I was reading comments written on a recent blog post by Scott Lencke where he discusses the creation of male and female in Gen. 1.26-28. One person commented saying the following:
In 1:26 “man” is without the definate article and there is the plural pronoun so it is used to refer to the race, but in 1:27a it has the definate article and is singular, not collective therefore it speaks only of the first human being that God created. In 1:27b he made them male and female. (This is the same thing that we are told in Genesis 2 when the woman is created, the difference being it is said put in different words) In 1:27b and 1:28 the plural pronoun “them” is being used again because “adam” is again being used to refer to the race, but in 1:27a, it has the defintae article as it is only refering to Adam, the first human being. This is also in line with Gen 2. We know that first there was only one human that was created and then there was two.
There was something about this argument that didn’t seem right to me. Why would the author address the creation of the adam = humanity in v. 26 only to shift it to adam = the first man in v. 27a then back to a discussion about male and female in v. 27b which would be connected to v. 26. It seemed to me that there is a better explanation for why adam in v. 26 is indefinite and adam in v. 27a is definite.
Now I can use help from my more grammatically apt friends out there but I suggest that this is an anaphoric usage of the article. In other words the reason for making adam in v. 27a definite is because it refers back to the same “adam” in v. 26. It is like saying, “The adam that I just mentioned was made in God’s own image”. This seems to me to make better sense than the suggestion that we have humanity as the subject of v. 26, Adam in v. 27a, and humanity against (as male and female) in v. 27b.
Thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian –
Interesting thoughts on why the switch between indefinite and definite. I’ve noticed how Paul switches between plural and singular and then back to plural in the oft-debated passage of 1 Tim 2:8-15. Some think he is speaking out against one particular woman when it turns to singular. I am not sure. I will discuss this soon when I look at the passage.
In the end, I am pretty certain Genesis 1:26-28 lays out one gender as inherently head over the other.
I am not so sure I see how Gen. 1.26-28 says one gender is head over the other. I can think of other passages or the “chronology” of Gen. 2 that would make such an argument plausible but I am pretty sure 1.26-28 doesn’t address the topic. It only says that the human was created in two genders.
Brian –
I agree that Gen 1:26-28 does not teach such. But I think what happens is that people read the statement in 1 Tim 2:13 – For Adam was formed first, then Eve – and combining that with a specific reading of the rest of the 1 Tim 2 passage and then determine that the ‘creation order’ tells us who has leadership-headship amongst the 2 sexes. I’m sure you’ve heard the ‘creation order’ argument. But it seems to come more from 1 Tim 2 than Genesis.
But, if we could by any means take 1 Tim 2:13 and read that back into the ‘creation order’, I think someone would have to build such a case within Gen 2 rather than Gen 1, as we both note Gen 1 by no means teaches who has the lead role. But I still believe neither Gen 1 or Gen 2 teach that men have headship-leadership over women. And I believe that we wrongly read 1 Tim 2.
I agree. I have found I Tim. 2’s argument to make more sense in its interpretation of Genesis 3 if ignorance is the issue and not gender. Eve did not know the commandment of God because Adam had relayed it to Eve incorrectly which is why Eve was ignorant and Adam was the one whom through sin entered the world. In I Tim 2 Paul says the women must sit and learn lest they be like Eve. I think Paul is correcting women who are unlearned who are becoming disruptive, not women because they are women.
Hmm. I think Paul might be correcting one woman in particular. Since he switches from plural to singular and then later back to plural. But in the end, he is correcting woman/women, and that is why they are specifically told to be silent.
You are correct. It may be one particular woman. I will need to reread that passage.
I think it’s very unlikely that one particular woman is in view in either v. 11 or v. 12. If Paul had a particular woman in view, he would almost certainly have used an article in these constructions.
I think it’s also possible that Gen. 1:27 is a generic use of the article distinguish the class of “humanity” from the other classes of created beings. So, Gen. 1:27 indicates that God created the human (class of beings) to be in his image.
I don’t have a Greek text accessible but so I can’t see the shift in number in I Tim 2, but if there is one do you suggest another reason for this?
In gen 1.27 when it says that he created them male and female it means that God created them (man seen as a race in an androgyne form originally (both male and female).
In chapter 2 we see how eve was created from adam. This points out two things:
1 a new race was created from the androgyne race and
2 this new race was separated in two forms: male and female, not just one.
And this is logically why it was written in that way and sequence. It is talking about two different things.
If you want more information why i say this, feel free to contact me.