Zwagmeister

Hey Cheryl,

I am continuing to read through all your archives. Lots of food for thought – thank you for such stimulating discussions!
Some questions/comments I have regarding this particular post…

1) Comments:
The verses you use to make your point regarding Adam being a ‘man’ use the word anthropos, (Romans 5:12,19 and also likewise in 1 Cor 15:22, 45 when Paul teaches it is through Adam that sin / death came into the world). Although most translations would have this read ‘man’ it must be recognized that Paul is in fact avoiding gender specific language here. If he wanted to highlight Adam’s maleness in any way, he would have to have used a gender specific word such as aner. (Just for interest, similarly in the gospels, Jesus Son of ‘man’ is in reality Jesus Son of ‘Human’ with anthropos always being used, rather than the gender specific aner).
By comparison, 1 Cor 11: 8, 9 do use gender specific terms for Adam, but that is very logical since it is in the context of a discussion regarding ‘dress codes’ for men and women, nothing to do with Adam (“the maleâ€) bringing sin into the world.
The quote you use from 1Timothy 2:14: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgressionâ€, simply states the case that Adam was not deceived. Gender is indeed in view in the context of 1 Tim 2:11-15, but I don’t see Paul using the verse to highlight Adam as a ‘male’ bringing sin into the world – just an illustration by Paul as to why ‘a (specific?) woman’, who is arguably in deception herself like Eve, should not teach in Ephesus.

Question:
Can you pls clearly show me how Scripture highlights the ‘maleness’ of Adam in relation to his “rebellious†sin which led humanity to our fallen state?

2) Comments:
Cheryl I am not sure how watertight the use of “he†in Gen 3:15 is for your argument… (My Greek is better than my Hebrew!) I do believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God. Yes Father knew that the Christ would be male, cos he knows everything from beginning to end. But does the ‘grammar’ itself really emphasise that the Messiah would be male through this one pronoun? If there was going to be a choice between a female or male personal pronoun (“it†for the Messiah surely would not have been appropriate?!) then surely in the patriarchal society in which the scriptures were written, “He†would have been the obvious choice. I am not saying that God allows culture to ‘dictate’ his Word… just that the Hebrew (and Greek) language had to specify gender in the pronoun and by ‘default’ it would always be ‘he’ unless God very specifically wanted it otherwise. This is the case time and time again where various male pronouns are used to represent all people…eg 2 Peter 3:9 the indefinite masculine plural pronoun τινας is used in reference to God not wanting “anyone†to perish.

There certainly are other ‘male’ terms used in the Scriptures that refer to the Messiah in a male sense – eg “Prince†(not Princess!) of Peace and Everlasting “Father†(Is 9:6). I am sure there would be others? Mind you do if these are metaphorical I am not sure again how much they ‘prove’ the promised gender of the Messiah.

Question:
I am not saying your argument that the Messiah had to be a ‘male’ is wrong. Just that I am not clearly (yet) convinced by the Scriptural references you have used to support it. Can you help me further?

Warm regards
Kerryn