Cheryl

Good day Kerryn (that’s Canadian for gidday!)

Great questions. You said:

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.

I agree. The fact that Adam is male had nothing to do with the reason that he brought sin into the world. In fact these verses in Romans prove that Adam brought sin into the world not because of his maleness or his standing as some kind of special representative of humanity, but because of the sin that he committed. Adam’s sin was different from Eve’s in that their motivation and intention of their sin was completely different. The point that I was trying to emphasize in my original blog article is that the Adam brought sin into the world because of the way he sinned and as a male he passes along his sin nature and males continue to pass along the seed of Adam just as females pass along the seed of Eve.

In Romans 5:12 and 19 Paul is emphasizing that death came through one person just as life came through one person. In this passage Paul is contrasting the person of Adam with the person of Christ. It is not the fact that Adam was male that he brought sin into the world any more than the fact that Christ was male that brought life into the world. It was Christ’s sinless humanity that brought the ultimate sacrifice for our sin. I will be continuing this thought in a blog article that I will be writing shortly called “Is Adam the representative head of the human raceâ€. I think this article will help you follow along with my reasoning. You also said:

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.

Again, I agree. In the 1 Timothy 2 passage Paul is not lifting up males as ones who are not able to be deceived or that females are ones that are by nature the ones who are deceived. Paul is emphasizing that a person who is deceived (as the woman teacher is who is being stopped from teaching) should not be allowed to influence her husband with her deception. Paul is not emphasizing here the maleness of the one who wasn’t deceived, but rather he is drawing a parallel between two similar marital relationships where the husband is allowing the wife to continue on in her deception without doing one thing to help her and he is also allowing her to influence him with that deception.

Then your question:

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?

There are no scriptures that show that the “maleness†of Adam caused his rebellion. Instead scripture shows that the type of sin that Adam committed in his deliberate rebellion caused his rebellious sin to be passed on to us.

Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

The Hebrew word used here means to act covertly, to be unfaithful, to deal deceitfully, to deal treacherously. Adam was not deceived. Adam sinned in an unfaithful, deceitful way towards God. Because of this treacherous act, Adam brought sin into the world.

Think of it this way. It was not who Adam was, but what Adam did that brought sin into the world. It was not his maleness that brought sin into the world, but his treacherous sin against God. Adam sinned willfully with knowledge. Adam rejected God’s word when he knew full well that the serpent was not telling the truth. Adam knew the truth but Adam sinned anyway.

Lastly you asked:

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?

Let me try explaining it this way. Adam’s sin did not come because of his maleness, however because Adam was male and because his sin nature is passed on to all of us through his male offspring, Jesus became male to take on Adam’s original sin and all of our personal sins and to reverse the death sentence passed on to all of us from the first Adam.

The complementarian argument that Adam’s sin was passed on to us because of his maleness is completely wrong. The argument they give is that Eve sinned first but Adam was charged with sin because he was the man. That is not scriptural. It was not the maleness of Adam that brought sin into the world, but the way he sinned. Yet while all of us have become tainted by Adam’s sin, only the males physically pass on the seed of Adam and that seed has been tainted through and through with the sin nature. Again more information will follow in my article called “Is Adam the representative of the human race?â€

Once again, great questions and keep up the good work of being a Bible Berean!

Warmly,

Cheryl