We have seen that Adam was the legal representative of humanity. For those who see full equality before the fall (egalitarians), at the very least, Adam’s legal-corporate responsibility was different than Eve’s. Therefore, while it is true that Adam and Eve were similar in resemblance, constitution, and relationship, there was not full equality in representational function. We will now look at Adam’s role as representative of his immediate family.
Read MoreLegal representation in scripture
In "Federal headship," we saw that Adam was the legal “representative of the whole human family” (Ellen White, Patriarchs and Prophets 48), and that his fall directly affected the nature of humanity. This point alone negates the egalitarian position of full equality in representation function. While there was ontological equality, Adam’s role as monarch or legal representative, shows that God intended him to fulfill a role different than Eve. Interestingly, the idea of a legal representation is not unique to Adam’s federal role. The concept can be found throughout Scripture.
Read MoreFederal headship
Some scholars have proposed (1) that man and woman were equal before the fall and that there was no “hint of a headship . . . or hierarchical relationship” (2) or that headship is a “new theology ... that permits no compromise or diversity.” (3) In general, those who believe in a pre-fall equivalent role status (4) are referred to as “egalitarians.” (5) One scholar noted “there is nothing in Gen. 2 to indicate a hierarchical view. . . [and] no hint of a headship of one over the other or a hierarchical relationship between husband and wife.” (6) He further proposed that before the fall there was full equality in “resemblance/constitution, in relationship, and in representation/function.” (7) Those who believe in a pre-fall non-equivalent role status are called “complementarians.”
Read More