Adrian Warnock: adamkind
- Mark took us to Genesis 1-3 in order to look at our first father, Adam. The race is named man because men rule humanity. We are made in the image of God.
- Charity said…
- The race is named man because men rule humanity.
What is the basis for this argument?
- Glennsp said…
- That has been answered elsewhere many times Charity and as such why not go over all that material that already exists.
- Suzanne McCarthy said…
- Yes, I too would like to know how the word Adam, which God used to name the human race, means only the male, when in Numbers 31 the word “adam” is used to refer to a group of 32,000 women, exclusively women. At that point Bible translations have to translate Adam as “people”.
In fact, I suspect that Driscoll is quoting from Grudem who once stated that God named the human race Man in Gen. 5:2 and that all translations up until the 80’s had Man/man in this verse.
- I do not think that taken alone my notes of Driscoll's phrase expresses something clearly. He was speaking of the fact that adamkind was named after Adam.
- The quote you included from Driscoll seems clear. Is the race called mankind (with male understanding of man) or humankind? When you say adamkind are you referring to humans or male humans? I appreciate your dilemma here. The Hebrew is clearly referring to all humans whereas complementarianism requires a faulty translation so that adam refers to men. Which side are you on? Scripture or Complementarianism? Can't be both.
- This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man,(A) he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man[a] when they were created. ESV
This is the book of the lineage of Adam. On the day God created the human, in the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name humankind on the day they were created. Alter
Or maybe Driscoll's confusion is due to this piece of writing,
- God gave the human race a name that, like the English word man, can either mean a male human being or can refer to the human race in general.
Does this make a difference? It does give a hint of male leadership, which God suggesting in choosing this name. It is significant that God did not call the human race "Woman."(I am speaking, of course, of Hebrew equivalents to these English words.)
Nor did he give the human race a name such as "humanity", which would have no male connotations and no connections with the man in distinction from the woman. Rather, he called the race "man." Raymond C. Ortlund rightly says, "God's naming of the race 'man' whispers male headship.
If the name man in English (as in Hebrew) did not suggest male leadership or headship in the human race, there would be no objection to using the word man to refer to the huamn race generally today. But it is precisely the hint of male leadership in the word that had led some people to object to this use of the word man and to attempt to substitute other terms instead. Yet it is that same hint of male leadership that makes this precisely the best translation of Gen. 1:27 and 5:2. *
Update: I haven't done this justice without quoting Gen. 1:27
- So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
(A) male and female he created them. ESV
And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God He created him,
male and female He created them. Alter
Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood. 2002. W. Grudem. page 30