Update: All of my Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? DVDs are available for downloading or viewing online here.
The DVDs also include audio bytes from those who disagree with women in ministry and we break down the arguments and compare the arguments to the Scriptures.
The 4 DVDs are broken up into scriptural passages as follows: …
It seems that everywhere we look these days, complementarian men are quoting the act of creation as God’s intention to put the women underneath the rule of the man. They are also quick to note that there are two different kinds of rulership of the male. The first kind of male rule is that of an autocrat, tyrant or despot who rules in spite of the woman’s own will or intention. This kind of rule, they say, is not what is taught by Christian men. The second kind of rulership is described by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as headship and this is defined as “two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (pg 95 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem). The difference between the two rulerships is that one allows the man to rule the woman for his own benefit and the other rulership has the man ruling the woman for the benefit of God as a God-ordained spiritual leader.
Let’s unpack this down to the presuppositions that are required to form the foundation of the God-ordained male rule. This post will consider the first two claims of male-only rule: …
CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) has set itself up as a go-to organization for those complementarians who have not been able to figure out from the Bible which things are allowable for women and which things are not. But does their counsel exceed the Bible? I would like to present the evidence and then let you decide.
In a sermon preached by J Ligon Duncan III and reproduced on CBMW’s website, Ligon Duncan writes that the “teaching office” of the Church is restricted to men. But what is the “teaching office” of the church? According to Ligon, the “teaching office” is the ministry of preaching and teaching in the church that is undeniably “vested in the men who serve as the elders of the church.” So the on-going preaching and teaching to the body of Christ is to be done by men. The problem really gets sticky for complementarians when it comes to women teaching other women. …
The question has come up on this blog about whether Adam had a sin nature at the fall that would have been passed on to all of us, and if this is an issue that is important regarding women in ministry. After all, we need to know why it is that only Adam would bring sin into the world and if all of us have something “hanging” onto us from just on man, why is that? We need to know why sin didn’t come into the world through the woman. Is this because she was “under” the man so that anything she did was not placed on her account but on his account? These questions and more will be answered in this post. …
In our continuing topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam’s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve.
In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr headship is defined as a right that the man possesses to lead women in a God-glorifying direction. Ortlund writes:
First, the issue is framed in terms of “equal rights.” That sounds noble, but does God really grant husbands and wives equal rights in an unqualified sense? Surely God confers upon them equal worth as His image-bearers. But does a wife possess under God all the rights that her husband has in an unqualified sense? As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. Under God, a wife may not compete for that primary responsibility. It is her husband’s just because he is the husband, by the wise decree of God. The ideal of “equal rights” in an unqualified sense is not Biblical.
According to Ortlund’s definition of head, women are not allowed by God to have any part in “competing” with men for the responsibility of leading. This is where the idea comes from that Eve sinned against Adam by taking a leading position. According to this complementarian thinking Eve usurped Adam’s authority and his responsibility to lead the relationship. But is this Biblical fact or complementarian fiction? The only way that we will know is to test this truth claim by the Scriptures.
Is there any Biblical text that gives rules and regulations for Eve regarding who she can talk to? Are there also any Biblical texts that show that Eve could not make any decisions on her own without consulting with her husband?
In our discussions on Genesis, there has been one puzzling question. If Adam alone sinned willfully and the woman fell into sin through deception, then why did God punish Eve so severely for her sin?
I would like to propose that we have had a misunderstanding of what happened when God dealt with Adam, the woman, and the serpent. There are only two acts by God that deal with guilt and curses and not three as tradition has taught us. Let’s look carefully at the passage. First of all, let’s look at how God dealt with the serpent:
Genesis 3:14 (NASB) The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;
God speaks of blame by saying “Because you have done this…” and the result of the blame to the serpent is a curse. It isn’t a guess that God cursed the serpent because the inspired text says “cursed are you…”
Adam is also blamed by God in a very similar way:
Genesis 3:17 (NASB) Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
Notice again that God says “Because you have…” This is God’s blame and with the blame brings a curse. “Cursed is the ground because of you.” The “you” here is singular masculine, and the ground was cursed because of only one man’s sin. …
The November 17, 2009 CBMW blog post by John Starke that we started to evaluate last post, is an amazing “piece of work” that exalts the 17th century writings of a Puritan named Richard Baxter who attempts to put women in their place. Starke continues to summarize Baxter’s writings:
2. Discontentment. There is something about the sinful heart that is always wanting something other than the place in which God has placed him or her. When something other than God is the desire of the heart, it begins to desire more than the portion granted. The sinful cravings of the heart are deceitful and can justify sin or can explain away divine instruction. Baxter’s appeal to wives is to find your contentment and treasure in Christ and you will recognize the joy in resting in his purposes. (emphasis is mine).
In a recent CBMW blog article, John Starke recounts Richard Baxter’s instructions for the Christian family. (Richard Baxter was a 17th century Puritan). Starke writes:
It is important to realize, when reading Baxter and the Puritans, that there was no guarded language when speaking of how the Christian household ought to look like. They simply assumed the clear, biblical teaching of a husband’s authority in the family and a wife’s joyful submission. So then, at one level, Baxter’s direction for women wouldn’t sound too different than John Piper’s or Wayne Grudem’s.
However, Baxter, in a way that Puritans are known for, approaches the heart of the wife. What would cause a wife to rebel against the biblical mandate to follow the leadership of the husband? Baxter gives a few reasons:
1. Failure to believe God’s will is best. God’s design for the Christian family, which includes the structure of authority and submission, is best! God is wise and we, as sinners, need divine wisdom. He writes, “Who are you to assess God’s Word in a way different than his own qualifications.” What Baxter means is, we are to allow God?s Word to explain itself in its own terms. We must not explain away difficult, but clear, instruction. As Christians, we must trust God’s counsel for the home. Failure to trust God’s will can only bring turmoil and unrest.
According to Baxter, we as sinners need divine wisdom. And where does that wisdom reside? The wisdom for the wife and for the home apparently resides in the husband who exercises God’s will through the man’s own authority. Is this really the “clear” teaching of God’s word? Let’s test this by the Word of God in Proverbs 31. In verse 10 we see what is defined as an “excellent wife”. Let’s consider verses 10-12:
Prov 31:10 An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels.
Prov 31:11 The heart of her husband trusts in her, And he will have no lack of gain.
Prov 31:12 She does him good and not evil All the days of her life.
Instead of setting the wife up as one who finds divine wisdom alone in the man, these verses show that it is her husband’s heart that finds trust in her. Notice that it doesn’t say that her husband takes authority over her or that she has no wisdom from God on her own. Proverbs lists her as a woman who is wise and who uses her wisdom to do good for him.
Was it Adam alone who brought sin into the world? Was it Adam alone who was kicked out of the garden?
These are some of the issues about “Adam alone” that have brought some lively discussion on another post at https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/11/12/mark-head-as-authority/ and since the comments are now at 446, I am going to move our discussion over to this post so that we can continue with what will likely be many more passionate arguments and comments here. For those want to follow the original source of the discussion that pertains to this new post, the comments from #238 and on at the above link start the movement towards questions and comments about “only Adam” and these thoughts are important for what will continue here on this post.
Recently, I had a woman write me who was troubled by some Bible texts that seemed to indicate that God preferred men. I felt that the questions she posed and the answers I provided might help other women who also have been troubled by these same questions.
Question: I have been struggling with a question for the past several weeks. Do I as a woman, have less worth in God’s eyes than a man does? Given that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law…I was (and still am) struggling with several scriptures where women are concerned and the seemingly “double-standard.” I could not fathom why in Leviticus there is a law that states that women who give birth to male children would only be unclean for 33 days, but if they give birth to female children, they would be unclean for 66 days. …
I have just uploaded onto youtube 6 approximately 10-minute clips from my 2006 talk in Pennsylvania at the Witnesses Now for Jesus Conference. I have added the videos below.
The first clip includes the testimony of Lorri MacGregor who is a former Jehovah’s Witness who God called into ministry after she left the Watchtower. She had a huge struggle with God because of her belief that women could not be teachers. The talk is called Jehovah’s Women on Trial – are you ready to be challenged? It is a simulated court case against two Biblical women using the charges against them by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. You will likely see a lot of similarities in the charges because they can also be found in complementarian churches. I trust that many people will be challenged to start to think outside of the box because of these clips. This will be the post where we can discuss the clips.
Those who argue for the permanent subordination of women will frequently use the argument that Adam named the animals and that this showed his unique “role” given to him by God.
In a CBMW article written by Bruce Ware, Dr. Ware makes it clear that Adam was given authority in the beginning of creation that the woman was not given.
Under the heading B. Fallen Disruption of God’s Created Design, Dr. Ware states that there is an authority given to Adam at creation that is not given to Eve.
Gen. 3:15-16 informs us that the male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation…
What authority is Ware talking about? Both the man and the woman were explicitly given the rule over animals in Genesis chapter one. However Ware believes that no one knows how Eve was going to rule, but Adam was special, and as the designated ruler of the world he had the right to rule by naming the animals. Ware writes:
One of the most bizarre teachings of CBMW is the one taught in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in chapter 3 written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. Here Mr. Ortlund states that God pronounced the death sentence on Adam alone so that Eve died not because she ate of the forbidden fruit. According to Ortlund she died because of Adam’s sin. On page 110, Mr. Ortlund writes:
The fourth point here is that God told Adam alone that he would die. But Eve died, too. Why then did God pronounce the death sentence on Adam alone? Because, as the head goes, so goes the member. [emphasis mine] …
In an interesting blog post on Pyromaniacs the February 10th post, author Dan Phillips tries to link the rebellion of King Uzziah and his punishment of leprosy with the “unfaithful” act of women who apparently are committing treachery against God by becoming pastors. Is this really true? Are women pastors committing treachery against God? First let’s look at Dan Phillip’s article to see how he equates women pastors with illegally burning incense on the altar. Taking the opposing view for effect he says:
Surely King Uzziah had every bit as much right to burn incense on the altar as… well, as women have to be pastors in our day!
No matter how wonderful it (women pastors) looks, treachery is still treachery. …
The creation account has been used by many as a foundation to produce myths and stories. While this post will concentrate on modern day myths, it is also helpful to understand some of the historical myths about the creation of male and female.
One of the myths of creation comes from Plato where the androgynous sex existed as what humans were in the beginning. Here is the edited speech at the Banquet by Aristophanes (189e-193b of Plato’s Symposium):
“Anciently….the androgynous sex existed…coupled back to back…till jealous Jupiter divided then vertically …as people cut eggs with hairs…after then, these divided and imperfect folk ran about over the earth ever seeking their lost halves to be joined to them again…and the reason being that human nature was originally one, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love…..”
Another version is concerning Hermaphroditos who was a Greek androgynous deity. …
Was the first man needed to give woman her self-understanding? According to Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, the answer is yes.
Ortlund has written chapter three of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood CBMW’s book. In this chapter, Ortlund says:
In designating her “Woman” the man interprets her identity in relation to himself. Out of his own intuitive comprehension of who she is, he interprets her as feminine, unlike himself, and yet as his counterpart and equal. Indeed, he sees in her his very own flesh. And he interprets the woman not only for his own understanding of her, but also for her self-understanding. God did not explain to the woman who she was in relation to the man, although He could have done so. He allowed Adam to define the woman, in keeping with Adam’s headship. (emphasis mine)
Let me ask a couple of questions. Who explained to the man who he himself was for his own self-understanding? …
In our discussion of CBMW’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, continuing on in chapter 3 in the writings of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Mr. Ortlund redefines the creation account in such a way that God’s creation of the male first is said to be necessary in order that the nature of the male and female is not obscured. Ortlund writes on page 102:
God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear. (emphasis is mine)
Ortlund’s presumption here is quite clear from this chapter. God made man first, according to Ortlund, to show that woman-
…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.
and
A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)
In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, chapter 3 is written by Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. and called “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3” but honestly, I think it could be retitled “The Emperor has no clothes” a thoughtful comment from a child in the fairytale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes“. This chapter in CBMW’s book is one of the most fanciful reworking of the Genesis account that I have ever seen. Take for example the reworking of sin to be “operating on Eve’s mind” even before sin entered the world.
On page 106 Ortlund writes:
Eve hadn’t even known that there was a “problem”. But the Serpent’s prejudiced question unsettles her. It knocks her back on her heels. And so the Serpent engages Eve in a reevaluation of her life on his terms. She begins to feel that God’s command, which Adam had shared with her has to be defended…Eve’s misquote reduces the lavish generosity of God’s word to the level of mere, perhaps grudging, permission…
After the words “which Adam had shared with her”, Ortlund inserts a note number 39 and the end notes from chapter 3 note 39 reads: …
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and on page 73, John Piper and Wayne Grudem write that Adam was ordained as the one responsible for the life of the garden. The reference is in response to a quote from 1 Timothy 2:14 where Adam is said to have not been deceived. Some take this as a proof that women are more gullible than men and easier to deceive, but Grudem and Piper say that this is not so. Instead, CBMW brings a new meaning to “not deceived”. They say “not deceived” means that Adam was not approached by the deceiver. They write:
If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this: “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”
Since when does “not deceived” mean that you must have a direct interaction with the deceiver? …
The story of Deborah and Barak in the book of Judges has caused many hierarchists to assign the God-given work of judge delivering the people of Israel to Barak while denying that God raised up Deborah as a deliverer. By assigning a calling to Barak that scripture never assigns, it appears that the example of Deborah and Barak is a clear example of reading into the text the tradition of men and failing to identify in the text God’s own inspired words which give the calling to Deborah. In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s (CBMW) Journal article, Barbara K. Mouser writes concerning Barak:
Barak is a weak man who does the will of God when paired with a righteous and wise woman. He does the job of deliverer-judge, makes the roll call of faith, but suffers a loss of glory because of his lack of zeal and obedience.
Barbara Mouser also denies that Deborah is a God-given judge who is raised up by God to deliver Israel:
Deborah is Not a Judge
She is not a judge in the sense that the book of Judges defines a judge; she is not a military deliverer.17 Rather she is a prophetess, and as a prophetess, she commands and exhorts Barak with God’s own words and authority.
The amount of “reading into” the text is astounding in this article. For example, where is Barak said in scripture to be “raised up” by God as a judge? Barak is never called a judge but Deborah is and Judges chapter 2 makes it very clear that all the judges were raised up by God.
Judges 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.
The raising up must include all of the judges and in this account of deliverance it is only Deborah that is identified as a judge, not Barak.
Next the CBMW article identifies women as a sign of degeneracy:
Isaiah tells us that the rule of women is a sign of degeneracy, not liberation (Isa 3:12).
It is very common for hierarchists to explain away Deborah’s position as Judge in the nation of Israel as merely a judgment by God.
The men in Deborah’s day were very weak and cowardly. This is seen in the fact that Barak, the captain of the armies of Israel, refused to go into battle unless Deborah went with him. The woman had to remind him that God had said it is time to fight; the woman had to encourage and challenge him to go; yea, the woman had to go with him!
Obviously it was a period in Israel’s history during which God could find no man to do His will, so He used a brave, willing woman. We can praise God for women like Deborah who are willing to be strong when the men are weak.
In general the leaders are weak and seem entirely lacking even in common sense. They cannot control their little children and women rule over them (compare Is. 3:12). This is God’s judgment because of the apostate condition of professing Christians.
Is it really true that women ruling the nation represent God’s judgment? The only way that we can know for sure is to see what God had to say. Several nations were used by God as a judgment against Israel and their sin. The thing that we can notice in all of the cases of judgment is that the nation who was used as a judgment by God against Israel always hurt and destroyed Israel. Israel was taken captive many times and this was God’s judgment. But what about Deborah? Was she used by God to punish Israel and hurt Israel or was she one of the many godly Judges that God raised up and sent to deliver Israel?
Judges 2:16 Then the LORD raised up judges who delivered them from the hands of those who plundered them.
Judges 2:18 When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them.
The Judges were all sent to deliver Israel from their enemies. This means that it was impossible for Deborah to be a judgment against Israel when she was sent to deliver Israel. …
In our continuing discussions on the fall of man we have dealt with the issue of Adam as guardian of the garden and the charge against Eve that she added to God’s word. In this post I will deal with the position that Eve did not sin by adding to God’s word but she was merely mistaken regarding what God said.
Let’s start with a question. If Eve was mistaken, what caused her to be mistaken? Let’s consider the options.
1. Adam heard the command from God but he added to God’s word when he told the woman that God said “You (plural) shall not eat from it or touch it…” Eve was mistaken because Adam lied to her.
Is this a viable option?
If it was Adam who added to God’s word, then it was Adam who sinned in this way in addition to eating the fruit. If this is true, we can ask the very same questions as we did when we considered if the woman added to God’s word. How can we charge Adam with this sin if there is no charge of adding to God’s words in the text? Who is a witness against Adam? Did God say anything about this sin to Adam? No he didn’t but he should have reproved him if Adam was guilty. …
In our continuing discussion about the fall of man, we have seen that there are no witnesses and no charge of sin against Eve for adding to God’s word. Therefore we must conclude without any charge of sin, that the woman did not add to God’s word. Can the same be said about Adam regarding his charge to guard the garden? Is there also no witness to Adam’s “sin”? Let’s have a look at the scriptural account.
In Genesis 2:15 we find out why God put Adam in the garden in the first place. Remember that man was made outside the garden and then brought into the newly planted Garden of Eden to cultivate it and guard it. The Hebrew word “shamar” means to guard or to protect. Obviously if a garden needs to be guarded and God set forth a watchman over the garden, there was a need for protection. Let’s move on to God’s interaction with Adam to see what we can learn from God’s words.
Genesis 3:9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”
In the Hebrew it clearly shows that the LORD God is calling out to the singular man not to both Adam and Eve. Here we can see God calling out to the watchman. What is God’s appointed watchman doing? The watchman is hiding. Will this watchman be called to account? …
In the last article we saw that God gave additional information to Adam and his wife regarding what they were allowed to eat and God gave freedom for them to be fruit inspectors as he gave them a test to know what was good food. In another post we will talk more about Eve’s words to the serpent and what happened that caused her to change her method of testing fruit.
In this article we will be discussing God’s requirements for Adam as watchman and the reason why God held Adam accountable for bringing sin and decay into the world. In Genesis 2:15 God sets up Adam as the very first watchman of the garden of Eve. God said:
Genesis 2:15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
The Hebrew word translated as “keep” is “shamar” which means guard or protect as a watchman or doorkeeper.
Darby’s translation renders Genesis 2:15 this way:
(Darby) Genesis 2:15 And Jehovah Elohim took Man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to till it and to guard it.
In my last post I showed how in Genesis 1:29 God spoke to both the man and the woman directly and told them both what they were given permission to eat. This effectively destroys the argument that Adam was the one delegated to give direction to the woman regarding what she could and couldn’t eat. God did not delegate this important instruction but took the initiative to make sure that the woman also knew from his own mouth what was permitted. In the permission given in Genesis 1:29, God said that they could eat from two different categories of food. The first category was an addition to what God had previously told Adam. God added permission to eat the plants of the field that yielded seed. The second category of food was the qualification which added the information that they could eat from every tree that had fruit yielding seed. This was additional information given to both the man and the woman but not given by God to Adam alone when God first created Adam. God had not stated at that time any information about the seed bearing fruit neither did he say anything about permission to eat from seed bearing plants. Thus more information about permissible food was given at a subsequent time and God saw no problem in repeating himself or adding additional information. The permission given by God in chapter one in essence made the woman a fruit inspector. She was to inspect the fruit to see if it qualified as good food permissible to eat.
Now let’s explore this further and look at what transpired in Genesis chapter 3.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
One’s world view can cause one to have presuppositions that bring set patterns of reasoning that have nothing to do with the text of scripture. One of these areas is with Eve’s relationship with God and whether God placed the man in charge of her basic knowledge. Some think that God created the woman to be led by Adam so that Adam was given the responsibility to tell the woman God’s prohibition. Hierarchists (or complementarians as many call them) start with the world view that God gave Adam authority over the woman and this gets factored into their view. Let’s take one step away from our presuppositions and look at a question that many have not pondered before. The question is “Who instructed the woman on what she could eat”? Note this is not a question on what she could not eat, but regarding what she could eat.
So who instructed the woman on her diet? Was it God or was it Adam? Hierarchists normally assume that it was Adam. After all if God gave Adam authority over his wife, instructing her on the things that God had already spoken to Adam about, would seem to be obvious. But rather than assuming things, why don’t we look at scripture to see what God has revealed? …
Recently I received a request to post my ideas on why Adam chose to sin when he was not deceived. The writer went on to ask:
“Could it have been intentional (prophetically typical of Christ), and as sacrificially paying the cost to be with his beloved. Paul also then confirming that the redemption from that sacrificial love would ultimately come from progeny through their union? What were Adam’s choices? Would God have cast her out, and taken another of Adam’s ribs for Eve number 2? Would that have been the end to humanity?
Also—if Adam (even the first Adam) is a type of Christ, that puts Eve as the type of the Church, which is both male and female.”
There are a lot of questions here that deserve to be answered in a thoughtful and biblical way. I have heard pastors preach that Adam ate the fruit because he was acting in a sacrificial way to be with his wife. She had already sinned by eating first and so it is said that he lovingly stands by her side and chooses to die with her.
While this view of the events is very romantic and sounds good as a story, it has a problem in matching up with the actual facts recorded for our benefit. (1 Corinthians 10:11) Let’s start with what we know for sure and move to what we can rightly surmise from the events.
1. We know that Adam was with Eve while she was being deceived. (Genesis 3:6)
2. We know that Adam was not deceived. (1 Timothy 2:14)
3. We know that Adam did not take the blame for his wife or try to shield her from God’s charge. Instead of fighting for Eve, he blamed Eve for his own sin (Genesis 3:12)
4. God charges Adam with dealing treacherously with him and thus deliberately transgressing the covenant with God. (Hosea 6:7)
So here are the questions that we need to ask – if Adam ate the fruit because of his great love for his wife…
1. how come Adam waited until after she ate the fruit before he “gave himself up” for her?
2. how come Adam didn’t try to protect her from God’s anger and judgment?
3. how come Adam wasn’t showing his loving protection of her when he answered God by passing the blame on to Eve?
What the facts show is that Adam failed to show his love for his wife while she was being tempted. The facts also show that Adam was not deceived so he ate the fruit with his eyes wide open. Adam sinned without being deceived so his sin was deliberately disobeying God. Not only did Adam deliberately disobey God, but he did not give himself to save his wife before she ate the fruit. Unfortunately the facts show that Adam ate the fruit for reasons other than his sacrificial love for his wife. Adam’s sacrificial love would have been shown if he would have sacrificially saved Eve by bringing her out of her deception. That did not happen.
Is Adam considered a prophetic symbol of Christ, dying for his bride? No, not at all. Adam did not warn his bride about sin. Christ not only warned his bride but he died to save her from her sin. Only Jesus Christ sacrificed himself as a true godly husband. Where Adam failed his bride, Jesus did not. This next question brings up one of the most important truths of our Christian faith:
“Paul also then confirming that the redemption from that sacrificial love would ultimately come from progeny through their union?”
The truth is that the progeny that saved mankind did not come from the man or his union with the woman. The Messiah was promised to come through the woman alone. The Messiah was not to be tainted by the inherited sin of rebellion and God accomplished through the woman’s seed the destruction of the destroyer himself.
The Messiah is the only picture of the perfect husband. His sacrificial love for us was the true love story and Adam does not qualify to be a foreshadowing of Christ. The first Adam lost it all. The last Adam bought it all back. Adam was not a type of Christ, but Christ is a type of Adam. Christ became the “last” Adam, the one who lived a completely sinless life and was the one who did not abandon his wife but sacrificed for his own bride.
“What were Adam’s choices? Would God have cast her out…?”
God did not cast Eve out when Adam sinned with her. God knew that Eve was deceived and so he extended mercy to her. God judges the intentions of our heart and Eve was not in rebellion when she sinned. Eve fell into sin through deception (1 Timothy 2:14). Being kicked out of the garden was not the original punishment for sin. The punishment was death not removing their garden home. The reason that Adam was kicked out was his rebellion. He had already sinned once by disobeying God’s commandment with his eyes wide open. Would he refuse to listen again when God now withholds the tree of life from them? The fact that God kicks Adam out of the garden shows that God knew what was in Adam’s heart.
The next question is an interesting question.
“Would God have cast her out, and taken another of Adam’s ribs for Eve number 2? Would that have been the end to humanity?”
Adam and Eve both needed a Savior. God promised the Messiah through the woman. Eve did not have to leave the garden with Adam for the Savior to come. After all did Mary need to have a man to become pregnant with the Messiah? No. The promise of the Messiah was through a woman alone. If Eve had stayed in the garden, the Messiah could have come through her without the aid of any man. Eve left the garden not because she needed Adam to have the promised Messiah. She left because she wanted to be with her husband. There was no need for another Eve to be created. God knew that Eve would leave the garden with her husband because he prophesied that her desire (or turning) would be to her husband. He also prophesied that the man would rule over her. I believe that it is fairly clear that Eve left the garden because she wanted to be with her husband and he took his sinful rule over her by demanding that she come with him.
“Also—if Adam (even the first Adam) is a type of Christ, that puts Eve as the type of the Church, which is both male and female.”
Yes, men and women are all part of the “bride” of Christ. Men need to learn how to be part of that “bride” just as women need to learn how to be “sons” of God. All of us can learn from each other. Men need to learn how to submit as well and women also need to learn how to be “warriors” of the faith.
This is the third response to the article by Matt Slick called “Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority“.
The last two responses we have discussed Adam naming the animals Was Authority Withheld from Eve? and Adam’s identifying Eve as “woman”. Special authority to Adam – was it given by God?
Today I am responding to Slick’s comments regarding the naming of “Eve”. Slick writes:
Also, “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living,” (Gen. 3:20). As God called the light day and the darkness night, so Adam called Eve woman.
This is part two of the response to an article by Matt Slick of CARM called “Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority” found here.
Since Matt Slick has claimed that he has refuted my arguments on women in ministry, it is only fair for me to provide information that will show how his arguments are invalid and his “refutation” needs a whole lot more work. 😆
In Matt’s article he states that Adam expressed dominance over Eve. Matt writes:
But, since we see Adam expressing his dominance over the animals by naming them and we see that Adam names Eve, we can then conclude that Adam’s expressed dominance over Eve by his calling her ‘woman’ before the Fall and ‘Eve’ after it. Remember, as God brought the animals to Adam, he also brought Eve to Adam.
There are several questions that must be asked here and the answers to these questions will be very eye opening. The first question is, who gave Adam authority over Eve? The second question is, for what reason did God bring Eve to Adam? If I could take liberties to answer these questions for Matt, I think his answer would be that Adam’s authority over Eve was not explicitly given by God but implicitly given because of Adam’s actions. I also believe his answer to the second question would be that God brought Eve to Adam just as he brought the animals to Adam, for Adam to name her.
Let’s examine each of these questions and look at the text itself for the answers. Let’s also ask a question that goes back even further. Who gave Adam authority over the animals and did Eve also have equal authority over the animals? The answer will be found in Genesis chapter 1.
Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
God explicitly said to them (plural) that they were to subdue the earth and rule over the fish, the birds and over every living thing that moves on the earth. The command is not for the earth to be in subjection to Adam and Eve, but for Adam and Eve to subject the earth to their rule. The Hebrew word for “rule” used here according to The Complete WordStudy Dictionary by Zhodiates means to exercise domain over those who are powerless or otherwise under one’s control.
While God gave both Adam and Eve control over the animals, did God give Adam special authority and control over Eve? Did God give Adam the authority to exercise domain over Eve just as he had given them the command to exercise domain over the animals? Wouldn’t it appear odd that God would give explicit authority to exercise domain over the animals but only implicit authority for the man to exercise domain over the woman? Wouldn’t this be a failure of God’s to explicitly delegate authority so that we have to guess this is what he intended? It is my contention that God said what he meant and meant what he said. He explicitly delegated authority to both Adam and Eve and there is no explicit delegation of authority to only one of them. The naming of the animals was not a special act of authority to Adam. It was merely the acting out of the command to exercise domain over the animals. Eve, of course could not act out her domain over the animals at the time since she had not yet been created.
So now, let’s have a look at the creation of Eve. There is no doubt that Adam was aware that there would be a mate created for him since God said:
Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
So while God said “I will make…” he then went on to make or form the animals from the ground and bring them to Adam. Adam was able to verify the nature of each animal by naming it and he was also able to verify that each animal created was unsuitable for him. God had said that Adam’s “helper” (one who gives aid or assistance) would be one “in front of him” or “facing him”. None of the animals qualified as one who would give Adam aid “facing him”.
Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
We can see from Genesis 2:18 that God had said that he would “make” a “helper” for Adam. In verse 19 he “formed” the animals and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. It is explicitly said that God brought the animals to see what Adam would name them and it is implied from verse 18 that God was allowing Adam to check out God’s creation to see if any of the animals was worthy of being “in front of” Adam as one who “aids” Adam.
Now we come to verse 21 where God brings the solution:
Genesis 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
Genesis 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
It is interesting here to note that God fashioned into an “issah” (woman) the rib (inner chamber, board, side) which he had taken from the man. God called her an “issah” or woman before he even brought her to the man. Why? It is because she was taken from the inner chamber or side of the man.
Genesis 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
The Hebrew literally reads “And saying is the human, This was once bone of my bones and flesh from my flesh. This shall be called woman, for from her man is this taken.”
The question we need to ask is this – does Adam’s identifying her as “woman” mean that he is taking dominion over her? Or does identifying her as “woman” mean that he is identifying her nature as equal to his – flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone? There is nothing in the text that says that God gave Adam authority over her. There is nothing in the text that says that Adam was taking his domain over her. The very next verse explains the significance of Adam’s identification of her nature. Genesis 2:24 says:
Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
It says “For this reason…” For what reason? Eve’s identification by Adam as “woman” because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is for the reason of joining together the two to become one flesh.
So why did God bring Eve to Adam? God did not bring Eve to Adam for him to take dominion over her. God brought Eve to Adam so that Adam could join himself with her as a one-flesh union. God brought the woman, but the man is the one who is to leave and join himself to her. “Join” means sticking to or clinging to. Adam shows that he is joining with her by identifying her as the one whom he was looking for. She is “the one” whom God said he would “make” that is the one who will provide him with the help that he needs and the one who will be “facing him” as an equal being. God brought Adam his own DNA mate and Adam joined himself to her. Adam did not take authority over her but joined himself to her.
While people like Matt Slick would like to see this beautiful event as merely a hierarchical reign of the man taking his authority over the woman, in reality it is a man identifying what God has already identified as his equal and joining himself together with her accepting her as one with him.
Do you see what has happened here? Those who are hierarchists like Matt Slick are wanting to see rule and authority and reign and subordination in the text. Yet none of these things is either explicit or implicit in the inspired test. What is explicit is the reason given in verse 24. “For this reason….” God says, man will join himself with the woman to become one flesh. Did God bring the woman to the man for him to take authority over her? Or did God bring the woman to the man for him to join himself with her? The real question should be – what does the text say? The text is silent about the man’s authority over the woman. The text is explicit about the man’s joining himself together with the one whom he has agreed with God that she is identified as his corresponding equal – the only one who measures up to being worthy of a one-flesh union with him.
While Matt Slick may think that he has refuted me and proven that the man was given rule over the woman before the fall happened, he is dead wrong and his work is faulty and incomplete. It is time that we get back to the text actually says instead of placing our own presuppositions into the scriptures. Let’s let God be true though every man be found a liar:
Romans 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”
We have only just started the refutation of Matt Slick’s article so much more to come later.
Thoughts?
This article is a response to an article written by Matt Slick of CARM called Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority. The article is found here.
In Mr. Slick’s article, he takes the position that God had different roles for the man and the woman right from the beginning. He says:
“Part of God’s command to Adam to keep the Garden was to name the animals. This was not Eve’s role.”
There are no “roles” mentioned in Genesis and Eve certainly could not have a “role” of naming the animals because she didn’t exist at the time that Adam was given the opportunity to name the animals. God’s purpose was a dual purpose. Not only did Adam get the opportunity to name the animals, but he was given an opportunity to discover that he was the only one without a mate. Every animal had its own mate but he did not have a corresponding mate.
Slick goes on to make a distinction between Eve’s work and Adam’s work. He says:
“She was later made to be a helpmate to Adam and assist him in the calling God had given him, not the other way around. “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake,” (1 Cor. 11:9).”
While Mr. Slick makes only the man to have a distinct calling, saying that the woman was created to “assist” the man in his calling, scripture reveals that they both had the same calling from God.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Both the man and the woman were given the mandate to rule the animals and both were told to fill and subdue the earth. Scripture does not say that it is only the calling of the male but of them both. Being a “helper” is not a lesser position for the woman since this term is used mostly of God himself in the Old Testament. God “helps” those who need his assistance and who cannot do the job on their own. Adam needed his mate to provide what he lacked. Together they worked on the same mandate to rule God’s creation.
Mr. Slick makes naming the animals as a unique act of authority given to Adam alone.
“Adam named the animals. Eve did not. Naming them was his first act of dominion and it is a sign of authority and it was God who brought the animals to Adam so that Adam could accomplish what God had commanded.”
Now if Adam and Eve had both been around and God had kept the job of naming the animals away from Eve, then men like Matt Slick would have a valid point. However scripture does not say that Eve was kept away from an authority that was kept only for Adam. Scripture is clear that the job of naming the animals caused Adam to see his need for a mate. It is only when Adam saw his need did God put Adam to sleep and create his very own mate from his own body. But scripture does not say that if Eve had been around that she would have been kept away from helping Adam in the same mandate as was given to both.
So how can we know that Eve was not without an authority over the animals because of the naming of the animals? We can know that God did not place Eve in a lesser position than Adam because God gave them the exact same mandate in Genesis 1. She was given authority over all of the animals just as Adam was given this authority. We can also know that Eve was not held back from exercising her God-given authority because she was not in existence at the event of the naming of the animals. Think about it this way…if God had brought Adam to a pear tree to introduce him to this fruit before Eve was created, would this prove that God gave only Adam the authority to eat from the pear tree? That would seem a little silly wouldn’t it? Unless God tells us that an authority is withheld from Eve or God shows us that she was held back when both were there and available, we cannot assume something from the text when the text does not say this. This is an argument from silence. If God wanted us to know that Adam had an authority over the animals that she did not, God would have told us.
In the next post we will continue to look at what authority is claimed for the man alone when the woman is finally created.
In the next of Matt Slick’s articles on women in ministry that I will be reviewing is his article called Primogeniture found at http://www.carm.org/womeninministry/primogeniture.htm
Matt gives what he considers to be the meaning of primogeniture:
“Primogeniture, the biblical teaching that the firstborn has preeminence and authority over those that follow in the family.”
I would like to ask where he gets such a definition from the bible? The correct definition of primogeniture from the dictionary is:
Where does it say that the firstborn has authority over those that follow in the family? The bible doesn’t say this and Matt seems to have picked up an error from CBMW that primogeniture is about people having the right to rule others just because they are first born.
While the first one born had the right to the inheritance from the Father, God bypassed man’s system at times to give the rights to one who was not firstborn. For example God calls Ephraim his firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9 even though Ephraim was the second one born and it was Manasseh who was the first one born. Jesus is the ultimate first born and he is called the first born of or over all creation as he is the pre-eminent one because he created all things. However the bible never says that a human creature is given the right to rule others just because he is the first one born.
The issue of primogeniture would not even come into play regarding men and women since Adam was not the first of siblings. Eve was his wife, not his brother. There is no place in Genesis that God gave Adam the right to rule over his wife and it wasn’t until sin entered the world that God told Eve in prophesy that this is what Adam would do to her, but God never said that it was his will nor did he tell Adam to rule Eve. His words were to Eve prophetically, not to Adam as a command or the giving of a right.
Matt’s article fails the test of truth in his effort to prove that God has given man the right to rule over women because man was created first. There is no right in primogeniture to rule over others and Jesus said that lording over others was something that was not to be heard among the followers of Christ. Matt’s article proves that those who seek to dominate and control others will grasp at straws to try to prove biblically their “right” to do so. However Matt’s “proof” of a man’s right to rule has no biblical basis at all.
While we have seen from part one that Adam’s sin was said to have been a deliberate transgression of the covenant and as a result it was a treacherous act against God (Hosea 6:7) where does that leave the seriousness of Eve’s sin?
God has made a dividing line between those sins which come from a deliberate defiance against God and those sins which are done unintentionally. Numbers 15:22, 27, 30, 31 says:
‘But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses… Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering… But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’
If one sins unintentionally, it is still a sin, but there is provision given for grace to cover this sin. 1 Timothy 2:14 says that Eve was deceived and fell into sin unintentionally through that deception.
And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
While some believe that Adam was the representative head of the human race and merely brought sin into the world because he was “head” (i.e. some say he was the covenantal head of humanity) the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin was more serious than Eve’s and it was the seriousness of his sin that brought humanity along with him into inherited sin.
Before we consider the seriousness of Adam’s sin, let’s make sure it was only Adam who brought sin into the world.
Romans 5:18, NASB says:
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men
Who was the one who committed this one transgression? Romans 5:14, 15 NASB: …
If complementarians are right in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, then God must have one completely unique law. This “law” forbidding women from teaching the bible to men is not like any other law in the bible.
All of God’s laws have several things in common. Every law is able to be traced back to its origin in the Old Testament.
All prohibitions that are God’s law written in the New Testament are traceable back to the Old Testament law.
But it is an odd thing about the law about women not teaching men-
It cannot be traced back to the Old Testament. There is no connection there at all! Now isn’t that odd? The 1 Timothy 2 “prohibition” about stopping women from teaching the bible to men is a unique law, the only”law” that cannot be traced back to the Old Testament! …
Q: Isn’t the fact that God only chose men for the Priesthood in the Old Testament proof that God only uses men in leadership? After all the Priesthood is equivalent to the Pastorhood in the church.
A: Although God originally started with only one tribe in Israel for the Priesthood and only the men from that one tribe were eligible, his intention was not for the Priesthood to stay with only one tribe and only the men. In Exodus 19:5-8, God makes a covenant with the nation of Israel. …