Cheryl Schatz

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.