A quirky question about Adam

Status
Not open for further replies.

StephenMartyr

Puritan Board Freshman
Hey all!

I was at church today and after the service I had a discussion with someone about Adam that he brought up. Now, I've never heard of this concept / position, and I don't at all go for it, but he heard someone say that when God made Adam he made him gender neutral (something along those lines) and it wasn't until God took a rib out of him and made a woman that he became man. Apparently they said this because "Adam", as in Strong's, says: "From H119: ruddy, that is, a human being...", doesn't mean "man" or "he" but "human being". Needless to say, I was flabbergasted.

There doesn't seem to be a Hebrew word for "he" in regards to Adam. Genesis 2:19 says:

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The word "he" in the English in regards to Adam isn't found in the Hebrew in that verse.

Does anyone have a good solid answer for this nonsense?

Shouldn't have to bring this up...sorry. But need something to pass it along to him.
 
If I recall it is a Medieval Jewish interpretation that has gained some followers lately.
The idea is ludicrous, obviously. Genesis 2 records his creation and his introduction with the animals in order for the problem to be recognized; that there was no helper suitable, or corresponding to him. It implies he had a sex/gender (they are inseparable).
Additionally, the lack of he, highlights he is a man as opposed to a woman. Ish vs isha,in the hebrew so mankind, in the language is so called because the man/male was formed first.
 
Genesis 1:27 would seem to me the most obvious response.

And, of course, 1 Cor. 11:8,9.

There are other angles you could take, though. There are parallels throughout the first chapter of Genesis. Day and night, sun and moon, water and land, man and woman.

Frankly, the position you have encountered is not only not supported by the biblical evidence, but is directly opposed to it.
 
Welcome!

Your friend is mistaken, which can be demonstrably proven with scripture.

Some points to consider:

1. 1 Tim. 2:11-14 says: "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression."

If Adam was gender neutral, creation order would teach us nothing concerning the reasons for limiting church offices to men. In fact, it would be reason for complete egalitarianism in relation to the church offices contra Paul's argument.

2. The first Adam federally represented mankind (Adam = mankind in Hebrew). Mankind also physically was generated from his body. Yet he needed a helper in his threefold offices (prophet, priest and king) since by himself he was insufficient-- even prior to sin. Woman completed what was lacking in man. But if he was neither man or woman, he would not have needed someone to help him since he wasn't-- well-- a man.

"And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man [אָדָם = Adam] should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.'" (Gen. 2:18)

_________

Hopefully this helps. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top