Cheryl Schatz

Susanna,
You said:

He is given the name because he was made of ‘adamah (ground) just as Eve is named Chawah (from chay) because she was to become the mother of all living.

Then could you explain to me if you understand that only Adam was made from the ground, why you believe that Eve is part of “the Adam” in Gen. 3:22-24 when the one who is spoken of is said to be sent out to till the ground that he was made from? Where is Eve in this? What isn’t it plural and why isn’t Eve said to be sent out to till the ground that Adam was made from? Do you see how this causes problems to your view?

If ha’adam refers only to the man in Gen 3.22-4.1, then only the first man was created to till (‘abad) the land because he was taken from the ground (ha’adamah), and women are excluded from farming.

The hard work was a punishment because of the curse on the earth. It doesn’t mean that the woman cannot work with the soil but that the primary hard work dealing with the curse that he caused was put onto the man not the woman.

According to Gen 2 it was humankind in itself that was created specifically to till or care for the land, not only the first man since the reason for the creation of the human was that there was not yet a human who would care for the land. In Gen 4:2 we find that Cain was a farmer.

While this may be correct in the original perfect and weedless earth, the place of hard work amongst the weeds was specifically only forced upon the man.

You said:

To summarize: to create a distinction between Gen 1.26 and 1.27 one must begin with Gen 2, for the text itself does not create such a distinction since both ‘adam and ha’adam refer to the same humankind which is being created.

No, I do not agree. To see no distinction between Genesis 1:26 and 27 one must make the singular and plural to be the same thing and this is linguistically in error. I choose to not deny the inspired grammar but to embrace it as correct and work with it as it is. My interpretation must submit to the grammar, not force the grammar to fit into my exegesis by equating a singular pronoun to be the same as a plural one. I think that would be torturing the text and cutting off what it actually says instead of taking the natural grammar as accurate.

This is confirmed by Gen 5, where ‘adam appears with both the singular and plural pronoun.

Genesis 5 has the singular and plural only because it is talking about one person and then two persons. Genesis 5 never makes a singular to be the same as a plural. Rather it is singular + another singular = plural.

Throughout the Old Testament both ‘adam and ha’adam are found with both plural and singular pronouns wherefore it is impossible to argue that ha’adam refers only to the first man in Genesis 1-3 while ‘adam refers to “humankind.”

First of all I am not saying that ha’adam refers only to the first man and I am not saying that ‘adam refers always to mankind. ha’adam can be plural when plural nouns are used and ‘adam can be singular when a single human is meant or when a collective singular unit is meant. I think you are misunderstanding my position and this is why you are having a hard time with this.

If we nevertheless use the argument, we must also allow the comps to use the argument in which God calls humankind collectively a man in Gen 1.27

In Genesis 1:27 the term is “the man” and the definite with the singular pronoun is one man. I would call them to account with the exact grammar as I have with you.

What I would like to know if how God could have written the grammar if He really did only mean one man? How would He have written it differently?

wherefore the man was called to lead; that God gave the commandment only to the man in Gen 2, wherefore a woman is not allowed to teach a man for it is the man’s job to teach the woman; that God called only the man to account in Gen 3 wherefore the woman is not allowed to lead since women are not held accountable, men are; and lastly, that women should follow men even when they are punished for their sin and the women themselves are innocent (since did not Eve set the example of wifely obedience by following Adam?) You may not affirm even one of these, but if you see ha’adam as referring only to the first man in order to expel only the man from the garden, you are left without a defense against complementarian theology.

How did you come to the conclusion that I would have no defense?
1. Man is never called to “lead”
2. God did give the command to Adam before Eve was created but He gave it again once she was created (Gen. 1 & Gen. 3)
3. No command to teach or not teach is in the Genesis account
4. God called both to account for what they each did and neither was called to account for the other person.
5. God didn’t say that Eve “should” follow Adam out of the garden. He only said that she “would”.
6. God did not say that Eve had not sinned or that being deceived made her innocent or that she wouldn’t die for what she did.

I fail to see how you connect the teaching of the comps that they add to the Scripture without a single piece of evidence on their side, to the fact of the Hebrew grammar that God kicked out the one guilty of deliberate treachery who was the only one with the rebellious sin nature. The one who was now a slave to sin was the one who was in danger of re-offending over and over again.

If you on the other hand affirm that ha’adam refers to both the man and the woman when the word is not qualified with words such as “male and female,” or “and his woman,” you leave the comps with nothing to support their theology since they must affirm that God called both the man and the woman “human”; God gave both the man and the woman the commandment (the woman was given the commandment as soon as she was created, just as the man had been given the commandment as soon as he was created) hence both men and women can teach according to ability and gifting; God called both the man and the woman and held them jointly responsible for breaking the commandment; the punishment differed according to intent; both the man and the woman were expelled from the Garden with the comforting words of a future Savior who would come and redeem the world from the consequence of their sin.

So if I exegete Scripture so that the comps don’t have a false security thinking that we agree with them, then I have to attribute to God the charge that He treated the deliberate sinner and the deceived sinner in the same way. I would have to agree that God cursed the earth on her behalf and sent Eve to force her to also work on the cursed earth while having all her babies. Does that not make God to be an unfair dictator who treats all sin the same without a care about the intent of the heart? You may be able to do that, but there is too much in the Scripture that shows that God deals individually and looks on each heart and each motive. I cannot make God out to be unkind, unfair and to place far more on the woman than God said.