Page 6

descriptors, because a fundamental patriarchialism (i.e., male headship) was by his own design.
What we see, then, from Haddad`s comment is the connection between rejecting male-headship
as part of the created design of God for the human race, and the natural extension of then
questioning the legitimacy of masculine God-language generally, and along with this questioning
the necessity of the male identity of the Messiah, in particular. 3) How troubling, I would think,
for Haddad`s egalitarianism for God to choose to accommodate himself to sinful patriarchialism
(as she sees it), or, if women had taken power after the fall, to sinful matriarchialism, by sending
the Savior in the gender of the illicit power grabbing gender. Might we not expect an egalitarian
God, rather, to send the Savior in the gender of weakness to overcome this illicit power and to
demonstrate the hierarchy to be sinful and wrong? So to repeat the main point again, Jesus
Christ`s pre-incarnate existence and identity is clearly revealed to be that of the eternal Son of
the Father, and so his becoming incarnate was only appropriately in the form of a man.

Second, our Savior must have been a man, since he came as the Second Adam, the Man

who stands as Head over his new and redeemed race. It is remarkable, as noted above, that
although the woman sinned first in the garden (Gen 3:6), God went first to the man (Gen 3:9),
and clearly he holds the man primarily responsible for the sin of the human race (Rom 5:12-19; 1
Cor 15:21-22). Notice particularly in Rom 5:12-21 the emphasis on one man`s trespass (5:15),
one man`s sin and one trespass (5:16), one man`s trespass and one man (5:17), one
trespass (5:18), and one man`s disobedience (5:19). The woman is conspicuously absent
from the discussion. Although she sinned first, God created man as the responsible leader in this
relationship (cf. 1 Cor. 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:13-15), and God holds him morally culpable for the sin,
by his one act of disobedience, that spreads to the whole human race (Rom 5:12).

And so, the logic of 1 Cor 15:21-22 is clear. As Adam was head over his race, bringing it

bondage and death, so now Christ is head over his race, bringing it liberation and resurrection
life. In light of the background of the sin in the garden, where God holds the first Adam (qua
male) in particular responsible for sin, it is clear now that Christ the second Adam (yes, male
human being, as Adam was the male human of the pair in the garden) brings reclamation and
restoration to what the first Adam had destroyed. So it is that by a man came death, and by a
man has come also the resurrection of the dead. Yes, both first and second Adams are human.
But also essential to a proper biblical understanding is that both are male human beings, not
female.

Third, the Abrahamic covenant requires that the Savior who would come, as the promised

descendant of Abraham, would be a man. Admittedly, it is not clear from the original covenant,
given to Abraham in Genesis 12, that the fulfillment would come through Abraham`s male, and
not female, offspring. No gender specificity is indicated; rather, all we read is that God would
make of Abraham a great nation, and that through him all the families of the earth would be
blessed (Gen 12:2-3). Likewise, the repetition of the covenant in Genesis 15 lacks gender
specificity,

continuing the same language of Genesis 12 of offspring who will come from

Abraham numbering as many as the stars (Gen 15:3-5). Granted, one might conjecture that the
promise to Abraham would be fulfilled through a son, not a daughter, since God has already
established a pattern of highlighting the male line (e.g., Adam, Noah, now Abraham), and since

The ESV translation of Gen 15:4, . . . your very own son shall be your heir, anticipates the promise to Abraham

from Genesis 17, for Gen 15:4 literally is, one from your own loins.