rebellion against God.

So when our Susan Miller becomes Mrs. Robert Carter it is not just "something we do." It is covenant security.