Complementarians, why let women lead Bible studies?

Complementarians, why let women lead Bible studies?

Woman Bible Teacher from Women in Ministry - Cheryl Schatz

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 web site, 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 “ministry of preaching and teaching in the church is undelegatably 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. 

According to Ligon Duncan, the place for women is that of receiving teaching.

Paul is saying that he wants an all male teaching office in the church.  He wants the women to receive that teaching; he wants them to be disciples-that was revolutionary in and of itself in his own day and time-but, he wants the eldership to be the ones who are responsible for doing that teaching.

So what CBMW and Ligon Duncan are doing here is defining a regular teaching ministry as the work of elders alone.  And since they say that elders can only be male, there is no room left for women to be the primary teachers for other women in the church.

Women are not to be the givers of instruction as the church gathers and as the word is authoritatively proclaimed.  They are to receive that instruction and godly men, elders are to be giving that instruction.

Notice here that this is not just about women teaching men, but women teaching anyone.  According to CBMW the “teaching office” of the church is not allowed for women to authoritatively proclaim the Word of God period.  What about a woman who regularly teaches the Word of God to other women in a Bible study or in a Sunday School setting or even a women’s only weekly service?

According to John MacArthur (on CBMW’s Board of Reference) women cannot teach the Bible authoritatively because they are not allowed to have the position of ultimate responsibility of God’s Word.  Instead of having responsibility, MacArthur says that the woman needs men to be a savior for her as well as a spiritual protector because the woman has “an inability to act independently of her protector”.  MacArthur preaches in his series on God’s High Calling for Women part four:

But woman…woman who is designed by God to be under a head and a leader and a helper and a protector and a savior, when she stepped out on her own and acted independently of the headship of Adam, when she acted without his leadership, without his counsel, without his protection, she became vulnerable.  And it is inherent in the nature of woman that she should not find herself in that position of ultimate responsibility.  For woman has a deceivability when out from under the headship of a man.  So the woman then in verse 14 was deceived.  She showed by that her inability to lead effectively.  She met her match and more than her match in Satan.  She shows an inability to act independently of her protector.  And by the way, the term for being deceived is very strong, it is stronger than just a common word for deceived, it is a word that means because it has the addition of a preposition on the front of it, it means to be fully deceived, to be thoroughly deceived, to be completely deceived.

Where does the Bible say that women cannot teach the Bible authoritatively to other women?  Where does the Bible say that women need men as a spiritual protector and a savior?  Is this Scriptural?

Let’s work through John MacArthur’s view of Genesis to see if he has added to God’s Word.

MacArthur says that the woman was designed to be under:

1. a head

2. a leader

3. a helper

4. a protector

5. a savior

Where is any of this listed in Genesis in the account of the creation?  If we take the complementarian position that “head” means “authority over”, in which verse does God make Adam an authority over Eve?  In which verse does God make Adam a “savior” of Eve or the leader over Eve?  How does MacArthur read into the pre-fall account any of these things?  We can get “protector” of the garden but none of the other terms are in the text at all and no leader of the woman was a position assigned to Adam.

MacArthur says that Eve acted independently of Adam when she acted without his leadership.  So what do we gather from this teaching?  Apparently a woman is not allowed to speak about God to anyone who questions her without the man’s permission.  She is also not apparently able to make a decision about her own spiritual welfare without his permission.  Certainly if the woman was incapable of thinking for herself, making a decision for herself and giving God’s Word to an animal, then wouldn’t this also make it apparent that she isn’t capable of giving out God’s Word to women either without supervision?  And God forbid what she might do without supervision with little children!

MacArthur goes on:

So we conclude then, beloved, that when a woman leaves the shelter of her protector and savior, provider and nourisher, she has a certain amount of vulnerability because she is designed for protection.  That’s true even in the physical sense, isn’t it?  So the Fall then was the result of not only disobeying God’s command not to eat, but the Fall was the result of violating the divinely appointed role of the sexes and woman acting independently of man.  Woman assumed leadership, and you know what man did?  He messed up his role and then he instead of maintaining the leadership acted in submission to whom?  To the woman.  And the whole reversal was part and parcel of the Fall.  So subordination of women in the church wasn’t invented by Paul, it is rooted in the nature of the sexes and it is confirmed in the Fall.

Now may I say to you that a woman is not more defective than a man?  Please.  She was deceived and he subjected himself to her deception.  The weakness of a woman is that she needs a head.  The weakness of a man is he needs a woman.  We are not less defective than women, we are differently defective.  We’re defective in different ways.  We’re temptable and vulnerable in different ways.  So that’s the reason that we have affirmed the leadership of men, is in the creation and the Fall.  And no daughter of Eve should follow the path of Eve and lead to tragedy by entering into the forbidden territory of rulership which was intended for man.

So according to MacArthur, women are “defective” in a certain way and this defect makes women forbidden to enter the territory of authoritative teaching in the church.

What kind of impression would one get from this kind of teaching?  John MacArthur states the obvious:

… It might leave the impression that woman sort of lies under God’s permanent displeasure.

And what is the solution according to MacArthur?

So to avoid that we come to the final point, their contribution in verse 15, and this is just marvelous.  I don’t know why people get so mixed up about this verse.  They’re contribution, wonderful instructive verse.  “Nevertheless,” or not withstanding, or in spite of all that, “she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith and love and holiness with sobriety and self-control.”

What we have to understand here is that all women are delivered.  Now listen carefully.  All women are delivered from the stigma of having caused the Fall of the race by childbearing.  In other words, women led in the Fall but by the wonderful grace of God they are released from the stigma of that through childbearing.  What’s the point?  Listen carefully.  They may have caused the race to fall by stepping out of their God-intended design, but they also are given the priority responsibility of raising a godly seed.  You understand that?  That’s…that’s the balance.  Not soul salvation, not spiritual birth, but women are delivered from being left in a second-class permanently stigmatized situation for the violation of the garden.  They are delivered from being thought of as permanently weak and deceivable and insubordinate.  Can you imagine what it would be like if men had babies and all women ever contributed to the human race was the Fall.  The balance of it, women led the race into sin, but bless God, God has given them the privilege of leading the race out of sin to godliness.

So according to this male teacher, women must bear children in order to be delivered from the stigma of having caused the Fall of the race.  They are delivered from been thought of as permanently weak and deceivable and insubordinate by bearing babies.

Where does the Bible say that the woman caused the Fall of the race?  It doesn’t say this.  In fact the blame for the Fall is placed on the one who was not deceived by the serpent.  It was Adam who ate with his eyes wide open to the truth and he was not deceived.  He caused humanity to enter into sin.

But MacArthur fails to preach that truth.  Instead he says that there is a role designed for the gender which is weak, deceivable and insubordinate.  This role must be accepted and believed by women that she is not allowed to give overt leadership to the church.  MacArthur says:

What Paul is saying by the Holy Spirit is that a woman must accept her God-given role and that role is not to give outward overt leadership to the church, …

Paul’s directive here is unmistakable. God’s Word alone determines who may and may not preach in the worship of the church. That’s why our position is what it is. It’s not because we’re mean; it’s not because we’re male chauvinists though some of us may act like male chauvinists, but the fundamental reason is because God’s Word very clearly teaches this.

This blog Women in Ministry is filled with articles refuting John MacArthur’s and other Complementarian’s teaching about women in ministry, but the purpose of this article is not to refute MacArthur but to question how complementarians who believe teachers like John MacArthur can even allow a woman to teach the bible to other women?  If she is not allowed to be a regular teacher in the church and she is not allowed to give outward overt leadership as that would be stepping into male territory, why do they even allow women to teach at all?

This all reminds me of the words of the Jewish oral law of the Pharisees now written in the Talmud:

“The words of the Torah should be burned rather than entrusted to women” (JT Sotah 3:4, 19a)

109 thoughts on “Complementarians, why let women lead Bible studies?

  1. What about a woman who regularly teaches the Word of God to other women in a Bible study or in a Sunday School setting or even a women’s only weekly service?

    Bible study or Sunday School teaching in this case isn’t considered “primary teaching” or “authoritative teaching” but both are still “teaching.” So what’s the difference between “primary teaching”, “authoritative teaching” and just good ol’ “teaching” if all three are the gift of God and bibilical?

    So if a woman teaches out of her gift from God and it’s biblical, then what makes makes it non-authoritative? And how would her teaching not be primary since it’s God’s gift vs an elder teaching who is able to teach but not gifted by God to teach. Wouldn’t the gifted of God be primary over an elder who is just able to teach because the teaching that would flow out from the gifted would be superior to the non-gifted teaching. But here in this case the elder is to be male and the one teaching and his teaching is considered primary even if he is not gifted by God for teaching. So the elder’s teaching is to be considered “primary” yet if he’s not gifted his teaching wouldn’t be superior – divinely gifted.

  2. But woman…woman who is designed by God to be under a head and a leader and a helper and a protector and a savior,

    And, and, and, and LOL! Wow, wonder woman, look it’s superman!

  3. What we have to understand here is that all women are delivered. Now listen carefully. All women are delivered from the stigma of having caused the Fall of the race by childbearing.

    Oh, this is interesting. Eve caused the fall of the race when she was deceived yet Adam wasn’t! A deceived woman caused Adam to “fall.” And how exactly does that happen when one is not even deceived?! LOL

  4. Where does the Bible say that the woman caused the Fall of the race? It doesn’t say this. In fact the blame for the Fall is placed on the one who was not deceived by the serpent. It was Adam who ate with his eyes wide open to the truth and he was not deceived. He caused humanity to enter into sin.

    Isn’t it interesting how the blame for the fall has been placed onto the shoulders of the deceived one rather than on the shoulders of the one who knew exactly what he was doing – the one whom the bible blames in all kinds of places, Adam. Instead of Adam being given sole responsiblity for the fall of all things – humanity – he’s given a hierarchal position.
    And instead of being viewed lowly because of his cause to humanity, he’s viewed highly for his sex/flesh. Makes sense doesn’t it? Yes, gender is more important than one’s rebellious position in relation to God. Go figure.

  5. But MacArthur fails to preach that truth. Instead he says that there is a role designed for the gender which is weak, deceivable and insubordinate.

    This tells us alot about god doesn’t it?!

    It’s terrible to put such an awesome God in that kind of light. It’s a shame to him. It brings him down.

  6. but the purpose of this article is not to refute MacArthur but to question how complementarians who believe teachers like John MacArthur can even allow a woman to teach the bible to other women?

    I donno. Boggles the mind ;P

    Hmm… They allow women to teach other women because ______________.

  7. They allow women to teach other women because: the deceived are all in the same camp, and if they lead each other astray, it only proves their point that women aren’t allowed to teach at all. (Note the sarcasm).

    I read statements like MacArthur’s, and I think, oh please. I need a “head” like a fish needs a bicycle. I have a perfectly good one, and His Name is Jesus Christ. He is my Leader, Protector, Savior, and Source of Nourishment. He is all I need, independent of any man. I think by putting men in Christ’s place over women, he is committing a very serious act of idolatry, specifically that of reducing God to One who only upholds the prejudices and biases of man. He is also saying that Christ is insufficient for women, that they need something else beyond Christ, which is also idolatry! The Gospel is NOT Christ plus (fill in the blank, in this case, male headship); it is Christ plus NOTHING!

    And as for the whole idea of “women being saved through childbearing”, where the (deleted) does that leave women who CAN’T have children? It seems like such an obvious question, and forgive me for asking it, but I happen to believe that tying salvation into childbearing makes it sound like works-righteousness, something that the Gospels (and Paul himself) disavow. Have they forgotten “By grace you are saved through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Methinks something stinks coming out of CBMW, and they need to be called out on it. I’m sorry for the obvious anger here, but it needed to be said. I can’t believe these people.

  8. ” A deceived woman caused Adam to “fall.” And how exactly does that happen when one is not even deceived?! LOL”

    Excellent point PinkLight! 🙂

    However, I think that the next step to that fallacy is to accuse women of being seductresses, seducing men to do things they shouldn’t, which by the way is evil. This would hint that woman was created with evil inclinations and was not pure as the man was in creation. and on it goes…..

  9. What Alison said.
    And especially this point: “He is also saying that Christ is insufficient for women, that they need something else beyond Christ, which is also idolatry!

    That’s all of MacArthur I can take for today…

  10. I’m not as familiar with all that MacArthur has to say on this topic, though generally I agree with his theology. However, I would point out the positive view of women teaching outside of the church, as explained by S. Lewis Johnson, who was of the same theological beliefs as John MacArthur — and who MacArthur has spoken highly of, as the one preacher that he has listened to more than any others. Based on the account in Acts with Priscilla and Aquila teaching Apollos, Johnson advocates that women certainly can teach others, as in other women and even men, in settings outside of the formal church meeting.

    An excerpt from S. Lewis Johnson, speaking of Priscilla —
    “So I am willing to believe that she probably did take the lead. And part of the effectiveness of this man Apollos was because Priscilla who was instructed in the word of God taught him more perfectly the things of the Lord. The apostle says nothing about that in 1 Timothy chapter 2. He talks about teaching in the church. So ladies the field is open outside the church. Go ahead and pick on some of these fellows that don’t understand the doctrines of the sovereignty of God like they ought to and instruct them in the great doctrines of the faith. Do it, I need your help. So do it.”

  11. Lynda,
    Thanks for your thoughts and welcome to my blog!

    I would like to point out that there was no designation of “formal” and “informal” meeting of the church in the NT times. Believers met in homes and their gatherings were gatherings of the church. The place of meeting was not the “church”. The believers were the church. So the only way that one could really say to a woman that she could teach outside of the church would be to say that she can teach the unsaved. The problem of course would be that once they are saved, she would have to move on because discipleship is a duty of the church.

    However having said that, I do appreciate hearing about those complementarians who gave women the opportunity to use their gifts outside of a formal building. For although I believe they are being inconsistent with their own doctrine, I applaud their inconsistencies when it releases women to serve their Lord and Savior without fear of being disciplined by the church for doing so.

    Thanks again for your comments!

  12. As I’ve commented here and at blogs elsewhere, why do people and parishioners want to put themselves under such tyrannical belief systems?

    Why do people let others do their thinking for them? Is it fear? Just plain laziness?

    I have one comment left for John MacArthur, it’s both colorful and visceral but it gets the point across far better than a rant chock full of fifty-cent words:

    BULL**** !!!

  13. However, I think that the next step to that fallacy is to accuse women of being seductresses, seducing men to do things they shouldn’t, which by the way is evil. This would hint that woman was created with evil inclinations and was not pure as the man was in creation. and on it goes…..

    and on, and on, and on and on untell there’s but a blob.
    One word: diapers

  14. 1 Cor 14:26 – “When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation . . .”
    The passage says anyone can teach in the church– not just men, and not just elders. And yet MacArthur says you have to be both and elder and a man. And, oddly enough, he is both– so that the power gets concentrated conveniently in his hands.

    Hmmm. Something smells.

  15. @ Greg Anderson:

    I second your “BULL****!!!”

    I can’t understand for the life of me how these people fail to see that what they are suggesting is idolatry, and that they will be held accountable for leading their congregants astray. I’m surprised they don’t make the women wash their feet from all the meadow muffins they step in….

  16. I’m sure Cheryl and others will agree with me, that it was the logical fallacies and moral conondrums of complementarianism that led us to give up that understanding of Scripture and become egalitarians. For example, consider what the Apostle John wrote:

    “So you must remain faithful to what you have been taught from the beginning. If you do, you will remain in fellowship with the Son and with the Father. And in this fellowship we enjoy the eternal life Jesus promised us. I am writing these things to warn you about those who want to lead you astray. But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives with in you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know and what he teaches is true–it is not a lie. So as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ” (1 John 2:24-27, NLT).

    In the context of this passage, there were false teachers claiming new revelations from the Spirit, which offered a superior relationship with God to that offered in the Gospel that John had “taught them from the beginning.” And he is warning his spiritual children, both women and men, against those who want to lead them astray. Yet, while he does not deny that either men or women can profit from good teaching from himself or others, he reminds them that they are not dependent solely on any human teacher to enable them to discern truth from falsehood, nor to keep them from being led astray. Why? Because the Lord Jesus himself gave all Christians the gift of the Holy Spirit as our Teacher and Guide, who “teaches us everything we need to know” to abide in that fellowship with Christ that is eternal life itself, and the Spirit never teaches us nor leads us to ever believe anything that is false and contrary to the Word of Christ and of God.

    Now when someone says a person is more susceptible to deception because of either their race, social status, or gender–consider how slanderous and even blasphemous such talk is! First, it indicates that the Lord Jesus is foolish enough to believe that the Spirit alone can be trusted to equally teach and lead each disciple in the way that both he and the Father wish them to go. Secondly, it implies that either the Spirit is incompetent in the counseling and instruction of believers in discerning, with the aid of Scripture, between good and evil; that somehow he needs the aid of a more competent human teacher to accomplish his work. Thirdly, it implies that in certain cases, based on what I will call “prejudiced criteria,’ the spirit of deception has a greater power and ability to lead a person astray than the Spirit of truth has to lead them in God’s way? It boggles the mind that any Christian would even entertain such thinking. But these are some of the absurd, but logical conclusions I perceived in complementarianism which led me to give it up.

  17. Thanks for all the comment, guys and gals. I have my family visiting for five days so I will be away from the computer a lot, but I will pop in once in awhile and will respond later.

  18. When I read MacArthur’s comments on the state of women, and especially female believers in comparison to male believers, I get the idea that he teaches that men are fully redeemable in the flesh, while females are only redeemable IF they follow certain guidelines, ala being under a male “head” at all times.

    Really. messed. up.

    This is the kind of stuff that seems to be why Jesus had to come to the earth in the first place. How can this be considered “grace” or “gospel” centered teaching at all?

  19. It is messed up Kathleen. And coercing women to comply with it messes them up also.

    IMO it resembles extreme rascism. The privileged ones are chosen to be leaders claiming it is their natural rights. All the rest should be context with following and if they follow well enough the privileged ones will reward them.

  20. I totally second the “messed up”. I can’t explain how infuriated I get when I read writings like MacArthur’s. All I can do is pray that he sees the idolatry in his message and repents, especially that he repents for the damage that such a message has done to women (and to the men that it has falsely empowered), and the damage it has done to the male-female relationship, which, unless my reading of Genesis is completely wrong, was intended to be completely equal. I don’t know if he ever will.

  21. Such men do not see any benefits in repentance, because it means losing their privileges. Unless he sees a woman or daughter he loves being hurt I really doubt that there is any incentive for such a man to change.

  22. My previous church (definitely more towards the patriarchal end of the scale) did not allow women to teach other women; the women’s Bible studies were always taught by a male elder. Paradoxically, that church had no problem with women teaching children, who would definitely be more susceptible to any false teaching.

    The (perhaps unintended) consequence of that is that, even now, I struggle with seeing myself gifted by God *at all.* When I was interviewed by the elders for membership at my current (complementarian) church I was asked how I thought I could use my gifts in the church. I was totally unable to answer the question and stammered out that I didn’t know where I was gifted.

  23. Welcome to my blog Amanda!

    It makes me feel very sad to hear stories like yours. This is why this blog exists to help women understand their freedom in Christ and their responsibility and ability to use their gifts and to help men to understand that the gifts that exist in their sisters in Christ are needed for both men and women. When we all understand this, we will operate with unity in Christ for His glory.

  24. My prayers are with you, Amanda. I am so heartbroken by your story, and it illustrates why these men (and the women who support them!) need to repent. Their abuse of Scripture in keeping their “entitled” position as leaders “over” women instead of co-workers with them is aligned with the world’s view of women, not God’s. I believe God has designed and affirmed women and men as equals, to work together for His glory and to advance His kingdom, regardless of “roles” or “gender differences”. These things smack of worldliness and the need to control, not the willingness to separate themselves from them. This has done untold damage, and your story is just one example of such damage. I am so sorry for what’s happened, and pray that you find a chuch that values you and your gifting, and is open to what you have to say and do as a member of the Body of Christ.

  25. What is so odd about the motives of Adam and Eve, is that Eve’s motives are neve mentioned. Similar to Solomon, who God rewarded for such motives, Eve wanted to be wise enough to distinguish good from evil. The serpent told her she could have that if she ate the fruit. She protested, saying she was not to eat it, and the serpent told her God hadn’t been honist with her and that she would be wise if she ate it.

    Now Eve was sinless. She knew nothing at all of sin. She had no practice with identifying a con artist, so she ate.

    Adam, on the other hand, had no such good motives. His motives were closer to Lucifer’s. He was openly rebelling against God and wanting to take God’s place.

    Both sinned, yet the comps neve seem to notice that what motivated Eve’s sin was to want the same thing Solomon did–wisdom.

    In other words, we can have good motives, and that can lead us into sin. You could say Eve did the wrong thing for the right reason. However, I do not find the desire of male comps to rule others (which they wrongly attribute to women) to be a good motive. So they are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason, as did Adam and Lucifer.

  26. Waneta,

    If you look closely at the Hebrew in Genesis 3, there is nothing in the grammar to suggest that Eve’s motive’s were good and Adam’s bad. In fact the ‘desire’ Eve has, is the same word used in the Ten commandments for ‘thy shall not covet’. Her desire was not a good motive.

    Also her actions in hiding and covering are the same as Adam. Adam blames God and Eve (evident by the emphatic use of the Hebrew) which is exactly the same in Eve’s blame shifting to the serpent. In both the man and the woman’s response the Hebrew is emphatic in showing that they are blaming another and not taking responsibility for their own actions. Here is a snippet from an exegetical work of mine to explain what i mean

    Gen 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

    Verse 12 gives Adam’s defense of his actions. One would expect a direct yes or no answer to God’s probing questions in verse 11. However, Adam does not respond this way. He passes the blame. First the Hebrew emphasis that it was ‘the woman’ who is to blame, since in this case the object of the verb precedes the verb. Note also the inclusion of the personal pronoun awh (she gave), which gives greater emphasis to Adam’s blaming of Eve. Second, the man makes the bold claim to God, “you gave to me”. In the context, it is clear that Adam also blames God. Nowhere does Adam admit his own sin in eating the forbidden fruit.
    This is clearly the nature of Adam’s sin- denial of his actions involved. However, it is interesting that God does not rebuke Adam for what he has said. Wenham states that God’s silence is an indication of his rejection of Adam’s plea. But this appears to be overstated, since nothing Adam said is in and of itself a lie.

    Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

    God begins by with an immediate questioning of the mans wife- ‘what is this you did?’ The interrogative followed by the pronoun taz-hm (this) emphasizes the question. Almost literally, “what in the world have you done? This is the first point in which the woman is addressed for her part in the destruction of the garden.
    Similar to the man’s response, the woman shifts the blame- ‘the serpent
    deceived me and I ate’. Again the Hebrew places the emphasis on the ‘serpent’ by placing the subject at the beginning of the sentence before the verb. It is made clear that the woman in essence is blaming the serpent, not accepting responsibility. Also the verb ynanXh (to deceive) is in the Hiphil stem, the causative pattern showing how the woman is putting the ‘cause’ of the fall onto the serpent. As with her husband she is not admiting her part in the fall and her own sin.

    Sorry, the Hebrew didn’t work, but hopefully this helps anyway. You cannot exegetically draw the conclusions that you have, namely, that Eve’s motives were good and Adam’s evil- like Satan. The text speaks against such things. Both are guilty and culpable for their own actions in the fall

  27. Mark,
    ”In fact the ‘desire’ Eve has, is the same word used in the Ten commandments for ‘thy shall not covet’. Her desire was not a good motive.”

    I checked Scriptures4all.org and it does not appear that they are the same word. They may have the same root word in them but that is all. Having the same root does not make them equal. Often many words can share the same root but have varied different meanings.

    As far as the use of teshuqa in Gen. 3:16, there is no way to extrapolate a clear bad or good meaning out of it. In fact, it may be that God’s warning to Eve includes both. She may become inordinately attentive to Adam in both good and bad ways, but they are definitely NOT spelled out. The point is that she is going to turn to him (the root meaning of the word) longingly when it may be that she should be turning toward God more.

    What CAN be seen is that the mastering that the man will respond to her desiring is NOT good. It is far more clear that the mastering is bad then it is that the desiring is good or bad. Because of this it is my estimation at this time, that the woman’s error is an inordinate turning, almost a clinging, a self destructive yearning. This is the warning that God is giving her, and it may be that God hopes that by telling her she will be doing this, that when she finds herself doing it, it will help her to stop. That plus the warning that her husband is going to respond by doing something foreign to their relationship, something that is supposed to happen with the animals not between humans, that she will ‘wake up’ to it.

    ”Also her actions in hiding and covering are the same as Adam.”

    I disagree. Adam was not deceived. He did what he did deliberately with full awareness. He cannot fault anyone else, although he tried. He was blame shifting. Eve on the other hand, was deceived. She was not blame shifting by naming her deceiver , she was acknowledging that it was the serpent who deceived her. She further acknowledged her sin of eating that which she was told not to eat.

    ”Both are guilty and culpable for their own actions in the fall”

    Agreed. Being deceived is not an excuse that totally exonerates us. We do not escape the results of doing wrong because someone mislead us. Yet, there is a difference between having been deceived and knowingly deliberately doing that which we are fully aware of it’s wrongness. Adam dealt treacherously with God. In the midst of her deception, Eve did not realize she was disobeying God. That is the difference.

  28. “Adam dealt treacherously with God. In the midst of her deception, Eve did not realize she was disobeying God. That is the difference.”
    TL,
    Yes, exactly – they are not one and the same. They are two distinct things.

  29. TL,

    “I disagree. Adam was not deceived. He did what he did deliberately with full awareness. He cannot fault anyone else, although he tried. He was blame shifting. Eve on the other hand, was deceived. She was not blame shifting by naming her deceiver , she was acknowledging that it was the serpent who deceived her. She further acknowledged her sin of eating that which she was told not to eat.”

    This is your opinion but not what the grammar shows. In Eve’s (so called) confession the grammar is precise. The word order is emphatic to show that Eve is saying it is the serpents fault. In fact the same grammatical structure is also with Adam blaming Eve. Also like I said the Hiphil stem of the verb ‘to decieve’ is a causative stem. Eve is putting the ‘cause’ onto the serpent. So if you want to say adam is blaming Eve you MUST say Eve did the same thing since the grammar works the same way. You cannot pick one and not the other unless of course you want to ignore the text. Eve does more than ‘name’ her deceiver- she blames him. I encourage you to look at the grammar precisely to come to your conclusions. Also Adam acknowledges that he ate the fruit aswell, so there is again no difference here. What both fail to do is admit their own sin and blame another.

    Also the ‘desire’ I am talking about is her desire for the apple not the desire for her husband. Look again. Eve is coveting the fruit to gain wisdom. Grammar is precise about this again.

  30. Mark,
    You said to TL:

    In Eve’s (so called) confession the grammar is precise. The word order is emphatic to show that Eve is saying it is the serpents fault. In fact the same grammatical structure is also with Adam blaming Eve. Also like I said the Hiphil stem of the verb ‘to decieve’ is a causative stem. Eve is putting the ‘cause’ onto the serpent. So if you want to say adam is blaming Eve you MUST say Eve did the same thing since the grammar works the same way. You cannot pick one and not the other unless of course you want to ignore the text.

    The problem is that Eve told the truth and blamed the one who was the reason for her deception. Adam blamed Eve when she was not to blame as she was not the cause of his eating. God proves that the serpent was indeed to blame and so God curses him. God does not accept Adam’s blame of Eve and instead of blaming Eve, God puts the blame only on Adam. The problem that you are having is that you think that both blaming another for why they ate means that both were wrong. This is not a given and paying attention to God’s Words will not allow us to shift the blame onto the woman as the blame has been shifted onto the deceiver.

    Eve does more than ‘name’ her deceiver- she blames him.

    Uh-huh, and so does God (He says “because you did this…” So what is your point?

    Also Adam acknowledges that he ate the fruit aswell, so there is again no difference here. What both fail to do is admit their own sin and blame another.

    That is not true. Both admitted what they did “I ate”, but only one blamed God (The woman whom You gave to be with me” and only one blamed a deceived person for their own sin. Only one admitted that they were deceived as a true reason for their sin.

    The two confessions are not like each other and God affirmed this.

    Also the ‘desire’ I am talking about is her desire for the apple not the desire for her husband. Look again. Eve is coveting the fruit to gain wisdom. Grammar is precise about this again.

    This is part of the deception. What does it prove? That she was fully deceived. We should be able to agree on that and blame the man just as God blamed placed the blame on the one who was not deceived.

  31. Waneta Dawn,
    You said:

    Now Eve was sinless. She knew nothing at all of sin. She had no practice with identifying a con artist, so she ate.

    Adam, on the other hand, had no such good motives. His motives were closer to Lucifer’s. He was openly rebelling against God and wanting to take God’s place.

    You are exactly right. And the other thing that is quite eye-opening is that although Eve could have rightfully blamed Adam, she did not. Adam had just blamed a deceived woman (and God!) for his sin when he had eaten with his eyes wide open to the truth. Yet Adam said nothing to the serpent or to Eve to either rebuke the serpent or warn Eve of the deception. Why is it that Eve did not blame Adam for failing to warn her when he himself was not deceived? I personally cannot think of any good reason other than she loved him and was blaming the serpent for deceiving her without blaming Adam for his inaction. What a difference between her love for him and his willing to throw his own wife “under the bus” to try to have a legal excuse for what he did.

  32. Mark,
    You said:

    If you look closely at the Hebrew in Genesis 3, there is nothing in the grammar to suggest that Eve’s motive’s were good and Adam’s bad.

    Actually I just pointed out in my comment above that Eve could have rightfully blamed Adam when she did not. The question can be put back onto you, why did Eve not blame Adam when she knew that he had not protected her from the evil one? And why did Adam blame God and the woman when he knew right well that God had not sinned by providing the woman to him and the woman had offered what she thought was “good food” without any malice towards Adam?

    In fact the ‘desire’ Eve has, is the same word used in the Ten commandments for ‘thy shall not covet’. Her desire was not a good motive.

    Are you trying to say that her desire was not part of the effect of the deception done to her? If the reason that she ate was a desire that was sinful and was independent of the deception, then why does not Biblical author charge her with further sin? Why does Paul say that Eve was deceived (2 Cor. 11:3) and he does not say that Eve was covetous?

    Also her actions in hiding and covering are the same as Adam.

    Both Adam and Eve covered their shame, but the Bible never says that Eve covered her sin by blaming someone illegally. Adam on the other hand is the only one that God charges with covering his sin.

    Job 31:33 (NASB)
    33 “Have I covered my transgressions like Adam,
    By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

    Please show one scripture that charges Eve with covering over her sin.

    Verse 12 gives Adam’s defense of his actions. One would expect a direct yes or no answer to God’s probing questions in verse 11. However, Adam does not respond this way. He passes the blame.

    You are right in that Adam avoids the question. He avoids answering “yes” or “no” and illegally passes the blame. But the woman does not do this. She is not given a “yes” or “no” question, but God asks her what she did and she gave Him a truthful answer, that the serpent caused a deception and because of that deception she ate.

    However, it is interesting that God does not rebuke Adam for what he has said. Wenham states that God’s silence is an indication of his rejection of Adam’s plea. But this appears to be overstated, since nothing Adam said is in and of itself a lie.

    God isn’t silent. God said in Genesis 3:17 “because you did (this) and (that) cursed is….” God not only turns Adam’s excuse around as a charge of sin (the first “because” cause), but He adds the words “listened to the voice of your wife” which is an indication that the watchman listening to his wife’s deception in silence was a grave sin.

    Similar to the man’s response, the woman shifts the blame

    We do not need you to add in an equality of blame-shifting when God clearly divides the blame between legal blame (God concurs by cursing the serpent) and illegal blame (God does not concur with Adam’s blame of the woman but instead God places a curse on the man’s behalf). No curse is ever placed on the woman’s behalf. Those who ignore this clear difference should have their inability to see set aside in favor of the text itself for God is not mocked by an illegal blame game.

    You cannot exegetically draw the conclusions that you have, namely, that Eve’s motives were good and Adam’s evil- like Satan. The text speaks against such things.

    Sorry, my friend but you are wrong. Eve’s refusal to rightful blame Adam says a lot about her motives while Adam’s attempt at blaming both God and Eve is inescapable as a covering over of his sin by a lie hidden as an excuse. And since God chose to blame only one for covering over of sin, I am happy and content to accept God’s assessment since God alone knows what was in each one of their hearts.

    Both are guilty and culpable for their own actions in the fall

    Then it seems to me that the blame is now put on God who only holds one fully culpable for their sin. While they both ate the spiritually poisoned fruit and because of that they started the process of death, God pronounced a judgment on only one. Why is that? God has made it clear that He will not leave the guilty unpunished.

    Nahum 1:3 (NASB)
    3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power,
    And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished…

    By not cursing Eve or anything else on her behalf, he identified the man and the serpent as the only ones as “guilty” in the fall of man.

  33. Cheryl,

    “Actually I just pointed out in my comment above that Eve could have rightfully blamed Adam when she did not. The question can be put back onto you, why did Eve not blame Adam when she knew that he had not protected her from the evil one?”

    Nice try! Please deal with the exegetical points i raised. You points here are arguments from silence. First and foremost we ought to deal with what is revealed, not guess on what is not revealed. If you think i am wrong in the grammar then show me.
    Now this is important since what follows in the narrative stems from the responses of the man and woman. You need to show me exegetically and grammatically how Adam’s motive was evil, and Eve’s good. Show me from the woman’s response grammatically how her motive is good. Why are things emphasised? Why use the Hiphal Stem for the verb?

    “Then it seems to me that the blame is now put on God who only holds one fully culpable for their sin. While they both ate the spiritually poisoned fruit and because of that they started the process of death, God pronounced a judgment on only one. Why is that?”

    This is an odd conclusion you have drawn. Who said God is to blame? Both are punished for their sin. It is odd that you think Eve is not judged for her part in the fall. I will deal with this exegetically once you deal exegetically with the other verses first. Since if you wont discuss my other points, there is really no point me going further exegetically.

  34. Mark you said:

    Nice try! Please deal with the exegetical points i raised. You points here are arguments from silence. First and foremost we ought to deal with what is revealed, not guess on what is not revealed.

    Oh yah? Then why did you say:

    If you look closely at the Hebrew in Genesis 3, there is nothing in the grammar to suggest that Eve’s motive’s were good and Adam’s bad.

    You are the one who challenged us that there was nothing in the passage’s grammar to show that Eve’s motives were good while his was bad. All I did was point out that Adam blamed both God and his wife, both of whom he knew were not to blame. That is a sign of a bad motive. I also pointed out that while Eve could have blamed Adam and she had every right to blame him for his silence when he had the mandate to share his understanding of the deception with her, the fact that she did not blame him showed that her heart was not against him. If Eve had blamed Adam she would also have been exonerated as a truth teller since God blames both the serpent and Adam for their actions or inactions toward Eve. The fact that Scripture does not reveal what would have been a very important point about blame-shifting in the case of Eve is important. Adam had already set the precedent on throwing her under the bus and then blaming the one under the bus. If her actions were on the same level as his surely we would have seen at least a similar reaction of Eve’s. Also the fact that God calls Adam’s blame-shifting as hiding his sin and never identifies her actions as sin goes a long way in identifying the difference between the motives of the two.

    If you think i am wrong in the grammar then show me.

    I can do one better than that concerning motives because God already gave us the answer. Through God’s inspired word He blamed Adam for hiding his sin (Job 31:33) and for acting in a treacherous manner (Hosea 6:7) and God gives no such heart condition for Eve, rather she was acting upon the deception that blinded her mind to the truth (2 Cor 11:3, cf 2 Cor 4:4)

    This is an odd conclusion you have drawn. Who said God is to blame? Both are punished for their sin.

    Adam blamed God (the woman You gave to be with me). Both were in the process of dying as this is the result of eating the poisoned fruit from the tree of death, but Eve was not punished as Adam was. Only Adam and the serpent received God’s judgment about a curse. Therefore the judgment that came at the time that God met them was given only to Adam and the serpent and not the woman. If you believe that God cursed the woman, you will have to prove it from the grammar.

  35. Cheryl,

    Again you have not dealt with any precise exegetical arguments i have raised. Please deal with them.

    I have not talked about hiding sin, only you have. I’m interested in you showing me from the precise grammar of Gen 3 how you can claim Adam’s motive is bad and Eve’s good. Discuss nouns, verbs, word order, whatever it is that brings you to your conclusion.

    I’m not denying Eve was deceived, we agree on that. What we are discussing is the precise grammar of both how Adam and Eve respond to God. Is there anything in those verses that show they are blaming another (and thus denying their own involvement). We are both agreed that Adam blame shifted. Where we disagree is with Eve. I have shown exegetically, using the precise grammar (and the parallel construction with Adam’s response) how one cannot say Adam is blame shifing and not Eve. As yet, you have not touched on either of those verses. If you believe Adam blame shifted, tell me how you came to that conclusion exegetically from what he said. Discuss word order, grammer etc. Then do the same with Eve. After that, we can discuss other Biblical references to both Adam and Eve.

    “All I did was point out that Adam blamed both God and his wife, both of whom he knew were not to blame. ”

    Here is what i mean. You stated this, but you have not shown exegetically from the Hebrew why you come to this conclusion. What in the Hebrew makes you believe this? Or to put it another way, what grammatical hints give emphasis or illusion that Adam is blame shifting? And thus, what in the Hebrew makes you conclude that Eve had pure motives?

    “If you believe that God cursed the woman, you will have to prove it from the grammar.”

    I don’t believe that God cursed the woman. Nor do i believe God cursed the man. He cursed the serpent and the ground. But just a snippet for after you deal exegetically with my other comments, here is one small grammatical use to show that Eve is being punished. There is a very clear infinite absolute used in God’s words against Eve. An infinitive absolute functions to give an emphatic expression. So something God saids to Eve is grammatically emphasised- but we can deal with that later.

  36. Blessings all

    John MacArthur? Hmmm?

    Just another reason to follow Jesus and NOT follow a man.

    Ever know John Mac to be wrong before?

    You can look on his own website.

    “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ”

    http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/593

    “Is it true that John MacArthur has reversed his position on
    the eternal Sonship of Christ?”

    If John Mac now feels he was wrong on the eternal Sonship of Christ,
    a foundational doctrin of the faith, maybe he will reverse others.

    John Mac is just a man.

    He might not know he is deceived…but, deceived just the same.

    And – God warns us about…

    False apostles, many false $ profits, false teachers,
    false Christs, false “annointed one’s, wolves, dogs, swine. Oy Vey!!! 🙁

    And now what happens to those folks who heard and read
    what John Mac said before he “reversed” his thinking.

    They still believe John Mac’s error. Yes?

    So could John Mac be in error on other things as well? Maybe? Hmmm?

    When we “Get It Wrong” from a human who claims biblical authority…
    Who will God hold accountable?
    We won’t be able to “blame shift” like Adam and Eve.

    We had better get “The Truth” fom God for ourslves. Yes?

    John 6:45
    It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.

    Deuteronomy 4:36
    Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice,
    that he might instruct thee:

  37. Mark:
    I’m not sure you understand the concept of blame shifting.

    Eve told God what had happened to her. The serpent deceived her, and she ate. She told God this is what happened, and it did happen that way.

    That isn’t blame shifting! Its telling it how it is.

    Adam blamed God and the woman for the reason he ate.
    You acknowledge the fact Eve was deceived. Are you trying to say Adam was also?

    It seems to me that you are saying when you tell someone what happened – and the fact that it really did happen that way – you are ‘blameshifting’. The concept of blame shifting doesn’t work that way. Blame shifting is making excuses for what they did, and attempting to place the blame on someone else when they refuse to own their actions.

    Eve did not do that – Adam did.

    How can you say Adam was not cursed?

    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 shall eat of it All the days of your life. “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you shall eat the plants of the field; (Genesis 3:17-18)

    The curse of the ground was due to Adam. Therefore, the curse of the “ground” was, more likely, a curse directed against Adam for his transgression against God’s rules.

  38. I have shown exegetically, using the precise grammar (and the parallel construction with Adam’s response) how one cannot say Adam is blame shifing and not Eve

    I really can’t understand the problem here, Mark. Eve blamed the serpent and God blamed the serpent too. Eve’s blame was accurate and the truth but Adam’s was not. Eve, God and Adam all placed blame. So what is your point??

  39. Mark,
    You said:

    Again you have not dealt with any precise exegetical arguments i have raised. Please deal with them.

    I have not talked about hiding sin, only you have.

    Well, Mark, that appears to be your problem. When we talk about motives we need to see all that God has said about Adam and Eve. While we can pick up some things in Genesis, we have God’s revelation elsewhere that will tell us without doubt what was in the heart. Then we can read Genesis with God’s view in mind. When we ignore God’s view of Adam, for example, we are prone to go off on left field.

    I’m interested in you showing me from the precise grammar of Gen 3 how you can claim Adam’s motive is bad and Eve’s good. Discuss nouns, verbs, word order, whatever it is that brings you to your conclusion.

    I have no interest in this since I already have God’s opinion revealed in the Scripture. God rarely talks about motives but when He does, we need to pay attention. I am confident that God knows Adam’s heart and that God’s assessment will never be wrong and I am confident that the Genesis account will not contradict what God reveals about why Adam did what he did. I have a lot of things on my plate and discussing the grammar on this one is of no interest to me since God already revealed the truth. My time is better spent on the very important things that take a lot of work and are important for our own edification and our own salvation.

    I’m not denying Eve was deceived, we agree on that. What we are discussing is the precise grammar of both how Adam and Eve respond to God.

    Again God has already revealed the nature of why Eve sinned. She did not sin with rebellion in mind with her eyes wide open, but rather from deception and when we understand this, we can see that a woman who had been deceived with her non-deceived husband at her side could have had a bone to pick with the one who could have corrected her. Her statement that she sinned because of the serpent’s deception was affirmed by God and God’s affirmation and His mercy-ing Eve by bringing the Messiah through her is the revelation that is the key importance. I am not interested in going further although with any passage we can dig deeper and spend time that could be spent on other things. Since my time is extremely limited and since we already agree that Adam sinned with his eyes wide open and he was not deceived and Eve sinned through deception then it is time to move on.

    Is there anything in those verses that show they are blaming another (and thus denying their own involvement).

    Here are the facts. Eve did not mention Adam’s name while Adam directly mentioned God and the woman. Eve did not blame Adam. Adam blamed Eve. God did not accept Adam’s excuse. God confirmed that Eve was indeed deceived as she claimed and God cursed the serpent as a result. Eve was affirmed in her statement. Adam was not. Only one acted out of rebellion and we already know that from other Scriptures.

    So unless you can “prove” from the grammar that Eve was blaming Adam, there is no need to discuss blame shifting. Both did it but only one was affirmed by God that their excuse was valid.

    We are both agreed that Adam blame shifted. Where we disagree is with Eve. I have shown exegetically, using the precise grammar (and the parallel construction with Adam’s response) how one cannot say Adam is blame shifing and not Eve.

    I have not said that Eve was not blame shifting. What I said is that Eve’s claim was true while Adam’s was not. Mark, you are so frustrating in that you keep claiming that I am saying something that I am not saying. Honestly, why do you do this? Are you too busy at school that you have to skim what I write and therefore you go by your “feeling” and not by the “facts”? Or is it possible that your mind is so closed that you have decided for me what I believe and nothing I say can change your decision for me? Or what is it?

    As yet, you have not touched on either of those verses. If you believe Adam blame shifted, tell me how you came to that conclusion exegetically from what he said. Discuss word order, grammer etc. Then do the same with Eve. After that, we can discuss other Biblical references to both Adam and Eve.

    Give me a break, Mark. We both agree that both of them blame shifted. What we appear to disagree on, or maybe you just haven’t made yourself clear on, is God’s agreement or disagreement with the claim of blame. So let me ask you. Did or did not God find the serpent blame-worthy? Did or did not God curse the serpent for deceiving Eve?

    “All I did was point out that Adam blamed both God and his wife, both of whom he knew were not to blame. ”

    Here is what i mean. You stated this, but you have not shown exegetically from the Hebrew why you come to this conclusion. What in the Hebrew makes you believe this?

    Who cares? It is a mote point and we both accept the fact that Adam blamed his wife and if you don’t think that Adam also blamed God, I don’t care. It is not worthy my time to put in the effort to teach you anything here. My time is better spent with things that really count and whether you agree with me or not isn’t of any concern to me. I have already proven my point from the Scriptures that God accepted Eve’s claim of blaming the serpent for his deception and God planted a curse on the serpent because of it. God did not accept Adam’s claim of blame.

    Or to put it another way, what grammatical hints give emphasis or illusion that Adam is blame shifting?

    We both agree that Adam is blame shifting so going into the finer points of Hebrew is of no interest. Just keep it to yourself and put your arguments on your own blog.

    And thus, what in the Hebrew makes you conclude that Eve had pure motives?

    I have already told you and you don’t believe me. God accepts Eve’s testimony and by the testimony of two (God + Eve) God curses the serpent. Deception is not outright rebellion and no place in the Scriptures does God ever question Eve’s motives as one of rebellion. That’s it. You either accept that is my argument or you do not.

    “If you believe that God cursed the woman, you will have to prove it from the grammar.”

    I don’t believe that God cursed the woman. Nor do i believe God cursed the man. He cursed the serpent and the ground.

    Good then you will also have to agree that God cursed the serpent because of what he did and God cursed the ground because of what Adam did, but God did not curse anything because of what the woman did.

    But just a snippet for after you deal exegetically with my other comments, here is one small grammatical use to show that Eve is being punished. There is a very clear infinite absolute used in God’s words against Eve. An infinitive absolute functions to give an emphatic expression. So something God saids to Eve is grammatically emphasised- but we can deal with that later.

    Nope. God does not “hint” at punishment. He was outright and forward with the serpent and with Adam. He clearly stated that the effects of the curse are because of their actions and God does not hint or beat around the bush but is direct and forceful. To think that God was not direct with the woman and “hinted” at a punished and “hinted” that it might be because of something that she did, is reading into the text. It would show that God has no interest in being direct with the woman. He only cares to be direct with the serpent and the man because these are the most important, eh? And surely according to your belief God “hinted” through the grammar that the reason he (hint-hint) brought these punishments against the woman was because (hint-hint) she……?? And then after He hinted about her punishment and He hinted for the reason that He was punishing her, He blessed her by bringing the Messiah through her?

    Sorry but you can always put your reasoning on your own blog and I am sure that you will find a few people who care to read about God’s hints and more hints and why God then blessed her without hinting about His blessing when He only hinted about her punishment. Oy vey! Makes my head spin.

    Now on to more important matters.

  40. Hannah,
    Yes indeed I used the wrong words. Both Adam and Eve blamed someone else. Only Adam was guilty of blame-shifting. There is a difference between blame shifting and blaming. I got caught in that one and I was indeed wrong to use Mark’s term. I stand corrected.

    So there it is. Both blamed someone else. One was correct in their blame (that was Eve) because she told the truth. One was incorrect in their blame (that was Adam) and so his testimony was not the truth, it was not correct blame, it was blame-shifting.

    Hannah, does this sound better?

  41. Mark,
    I need to apologize to you too. In my head I was equating blame with blame-shifting. They are not the same thing. Perhaps you too were equating the two. I don’t know. But I do need to apologize to you for not being clear on my understanding and then being frustrated with you that you couldn’t get it when I was the one who was confusing the two. You were right. Adam is accused of blame-shifting and Eve is not. The reason is not within the words of Adam or within the words or the grammar of Eve’s words, but in the very words of God. When God accepts the testimony of “blame” it is endorsed and true. When God does not accept the testimony of “blame” it is then identified as blame-shifting or in other words a lie.

    I hope that makes it clear and I hope you accept my apology.

  42. Cheryl,

    Thanks for your apology…it is excepted. I am a bit baffled why you have no interest in dealing with the grammar. I understanad your business, but since these passages are the ‘base point’ for all gender based arguments, i’m surprised you don’t want to dig into them. Is there something in the grammar that you know contradicts your position?

    Maybe you or anybody else can show me something from the text then. If Eve blamed the serpent and it was truthful with no element of blame-shifting (not accepting her own responsibilty), then how can you say Adam only blame-shifted. Is not what he said also the truth? Did God give Eve to him. Did not Eve give the fruit to him? So you see the same argument you use for Eve could equally apply to Adam. You could even go as far as God accepting Adam’s blame by the ephatic question God asks of Eve.
    BUt of course i reject that Adam did not balme shift. THe grammar shows me this. Likewise i reject that Eve did not blame shift. The grammar also shows me the same thing as Adam.

    So this is my problem becasue you are equating something to Adam and not to Eve when nothing in the grammar allows for it. It is only in the precise grammar where we see emphatic expressions ect, which highlight that BOTH did the same thing. Neither of them told a lie per se, but from the grammar we can see that both blame shifted, that is they did not accept responsibility for their own actions aswell.

    But it’ not up to me. IF you wish to ignore the grammar that’s your decision. I’m just telling you what’s in the text.

    Now about the other passages. How do you know Cheryl, that other biblical passages support your view, when you have failed to deal with the actual passage from which other passages gain their arguments. It seems you are reading backwards. Instead of getting Gen 3 correct and then seeing how other authors apply this text, you are beginning from the other end and making Gen 3 fit into what you believe the other authors are saying. Anyway, i’ll leave it to you. I’ve said my piece and hopefully people realise that you cannot assume something into Gen 3 without looking closely at the grammar itself.

  43. Mark,

    Thanks for your apology…it is excepted.

    Great! Thanks for that brotherly love.

    I am a bit baffled why you have no interest in dealing with the grammar. I understanad your business, but since these passages are the ‘base point’ for all gender based arguments, i’m surprised you don’t want to dig into them.

    There is no value for me in digging into the grammar of the statements of Adam and Eve when we both agree that they were blaming others.

    Is there something in the grammar that you know contradicts your position?

    Of course not. If there was, I would be eager to discuss it. One of these days you’ll get to know me well enough to know that I never run away from a passage that may prove me wrong. I see it as a win-win situation. If I am corrected, I win. If I am right, I win.

    Maybe you or anybody else can show me something from the text then. If Eve blamed the serpent and it was truthful with no element of blame-shifting (not accepting her own responsibilty), then how can you say Adam only blame-shifted.

    The issue is not whether they accepted their own responsibility. The issue is whether the one(s) that they blamed was a valid blame accepted by God. Remember that God is the ultimate judge of truth. So no matter what they said with whatever intricate grammar, the judge will be God and how He deals with their claims.

    So this is my problem becasue you are equating something to Adam and not to Eve when nothing in the grammar allows for it.

    Sigh! Is the problem with me that I can’t get my point across to you? Let me try one more time to see if I can allow you to hear me.

    The issue is not with the grammar of the blame that they spoke. The issue has to be resolved with God and His assessment of the truth. God accepted the blame that Eve gave of the serpent. Right? And he make a curse fit for the sentencing brought about by the witnesses and the trial Judge.

    Then when Adam did his blame thing, God did not present a judgment call that resulted in a curse or a “Because you did this…” And the words that God gave to Adam were about two failures that God calls Adam to be accountable for. And God does not affirm Adam’s blame so it becomes an “alleged guilt” of others that was found to have no credible evidence thus a dismissal of that case. Thus Adam’s attempt at blaming became “blame-shifting” because God didn’t agree with him.

    But it’ not up to me. IF you wish to ignore the grammar that’s your decision.

    Since God already made His decision and the judgment has come and gone and the blame has been dealt with, I see no need to re-examine the evidence and I wish to go with the Judge’s judgment instead. I think that is a wise and a valuable use of my time.

    Now about the other passages. How do you know Cheryl, that other biblical passages support your view, when you have failed to deal with the actual passage from which other passages gain their arguments. It seems you are reading backwards.

    I haven’t failed to deal with the passage at all. I went to the ultimate Judge and the ultimate evidence. Honestly it might be worth your time to start your own blog where you can add a few participles, sprinkle in a few nouns and don’t forget the verbs and bungee jump over a historical present. Maybe you can rustle up some interest there. Here, nyeh, no interest whatsoever and that is case closed.

    And just off side for a moment, how’s the birthing process coming along? Any bouncing baby yet?

  44. Oh Mark, I feel so sorry for your wife. Give her a hug from me. My first one was a month overdue. At least that is what I was told. I think the doctor got his dates wrong. I was not living for the Lord at the time, but everyday I was on my knees praying that the time would come SOON! I was not one of those who enjoyed pregnancy although I did love having those children when I saw them.

  45. Mark,
    We know Eve’s motives because the Bible tells us what they were. The word for wise–what Eve was desiring–is Strongs #7919 (wise) “To be (make or act) circumspect and hence intelligent:–consider, ecpert, instruct, prosper, (deal) prudent…have good success, teach, (have, make to) understand (-ing), wisdom, (be, behave self, consider, make) wise (ly), guide wittingly.

    Eve thought eating the fruit would help her be wise so she could be circumspect, intelligent and prudent, have good understanding. This is what I’ve been led to understand that Solomon wanted, and that God blessed him for that.

    Actually, if you look at the wisdom Solomon wanted, the word God uses to say how he was blessed, is different. I Kings 3:12 Strongs #2450 “wise, (IE intelligent, skilful or artful):–cunning (man), subtil, [un] wise ([hearted], man).

    The word is from #2449 to be wise in mind, word, or act x exceeding, teach wisdom…

    The meanings are similar, except the one for Solomon is apparently for males only.

    Given the similarities of the meanings, I find it difficult to say that what Eve wanted was sinful, but what Solomon wanted was good.

    If you read the text, Genesis 3:1-6, it is clear Eve ate because she could see it was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and that it was “a tree to be desired to make one wise.”

  46. Concerning blame-shifting, sometimes looking at the meaning of individual words will get you a different meaning than you would arrive at if all the words are put together. The words Adam spoke give one a sense that he was also pointing a finger. “The woman thou gavest me, SHE didst give me the fruit and I ate.” The reader can hear the same type of blame and finger pointing children use. “See that boy that you said I couldn’t run off the playground? HE did it.”

    Adam’s “The woman whom thou gavest with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” is not at all similar to Eve’s explanation.

    For Eve’s explanation to be anywhere as responsibility shifting as Adam’s, she would have said, “The serpent thou didst put into the garden didst speak to me and beguile me, and the man thou didst put in the garden with me, he didst hold his silence. Therefore, I ascertained that the fruit was good to eat and would give wisdom that is pleasing to thee, and I ate.

    This answer would have clearly been blaming God, serpent, and husband, just as Adam’s answer clearly blames God and Eve.

    Notice that Adam does NOT claim to have been beguiled. When Eve said she was beguiled, she was admitting to feeling stupid. If you have ever been conned by a con artist, you know how a person thus conned feels so totally foolish that he she didn’t see through the con. Usually, people would rather not admit to having been so stupid as to have been deceived. Eve admits her stupidity, and admits what she did.

    Although Adam says what he did, he does not admit to having been conned. He speaks as if Eve is his Lord and he has to do what she says. This, too, was a lie. He tries to shift the blame onto God and Eve.

    Eve’s statement is more of a sheepish admission, while Adam’s is so defiant as to blame God.

  47. Is not what he said also the truth? Did God give Eve to him. Did not Eve give the fruit to him? So you see the same argument you use for Eve could equally apply to Adam.

    No, what he said was not the truth because it was not the whole truth. God did not give a deceived woman to him, and a normal Eve did not give the fruit to him, but a deceived Eve gave the fruit to him.

  48. Adam was blame shifting and doing so in such a way as if his wife was not deceived when she gave him the fruit which is exactly why he is blame shifting. His shifting blame completely shows in the way he blames her with no mention of why she gave him the fruit which was because of her deception!

  49. His shifting blame completely shows in the way he blames her with no mention of why she gave him the fruit which was because of her deception and also because he was not deceived.

  50. So the way Adam blamed her and God shows that he was not accepting his own responsibilty which is entirely different from the way Eve blames the serpent which God confirms her blame by cursing the beast for deceiving her.

  51. One cannot be with eyes wide open and then turn around and blame a deceived person for their own action without it being a matter of blame shifting.

  52. Imagine had he said “the woman was deceived and she gave me the fruit and I ate.” That would have been an out right confession of his rebellion because a deceived person cannot be blamed for one’s act of rebellion. But since he left out the fact that she was deceived it shows that he’s shifting blame onto her which is what a rebellious person would do.

    And Eve wasn’t rebellious like Adam so why would she have to shift blame anyway?!

  53. Mark,

    Seems to me that you are trying to make Eve guilty of being a rebel like Adam. One was deceived, one was a rebel. You cannot just assign a rebellion to Eve who was deceived and who blamed her deceiver. Just because she blamed her deceiver for deceving her doesn’t make her a rebel. It makes her right, since God then cursed the deceivng beast.

  54. A rebel is going to shift blame but what reason does a deceived person have to shift blame when they are not a rebel?

  55. That should have read:
    A rebel is going to shift blame but what reason does a once deceived person have to shift blame when they are not a rebel and no longer deceived?

  56. At what point did Eve become a rebel like Adam, Mark?
    Was it when she blamed the deceving serpent for deceving her? How come you consider that a rebellious when it’s not blame shifting?

  57. Is not what he said also the truth? Did God give Eve to him. Did not Eve give the fruit to him? So you see the same argument you use for Eve could equally apply to Adam.

    Different emphasis. He did not eat of the fruit because God gave the woman to him and the woman gave the fruit to him. That’s like saying God made the sky and the sky was blue so I ate the fruit and therefore it’s the sky’s fault and God’s fault I ate. Sure God made the sky and it’s blue but that had nothing to do with his actions. The fact that God made the woman and the woman offered him the fruit had nothing to do with him eating the fruit. He was not compelled by Eve, and God did not make her with a sinful nature so that her actions compelled him. Adam was clearly blameshifting. He was saying ‘she made me do it’ and you gave her to me, so ‘it’s your fault too’….. ‘so, don’t blame me’.

    Both were sinless and perfect.

    Whereas, the serpent deceiving the woman had much to do with why she ate it. He confused her into thinking she was not doing what God told her not to do. That is the nature of deception and deceivers. This is why God cursed the serpent. The lesson that we learn from this is that even if we are deceived we will still suffer the consequences of our errors and wrong doings. Both Adam and Eve suffered the consequences of sinning. They suffered an immediate spiritual loss. They thought they were naked when before they did not. And they now would suffer death.

    To try to equalize being deceived into an action and deliberately knowingly choosing an action has all the appearances of trying to cover one’s own sin and diminish it’s true depth.

  58. Mark

    Are you an elder/overseer?

    Do you meet the”qualifications” to be and elder/overseer?
    In 1 Tim and Titus?

    Here’s a quick list of the “qualifications” for elder/oveerseer
    for any that are wondering about 1 Tim and Titus.

    Titus 1:6 **If** any be blameless…
    Titus 1:7 For a bishop “must be” blameless…

    **blameless — unrebukeable, without fault.
    husband of one wife — married, male.
    rules well his own house — have a family, children.
    not greedy of filthy lucre — Not greedy for money.
    vigilant — no excessive wine, calm in spirit.
    sober — of a sound mind, self controlled.
    of good behavior — modest, unassuming, reserved.
    no striker — not quarrelsome, contentious.
    not a brawler — abstaining from fighting.
    not self willed — not self pleasing, not arrogant.
    not soon angry — not prone to anger.
    temperate — having power over, restraining.
    **holy — undefiled by sin, free from wickedness.
    **just — righteous, virtuous, innocent, faultless.

    Not only do elders have to “qualify” but also their children. Yes?

    “having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly”

    **faithful — believing, one who trusts in God’s promises.
    **not accused of riot — Strongs – asotia — unsavedness.
    …an abandoned dissolute life, lost to principle.
    **unruly — disobedient.

    The Bible talks about bishops, and elders.
    And qualifications for bishops and elders.
    Can you have one without the other?

    Seems to me, this problem, “male headship,” exists only
    because there are a bunch of guys leading a “Religious $ System,”
    who claim to be elders/overseers, rulers of the people,
    who don’t/can’t even measure up to “the qualifications.”

    Where I exist in Christ, outside “The Corrupt Religious System,”
    you never hear the words… Complementarinism – Egalitarianism.
    Brethren are “listened to” because of the Christ within each believer.

    Not because of “Titles,” education, position, power, prestige, reputation, etc…

    The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwells in me.
    The same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwells in you.

    “ALL” can, and are expected to “participate,” always.

    1Cor 14:26
    How is it then, brethren? when ye come together,
    every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine,
    hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.
    Let all things be done unto edifying.

  59. husband of one wife — married, male.

    Just one correction A. Amos. The lists are about character traits, not physical qualifications. The “one woman man” idiom means one who is faithful in relationships. It’s not about being married or not, or divorced or not, or having more than one wife.

    Faithful is the Word, and those who serve the Word must be faithful also. The descriptions in 1 Timothy 3 are descriptions of a faithful type of person.

  60. TL

    Thanks – BUT.

    Just “ONE” correction? Glory!!!

    I thank God for the women in my life…

    If it wasn’t for women – I wouldn’t know I had any faults at all. 😉

    Blessings…

  61. “Do you think women should/can be an “Elder/OverseerLleader/Authority?”

    As Christians, we minister in the Body of Christ not according to our own gifts, knowledge and authority, but according to what God gifts to us. It is a circle. God died for us to give us life, His life. We in turn give back this life, spiritual life, that God gives us by serving and ministering to His people. God then gives us more to give out. Sort of like a circle of life. 🙂

    Women are as much a part of the Body of Christ as men are and are just as capable of receiving the LIFE that God gives us through the H. S, and therefore, just as capable of giving, ministering and serving that life to others as God directs. Those who have are not to hoard but to share and bless.

  62. TL

    Great explanation of how “the body of Christ” operates. Love it.

    Think I’ll “borrow” it in the future. If you don’t have any objections? 😉

    But you didn’t answer the question asked…

  63. Hello A.Amos. I see you’re still here. 🙂

    As to answering your question, actually I did indeed answer it. But I’ll try to be more specific. And yes, you can borrow my explanation above.

    Every member of the Body of Christ is and should make themselves available to God to be used in any of the giftings/manifestations of the Holy Spirit as the HS so leads. While being a serving elder or an overseer or similar other kinds of leadership service to the Body of Christ is not a manifestation of the HS in itself, yet those who have spiritual experience and are able to teach not being a new convert, should be willing if God puts it on their hearts to serve the Body of Christ as a guardian of sorts. When Paul says “anyone who desires” the work of overseer desires a good work, I’m quite certain he meant “anyone who desires”. Anyone may desire such a service as long as they qualify, and the main qualification IMO is one of being a person (man or woman) faithful to the Word and the Spirit of the Word.

  64. An overseer is one who protects the flock from spiritual error so that they do not become deceived and taken captive by error. Women are capable of knowing and understanding doctrine too so that the flock can be kept safe. In fact my whole ministry has been keeping Christians aware of the doctrinal errors of the cults and help Christians to witness to the cults. This is a ministry that God has given me and this is an area that overseers or elders should be good at because the spiritual safety of the flock is their responsibility. They are not to lord it over others or be seen as taking authority over others. But their wisdom in correct doctrine is a safety factor for the local body of believers. There should be ones in every congregation of believers who can help with doctrinal understanding whether the congregation meets in a building or meets in a private home. I believe that God does gift and call men and women to take a place of oversight as a watchman on the wall, watching out for the enemy and protecting the flock from the wolves.

  65. John McArthur: “It might leave the impression that woman sort of lies under God’s permanent displeasure.”

    John McArthur’s teaching leaves me with the impression that women lie under John McArthur’s permanent displeasure.

    Because reading the Bible without all the vast amounts of ‘adding to the Word’ that McArthur liberally engages in doesn’t leave me with any impression of God’s displeasure of women more than men.

    Me thinks McArthur projects his own displeasure towards women onto his understanding of God.

  66. Cheryl

    Love your reasonings and answers to tuff questions. 😉
    Appreciate your efforts dealing with “Truth” and “Cults.”
    Learned a lot here, from you and others who comment.
    And I also agree God’s giftings are available for all.

    In Christ, we are “All” “ONE” – Neither Male nor Female.
    NOT equal – “ONE”

    Why settle for “being equal?”

    “Equality” looks good to the carnal mind.

    “ONE” is what we are in Christ.

    In Christ – “Male and Female” do not exist.

    “ONE”

    IMO – The problem is, and has always been, with
    “The Corrupt $ Religious System” of the day. 🙁

    Blessings…

  67. TL

    You write…
    “Every member of the Body of Christ is and should make themselves available to God to be used in any of the giftings/manifestations of the Holy Spirit as the HS so leads. ”

    I find no “Fault” with your explanation. I really like them. 😉

    I guess it’s my “fault” for not asking the question properly.”

    Do you think a women should have the “Title” and “Position” of
    “Pastor/Elder/Leader/Authority/Master?”
    Lifting themselves above, and seperating from, the rest of ”The Body?”
    Becoming a “Special One” just like the “Men” who are seeking “Glory?”
    Seeking; Power, Profit, Prestige, Recognition, Reputation, and Honor?

    Jesus said, if I honor myself my honor is nothing. John 8:54

    I don’t believe “so called” men “pastor/leaders” are setting a very good example.
    Why be like them?

    “Titles” give you power, prestige, honor, etc, whether you want it or not.

    I’m also an “Every member of the Body can Minister” kind of believer.

    Even those “we think to be less honourable” have been a great blessing.
    You know – Those we wouldn’t think of having spiritual discernment.
    BUT GOD, has a better idea about that… 😉

    God gives more abundant honour to that part of the body “we think to be less honourable.”

    1 Cor 12:22-24
    Nay, much more those members of the body,
    which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
    And those members of the body, which
    “we think to be less honourable,”
    upon these we bestow **more abundant honour; ** (that must be a misprint)
    and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
    For our comely parts have no need:
    BUT?GOD hath tempered the body together, (without “my” help. Oy vey!)
    having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

    “Pastors?” teach a lot about “obey your Leaders” and “chuch authority,” but,
    NOT much teaching or “examples to the flock” of
    submitting one to another, and esteeming others better then themselves.
    Eph 5:21, Php 2:3.

    Jesus always has a better way. nah, the only way.

    P.S. You don’t really have to answer the questions.
    Just my rant for the day. 😉

  68. Hi A. Amos Love,

    While we are ONE in Christ we are also joint heirs and “joint” means to share together which speaks of complete equality with no one inheriting more because of a special status. Thus we are equally heirs together as fellow “sons” of God in Christ and no one can claim to be bigger, better or more able because of their race, their gender or their social status. We all share together as equal members in Christ.

    Thoughts?

  69. Cheryl

    Seems you like the word “equality.”
    And, I’m stuck on the word “ONE.”

    “Equality” is an excellent word.
    Dictionary – the state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities.

    Recently, I’ve been looking, and asking, about the word “ONE” in the scriptures.

    “ONE” seems to carry a different flavor, NOT the same as “equal.”

    Not quite sure, don’t have anything definite yet, still searching,
    BUT, I’m seeing and thinking there is more to “ONE” then a single digit.

    Like… “ONE” day I noticed that “ONE” of God’s names is “ONE.”

    Zec 14:9
    And the LORD shall be king over all the earth:
    in that day shall there be “ONE” LORD, and his name “ONE.”

    This “ONE” in Heb. is echad. Seems to denote a plural “ONE”

    Echad – from TWOT. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.

    Echad stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that ONEness.

    Jud 20:1
    Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation
    was gathered together as “ONE” man…

    Jud 20:11
    So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city,
    knit together as “ONE” man.

    Ezra 3:1
    And when the seventh month was come,
    and the children of Israel were in the cities,
    the people gathered themselves together
    as “ONE” man to Jerusalem.

    And in Christ we **ARE** “ONE.” Hmmm?

    Ga 3:28*
    There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
    there is neither male nor female:
    for ye are all “ONE” in Christ Jesus.

    We already **ARE** “ONE.” Hmmm?
    What does that signify? If anything? BUT maybe…

    And in John 10:16…

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall “hear my voice;”
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.

    Hmmm? One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice.

    Any “ONE” – thoughts?

  70. Cheryl

    I didn’t know God’s name is “ONE.”

    I always thought God’s name was Andy…

    An..dy walks with me…
    An…dy talks with me…
    An..dy tells me…I am His own…;-)

  71. A. Amos Love,

    Re:#76 – not 77 🙂 –
    “so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” Rom. 12:5

    …here’s another ‘one’ thought for you.

  72. I found Waneta’s comment #28 very insightful about the pure motives of Eve. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/04/29/why-let-women-lead-bible-studies/#comment-11658

    That is the first I have heard this, and I think Waneta has hit on the truth! But I am inclined not to judge Adam’s motives quite so harshly. While Adam was not deceived and did deliberately rebel (according to the testimony of Scripture), he was also pure before the Fall, and I wonder if he chose to “lay down his life for his wife”? Jesus, the second Adam, laid down His life for His bride, but He was doing so in submission to God rather than rebellion.

    Perhaps Adam put his wife before God and decided that since she was going to die, he would join her in death?

  73. responding to TL http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/04/29/why-let-women-lead-bible-studies/#comment-11660

    The consequence of Adam’s “inordinate turning” to lay down his life for Eve in direct and conscious rebellion against God is the first “role reversal”:

    NOW woman’s “desire will be for your husband” and she will “lay down her life” in ways that viloate God’s will and plan (though I don’t think women are conscious of doing so, there is definitely an element of deception)

  74. http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/04/29/why-let-women-lead-bible-studies/#comment-11679

    Cheryl: God isn’t silent. God said in Genesis 3:17 “because you did (this) and (that) cursed is….” God not only turns Adam’s excuse around as a charge of sin (the first “because” cause), but He adds the words “listened to the voice of your wife” which is an indication that the watchman listening to his wife’s deception in silence was a grave sin.

    Adam was the designated “keeper” of the Garden. A look at the Hebrew word for Adam’s commision to “KEEP” the garden and the greek word for a wife’s commision to KEEP the home will confirm that neither job is about domestic servitude. The commission is to be a WATCHMAN and Titus 2 confers this responsibility upon wives. “Keeper of the Home” – OIKOUROS.

    To rephrase Cheryl’s observation:
    “the watchman listening to her husband’s deception in silence is a grave sin!”

    BTDT! I repent!

  75. Charis,
    In comment #79 you said:

    Perhaps Adam put his wife before God and decided that since she was going to die, he would join her in death?

    Hmmm…that would be an odd way to put one’s wife before God especially since he said nothing while she took of the fruit and ate it even though he was not deceived and had the ability to warn her and plead with her not to die. If he then said to himself, “While she is going o die so I will die too and that way I will put my wife before God and lay down my life for her…” it wouldn’t also fit that after they are “found out” he blames his wife for his sin instead of continuing to lay down his life for her and take the fall for her. And it seems to be that God gives Adam no commendation for his way of loving her enough to lay down his life for her (after refusing to lift a finger to help her when she was in her deception).

    But as you so aptly put it, anyone (including a wife) who has been given the charge to be a watchman and who understands the lie and the deception is required to speak up and say something so that her husband and her kids are not deceived.

    Thanks for your comments, Charis!

  76. ”Seems you like the word “equality.”?And, I’m stuck on the word “ONE.”

    When Scripture says The Lord our God is One that means they are equal in will, power, authority and basically everything. They are so in unity that they are ONE! They are different persons, but so united in will, power, and authority that they cannot be differentiated on those things.

  77. Charis,

    Good observations about Keeper and Watchman.

    However, keep in mind that the husband was NOT deceived. Some points of thought:

    1. Both Adam and Eve were commissioned by God to exercise dominion, a dominion of guardianship over the earth and it’s creatures.
    2. Adam as the first one created was further commissioned to be a Watchman/Guardian/Keeper in Eden.
    3. Neither of these responsibilities was over or upon the other. Adam was not Eve’s ‘keeper’ or guardian and Eve was not Adam’s ‘keeper’ or guardian. There’s was to be a relationship of unity, togetherness, mutual support, and equality.
    4. In that equality (neged) Eve was created to allay the man’s aloneness. Together they are to be united as one. Her equality with the man is a primary point in alleviating lonliness. She, her very person, including her equality with the man (not her actions) is the strong help that allays loneliness.
    5. As the perfectly strong and equal partner she was created to be to the man, and the fact that they were to be ‘as one’, the husband cleaving to the wife, it is likely that she was to join him in guarding Eden. It would be something that they would do in perfect ‘oneness’. But that didn’t happen, as the husband did not cleave to her. He stood separate just listening as the serpent deceived her.

  78. ““ONE” is also a name of God. Hmmm?”

    It’s a descriptive name like Father, counselor, wonderful, etc. 🙂

  79. TL

    you write…
    “They are different persons, but so united in will, power, and authority that they cannot be differentiated on those things.”

    No longer using the term “persons” to describe God.

    Persons sound so, ahh… HUMAN. To much like me. UUUGGGHHH!!! 😉

    God is Spirit… God is Love… God is Light… God is “ONE”

    De 6:4
    Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is “ONE” LORD:

    Mr 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is,
    Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is “ONE” Lord:

    Gal 3:20
    Now a mediator is not a mediator of one,
    but God is “ONE.”

    But “persons” sounds too much like HUMANS. AAARRRGGGHH 😉

  80. it wouldn’t also fit that after they are “found out” he blames his wife for his sin instead of continuing to lay down his life for her and take the fall for her. And it seems to be that God gives Adam no condemnation for his way of loving her enough to lay down his life for her (after refusing to lift a finger to help her when she was in her deception).

    Cheryl, did you mean “condemnation” or “commendation” above? “Condemnation” makes no sense to me in context.

    Certainly, Adam failed at the commission to “keep”=guard,watch, protect ore else what was the enemy doing in there unchallenged? And if, as the text seems to indicate in the plain English, Adam was “with her” when the serpent was weaving his tale, then Adam again fails to guard,watch, protect.

    In the events and motives leading up to the Fall, they both made poor choices (though I think our armchair judgments of them may assume far more negatively than the reality of a perfect couple very near to an umarred image of God). However, the real difference comes in their responses when confronted with their bad decisions. That is where I see more of a distinct contrast. Adam blameshifts and “covers up his sin” while Eve tells the truth/comes clean without blaming her husband or God. Bushnell refers to her as the first Believer in the Messiah. Eve Becomes a Believer

  81. In addition, I think that their responses typify the range of true freedom that God gives humanity in allowing us to make mistakes.

  82. Charis,
    Ah, yes, typo. It should be commendation and since I have blogmaster privileges I will go back and fix my mistake. Thanks for catching that typo for me. Yes, indeed the term condemnation would not fit what I was saying.

  83. Hello,

    A visitor here. I have a question regarding statement #84.5 and a few that relate to the issues in Eden.

    I preface my comments with this. I am a man that just wants truth and has lied enough times to know the damage it causes. I struggle with my role in society only because I know God has called me to be virtuous and meek. Both are not recognized as strengths nowadays, even in my eyes. I will though pursue wisdom and pray. If my statements or questions I offend, I hope the intent of my writing is accepted first.

    84.5 As the perfectly strong and equal partner she was created to be to the man, and the fact that they were to be ‘as one’, the husband cleaving to the wife, it is likely that she was to join him in guarding Eden. It would be something that they would do in perfect ‘oneness’. But that didn’t happen, as the husband did not cleave to her. He stood separate just listening as the serpent deceived her.

    How did Eve know the rule about the tree?
    If she was told it would not her response to the serpent be the first sin…lying?

    How do we know where Adam was when Eve was being decieved?
    If Adam was there did he then commit a sin of omission letting his wife be tricked?

    I am not married but if I am blessed with a wife I believe she would be an expression of His love for me in a more than tangible way. The responsibility of being a wise steward of His love through her is impossible to maintain lest I stay submitted to God. I know I must love her.

    If the roles in a marriage are established scripturally why is there a debate about the roles of men and women in ministry? When all is said and done can we not tell by the fruit of the ministry if God is being honored by it?

  84. PRIEST, welcome to my blog! You asked:

    How did Eve know the rule about the tree?

    We know in Genesis 1 that God speaks to both Adam and Eve about what they may eat. He gives them both permission to eat from every tree that has seed bearing fruit. This would encompass the prohibition also since logically the forbidden tree could not have seed bearing fruit. Since God spoke to both of them about what they could eat and since Eve quotes God’s words to the serpent about the forbidden fruit, by Eve’s testimony we know that she heard the command from God Himself.

    If she was told it would not her response to the serpent be the first sin…lying?

    No. It was Eve’s testimony that God said what she quoted and neither God nor Adam accused her of lying so her testimony stands as true. Somewhere God spoke these words to Adam and Eve together and His words are quoted and defended by the woman. There is no reason to believe that she lied.

    How do we know where Adam was when Eve was being decieved?

    The Bible says that Adam was “with” Eve when she took of the fruit. The Hebrew means: together with, in company with. He was right there by her side.

    If Adam was there did he then commit a sin of omission letting his wife be tricked?

    It was worse than just omission. If a watchman on the wall fails to warn the city, he isn’t guilty of omission. He is guilty of treason. God calls Adam’s sin as treachery in Hosea 6:7.

    If the roles in a marriage are established scripturally why is there a debate about the roles of men and women in ministry? When all is said and done can we not tell by the fruit of the ministry if God is being honored by it?

    Amen! The gift that comes from God Himself and the godly use of that gift is all that is needed to show the good fruit. Those who want to see this as contradicting another passage in Scripture should question whether it might be their own understanding of that Scripture that is in conflict with God’s gifts and the work of God’s Holy Spirit through any vessel that He chooses.

  85. PRIEST, you said:

    Oh….and thank you for this forum.

    You are welcome! Thanks for stopping by and I hope you visit here again and join in the discussion.

  86. This comment may be pointless after 96 others, but…

    “the weakness of woman is that she needs a head; the weakness of man is that he needs woman.” What the hell does this mean, Johnny Mac? He talks about men and women being defective in different ways, but he never specifies how men are defective. Just that they are…somehow…mysteriously defective. And if he’s saying that man is defective because he needs woman, then he’s wrong: man was created perfect in the garden – without spot, blemish, or defect. Lame, lame, lame…I live in the SF Valley near his church and all the churches in the area seem to be tainted by his thinking. It’s extremely bothersome to me. I’ve seen how dangerous it can become.

  87. Rachel Ann, welcome to my blog! I agree that the statement you pulled out is quite incredible. I listen to this type of teaching and wonder how people can so easily accept it without question. Perhaps we are into the worship of a man where if you are a popular pastor, it doesn’t matter what you teach, it is accepted.

  88. Thank you so much for your patience with me. Sometimes I do not always phrase things correctly or analytically but I am glad you saw to answering my questions accurately.

    I confess to using this issue as a means to puff myself up. There is no reason important enough to do this so I offer no excuses. I do think it is ironic that the anti-spam word for me was FALL…and we all know how pride leads to that.

    My hope is I fall on my knees.

    Humbled,

    Priest

  89. PRIEST,
    I think that questions are worthy of being asked and answered and this is how we learn from one another. There are so many “one another”s in the Scripture.

    Sounds to me like you are on the right track by recognizing a weakness within yourself. The first step is seeing one’s own need to change. I think you have come past that. Praise the Lord!

  90. Hi Cheryl.
    as always, this blog is a pantry full of solid food.
    The one question I have, for which I have not found an answer yet is: Why did Adam fail to protect his wife (Gen 3:6), and allowed Eve to be deceived while in his sinless state? He knew very well that the serpent was lying to Eve because he was right there, yet he did nothing. Not exactly the behavior of a perfect, sinless person.
    Looking forward to your insight.

  91. Hi Ingrid,
    Glad for your questions.
    You said:

    Why did Adam fail to protect his wife (Gen 3:6), and allowed Eve to be deceived while in his sinless state? He knew very well that the serpent was lying to Eve because he was right there, yet he did nothing. Not exactly the behavior of a perfect, sinless person.

    This is the $64,000 question that the Bible does not give to us directly. We do have some facts that can help us. We do know that Adam’s actions were considered treachery by God (Hosea 6:7) How do we get treachery out of his actions and why he did this can be explored.

    We can liken what Adam responsibility to use his knowledge to one who is a watchman on the wall. The one who has been assigned his turn to be on the wall to watch for any sign of the enemy will have knowledge that the people inside the city do not have. He will be the first to see the enemy. His responsibility will then be to warn the city of the impending attack. It would then be the responsibility of the city to heed the warning of the watchman in order to prepare for the attack and defend themselves. The watchman is not responsible for what the citizens do with the warning, but he is responsible for giving the warning.

    God has said that the watchman who fails to give the warning is guilty of treason. So we can understand why Adam was guilty of treachery and God considered him to have acted in a treacherous way. But why did he act this way?

    We know that God created both the man and the woman to be rulers over the earth and that entailed being rulers over the animals and rulers over the earth itself. Because of this we can understand that Adam would have known that Eve was also ruler of the serpent who was talking with her. Was Adam going to step into the conversation and be bold enough to contradict the serpent in front of his wife thus making it look like his wife didn’t have full authority over the serpent? Perhaps. Whatever his reason, we know that he kept silent when he should have spoken out. Silence was the easy way out of what he may have seen was a dilemma. Silence enabled him to not contradict his wife’s rule. But it was the coward’s way out no matter what his reasons were for keeping silence. Perhaps he thought that she would come to her senses on her own so he waited and kept silent. He lost his opportunity to act as a faithful watchman when his wife took the fruit and ate. Now it was too late. Now what to do? His silence was a failure. She ate and she would die. He knew that. And so he chose to carry on the unfaithful direction and he ate the fruit by taking it from the hand of his deceived wife.

    What I think happened was the first sin of omission. I think that it was akin to Cain who claimed innocence when he told God that he wasn’t his brother’s keeper. I think that Adam felt that he didn’t need to be his wife’s keeper because it was more comfortable to be silent and hope for the best than to be confrontational and be a “helper” to his wife. I think that a perfect man can sin through omission but by failing to protect his wife from death, this failure of Adam’s was an act of treason in God’s eyes.

    I do expect that when we get to Heaven that God will tell us the “rest of the story” and why Adam did what he did. But I do think that Adam’s silence as a sin of omission was the start of the full fall. It really is sad and if Adam had given up of himself for his wife, I believe that the fall would never have happened. I think that is also why men are instructed to give up of themselves for their wives and only in Christ are they able to fulfill their godly duty to their wives. The failure of the first man is not the example of a godly husband and Christian husbands can receive God’s wisdom and power to be to their wives what Adam should have been to Eve – one who places her first and sacrifices themselves on her behalf.

    Does this help a little?

  92. I just watched two short youtube clips that give a wonderful testimony to our responsibility to not being silent.

    Adam was silent and his silence was counted against him as sin. It is how a perfect man failed his wife and the repercussion of that silence and then the act of cowardly joining in the eating with full knowledge of the consequences, that has affected us all.

  93. Concerning Adam’s failure and treachery:
    Adam was given the job of keeper of the garden. That included something like security guard. I believe Eve was also given the job of security guard. (Since “Adam” is used both for the man and for Adam and Eve together, it can be difficult to recall which is which, and I do not have the time to look it up now.) If the security guard of a jewelry store stands by and watches while the valuables are being taken, that is treachery. If he also helps take the jewelry, that is double treachery and totally inexcusable.

    If the person who first took the jewelry was his security-guard partner, he would still have been required to say or do something to stop the theft. Doing nothing to correct a partner is also treachery–especially when he can tell his partner is getting misinformed, even if it is by a fantastic talking creature.

    Today we’d call Adam’s action Embezzlement. We have little sympathy for those who embezzle from their bosses. We aren’t even sure if we can trust the spouse and children of the embezzler. (That is how we feel about a student whose mother embezzled from the school. Did he know about it? Was he complicit with her? Was the husband in on it?) We do, however, understand the horror and embarrassment one feels when they realize they have been hoodwinked by a con-artist. Thus, although Eve sinned, hers was not on purpose. Adam sinned twice; once by his silence when his partner was being conned and as a result chose to embezzle from the boss, and again when he also chose to embezzle from the boss. Or is that sinning 4 times, since he was silent as Eve was being conned and also when she was helping herself to the fruit, and then again when she gave him the fruit and yet again as he ate the fruit?

    What was his motivation? Was he so deeply in love that he didn’t want to say anything? That is like suggesting a man is so deeply in love he says nothing as his love walks out in front of a speeding semi.

    Perhaps he wanted to see what “die” means. If creationists are correct, there would have been no death up to that point. If teenagers cannot grasp the concept of death, how can we expect someone who is in a world where death has never happened to grasp what that is?

    Could it be that Adam really didn’t believe God? I suggest he wanted to see if anything happened to Eve when she ate the fruit. When nothing appeared to happen, he ate it, too, in essence agreeing with the serpent that God was a liar and they would not die. Yet, the Bible does NOT say that Adam was deceived. I think Adam had been thinking of eating the fruit, himself, before Eve did, and that he jumped at the opportunity when he saw that Eve did not keel over, dead. Yet, the Bible doesn’t judge him for his pre-thinking. It condemns him for his ACTION.

  94. [I know this blog entry is already a couple of weeks old, but I’m new to this site and have been reading some of the older entries.]

    I’m intrigued by MacArthur’s statement that women ” . . . are delivered from being thought of as permanently weak and deceivable and insubordinate” by bearing children.

    So does that mean that Complementarians will let mothers teach in churches? I don’t think so.

    I am genuinely disappointed by the subjective and illogical nature of many of the Complementarian arguments.

  95. Dear Fellows,

    I would like to state that more than half of these paradoxes you are struggling with could have readily been prevented by reading my website
    http://gfwilkinprofwomen.webs.com/, and realizing that the Bible does not assign roles of authority because of the
    PERSONAL QUALITIES of the persons exercising them, but because of the nature of the relationship and function.
    If any given role of authority is reserved exclusively for one sex, it is because the inherent and essential nature
    and the significance and the value of the relationship and function for which it was appointed demands it, not
    because one sex is inherently less gifted or talented than the other.

    I have been reading from George and Dora Winston’s book RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN —
    and I learned this:

    ‘ ALL HUMAN AUTHORITY COMES FROM GOD, ITS ONLY LEGITIMATE SOURCE. IT IS DERIVED IN
    NATURE AND MUST BE SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY HIM, BE IT TO A MAN OR TO A WOMAN.
    Duly constituted human authority is but an extension of God’s authority. When the Lord told Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt (Exod. 3)
    and to use Aaron as his mouthpiece (4:10-15), he said to Moses, “and you will be AS GOD to him” (v.16). The authority Moses had over
    Aaron and the people was not his own but God’s authority delegated to him. And when the Lord ordered
    him to speak authoritatively on His behalf to Pharaoh (6:29), He said, “See I make you as God to Pharaoh” (7:1).
    Many men will grant that authority is not intrinsic to their masculine nature.
    However, they feel that somehow, as men, they are invested with authority in a way that women are not.
    The male sex is believed to constitute an extension of God’s authority. In this view, there is a general blanket authority of males over women.
    But the Bible knows nothing of some vague, indefinite delegation of authority to the masculine half of humanity. It does provide abundant evidence
    that all authority that God gives to one human being over another must be specifically delegated to a particular person in view of a well-defined
    function and by definite appointment. “There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Rom. 13:1).
    “Jesus answered [Pilate], ‘You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above’” (John 19:11).
    “It is the Lord who appointed Moses and Aaron” (1 Sam. 12:6). “The Lord has set a king over you” (1 Sam. 12:13). “You, O king … to
    whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom” (Dan. 2:37). “The Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on
    whomever He wishes” (Dan. 4:17, 32; 5:21). “The flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (Acts 20:28).
    “Our authority [the apostles], which the Lord gave for building you up” (2 Cori. 10:8; 13:10). Kings are invested with authority
    at their coronation, presidents at their inauguration, church officers at their ordination, parents at the birth of a child, a husband at
    his wedding etc. Legitimate authority is the result of a specific bestowal.’ Any man who thinks he has authority over a particular
    woman should be able to show when and how God appointed him to be an authority over her.’

    And any MAN who believes he has authority
    in any formal worship service is under obligation to PROVE when and how and what duly constituted OFFICIAL position and title wherein God has duly vested it in him. Even R. L. Dabney and all the Puritan/Presbyterian/Calvinist theologians who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith, in 1689, understood that.
    “He is nothing more than a usurper unless he has been duly appointed. Any “authority” without biblical sanction is not an extension of God’s authority and therefore does not constitute a legitimate power to act.
    Therefore a man should always ask himself when and how authority over a particular woman has been specifically granted him before exercising leadership over her or making any decisions concerning her. This authority and its bestowal should also have specific scriptural justification.
    And if Scripture has explicitly established a woman in a position of authority over a man, she may freely accept and exercise it. She is not a usurper even if some men refuse to recognize or bow to her authority.

    In fact, even R. L. Dabney himself, who was a Southern Chaplain to the Confederate Army in the Civil War, and a pro-slavery advocate wrote an article attempting to “prove”
    that lay-preaching is illegitimate.

    I have read pages 47-50 of the book RECOVERING BIBLICAL MINISTRY BY WOMEN.

    The important points of the section where they discuss that authority is not dependent on the PERSONAL QUALITIES of the ones exercising them, they state this:

    a RINGLEADER possesses power or the inclination or the ambition to act or govern or lead others by virtue of his inherent gifts and talents and sexual appetites

    but a LEGITIMATE leader possess this power by virtue of regular lawful invesiture.

    Authority must be lawfully conferred, power can be grabbed.

    The reason why God has caused authority to lie in the OFFICE rather than constitute an essential biologically inheritable and biologically determined
    quality or intrinsic ESSENCE and ESSENTIAL BEING of the PERSON or the SEX or the RACE is obvious: it is because “all human authorities, whoever they may
    be or of whatever kind, are tarnished by sin and are imperfect and fallible. If every magistrate, church officer, husband, parent, or employed were to be disobeyed or deposed
    at every one of his” sins or malversations or abuses, “there would be no stability left in human society. Since not all males hold office and since none of their capacities, however great,
    necessarily confer authority upon them, it is evident that not all men are in a position of authority with respect to all women. So if authority is determined by function, when then determines
    function?”

    Well, let me show you. It is the inherent essential and properties either UNIQUE to a given relation or makes it analogical to other relations.

    “THE AUTHORITY OF ONE PERSON OVER ANOTHER IS ALWAYS BASED UPON SOME KIND OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM,
    RATHER THAN ON SEXUAL BEING OR ONTOLOGY. NO AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO MEN OVER WOMEN BY VIRTUE OF
    THEIR MASCULINE ATTRIBUTES.

    In his treatments of the term EXOUSIA as used in the New Testament, Kittel brings out the following: “It is then used of any right in the various RELATIONSHIPS similar to and guaranteed by national institution (e.g., the right of parents in RELATION to children, or masters in RELATION to slaves etc.”)20 and further, “This EXOUSIA is operative in ordered RELATIONSHIPS … is active in a legally ordered whole especially in the state and in all the authoritarian RELATIONSHIPS supported by it.”21 In these two brief statements by Kittel concerning authority, the words RELATION or RELATIONSHIP occur five times. …The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity gives further evidence that authority and submission are based on relationship. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all three of one and the Same Divine Being, essence, or substance (John 1:1: 10:30; 14:9; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 3:16-17; Matt. 28:19, etc.). This is called the ONTOLOGICAL aspect of the Trinity, that is, that which has to do with being. At the same time, “God is the Head of Christ” (1 Cor 11;3); this is called the ECONOMIC or FUNCTIONAL aspect of the Trinity (1 Cor 15:28, John 6:38, John 14:26, John 16:7, 13-14). There is no contradiction because the Persons are one and equal in one respect (being), and three and in authority or submission in another (function). Similarly, one human person can be in a relationship of authority or submission with respect to another without their being either superior or inferior in dignity or worth.
    Some feminists have tried to escape this argument and have tried to prove that there is n authority or submission either between the persons of the Trinity or between men and women. They have usually sought to do this by seeking (in vain) for philological proof that the word “head” (KEPHALE) when referring to God the Father or to man means only SOURCE and NEVER implies authority, or by incorrectly stating the doctrine of the Trinity and insisting that any submission of Christ to the Father’s authority is necessarily a denial of His perfect Deity. Consequently, they claim that any submission of a woman to the authority of a man would necessarily be a denial of her full and equal humanity. Both Berkhof and Schreiner have clearly formulated the key to this difficulty: “There can be no subordination as to essential being of the one person of the godhead to the other, and therefore no difference in personal dignity… The only subordination of which we can speak is a subordination in respect to ORDER and RELATIONSHIP.”{23} “The difference between the members of the Trinity is a FUNCTIONAL one, not an ESSENTIAL one.”{24}

    However, in recognizing that the solution to the problem of authority and submission among perfect equals is to be found in relationship and function, the traditionalists undermine their basic assumption that the authority of men is grounded in their manhood, and the subjection of women is grounded in their womanhood.
    But if equality has to do with being, subordination cannot. Traditionalists have either overlooked or disregarded the fact that if authority and submission are to exist between ontological equals, they cannot be grounded in ontology but only in relationship and function. EQUALITY AND SUBORDINATION CANNOT,
    BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, BE BASED ON ESSENCE. Grudem states correctly concerning the Trinity that to advocated a subordinate essence or being of the Son is to be heretical; it is Arianism. {25} TO ADVOCATE SUBORDINATION AS BELONGING TO THE ESSENCE OF WOMANHOOD IS
    ALSO HERETICAL, though to a lesser degree. It is a serious theological error.” This is all true. “But both males and females can be either in authority or in submission with respect to each other depending on the relationship in which they are placed to one another, whether in the Filial, the Marital, the Civic, the Ecclesiastic, or the Work Relationship.
    And where there is no relationship, there is neither authority nor submission for anybody. The Son was sent by the Father (John 6:38), and, in turn,
    He sent the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). In one relationship Christ submits to authority, while in the other, He exercises it. In one relationship a woman can submit to the authority of a
    particular man, while in a different relationship she exercises authority over some other man. Neither the woman’s authority nor her submission is based of the essence of her
    Womanhood any more than Christ’s authority over the Holy Spirit is based on the essence of His Deity.
    Failure to understand this important point has led Schreiner to state, “The arrogation of male leadership roles by women ultimately dissolves the distinction between men and women.” {26} But this is true only if authority is determined by sexual identity, which is an assumption we have just seen to be unbiblical. Many men, in a variety of relationships, have subordinate functions that in no way pose a threat to their manhood. And a woman can accept leadership roles in a variety of relationships without this being a denial of her femininity. There is not just one role relationship between a man and a woman based on their sexual identities but several different ones in which both can assume leadership based on their functions. By this we are not suggesting that sexual identity is unimportant. Defined in a Biblical way rather than A PRIORI, it is of prime importance. We are simply noting that sexual ontology is not the determining factor in the question of human authority and therefore of Christian ministry. In basing their major argument on the essence of sexual identity, traditionalists have begged the question and are beside the point. The manhood and the womanhood they have recovered
    are not the biblical ones.

    Nowhere does Scripture explicitly establish a connection between masculine traits and authority or feminine traits and submission.
    On the contrary, it clearly shows that natural constitution and innate qualities can give power but never authority. A man may posses all the masculine attributes to the highest degree,
    but these in themselves do not confer on him the least authority.

    A little boy has no authority over a little girl simply because he is male. But Jehoash, a seven-year old boy, was anointed king when he was eight (2 Chron. 34:1).
    These children had authority over whole kingdoms in spite of their limitations, exclusively by virtue of investiture. With God, there is no respect of persons but there is respect of legitimate position. Males are not born to rule; many more of them are subordinates than are rulers. Women were not born
    to submit to men, because in many situations in life and in society, they have been appointed by God to lead (see chapter 6). Many men lack the temperament and natural inclination
    to exercise authority. But if God has made them kings, husbands, or fathers, they must accept these responsibilities and get on with the job. Neither is a man because he is a man
    any less subject to Christ, magistrates, church officers, or an employer than is a woman. And a woman is no more subject to these authorities because she is a woman.
    The general biblical testimony is against the idea that God destines men to be in authority over women because of their respective sexual makeups.
    God does not delegate authority to males across the board. He rather delegates it to both men and women on the basis of specific functions that they fulfill within different relationships.
    We shall now observe that He does this to circumscribe human authority within certain limits.”

    AMEN, AMEN, and AMEN.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: