sm

Mark,

You write: “I obviously disagree with you that Adam is not the leader in Gen 1-3. You talked about the ‘them’ of Gen 1 and how both genders were to rule the living creatures- I agree.”

By your admission, you are “happy to read into the text” that which is not explicitly there. We all go to the text with presuppositions and must make a conscientious effort to not take those with us or pick them up as we read and study. Knowing the tendency to take our presuppositions with us, my approach to the text is to try to understand the purpose of the particular genre or literary section; to determine the larger intent of the author; to try to hear what the original audience would have heard and understood; to find the general principle, thought, or truth conveyed; to view that through the revelation of God through Jesus Christ trusting in the Holy Spirit which leads to truth; and then try to faithfully apply, when necessary, in the here and now.

I am not able to make the leap based on inference from both genders given dominion over the earth which is explicitly stated and to which you agree, to males being divinely designed to rule over females in a hierarchy, particularly within marriage which is the most glorious and intimate of human relationships. Will you explain how you infer hierarchy from Gen 1:26-27?

You write: “1. ‘Adam’ in the hebrew in Gen 1 is gender inclusive because of the ‘them’ phrases’. However hebrew does not have a ‘neuter’ gender, only masc and fem… – i have an issue with the TNIV for example which uses gender inclusive language as this is clearly NOT being faithful to the inspired words and grammer…. if we are going to be faithful exegetes we should keep the original masc words translated into masc english words, otherwise we are changing the original language and commentating on it, even though i do agree that it is talking inclusively…”

I do not see how “human being” or “humanity” changes anything. I do not see this as being unfaithful to the inspired words or grammar because the spirit of the text or the overall general principle, truth, or message is accurately conveyed. By your own admission “…[you] agree that it is talking inclusively…”

You write: “3. However in Gen 3 when they are banished from the garden, it is again ‘the man’, not ‘man’ (gender inclusive). Should we assume then that only Adam was removed from the Garden- i don’t think so.”

The point that IS clear from this portion of text is that Adam was sent from the Garden, and we read in subsequent verses that Eve did not stay in the Garden. Regardless, I do not see a connection between a hierarchy between a husband and wife and “the man” being addressed and banished from the Garden. That is another leap based on inference I am not able to make.

You write: “Therefore my argument is that to get hung up on the combined function of ruling animals to prove equality and no leadership soley by the gender inclusive language is weak.”

I’m not sure what you mean by “hung up”. I am convinced that male and female both equally bear the image and likeness of God and both share equally in the responsibility to subdue the earth. You have conceded at least twice that this is your interpretation, too. Furthermore, based on what we both agree to be correct understanding of the text as just stated, I am convinced further that there is no hint of hierarchy in Ge 1:26-27 because there is no explicit description of hierarchy or any instruction laying out the parameters of a hierarchy. Even complementarian leaders concede that hierarchy is not explicitly in the text but rather inferred. It is at this point that you infer hierarchy. I would, therefore, disagree that my claim is the weaker.

Moreover, it would be an incorrect assumption that I do not ascribe to hierarchy in marriage based on “gender inclusive language”. I cut my teeth on the KJV with only a Strong’s and most thankfully the Holy Spirit to guide in my understanding.

You write: “So i am happy to read into the text that ‘the man’ was held primarily accountable for the fall and thus is addressed first by God, and is the primary one spoken of in the banishment. You might be big eyed at my claim of ‘reading into’ but in reality we all do.”

No, not really. I understand that much is read into the text; I appreciate your honesty about what you read into the text. (See my first paragraph in this comment.)

You write: “What is Richard Hess’ understanding of God approaching Adam first…
1. Because he was given the injunction not to eat first
2. God has to address them seperably.
Neither of these two options are available from the text and are in fact ‘read into’ also. So please dont jump to the conclusion that the comp is merely again reading into the text”.

I don’t know who Richard Hess is or what his claims are. I don’t think the text explains why Adam was approached first. I don’t think it is relative to the purpose of the creation story in Genesis. You have conceded that comps read into the text. I don’t believe I made the claim.

You write: “…Egals claim that Adam was ‘with’ Eve when she was conversing with the serpent and thus dismiis the notion that Eve strayed from the protection of Adam as reading into the text. Where in Gen 2 is it explicit that Adam was there during the conversation?…”

First, I don’t know exactly what egals claim, but let’s start with the text:

Ge 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise she took of the fruit thereof and did eat and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat…

From Stong’s: “with” means “accompanying” and is also translated “beside” and “together”

Second, Adam having a responsibility to protect Eve, I believe, IS read into the creation story. If Adam had any responsibility to protect Eve, in fairness, Adam would have had to have known he had that responsibility and at the very least that there was a danger (crafty serpent) and the potential for deception. As far as I can tell, all he knew was that all was right with the world, so from what would Eve need protection? Adam was only warned to not eat and was not warned about a crafty serpent or that Eve had the potential to be deceived. Also, Eve would have to have had knowledge of what was required of her—“to stay in close proximity to Adam so as not to stray from his protection.” I see nothing explicitly or implicitly that indicates Adam fail short of a standard for protection and that Eve strayed away from Adam’s supposed protection.