Cheryl Schatz

Below are the important connections to Adam that are brought out by Paul. We are going to note several important things. First we are going to pay attention to the inspired words and the inspired grammar. Secondly we are going to observe where Paul got his argument and his information from to make his observations. I will make several comments to keep these ideas in a more concise fashion that will be easier to follow.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

Note that Paul doesn’t just say “man” as in “humankind” but “one” man (a particular man, just one man).

If sin came through “mankind” then the numeral “one” is unnecessary. Then Paul would have said “therefore just as through mankind sin entered into the world…” But Paul didn’t say that. Paul said that sin entered this world through one man.

We also should note that the sin that entered this world through one man and then spread to all (mankind). One man caused this spiritual disease and the disease was spread to all.

Where did Paul get this from? We will be looking at this shortly.

Jim,
It is a pleasure for me to minister as I feel that my work is done as to the Lord Jesus. I give out as much as I can as often as I can because I feel that rephrasing things to help a specific new person helps us both. Perhaps I too can learn how to say it in a clearer fashion and perhaps with even more gentleness and respect if it is said just one more time. None of us stops learning and we should continue until we die.

Do not hesitate to ask if you need to clarify anything. There are a bunch of people here who know the stuff as well as I do (at least that is the way I see it) and they seem rather willing to help me with newbies and old ones too! I really appreciate them especially since this is not my primary ministry and I can’t always be here as much as I would like. My heart is here but my ministry is much larger and other ministry and other DVD projects await my work.

Thanks also for telling me that I helped you and that it wasn’t a sin to learn something from me. This is rewarding to me and I believe pleases the Lord Jesus who loves to have His body minister to one another. He is a big “one another” Person who desires His body to be built up and mature. And we get to do this interactive stuff on a blog where people from around the world see our words! All I can say is WOW!

TL,
You had asked on the previous post:

If only the man were ejected, then
1. did God think that because she was tempted and deceived, thus not eating in deliberate sin she would not make that same mistake with the other tree even though she was now suffering the death effects of that mistake and prone even more to deception.

I do not think that Eve was prone to deception any longer. She had her eyes opened and she was not suffering from a sin nature of rebellion as Adam was. Her deception was in essence an “immunization” to any further deception and we have no indication from the Scripture that she continued a pattern of being deceived. I believe that if she had stayed in the garden, she would have been obedient to God. But she was “one flesh” with the man and her desire was to be with him.

2. did God not worry about it because He knew that she would not wish to remain alone since God said that aloneness was not good.

I believe that God knew He could trust this formerly deceived woman to be obedient. She could have stayed in the garden and the Messiah could have come through her directly as no man was needed for His birth. But God knows the future and He knew she would leave of her own (with or without Adam’s coercion).

I fully see the need for the man to leave because of his seemingly unrepentant disobedience. And I fully see that his knowing disobedience would be the cause of sin being carried to all humanity. Two humans suffering the consequences of death, would produce children from that position of death. Adam’s deliberate treachery would have consequences, which it did in Cain and in one of Cain’s sons or nephews (forget which without looking). Notice that is the males who follow the pattern….. at least at that point.

Exactly! Adam’s deliberate treachery had serious consequences in his entire line of descendants. It is only the promise of the Messiah through the woman that gave mankind hope.

Christian Wife/Mom,

I think that it does matter what Jesus thinks about the OT and Genesis 2. He quoted from Genesis regarding the creation of the man and the woman so apparently he thought it was a real event and not a Jewish myth. And Jesus is our Creator so He ought to know.

I agree that there shouldn’t be all the “rules” that men put on women, but we do have to have something other than love to go by. After all, most other religions operate on love too but they do not follow Jesus in His life, death and burial. I would just prefer to follow Jesus who can’t be wrong, then any man-made idea which could be wrong. There is too much at stake. It is a life and death matter.

Thanks for popping in and I hope you come back!

Hello again Jim,
Thanks for coming back!
There are several hard passages that seem to say one thing, but doing that “who, what, where, when and why” interrogation on the passage, one can see that it isn’t as cut and dried as one first thought.

For example James seems to “clearly” say that Abraham was justified by works…

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

…but was he?

Paul said that Abraham was not justified by works…

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

The fact is that James is not saying that Abraham was justified before God by works, but it was justification before men, since men can only see what we do to know if we are saved, but God looks on the heart.

So we can also see that there appears to be an “apparent” discrepancy on women’s spiritual service. Paul himself states that women can pray and prophesy in the assembly and by edifying the church with their gifts, all will learn and all will be edified, yet 1 Timothy 2:12 seems to be saying that women cannot teach even a single man anything. Is this really what Paul is saying?

We need to ask the questions, who is Paul writing to? What is the reason that Paul is writing the letter? Why did Paul not write this “command” to the churches, but to only his helper, Timothy? What was going on that needed this command? Why didn’t Paul say that the command was from God? Why did Paul say that it was Paul who originated the command? How does this relate to the issue of all godly women regarding their teaching for all of time? Why are there no instances of women stopped from teaching men in the NT? Why was there no OT law that stopped women from teaching men? Why was the prohibition put into such a hard passage of scripture where such unique words were used that it has been difficult to understand Paul? Is it possible that Timothy completely understood the command because he was aware of the prohibition even if years later we have a hard time understanding? How can a universal prohibition be based on just one verse taken from its context? Where are the noted exceptions to the prohibition? How come Priscilla was not charged with teaching a man? How come Priscilla was allowed to teaching a man in Corinth? What was the situation in Corinth that was different than in Ephesus?

The fact is that the “prohibition” is surrounded by very difficult words that don’t seem to make complete sense to most people, yet they are quick to say that the passage is “clear” regarding women’s teaching. How can this be so? How can the passage be so “clear” yet 1 Timothy 2:15 which is the conclusion of the prohibition is one the most difficult verses, if not the most difficult, in the entire bible? It is impossible for such a command to be clear, that is not written to the entire church, not written in the context in an easily understandable fashion and has no second witness to confirm that it is indeed a universal witness, yet we still want to see the command as “clearly” about all godly women for all of church history, instead of a local command for a local problem? This is what tradition has done to our thinking minds. It has clouded our vision and made us prejudice against women.

Well, as you can see, I am very passionate for people to understand 1 Timothy 2:12 in context. The best thing that I can do is to recommend that you get a copy of my DVD set. It is 3.5 hours of teaching that can be played over and over until it sinks in. It is available here http://www.amazon.com/Women-Ministry-Silenced-Set-Free/dp/B000FW4N60 and this blog will be around to answer any other questions that you have. Makes a good Christmas gift 8)

I hope that there is something in my answer that helps you. I am thankful that you are willing to learn because you do want the truth.

TL,

I have Logos 4 platinum http://www.logos.com/platinum There are other Logos versions that are less expensive but I find that in my work I need the best tools I can get. I also have additional Jewish resources beyond Logos Platinum as I do a lot of study in the historic Jewish traditions and the Jewish law.

TL,

Here is a screen shot from my Bible program.

gengwall,
You said:

First – the difference between G 1:26 and my interpretation of “mankind”, and G 5:1b and my view of a singular ‘adam is the difference in pronouns. In G 1:26, the pronoun is plural and in G 5:1b the pronoun is singular. I don’t think he=they in terms of gramatical number.

I am just getting through the posts now and again I think you are spot on. I think that we must pay attention to the inspired grammar and I can see that you are doing that.

Susanna,
You said:

He is given the name because he was made of ‘adamah (ground) just as Eve is named Chawah (from chay) because she was to become the mother of all living.

Then could you explain to me if you understand that only Adam was made from the ground, why you believe that Eve is part of “the Adam” in Gen. 3:22-24 when the one who is spoken of is said to be sent out to till the ground that he was made from? Where is Eve in this? What isn’t it plural and why isn’t Eve said to be sent out to till the ground that Adam was made from? Do you see how this causes problems to your view?

If ha’adam refers only to the man in Gen 3.22-4.1, then only the first man was created to till (‘abad) the land because he was taken from the ground (ha’adamah), and women are excluded from farming.

The hard work was a punishment because of the curse on the earth. It doesn’t mean that the woman cannot work with the soil but that the primary hard work dealing with the curse that he caused was put onto the man not the woman.

According to Gen 2 it was humankind in itself that was created specifically to till or care for the land, not only the first man since the reason for the creation of the human was that there was not yet a human who would care for the land. In Gen 4:2 we find that Cain was a farmer.

While this may be correct in the original perfect and weedless earth, the place of hard work amongst the weeds was specifically only forced upon the man.

You said:

To summarize: to create a distinction between Gen 1.26 and 1.27 one must begin with Gen 2, for the text itself does not create such a distinction since both ‘adam and ha’adam refer to the same humankind which is being created.

No, I do not agree. To see no distinction between Genesis 1:26 and 27 one must make the singular and plural to be the same thing and this is linguistically in error. I choose to not deny the inspired grammar but to embrace it as correct and work with it as it is. My interpretation must submit to the grammar, not force the grammar to fit into my exegesis by equating a singular pronoun to be the same as a plural one. I think that would be torturing the text and cutting off what it actually says instead of taking the natural grammar as accurate.

This is confirmed by Gen 5, where ‘adam appears with both the singular and plural pronoun.

Genesis 5 has the singular and plural only because it is talking about one person and then two persons. Genesis 5 never makes a singular to be the same as a plural. Rather it is singular + another singular = plural.

Throughout the Old Testament both ‘adam and ha’adam are found with both plural and singular pronouns wherefore it is impossible to argue that ha’adam refers only to the first man in Genesis 1-3 while ‘adam refers to “humankind.”

First of all I am not saying that ha’adam refers only to the first man and I am not saying that ‘adam refers always to mankind. ha’adam can be plural when plural nouns are used and ‘adam can be singular when a single human is meant or when a collective singular unit is meant. I think you are misunderstanding my position and this is why you are having a hard time with this.

If we nevertheless use the argument, we must also allow the comps to use the argument in which God calls humankind collectively a man in Gen 1.27

In Genesis 1:27 the term is “the man” and the definite with the singular pronoun is one man. I would call them to account with the exact grammar as I have with you.

What I would like to know if how God could have written the grammar if He really did only mean one man? How would He have written it differently?

wherefore the man was called to lead; that God gave the commandment only to the man in Gen 2, wherefore a woman is not allowed to teach a man for it is the man’s job to teach the woman; that God called only the man to account in Gen 3 wherefore the woman is not allowed to lead since women are not held accountable, men are; and lastly, that women should follow men even when they are punished for their sin and the women themselves are innocent (since did not Eve set the example of wifely obedience by following Adam?) You may not affirm even one of these, but if you see ha’adam as referring only to the first man in order to expel only the man from the garden, you are left without a defense against complementarian theology.

How did you come to the conclusion that I would have no defense?
1. Man is never called to “lead”
2. God did give the command to Adam before Eve was created but He gave it again once she was created (Gen. 1 & Gen. 3)
3. No command to teach or not teach is in the Genesis account
4. God called both to account for what they each did and neither was called to account for the other person.
5. God didn’t say that Eve “should” follow Adam out of the garden. He only said that she “would”.
6. God did not say that Eve had not sinned or that being deceived made her innocent or that she wouldn’t die for what she did.

I fail to see how you connect the teaching of the comps that they add to the Scripture without a single piece of evidence on their side, to the fact of the Hebrew grammar that God kicked out the one guilty of deliberate treachery who was the only one with the rebellious sin nature. The one who was now a slave to sin was the one who was in danger of re-offending over and over again.

If you on the other hand affirm that ha’adam refers to both the man and the woman when the word is not qualified with words such as “male and female,” or “and his woman,” you leave the comps with nothing to support their theology since they must affirm that God called both the man and the woman “human”; God gave both the man and the woman the commandment (the woman was given the commandment as soon as she was created, just as the man had been given the commandment as soon as he was created) hence both men and women can teach according to ability and gifting; God called both the man and the woman and held them jointly responsible for breaking the commandment; the punishment differed according to intent; both the man and the woman were expelled from the Garden with the comforting words of a future Savior who would come and redeem the world from the consequence of their sin.

So if I exegete Scripture so that the comps don’t have a false security thinking that we agree with them, then I have to attribute to God the charge that He treated the deliberate sinner and the deceived sinner in the same way. I would have to agree that God cursed the earth on her behalf and sent Eve to force her to also work on the cursed earth while having all her babies. Does that not make God to be an unfair dictator who treats all sin the same without a care about the intent of the heart? You may be able to do that, but there is too much in the Scripture that shows that God deals individually and looks on each heart and each motive. I cannot make God out to be unkind, unfair and to place far more on the woman than God said.

Susanna said:

The woman is said to have learned the commandment from the man, and was therefore responsible to the man for helping him keep it, an argument created and supported by giving ‘ezer the meaning “helper.” On the contrary we find that the woman says that “God had said” and God holds her equally responsible for the breaking of the commandment. That the man answered first does not signify that God had only called him, it is an inference based on the singular that we find after ha’adam.

I agree that the woman’s testimony was that God gave her the command and in Genesis 1, God speaks to “them”. However I do not agree that God called both humans yet only the man answered. God specifically said “you” singular.

We have now two options:
1. If we affirm that ha’adam refers only to the man, then God calls only the man which would indicate that God spoke only the man at all times since the writer portrays a picture in which God is seemingly ignorant of the disobedience and seems to want to simply communicate with the human He had created.
2. If ha’adam refers to both the man and the woman, God calls both the man and the woman for He spoke both to the man and the woman at all times.

Why do you think there are only two options? Would you consider this an option?:

3. God knows what has happened and he calls the man to explain where he is (hiding) and why (the cowering Watchman is a traitor). The Watchman of the garden must answer to God first. Since we know that God spoken to both of them (Gen. 1) and Eve’s testimony is that “God said…” we know that God picking Adam to be called to account first is not an indication that He only ever spoke to one man.

Is this anything wrong with this option?

If we exclude Eve from the above text and from Gen 1.27, we must also exclude her from Gen 3.9 since the grammar and the persons spoken of are the same.

Eve is not excluded later when God speaks to her, but yes, she is excluded as the initial “rubber meets the road” first one accountable is called on the carpet.

gengwall,

We also are not privy to any direct conversation God had with Adam where God uses ‘adam in any form, so we don’t know if God had yet used it as a proper name. Frankly, we have no idea how God addressed the first couple either individually or together.

Excellent, excellent work! I have to leave now for further preparations for the funeral but I can see that I am leaving things in your capable hands. We must view the account as inspired by God and not just changed by a man. What is written is what God wanted and none of it contradicts.

Carry on…I’ll be back.

gengwall,

It is…to a degree. Since the “first! first!” argument results in a logical fallacy, we need not be afraid of it. Moreover, at least in terms of creation (interrogation is part of this debate), it is a simple biblical fact. We can’t argue away that Adam was created first denying the testimony of Genesis 2 and 1 Timothy 2:13. So, we have to accept at least one “first!” as being a fact. What we don’t need to accept without support is that “first!” of any kind equals “leader” or “authority”. Since there is no proof of THAT synthesis in scripture, the “first!” argument fails regardless of the factual reality of the “first!” in question.

Excellent insights! I could have said that same thing, but you beat me to it!

TL,

You said:

Seems more reasonable since God named THEM Adham/Human, that since there were not any ‘first’ names given yet, that God would just call out Human (which included a plural) and wait for them to answer. And really there are no qualifications that God was speaking to ONLY the man. Why would God do that since both disobeyed Him. ??? I don’t know. This makes sense to me.

Check out the grammar and you will see that “you” is singular. When Eve quotes God in chapter 3 saying that “You are not to eat…” the “you” there is plural. But God doesn’t call out to “you” plural, but “you” singular. Why is that? Because God knows that they have sinned and He is calling out to the watchman on the wall first. Where is the Watchman? Hiding!!! What a shame. God deals with the most responsible one first since the Watchman has failed in his watch.

gengwall,
You said:

I should back off even more on the last paragraph and not speak for Susanna so much. What I know is that she is passionate about this issue and her passion extends beyond a love of grammatical correctness. She has real fear about the ramifications of this debate for the broader debate against heirarchy. I will let her articulate those fears.

I am sure that we can help Susanna forgo those fears by the time we are through. I do understand Susanna’s concern, but I think that she is only concerned because she has not heard my complete argument yet. I would be very surprised if she is still concerned when she hears the connection to the new testament that I haven’t shared yet.

gengwall,

There is only one negative implication to Susanna’s view in my mind. Susanna’s view leads to the inevitable conclusion that both Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden by God in Gen 3:24. I fear that may leave complementarians with a flanking manuever – Eve was just as much a cause of sin as Adam.

This is exactly how I think and this view causes problems with the New Testament. I will explain more, but it looks like you and I are on the same page. Twin minds think alike again?

gengwall,

You said:

Just a clarification – I do not believe that either view directly tips the scale toward hierarchalism. I don’t know exactly if Susanna does. I do know her anxiety level about the resolution is far greater than mine.

I agree. Also I haven’t even finished reading all the views as I was busy responding to Susanna, but I do think that Susanna’s concern can be dealt with to allow her to see our point of view in no way diminishes the view of the equality of women. When I am done presenting my view, if Susanna still has an anxiety about this, I would sure like to know why. I see no conflict at all and I am not in the least bit concerned that either view leaders toward a hierarchy for males.

gengwall,
You said:

Cheryl – I sure hope I am not dragging you kicking and screaming into an exegesis you are uncomfortable with.

Me? Having to go kicking and screaming into an exegesis? LOL! No, just the opposite, I believe that the fact that Adam alone was kicked out is essential to some other specific points that Paul makes and shows that Adam was not “the leader” by virtue of his maleness nor that Eve was disallowed to take a rulership or disallowed to be a teacher because she was a female. We can hold strong to our guns and keep faithful to the text without giving an inch to the error of the comp view.

lmb,
You said:

Cheryl, I’m having trouble with this statement:
“God gave a responsibility to Adam before Eve was created and that was of guarding the garden. To the one whom much has been given, much will be required. God called Adam to account first because He had more to account for. He was the first created and He was responsible for the safety of the garden as the one who was there when the garden was created. He was the one who saw the tree of life created as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
Isn’t’ that exactly the basis of the comp argument that Adam was the leader and therefore men are to be in charge?
What am I missing? Please help me understand!

No, there is nothing in the account that says that Adam was the “leader”. However before Eve was created Adam needed to understand that he needed a flesh and blood mate who was like him so that he would accept her as as his own and not a separate creation from him. If God had made Eve out of the dirt at the same time as Adam, I believe that many men would declare us of a different sort than they are and not equal to them as humans. Sigh(!)

The fact is that while Adam was going through the process that would enable him to see Eve as his equal, God did some acts of creation before Adam’s eyes that protected Adam from believing the lie that they could become “like” God as Creator. Adam was responsible for this knowledge and God made him the protector of the garden as Adam was the only human ever to have witnessed the creative acts of God. Adam’s knowledge made him more responsible but it didn’t make Eve to be created a follower and Adam to be created a leader. That is foreign to the account.

Does this help? If you don’t have a copy of my DVD set, the first DVD sets this point up visually to show that more knowledge = more personal responsibility. More knowledge does not equal rulership over others.

Susanna,

You said:

But if ‘adam refers to humans in general in Gen 1.26, how can it refer to only Adam in Gen 5.1, especially when the same word (‘adam) is defined as being male and female in 5.2?

Adam in Genesis 1:26 is matched with the plural pronoun so we can be assured that it is meant as mankind. Adam in Genesis 5:1 can only refer to one man since he (singular) is matched to his genealogy, Adam as father and his death. Verse 2 is again attached to the plural with male and female. This is why we need to follow the Hebrew grammar with close attention because ‘adam has several meanings and when the Hebrew goes back and forth between these several meanings it can get confusing.

Whereas Gen 1.27 uses the singular pronoun with the word “the human,” in Gen 5.1-5 ‘adam (human) is used with both singular and plural pronouns.

Again this is about the switch between the one man and between the meaning of mankind. We must follow the switch between the pronouns to understand what is being referenced.

This is found because all of humankind is created in the likeness of God (hence the singular) but this humankind is also male and female (hence the plural).

I disagree. In Genesis 1:26 God made His intention known that the image would be in “them”. With this understanding we then go to the image in the man and the image in male and female. The female is in no way left out of the image of God.

The word ‘adam signifies always “human.” Hebrew uses other words when speaking of persons in general, such as nephesh (soul), ‘enowsh (mortal) etc.

No it does not always mean humankind. It can and often does mean a specific person. Let me quote from a few commentaries to show that Genesis 5:1 is talking about a specific man.

5:1–32 Adam … Noah. The genealogy connects Adam to the Noahic family which not only survived the Flood, but also became first in God’s re-creation. Two recurring phrases carry redemption history forward: “ … and he had sons and daughters,” “ … and he died.
The MacArthur Study Bible

5:1–20 The first list of “begots.” After fathering a number of sons and daughters, Adam died at age 930. Genealogies such as in these verses were important to ancient peoples to establish family relationships, privileges, and responsibilities.
Willmington’s Bible handbook (10).

E. From Adam to Noah (5:1–32). In a genealogy stretching over ten generations, the lineage from Adam to Noah is traced. Only in the last section does this vertical genealogy become a horizontal one (v. 32).
In the description of each generation, the same literary structure is followed: (1) the age of the father at the birth of the firstborn; (2) the name of the firstborn; (3) how many years the father lived after the birth of this son; (4) a reference to the fathering of other children; (5) the father’s total lifespan.
Evangelical commentary on the Bible.

Why, then, should there be these two different forms of expression, and only these two—Genesis 5:1 and Matthew 1:1—exceptions to the usual form? … In the first book—“The book of the generations of Adam”—are enrolled the names of the fallen descendants of the first man; in the second—“The book of the generation of Jesus Christ”—are inscribed the names of all who have been redeemed by sovereign grace. One is the Book of Death; the other is the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Gleanings in Genesis (72)

I think that should be sufficient to show that ‘adam in Genesis 5:1 is referring to the one man Adam.

You said:

Why is the first human called “the human”? Because he does not have another name; he is simply a human, contrasted to the animals …He is not called Adam yet…

“The human” is Adam. Eve is never called “the human” but “the woman”. To say that “the Adam” is not one particular man but just “a human” seems to me that you are trying desperately to deny that Adam can be a term for one man. I wonder why you have to deny that?

In 3.9 we find that God calls ha’adam (the human).

Gen 3:9-13
Then the LORD God called to the human (ha’adam) and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” 12 Then the man (ha’adam) said, “The woman (‘ishshah) whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” 13 And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

This passage is the reason comps argue that God called only the man and that he had given the commandment only to the man, whom he is holding responsible.

The fact that God called only the man here cannot be used to prove that God gave only the commandment to one person since Genesis 1 proves that He spoke to “them”. Are you denying that “the human” is Adam and “you” is singular not plural?

When God responded to Adam’s words He asked is Adam had eaten from the tree that God had commanded him (you singular) not to eat. Even though God first of all talked to Adam and called him to account first, does not mean that the commandment was given to Adam alone since Genesis 1 clearly states that God spoke to “them”. However God is specifically speaking to Adam here and Adam first heard the commandment alone. It isn’t a contradiction at all.

My internet was down for awhile. I wasn’t able to see the other comments sent to me. I will address them now instead before going on with Susanna’s comments.

Susanna,

You said:

the comps are arguing that only Adam was called by God. This is the central argument which supports the beliefs that

1. The man was created to lead the woman
2. The woman was never given the commandment by God
3. The man taught the commandment to the woman
4. Therefore the woman is not allowed to teach a man

I think that it is very helpful to understand that we can argue our point of view without supporting their error. If it can be shown that my point of view completely supports the egalitarian understanding by tying in the OT and the NT without contradiction, would you be willing to entertain the view?

I am going through your comments one by one and I haven’t read through them all yet, but I assume that you haven’t dealt with the fact that God called “the human” as the one man Adam, first by saying “Where are you” You is most definitely singular. The grammar makes it impossible to argue that God called both Adam and Eve but only Adam answered. God was speaking to one person at a time and it appears that both Adam and Eve knew which singular “you” God was referring to, even if we don’t have the name that God called him as we just have the question.

Of you points 1 – 4 above, the first three points of the comp position are easily shown to be additions to the text. The fourth point is therefore an unspoken and faulty conclusion based on reading into the text and prejudice against women.

The other reason why I feel I must reject the construction in which ha’adam refers only to the first man is found in Gen 5. Let’s compare Gen 1.26-27 with Gen 5.1-5

I didn’t say that ha’adam refers only to the first man. I did say that unless there is a plural construction, the default position of the definite noun with singular pronouns is that it is referring to the first man Adam. The plural pronouns make it very clear that “man” (without the definite article) in Genesis 1:26 is “them” male and female and not just the one man. Man without the definite article can be a particular man, all of mankind, or a particular group of people. The context and the pronouns are essential for us to understand the meaning.

Gen 5:1-5
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam (‘Adam). In the day that God created man (‘adam), He made him (‘otow) in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind (‘adam) in the day they were created. 3 And Adam (‘Adam) lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam (‘Adam) were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam (‘Adam) lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

For your hypothesis to work, ‘adam should refer only to Adam in Gen 5.1 since it is singular and follows directly after the mentioning of Adam himself.

In Genesis 5, God did not name male and female “the man” but simply “man” which is the generic term for human. The context is mankind in verse Genesis 5:2.

What is the context of “man” in verse Genesis 5:1? It is not plural but singular. Is God telling us that this is a history of the descendants of mankind (general) or of the descendants of one man? Genealogy is always specific to the person.

genealogies = account of a man and his descendants
Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

The Amplified Bible renders Genesis 5:1 this way:

THIS IS the book (the written record, the history) of the generations of the offspring of Adam. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

The term Adam is used for one person and man is used for mankind.

The Word Biblical Commentary shows that Adam the personal name is the intention of Genesis 5:1 and I agree:

Nowhere in chaps. 1–3 does God give mankind a name, although “man,” literally, “the man”, is often mentioned. But from 4:25 to 5:6 the anarthrous form “Adam,” the proper name, is used. However, such a translation here is jarring in English: the generic “man” runs more smoothly and most commentators adopt the generic term here. The problem really lies in our transliteration of the Hebrew names: if we used “Man” for “Adam” and “man” for “mankind,” our translation could oscillate between “Man” and “man” as easily as Hebrew does… in vv 1 and 3 the personal name “Adam,” “Man,” is clearly intended…
Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary (126).

So in Genesis 5:1 “Adam” is a specific human (singular) and in verse 2 “man” is plural as male and female. In verse 3 “Adam” is singular again (without the definite article) yet it is also clearly referring to one man, Adam as he is named as a “father” and in verse 5 his age of death is given. These things can only be said about the one man Adam and not about Eve the woman.

I agree that it isn’t easy because the Hebrew goes back and forth between the singular and the plural, but we can follow it through by the context. Even though Adam (the first man) is said to be in the image of God in Genesis 5:1, he is not the only one who is in the image of God since Genesis 1:26 has already told us that God originally planned to create “them” in His image.

I will carry on in the next comment.

Susanna,
I should also comment that I didn’t think your comments to gengwall were intended to be unkind. I was certain that you have a good heart and were passionately fighting for your point of view. Sometimes it is easy to feel frustrated when it doesn’t appear that we have agreement. I understand and I think gengwall understands too. Thanks for your gracious response.

Susanna,
You said:

Quite frankly I could care less whether ha’adam refers to the first man or humankind in general in Gen 1.27 if it wasn’t for Gen 3.9. You see, while you are arguing that only Adam was kicked out, the comps are arguing that only Adam was called by God.

We can agree that Genesis 1:26 & 27 show that both man and woman were created in the image of God. The issue of God only “calling” Adam is not that God only talked to Adam, but that God called Adam to account first which has no relevance at all on their argument that Adam was a “ruler” of Eve. My argument has nothing to do with the comp’s argument. I do not disregard a position because it might have an impact on the comp position. I am way more interested in truth and what the passage actually says than I fear giving a foothold to the comps. This is because I do not have a parochial mentality. All I want is truth and I want to be able to understand the passages without contradiction.

The fact is that God “called” Adam first to account. We know that not just because he called out to “the human” but because He said “you” (singular). If He was calling to both of them, He would have used the plural form of you.

The fact that God called to Adam first is not a problem. In fact it would be abnormal for God to have called to the woman first. God gave a responsibility to Adam before Eve was created and that was of guarding the garden. To the one whom much has been given, much will be required. God called Adam to account first because He had more to account for. He was the first created and He was responsible for the safety of the garden as the one who was there when the garden was created. He was the one who saw the tree of life created as well as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam was privileged to see God’s creation and as the watchman of the garden, he had a responsibility to be faithful to God as the watchman on the wall.

I will continue answering your comments throughout today as I get time. I will be in and out today so will address bits and pieces until I get the whole thing answered. Thanks for your patience while I attend to matters of the funeral for tomorrow.

gengwall said:

Their proper name was not “Human”. Their categorical name was “human” just as the catagorical name of deer is “deer”. Now, you can give a specific deer the proper name “deer” just as ha’adam (the person) ‘adam (Adam) was given the proper name “‘adam”. But Eve was simply an instance of the class ‘adam, not a specific woman called “‘adam”.

I agree that “adam” was the class but not the “name” that God called the woman. When God is specifically talking to the woman, the Bible never calls her “adam” but “the woman”. She is called this even before Adam affirms her identification with himself as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. God said that He created “the woman” who was “(hu)man”.

I have lots more comments to come throughout today as I respond to Susanna’s comments posted on the original article on the topic of “head”.

Jim,

I would like to give you a special welcome to my blog. I think that it is a very brave thing for you to comment on this blog after silently following the blog for some time. Kudos to you!

I think there is great wisdom in asking these kinds of questions especially if you have baby girls. After all you want to train them up in the way that they should go so that they can serve the Lord Jesus with all their hearts. Those who have only boys will not have the same concern since the issue is not about what the boys can and cannot do so there is no worries in parenting.

I would trust that all here will be gentle with you just as we work hard to be gentle with each other.

The essence of this argument is the belief that God does Gift Women with the “Gift” of being a pastor/preacher.

That is half of the argument and even most comps will admit that there are gifted women in all areas of body life. The other half of the argument is that God is the one who determines the gifts and He alone should determine whom he does and doesn’t want to exercise the gifts. Those whom God doesn’t want to exercise these gifts will not have the gifts.

I agree with the statements to the nature of God and his nature does not include taunting or torture, however taunting and torture only take place if the gift is in fact bestowed.

I fully agree with you.

I think that we are all limited in how we can serve God, in different ways. I can never be a mother, although I have many of the “gifts” that a mother posses.

I appreciate your willingness to try to understand this issue. While we are discussing spiritual gifts “motherhood” is not considered a “spiritual” gift. It is a natural function of a woman’s body but it is like comparing apples and fence posts when comparing it to the spiritual. No list of spiritual gifts includes motherhood and no list of spiritual gifts includes any gift that is by its nature a “pink” only gift.

God expects us to live within his limits as a measure of obedience.

The question then would be, what are the “spiritual limits” of a member of the body of Christ? Where are these limits documented for the male and where are they documented for the female? I have never seen a generic spiritual “limit” on the gifts that God has given us. I may be mistaken, but I have not seen such limiting passages.

I don’t believe God gives us gifts we can’t use, I think we sometimes use the gifts he gives us inefficiently.

I am not sure what you mean by “inefficiently” but I can think of some instances where we may not use our gifts because of fear. Sometimes gifted people don’t speak up when they should.

You can list the successful female “pastors” as evidence of the gift, but the other side of that coin could be a woman who would have been even more successful if they applied their gift in a more obedient way.

This of course is one of the issues of difference between comps and egals. Egals would say that godly preaching, praying, accurate teaching of the Bible always brings glory to God. How can a woman apply her gift in a more obedient way? I think the Scripture helps us with this one. In 1 Peter 4:10, Peter talks about “each one” and using the gifts Peter says to “employ” them in a special way:

1 Peter 4:10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

The gifts are not for our benefit, but for the benefit of the body of Christ. We are to “serve one another” as “good stewards”. The grace of God is said to be “manifold” or “multicolored or variegated”.

The fact is that we are never told to withhold something good from another member of the body of Christ. The gifts are clearly for the entire body so that we may grow together (not separately) until we all attain to the unity of the faith. If the gifts are for all and the command is to serve “one another” with the unique flavor of our special gifts, then we dare not withhold from each other if we want to serve God with godly fear.

The next thing that we can pick up from the Scripture regarding applying the gifts in an obedient way is found in 1 Peter 4:11 is for “whoever” has the gifts. We are to use the gifts as one who speaks the very words of God and serves by the strength of God.

1 Peter 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

If God says that He is glorified in this, then why should we hold back in fear?

It has nothing to do with intelligence, or abilities…it comes down to doing what The Lord Says…so I ask you, if the Lord spoke to you clearly and told you that he doesn’t want women as pastors…could you obey?

A word spoke by the Lord to me must not and cannot contradict His own Word since everything that is true spiritually will never contradict His Word. The fact is that God has never said that this one particular gift is reserved for males. If God gifts, then the person is responsible for using their gift or they will give an account of themselves before God regarding the treasure that He gave them.

My next question is how much clearer does he need to be then what he has already said?

That is a good question. I think that it would be clear if God said “I (God) will not gift women as pastors and I do not want women to aspire to the work of an overseer”

While you may think that it is clear, the fact is that there is a prejudice within all of us against women that allows single men to be pastors, elders, overseers but not women. Can you explain that? Why is the language not clear and what would God have to say that would make it more “clear” that unmarried and childless men are forbidden to strive to attain the work of an overseer or a deacon?

Pride has nearly destroyed me more than once, and knowledge of God and the bible fills us with a pride like no other.

I believe that if we seek the God whose Word we are striving to have the knowledge about from the Bible, he is able to keep us in His will as we surrender ourselves to serve instead of demanding that we are the ones who are to be perpetually served.

Being limited on how we are allowed to share that knowledge I think is not torture, it is obedience.

I believe that the limitations are not on us but on the ones that we serve. For example, my specialty is on the hard passages of scripture. In sharing my understanding the hard passages of scripture, I can go into great detail with the Greek and Hebrew and the grammar that would not be appropriate for 5 & 6 year olds and the spiritual babes. But it is my desire as it was Paul’s desire to see those whom I am privileged to serve, grow up into the knowledge of God’s word so that they can absorb and chew on the meat that I give them instead of having to be fed only milk. This is not a limitation because of my gender but because of the spiritual growth of my audience that requires me to hold back. It is not a God-forced limitation on my gifts, but an act of love that allows me to gift out as much as the young ones can take and understand. Force feeding the meat is not loving when one is acting as a servant for the good of the body.

I hope I haven’t made too many people upset, I read this blog often, I have twin baby girls, and I don’t want to “oppress” them or steer them wrong. It just seems much more a matter of giving in to him and working in his plan using his gifts, his way.

I am so glad that you are considering that what you teach your daughters may have an effect of oppression. What I have seen from so many Scriptures is that God’s gifts are not meant to be suppressed and the suppression of God’s gifts is one way to grieve the Holy Spirit. While 1 Cor. 14:31 says that “all” (not just men) may prophesy one by one so that “all” (not just women) may learn and “all” (not just women) may be exhorted, stifling this prophesying is directly tied into quenching the Holy Spirit:

1 Thess 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit;
1 Thess 5:20 do not despise prophetic utterances.

The command is that we are not to reject with scorn prophetic utterances. Can men honestly say that they do not “reject” and treat with “scorn” women’s speaking forth the words that God has given them? Men don’t see these gifts as valuable yet 1 Cor. 12:4 says that the gifts are from the same Spirit and Eph 4:12 says the gifts are for the building up of the body, not just for the building up of the arm.

While 1 Cor. 14:26 says that all the gifts are to be used for edification…

1 Cor. 14:26 …Let all things be done for edification.

…many men reject the Holy Spirit’s words when He speaks through a woman. They stop the woman from fulfilling the edification that God has called her to.

While Ephesians 4:29, 30 say that our words are to be used for edification to “those who hear”, those who will not hear what the Spirit is saying are actually grieving the Holy Spirit of God.

Eph 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.
Eph 4:30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

I grieves me to know that males who set themselves up as gatekeepers holding back the Holy Spirit’s gifts and keeping these gifts from the benefit of other men will have to one day give an account of themselves to God. We are never told to limit other people’s gifts for the edification of the entire body. Each “servant” is to be accountable to God and we are not to interfere with their service.

Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Each one is personally responsible for how he builds the body and with the quality of the material that the person uses. While some have a prideful attitude that they are personally responsible to judge the work of another one of Jesus’ servants, it is not up to us to judge how another servant has used their God-given gifts as God will indeed one day judge them Himself.

1 Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.
1 Cor 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Cor 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
1 Cor 3:13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work.

I can give Scripture after Scripture commanding us to serve God with all that is within us for edification of the body yet there is no verse that universally forbids all women from receiving or using their God-given gifts. We are all to “desire earnestly to prophesy” and not to “quench the Spirit”. No Scripture in context will contradict that wise counsel from God’s Word.

Thoughts?

Kay,
Yes, MacArthur believes that a woman must stay in the area that God cursed her in. Working out her salvation is working in the domain that God said she must be in. It is weird because he does see the contradictions regarding single women and women unable to have children. Somehow they must find their cursed area by working with other women’s children. I don’t remember if he addresses the guilt and shame they have for not having their own domain.

It is so sad the heavy burdens that these men place on women to have a cursed domain that they must stay in. Yet Jesus released Mary to be his disciple and He said that what she had chosen was better than serving in the kitchen. Apparently Jesus wasn’t aware of a cursed domain.

Mara,
When I think of these men and their man-centered ideas, I understand that without a divine intervention from God to soften their heart, they will never change. What we can do is to reach out to other women and help them heal by seeing themselves as servants of Christ without a sin-filled intermediator between them and Christ and without a set course that all women must follow regardless of the gifts that God has given them. It is, after all, a gift to be single.

Christopher, welcome!

God of course does not have male body parts and for sure has no “skin” or “foreskin”.

If we only needed Jesus’ teaching on the Sermon on the Mount, then Jesus would not have needed to raise up Apostles to give us His teaching that isn’t recorded in the four gospels. There is much to learn about suffering, servanthood, sacrifice and patience as well as the foundation of the gospel that tests all false gospels.

Since God gave man the foreskin as a sign of sin in the first place and even Jesus had his removed by the submission of His parents, surely God can decide on what He does and doesn’t want His covenant people to do. It was in effect until Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection and now the fulfillment is in Christ so is no longer needed as a sign.

Thanks for the support of women in ministry. That is very much appreciated.

Hi Heidi and welcome to my blog!

I agree the the Word of God needs to be our final authority. God alone is the One who gives the gifts and He commands that we use our gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. If we refuse to obey His Word and refuse to use our gifts as He has commanded, then we are letting the foolishness of the tradition of men rule our lives and we set the Lord Jesus beneath the authority of men.

I pray that all of us will be brave enough to step out into whatever area that Jesus has called us and obey Him instead of men. What seems wise in the eyes of men is often in opposition to the wisdom of God from His Word.

Hannah,
I think this is because some men have the ability to put on pink colored blinders that remove anything feminine in the Scriptures that would place women in a spiritually equal place in the body of Christ. It is helpful for them because if they really don’t “see” the evidence, they don’t have to consider its importance.

Alison,

When it comes to the issue of salvation, we are all allowed to get hot under the collar 😉 for the salvation issue is all about Jesus and to classify women teachers, women pastors or women elders as without Jesus just because of the women part is really, really, really, well….fill in the blank.

Yes, that is a good question, Hannah. A “salvic” issue is an issue involving salvation. The question then would be whether a woman using her God-given gifts (teacher or pastor) would be lost.