Cheryl Schatz

Paula,

You said:

This is one possible interpretation, but still an interpretation. It is equally possible to interpret “male and female from the beginning” as from the time both a male and a female existed.

Since both the male and female were created on the 6th day and “from the beginning” for humanity began on the 6th day, we can rightfully just accept what God said in Genesis that they were created male and female and Jesus’ words as a second witness. If this is not the truth, then saying there is another interpretation is needs to have a solid basis on fact. I have not seen two witnesses that show that Adam was created either an a-sexual human or a bi-sexual. In fact I haven’t seen any witness at all except for the witness of silence. That isn’t good enough for me because it doesn’t fit with Jesus’ witness. For me, I don’t accept an alternate view that doesn’t have a solid basis in the OT text or Jesus’ interpretation of the OT text nor does the alternate view have acceptance through church history. It does have acceptance in mythology and that raises a red flag for me that I cannot ignore.

To assign meaning to a phrase is to interpret.

I believe that this is why Jesus made the comment that he did. Jesus interpreted the Old Testament Genesis account so that we can be sure that God created them male and female and if it was not so, then Jesus would have told us.

Many, such as Calvinists, insist that certain things are inescapable logically and that we therefor must accept their conclusions.

This is why I refuse to rely solely on logic. The text must state the genesis (beginings) account without relying on silence just as Jesus stated the account without relying on silence of the text.

Likewise, though it looks to you that your conclusion is inescapable, I don’t agree. And that’s okay.

I am glad that you can agree with me that it is okay. I am open to hearing further facts if there is something that I have missed.

Right. But whether this applies to the time there was no female is still not specified by scripture, but is instead a matter of interpretation.

Scripture is not subject to private interpretation. There is no basis in calling a single person “them” and doing so would make the man a God in the category of God himself. Where does scripture ever call a single human “them” or where did Jesus interpret the Old Testament Genesis account as a human unlike other humans? Jesus came as the last Adam. Did Jesus call himself “we” or did the disciples refer to Jesus as “them”? If we make Adam to be in a category that Jesus was not in (other than sin) then it appears to me that we destroy the “last Adam” analogy. Jesus then is an inferior “last Adam” from the original creation of the first Adam who was a multiply person being? I don’t think so. Jesus never gave one piece of credibility to that view and so without evidence I can have no other interpretation.

What about timing? Consider the phrase “slain from the foundation of the world”. If I apply your method I must believe that Jesus was slain when the world was created.

Jesus was both man and God. As man he was slain at a specific point in time. But as God he is not the “I was” but “I AM”. He is outside of time and his “slain from the foundation of the world” is just as much as the “now” as the past and the future is to him. Even before creation God’s plan was to redeem mankind because he both exists in the past, present and future at the same time so that God’s plan was a “done deal” before the world began. “Before the world began” is God’s view of time. There is absolutely no problem with God’s view of time. However the book of Genesis is stated in our view as events in time. “in the beginning” is our view of time and God steps into time to create.

But with Adam before Eve, there are no statements to clarify. Timing does matter.

There is a statement to clarify. It is the testimony of Jesus that “in the beginning” (our view of time) God created them male and female. There is no other testimony, no other second witness from one who was there, other than that and the account stated in Genesis. I choose to believe the one who was there as giving me all the truth I need to know. In the beginning…..God created……male and female.

This same NET also has footnotes that are male supremacist. Point being, they are not infallible, and when experts disagree on a point, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

No one is infallible but their view is not impeached. Please show me the expert in the biblical text that say that Adam was created as a hermaphrodite. I have seen no such “expert” in the biblical text and since no such expert has been appealed to, it is not a logical fallacy.

All I’m saying in all this is that we have to be careful not to mistake an interpretation with what is actually stated, nor argue from silence about Adam’s condition before Eve.

This is my exact point. Jesus is the one who interpreted the Genesis account and another view is an argument from silence.

It all hinges on how one interprets “from the beginning” since that phrase always mentions both male and female, and there was a period of time when no female existed. Again, your interpretation could very well be right; but so could mine.

“in the beginning” for the male is his creation. “in the beginning” for female is her creation. There is not even one iota of proof that “in the beginning” means after original creation to include a complete change of creation for the first man. If we do this to the “first Adam”, what will we do to the “last Adam”?

More importantly, this debate has no bearing on the question of male supremacy.

I would say yes and no. Yes, it doesn’t directly have a bearing on the question of male supremacy. However at the same time if we hold onto a belief in a myth that only has the “proof” from silence and in direct opposition to the testimony of Jesus, then those who have believed in hierarchy but whose hearts truly are open to truth that resides outside of hierarchy, may dismiss everything else we say. They may see through the argument from silence and come to the conclusion that we do not have a solid argument about the equality of men and women. Instead, if we are willing to admit that the position that the first man was either both male and female or an a-sexual being is not verifiable in the text nor does it have a second witness and is not worthy to be a foundation for our view of gender in the rest of scripture, then perhaps they may respect us enough and our love of truth enough to listen to what else we have to say. That is my point and I think it has validity. Anyone else agree?

It has been my habit of testing all things by the scripture and rejecting anything that doesn’t match even if it is an egalitarian view. I am not an egalitarian because it is a world view that I like. I am an egalitarian because it is the view that fits scripture in context with the inspired words and the inspired grammar. Anything that doesn’t fit, I am not willing to hold onto tightly. I can and will reject what isn’t truth. I do not have an emotional hold onto teachings that do not line up with the biblical test for truth. Every judicial and foundational point of doctrine should have at least two or three witnesses.