Browsed by
Category: Adam and headship

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to enter the digital future

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to enter the digital future

WIM digital

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? will soon be available online!

I am working on a new video project at the moment, but I am also working to convert each of the 4 DVDs of Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to a lower quality online downloadable product. We are working hard so that those with computers around the world may also have access to the DVDs.  The entire set will be available for purchase online or each DVD in the 4 DVD set will be available individually as a video download.  We have upgraded the security on our website and we are presently working through all of the logistics to make this all possible.  it is a huge step forward for our ministry.  If all goes well, we will start offering the downloadable version this fall (2012).  Please watch this blog for further information for the launch of the downloadable version.

The DVDs also include audio bytes from those who disagree with women in ministry and we break down the arguments and compare the arguments to the Scriptures.

The 4 DVDs are broken up into scriptural passages as follows: 

Read More Read More

What God intended at Creation – ruler or ruled?

What God intended at Creation – ruler or ruled?

Ruler or ruled? Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

What did God intend at creation?

It seems that everywhere we look these days, complementarian men are quoting the act of creation as God’s intention to put the women underneath the rule of the man.  They are also quick to note that there are two different kinds of rulership of the male. The first kind of male rule is that of an autocrat, tyrant or despot who rules in spite of the woman’s own will or intention.  This kind of rule, they say, is not what is taught by Christian men. The second kind of rulership is described by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as headship and this is defined as “two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (pg 95 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem).  The difference between the two rulerships is that one allows the man to rule the woman for his own benefit and the other rulership has the man ruling the woman for the benefit of God as a God-ordained spiritual leader.

Let’s unpack this down to the presuppositions that are required to form the foundation of the God-ordained male rule. This post will consider the first two claims of male-only rule: 

Read More Read More

Submission and the origin of authority

Submission and the origin of authority

Authority given on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

When is authority given and when can it be rightfully assumed?  These are questions that have divided egalitarians and complementarians in the area of marriage.  While egalitarians generally will agree that submission is a characteristic of Spirit-filled Christians who love and respect the body of Christ, and who serve each other with love, complementarians say that husbands are never commanded to submit to their wives because husbands maintain a God-given sphere of authority that requires sacrifice and not submission.  To a complementarian, submission is always something given to an authority.  Since they don’t believe that a wife has authority over a husband they refuse to submit to their wives.  Is this Biblical? 

Read More Read More

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. 

Read More Read More

The path of the Last Adam

The path of the Last Adam

he Path of the Last Adam/ Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The path of the last Adam was a path that took Him from Heaven to earth, from the earth to the grave and from the grave to resurrection power on display as our  Lord, Savior and King.  But a study in contrast with the first Adam shows us the stark contrast to the faithfulness that the last Adam offers us in the place of the failure that we have experienced with our first earthly father.

1.  Sinner vs Sinless 

Read More Read More

Adam and Eve, the sin nature through the man, and women in ministry

Adam and Eve, the sin nature through the man, and women in ministry

Hung out to dry on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The question has come up on this blog whether Adam had a sin nature at the fall that would have been passed on to all of us and if this is an issue that is important regarding women in ministry.  After all we need to know why it is that only Adam would bring sin into the world and if all of us have something “hanging” onto us from just on man, why is that? We need to know why sin didn’t come into the world through the woman.  Is this because she was “under” the man so that anything she did was not placed on her account but on his account?  These questions and more will be answered in this post. 

Read More Read More

Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority

Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority

man's authority on Women in Ministry Blog by Cheryl Schatz

In our continued topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam’s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve.

In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr headship is defined as a right that the man possesses to lead women in a God-glorifying direction. Ortlund writes

Read More Read More

Common Objections to Women in Ministry: Adam names Eve

Common Objections to Women in Ministry: Adam names Eve

name on Women in Ministry Blog by Cheryl Schatz

One of the positions that complementarians commonly hold is that male and female were created with distinct roles so that one (the male) is said to have been given the authority over the other (the female) and the fact that Adam names Eve is used as proof of the man’s authority.  CMBW (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) records it this way:

Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. Gen. 1:26-27 makes clear that male and female are equally created as God’s image, and so are, by God’s created design, equally and fully human. But, as Gen. 2 bears out (as seen in its own context and as understood by Paul in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2), their humanity would find expression differently, in a relationship of complementarity, with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.

Read More Read More

Southwestern Seminary asserts policy of male headship

Southwestern Seminary asserts policy of male headship

paige-patterson on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The Associated Baptist Press reports that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary adopted a policy statement October 21, 2009, that asserts that men and women are equal before God but created for specific roles of either headship (authority) or submission in both the home and in the church.

Paige Patterson, the president of Southwestern, was among those who drafted the Danvers Statement in 1987.  

Read More Read More

Does a woman need a spiritual covering?

Does a woman need a spiritual covering?

umbrella2 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering”?

Submission and authority are a big issue in the church today.  Closely tied into the issue of authority is the teaching that women need a spiritual “covering.”  Men, we are told, are to be the spiritual “covering” to provide protection and to allow the man to have the accountability. But is a human “covering” a Biblical teaching?  There is no New Testament concept of a human “covering” and only one clear human “covering” in the Old Testament

There was a tradition in the Old Testament of the kinsman redeemer who would “redeem” a widow by marrying the widow of a deceased relative.

Ruth 3:9  He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative.”

Ruth 3:10  Then he said, “May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich.

Ruth 3:11  “Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence.

Ruth 3:12  “Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I.

Ruth 3:13  “Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning.”

Read More Read More

Did Adam rule the animals and the woman at Creation?

Did Adam rule the animals and the woman at Creation?

kittens on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

Those who argue for the permanent subordination of women will frequently use the argument that  Adam named the animals and that this showed his unique “role” given to him by God.

In a CBMW article written by Bruce Ware, Dr. Ware makes it clear that Adam was given an authority in the beginning of creation that the woman was not given.

Read More Read More

Ask John Piper – Do some complementarians deny women opportunities?

Ask John Piper – Do some complementarians deny women opportunities?

John Piper picture on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

On John Piper’s web site is posted a question that someone asked of him about the application of complementarianism that affects women.  The question is:

Do you think complementarianism is so important to some people that they deny women more opportunities than the Bible denies them?

I was shocked at John Piper’s response.  You really need to listen to it for yourself.  Click on the link above to hear an audio version or see the video clip. 

Read More Read More

Round 7 Interview with the Apostle Paul – Adam's accountability

Round 7 Interview with the Apostle Paul – Adam's accountability

Adam's accountability

This is the seventh in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian is questioning Paul on why the man alone brought sin into the world.  Let’s listen in.  (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.)

Read More Read More

Did God give up on the woman?

Did God give up on the woman?

pregnant on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

Many people think that God was especially hard on Eve after she was deceived by the serpent in the garden.  In fact hierarchists have determined that God was so hard on Eve by punishing her with a multitude of lashes for her sin, that some might get the idea that God punished the one who was deceived in a more severe way than the one who sinned willfully and without remorse.  Others are so confused about what God said to Eve many think that sexuality is a necessary evil that came after Adam and Eve left the garden, since Eve experienced no pregnancy before they left the garden.  Understanding exactly what God did say to Eve can help to remove the misconceptions.

God’s words to Eve gives us the reason why Eve did not get pregnant in the garden after her marriage to Adam.  It would not have been because Adam and Eve did not have normal marital relations.  After all God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and marital relations is the normal way of making that happen.  However Adam and Eve were created to live without dying and in that original creation, Eve’s rate of conception was not the same as it was after she ate the fruit and became subject to death.  Let’s look at the first part of God’s words to Eve  in Genesis 3:16.

Read More Read More

Adam's sin imputed to Eve?

Adam's sin imputed to Eve?

Cheryl Schatz Adam's sin 4

 

One of the most bizarre teachings of CBMW is the one taught in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in chapter 3 written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.  Here Mr. Ortlund states that God pronounced the death sentence on Adam alone so that Eve died not because she ate of the forbidden fruit.  According to Ortlund she died because of Adam’s sin.  On page 110, Mr. Ortlund writes:

The fourth point here is that God told Adam alone that he would die.  But Eve died, too.  Why then did God pronounce the death sentence on Adam alone?  Because, as the head goes, so goes the member. [emphasis mine]

Read More Read More

Adam and his Ms. organ

Adam and his Ms. organ

Cheryl Schatz Adam and his Ms. organ

The creation account has been used by many as a foundation to produce myths and stories.  While this post will concentrate on modern day myths, it is also helpful to understand some of the historical myths about the creation of male and female.

One of the myths of creation comes from Plato where the androgynous sex existed as what humans were in the beginning. Here is the edited speech at the Banquet by Aristophanes (189e-193b of Plato’s Symposium):

“Anciently….the androgynous sex existed…coupled back to back…till jealous Jupiter divided then vertically …as people cut eggs with hairs…after then, these divided and imperfect folk ran about over the earth ever seeking their lost halves to be joined to them again…and the reason being that human nature was originally one, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love…..”

Another version is concerning Hermaphroditos who was a Greek androgynous deity.

Read More Read More

Did the first man give woman her self-understanding?

Did the first man give woman her self-understanding?

Was the first man needed to give woman her self-understanding?  According to Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, the answer is yes.

ray_ortlund1

Ortlund has written chapter three of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood CBMW’s book. In this chapter,  Ortlund says:

In designating her “Woman” the man interprets her identity in relation to himself.  Out of his own intuitive comprehension of who she is, he interprets her as feminine, unlike himself, and yet as his counterpart and equal.  Indeed, he sees in her his very own flesh.  And he interprets the woman not only for his own understanding of her, but also for her self-understanding.  God did not explain to the woman who she was in relation to the man, although He could have done so.  He allowed Adam to define the woman, in keeping with Adam’s headship.  (emphasis mine)

Let me ask a couple of questions.  Who explained to the man who he himself was for his own self-understanding?

Read More Read More

Raymond Ortlund says creation order needed to not obscure nature

Raymond Ortlund says creation order needed to not obscure nature

distort1 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

In our discussion of CBMW’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, continuing on in chapter 3 in the writings of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Mr. Ortlund redefines the creation account in such a way that God’s creation of the male first is said to be necessary in order that the nature of the male and female is not obscured.  Ortlund writes on page 102:

God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction.  Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman.  He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t.  Why?  Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear. (emphasis is mine)

Ortlund’s presumption here is quite clear from this chapter.  God made man first, according to Ortlund, to show that woman-

…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.

and

A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God.  A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)

When Ortlund says that creating man and woman at the same time would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood, what is he talking about?  Ortlund is not defining “manhood” as being male or “womanhood” as being female.  He is defining “manhood” and “womanhood” by the preconceived “roles” that he has assigned to each one.   “Manhood” is now the responsibility to take dominion over the female and to lead her in ways that she supposedly was created to need leading in.  Roles then, assigned by the timing of the creation of humanity, are what separates the genders and what creates the priority for the male.  But is this truly why God created the male first?  Was God giving us a hint that there was a priority in rule and leadership given to the male because he was created first from the dirt?

Let’s reason from the scriptures and think these things through thoughtfully and carefully.  First of all, we have to agree with Ortlund that God could have created the man and the woman from the dirt at the same time.  We also can ask the same question, why did God choose from his own sovereign will to create the man and the woman at different times and in different ways?  Why did God not create the woman from the dirt just like he had created the man?

First of all let’s look at all the bible verses that say that the male is to have leadership over the female because of his first creation.  There are exactly zero verses in the scripture giving first creation status to the male for leadership over the female.  The only verses that talks about a cause and effect regarding the order of creation are in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14.

1 Timothy 2:13  For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Here we see that the discussion of the second one created is tied to deception and the first one created is tied to not deceived.  There is zero connection to male leadership.  The fact is that male leadership would have to be read into the passage instead of pulled out of it because leadership of the male is certainly not in the passage.

So if the first one created is never tied into leadership, then what was the point of creating the man first?  Why couldn’t Eve have been created at the same time right there beside Adam from her side of the dirt bed?

The reason is because God sovereignly chose to create the woman from the man’s body for two reasons and the reasons have absolutely nothing to do with leadership.

1.  The woman was created from the man’s body in order for her to be identified as belonging to him in a one-flesh union with the man in the most intimate of relationships.

If the woman had been created from the dirt beside the man, she would not have been flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.  So if God wanted the woman created not as separate flesh, but in an unmistakable identify with Adam, God had to create him first so that there was a rib that could be taken out to create the woman.  By creating the man first and by allowing him to take on a task designed to show him his lack of a mate, the man was prepared to receive his one-flesh partner.

2.  The woman was created from the man’s body in order for her to be a physical descendant of Adam through whom the Messiah could come but without the taint of Adam’s sin.

Before God created Adam and Eve, he knew that the fall would happen and it was his own plan and design that the Word of God would come to take on the flesh of humanity as a true Kinsman Redeemer.  This Redeemer was to be both God and man, but it was also necessary for the Redeemer to have a physical blood line back to Adam, yet without the taint of sin.  In God’s divine plan, it wasn’t an option that Eve was created from Adam’s body, but an absolute necessity because of the pre-planned salvation of mankind.  You will need to click on the image below or on the highlighted words  to go to the illustrated post where God’s sovereign plan is diagrammed showing how the Messiah came as a son of Adam but without the taint of Adam’s sin.

Adam and Eve 2

After viewing the diagrams of God’s wisdom in the order of creation, isn’t God’s plan for mankind and the redemption of mankind marvelously revealed through the Designer’s plan of Eve’s creation from Adam’s own body?  When you viewed the illustrated post linked above, were you able to see God’s ultimate design plan that was designed to effectively bypass the stain of Adam’s sin?  Does this  make much more biblical sense than the unscriptural idea of assigning the role of  “leader”  to the first one created when God never assigns this role to the male in creation?   Can you see how the physical connection of Eve back to Adam is not an unplanned side thought but rather God’s wonderful pre-planned design?

Instead of considering the plan of salvation that was designed before the world was created, Ortlund sees the first creation of the male as a sign of power and rule and primary responsibility.   He reasons that having woman created at the same time would “obscure” manhood and womanhood because then primary “roles” could not be assigned to the first and the second.  For Ortlund, having Adam and Eve created at the same time with both of them from the dirt would be a missed opportunity for God to hint to us that the second one created was made to be “inequal” in leadership behind the first created.  But may I respectfully say that what Ortlund has completely failed to present in his chapter in CBMW’s book is the redemptive reason for Eve’s creation second as God’s pre-thought-out creation to come from Adam’s own body.

Instead of giving the Designer praise for the plan of redemption mirrored in the order of creation, Raymond C. Ortlund’s focus is on a prideful “royal prerogative” extended to the man.

Next post we will be continuing on in chapter three of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and I will throw out for discussion the different theories about what came out of Adam that was used to become the woman.

Did the serpent have more knowledge than man?

Did the serpent have more knowledge than man?

serpent2 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and on page 73, John Piper and Wayne Grudem write that Adam was ordained as the one responsible for the life of the garden.  The reference is in response to a quote from 1 Timothy 2:14 where Adam is said to have not been deceived. Some take this as a proof that women are more gullible than men and easier to deceive, but Grudem and Piper say that this is not so.  Instead, CBMW brings a new meaning to “not deceived”.  They say “not deceived” means that Adam was not approached by the deceiver.  They write:

If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this:  “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”

Since when does “not deceived” mean that you must have a direct interaction with the deceiver? 

Read More Read More

The sin of the man

The sin of the man

We have been looking at Genesis 3 and the fall of man.  In this post I want to concentrate on Genesis 3:22-24 to see what we can understand from God’s words that result in God’s actions and why God judges differently between the man and the woman by bringing sin into the world only through the man.

In a previous post we saw that the original Hebrew reveals that God said “Behold, the man was like one of Us….” There is no justification in the original Hebrew for the translation that man became like God when he ate the fruit.  This is a very significant point.  God said that man was created like God and now he has added to that creation the experience of evil.  In his fallen state his inclination would be to partake of what now is forbidden to him which previously was given freely.  The tree of life was given to Adam to enjoy the fruit but must now be taken away to fulfill God’s word that “in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die”.

Would Adam reach out to take of the fruit of the tree of life in his sinful state?  The actions of God prove that this would be the case.

Genesis 3:23  therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Genesis 3:24  So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The “sending” of God was for the man to work the ground from which he had been taken.  Adam was sent to work the ground that had become cursed because of Adam’s two failures.  But did Adam go when he was sent?  Verse 24 shows that Adam was not inclined to obey at all.  In fact God’s actions show that Adam was defiant.  God had to literally drive the man out of the garden.  The Hebrew shows an action of force.  It was not Adam’s will to leave the garden.  Adam was forced out because Adam was living in open defiance of God.  Adam was the one who sinned with his eyes wide open and now Adam was the one who was trying to defy God’s judgment by refusing to leave the garden.

After God forced Adam out, God set up a second watchman.  According to Genesis 2:15, Adam was God’s original watchman for the garden of Eden. The Hebrew word translated as “keep” means to guard and keep watch.  This is a designated watchman.  Now God sets up a second watchman after the first watchman morally failed at his watch.  In Genesis 3:24, God sets up the cherubim to guard the way to the tree of life.  Because of the moral failure of the first watchman, God must install a second watchman whose purpose it now was to protect the tree of life from the unfaithful first watchman.

Where does God show a difference between the way that he treated Adam and the way that he treated the woman?  We see that God did not provide a curse because of the woman’s fall into sin.  God said to the serpent “because you have done this” and animals received a curse through the actions of the serpent and to Adam “Because you have listened…and ate….” and the earth was cursed because of the actions of Adam.  Yet the woman did not receive a curse from God nor was anything cursed because of her actions.  We also see that God did not drive out the woman from the garden.  Only the man was driven out.  Only the man was the defiant one who willfully chose to sin and willfully chose to continue to disobey by refusing to leave.  The treachery of Adam is described by God in Hosea 6:7 –

Hosea 6:7  But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.

If Adam was defiant and dealt treacherously against God by morally failing because he was silent at his watchman’s post, why has it been a tradition in the church that Adam brought sin into the world because he was an appointed unique ruler of the human race?  Did God set Adam up as sole king of the world?  Or did God show that Adam was tainted with treason because he was the watchman who listened to the deception, he wasn’t deceived but he failed to shout the warning to stop the deception and the one deceived from falling prey to the deceiver?

The silent watchman ate the fruit without being deceived.

The silent watchman blamed his failures on God and his wife.

The silent watchman defiantly refused to leave the garden.

The silent watchman was replaced with God’s faithful watchman.

The silent watchman was unfaithful to God by allowing the innocent to become ensnared on his appointed watch.

The silent watchman then willingly and against his position as a watchman, took the fruit from the hand of his deceived wife and he defied God by eating.

Now some questions for discussion:

1. Why do you think that Eve was not kicked out of the garden?

2.  Why did Eve leave the garden if she wasn’t kicked out?

3.  Why has the church been so focused on trying to prove that Adam alone was a unique ruler over mankind?

4. Was it Adam’s position as ruler that brought sin into the world or was it his treason and open defiance that brought sin into the world?

Eve and God

Eve and God

One’s world view can cause one to have presuppositions that bring set patterns of reasoning that have nothing to do with the text of scripture. One of these areas is with Eve’s relationship with God and whether God placed the man in charge of her basic knowledge. Some think that God created the woman to be led by Adam so that Adam was given the responsibility to tell the woman God’s prohibition. Hierarchists (or complementarians as many call them) start with the world view that God gave Adam authority over the woman and this gets factored into their view. Let’s take one step away from our presuppositions and look at a question that many have not pondered before. The question is “Who instructed the woman on what she could eat”? Note this is not a question on what she could not eat, but regarding what she could eat.

So who instructed the woman on her diet? Was it God or was it Adam? Hierarchists normally assume that it was Adam. After all if God gave Adam authority over his wife, instructing her on the things that God had already spoken to Adam about, would seem to be obvious. But rather than assuming things, why don’t we look at scripture to see what God has revealed?

Read More Read More

Was the man given authority to rule the woman?

Was the man given authority to rule the woman?

This is the fifth and final response to Matt Slick’s article called Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority

Matt quotes Matthew Henry who said:

“They [women] must be silent, submissive, and subject, and not usurp authority. The reason given is because Adam was first formed, then Eve out of him, to denote her subordination to him and dependence upon him;”

Scripture never says that Eve was formed out of Adam to denote her subordination to and dependence upon the man. Rather scripture shows that Eve was created out of Adam so that they would be a one flesh union. Adam recognized this fact when he said that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. He did not say that she shall be called woman, because she is a subordinate to him. She was his flesh and bone, not his subordinate. In this area Matthew Henry and Matthew Slick are both wrong.

Matt also quotes from D.A. Carson from CBMW as saying:

“The prohibition of women teaching men seems to belong to the same context, although Paul here appeals more to what is appropriate and cites the Genesis story of creation. Two facts are brought out—Adam’s priority and Eve’s weakness in being deceived.”

1 Timothy 2:11-15 does not say that Eve was weak and this is the reason that she was deceived. This is reading into the passage a conclusion that the apostle Paul does not make. In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Paul again talks about Eve and his conclusion is that it was the craftiness of the serpent that deceived Eve, not her weakness of character.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

Sound doctrine will keep us safe from deception. One’s gender (i.e. male) will not keep one safe from deception. In the same way, it wasn’t Eve’s gender that caused her to be deceived and Paul never makes this claim.

Lastly, Matt quotes K. Weust as saying:

“This prohibition of a woman to be a teacher, does not include the teaching of classes of women, girls, or children in a Sunday School, for instance, but does prohibit the woman from being a pastor, or a doctrine teacher in a school….The reason for the above position of the man in the Church and that of the woman, Paul says, is found in the original order of creation, and in the circumstances of the fall of man.”

Matt says:

“Can this be any clearer? I don’t see how it could be.”

The problem is that it would be far too clear and would give us far too little evidence to use women at all. If a universal prohibition is what Paul meant, then would it not be “clear” that taking it back to creation would affect the entire world not just the church. How so? It is because if Paul was really stopping a woman from teaching because of the original order of creation and because of the circumstances of the fall (i.e. her weakness) then it is unreasonable to allow women to teach children (who are the most impressionable members of our Society and who would be influenced by the deception of women) and other women (who apparently would also be easily deceived). An appeal to the circumstances of the fall does nothing to allow women to teach anyone especially those who are easily misled. Someone who is easily deceived isn’t qualified to teach men or children or other women. However if Paul’s reference is not to a universal application taking the deception of one woman deceived by the craftiness of the evil one, and applying that to all women, then it is understandable that it is applicable in the context to a specific situation in Ephesus that both Paul and Timothy were aware of.

Under “Objections answered” Matt writes that:

“Men who abuse their authority are in sin. The Bible clearly teaches that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. It is not the patriarchal teaching that promotes male abuse, but the failure of men to live all of Scripture in that of selecting only parts of it to justify their sin.”

While this is a common “answer” to an egalitarian objection, the fact is that “taking authority” over a wife against her will is abusive even if it is done with a belief that one is doing it as a loving act. Jesus did not take authority over his disciples to force them against their will to do what is right. Jesus lovingly spoke the truth and persuaded his disciples concerning what is right. Jesus did not make decisions for his disciples against their will. Anyone who believes that the scripture gives them the right to “take authority” over their wife against her will is not following true biblical love and the “authority” that they are exercising is not godly authority.

Lastly Matt deals with point #3 the objection that authority was not shown in Genesis before the fall. This is a straw man argument. No one says that authority was not shown in Genesis before the fall. God certainly showed his authority over creation and he gave the man and the woman authority to rule God’s creation. The question is whether authority of the man over the woman was shown before the fall. The answer is “No”. There is nothing in scripture that would show that God gave Adam authority over his wife. Matt says:

“God gave instructions to Adam and Adam gave God’s instructions to Eve. We know this because in Genesis 3 we see where Satan tempts Eve and Eve repeats the instructions God gave to Adam in Gen. 2:16. This means that Adam transmitted the instructions of God to Eve and Eve repeated them to Satan. Adam served as God’s authoritative representative to Eve.”

The fact is that scripture does not say that Adam gave God’s instructions to Eve. Rather, scripture shows that Eve’s testimony is that “God said…” not “Adam said…” Also Eve’s testimony is that God said that she wasn’t even to touch the fruit. These are not the same words as were given to Adam in Genesis 2:16, however they are words that Eve testified that God said. Either Eve’s testimony is true that God said these words to her or she lied or she added to God’s word. Since God did not accuse Eve of lying or adding to his words and the only thing that she was judged for is eating the fruit, we can be sure that God did indeed speak to Eve and give her the prohibition just as he also gave the prohibition to Adam. For more information on this subject, go to the post “Wasn’t Adam the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden?”

The issue of primacy and authority was settled by God in Genesis chapter 1. God gave both Adam and Eve primacy and authority over creation. Man may not take away what God has granted. While some men would like males to have preeminent rule over women given to them not by the sinful nature inherited at the fall but by God himself as a part of the original creation, scripture shows that the man’s sinful rule that made him want to dominate, control, rule and take authority over the woman was not an authority given to him by God.

Authority and Created order

Authority and Created order

In this fourth part of my response to Matt Slick’s article called “Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority”, I am going to deal directly with Matt’s comments regarding authority and created order. Matt writes:

Still, the egalitarians will object and say that an absolute and total equality in all things exists between men and women in the church and the created order and Adam’s naming animals and naming Eve has nothing to do with it. But, is that what is implied in Paul’s words in 1 Tim. 2:12-14? “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” Notice that Paul says he does not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man because Adam was created first, then Eve. Obviously, in the mind of Paul the issue of authority is tied to the created order. This is not merely a cultural phenomenon.

Notice first of all that Mr. Slick uses the words “imply” and “implied” in his article. The reason that he has to do this is because scripture does not directly say that Adam had authority over Eve or that the man is to have authority while the woman is not. While 1 Timothy 2:13 does say that Adam was created first, the direct connection is to deception and “not deceived” not authority. While Slick says “Obviously, in the mind of Paul the issue of authority is tied to the created order” he cannot tell us what is in the “mind” of Paul other than what Paul actually tells us. Paul does not use the “normal” word for authority in 1 Timothy 2:12 which is “exousia”. “Exousia” means permission, authority, right, liberty, power to do something. Instead of the “normal” word for authority that Paul uses in his epistles, what Paul prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12 is “authenteo” which is not even close to being a “normal” word for authority. In fact this unique word is never used again in the New Testament and Paul never gives males the right to “authenteo” anyone. So while Mr. Slick can believe that Paul is talking about a male right to have authority, Paul does not tie the prohibition into a “right” that belongs to someone else. Rather than tying the prohibition into a “right” that is withheld from women and given to men, Paul says nothing about anyone’s right to have authority. Instead, Paul ties the prohibition into the deception of the second one created and the non-deception of the first one created. The prohibition has everything to do with deception, not a right to authority.

Notice in Mr. Slick’s comments above that he does not comment on verse 14. He fails to tie the prohibition into deception and he makes it appear that Paul is giving the male the right to “authenteo”. This argument is seriously flawed because he does not reveal that neither Adam nor any man is given a right to “authenteo” any person either in or out of the church. What is forbidden to “a woman” in verse 12 is not given as a right to anyone else either.

Next Mr. Slick leaves “authenteo” aside and he tries to tie “exousia” from 1 Corinthians 11:10 to males alone. 1 Corinthians 11: 8-10 says:

8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Mr. Slick comments about these verses:

Authority is a huge issue with him. Notice that Paul says a woman is to have a symbol of authority upon her. Why? Because Adam was created first. Primacy in origin is related to authority.

Is “primacy in origin” related to authority? Not at all. First of all, Paul is not talking about “primacy” in origin in these verses. In the 1 Corinthians 11 passage, Paul is talking about equality and not primacy because in verses 11 and 12 which Mr. Slick has failed to include in his quote, Paul says that men now come from women. There is no primacy of one over another, but rather the primacy belongs to God:

1 Corinthians 11:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Secondly, Mr. Slick says that a woman is to have “a symbol of authority” upon her showing the male’s primacy of creation, yet 1 Corinthians 11:10 says nothing of the sort in the Greek. The words “symbol of” have been added to the English however they are not in the original. The inspired word is not a “symbol” but “exousia” (authority). The woman herself is to have “exousia” or “authority”. The term “exousia” is never used in the New Testament as a term where a person is under someone else’s authority. Rather it is always used for the person’s own permission, authority, right, liberty, power to do something. Zodhiates WordStudy Dictionary says that this word “denies the presence of a hindrance, it may be used either of the capability or the right to do a certain action. The words exesti and exousia combine the two ideas of right and might. As far as right, authority, or capability is concerned, it involves ability, power, strength.”

So Paul in the inspired text is saying that the woman has the right, authority, ability, power and strength to make the decision over her own head, because of the angels. Why on earth would Paul give the woman the right and the authority to make her own decision regarding her own head and tie this in with the angels? All we have to do is go back a few chapters to what Paul has already told us about the angels and it becomes very clear. Paul said earlier in chapter 6:

1 Corinthians 6:1 Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints?

1 Corinthians 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?

1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

Paul gives the woman the authority to make the decision about what she wears or doesn’t wear on her head because she will also be judging the angels in the next life. If she will have such weighty responsibility because she too will be judging the angels in the next life, surely she should have the responsibility and the authority in this life to make the decision over a relatively minor “matter of this life” decision regarding what she does or doesn’t wear on her head.

Rather than Paul saying that she is under someone’s authority and that she has no decision making authority because she was created second, 1 Corinthians chapter eleven requires that the woman is to have authority over her own head because of her equal position in the next life as one of the saints who will judge the angels.

I will continue the refutation of Matt Slick’s article in the next post. For previous blog posts regarding the refutation of this same article, see:

Did the naming of Eve come from God’s command?

Special Authority to Adam, was it Given by God?

Was Authority Withheld from Eve?

Did the naming of Eve come from God's command?

Did the naming of Eve come from God's command?

This is the third response to the article by Matt Slick called “Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority“.

The last two responses we have discussed Adam naming the animals Was Authority Withheld from Eve? and Adam’s identifying Eve as “woman”. Special authority to Adam – was it given by God?

Today I am responding to Slick’s comments regarding the naming of “Eve”. Slick writes:

Also, “Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living,” (Gen. 3:20). As God called the light day and the darkness night, so Adam called Eve woman.

There is agreement that Adam took authority over Eve after sin entered the world. The problem is when hierarchists see the naming of “Eve” as if God had commanded Adam to do this before Adam sinned. There is nowhere in scripture that God commanded Adam to take authority over his wife. After Adam sinned, God spoke to Eve and prophesied about what her life would be like outside the garden with her husband who was now a sinner. God did not speak to Adam about granting him authority to rule over Eve, nor did he tell Eve that she must submit to her husband’s rule. He merely stated a fact about what life would be like for her in her sin-distorted relationship with her husband. What hierarchists must do is provide a precedent for God to give Adam authority over another human being (his wife) before sin entered the world. This they cannot do. If Adam was supposed to take authority over her after she was created and before sin entered the world, don’t you think that God would have told him this and recorded it for us to understand? Don’t you think that God would have instructed Eve about what she was supposed to do regarding her “role” if indeed her husband was to have authority over her? It is a significant fact that there is not one word about authority or submission in the pre-fall world except for a mutual authority of Adam and Eve over the animals and the subjection of the animals.

Next Matt Slick points out:

Still, the egalitarians will object and say that an absolute and total equality in all things exists between men and women in the church and the created order and Adam’s naming animals and naming Eve has nothing to do with it. But, is that what is implied in Paul’s words in 1 Tim. 2:12-14?

Notice that in his article he continues to say “implied”. This is significant. The reason he must say “implied” is because there is nothing that says that a man is to take authority over a woman. It has to be read into the text. This is why the best that the hierarchists can say is that is it “implied”. Surely God is capable of issuing a command for a human to rule over another human if he desired it to be that way. The fact that there is no command is very odd if God planned it this way and commanded the first man to rule over his wife. God commanded the man and the woman regarding what they could and couldn’t eat. He commanded them to rule the earth and the animals. He did not give a command regarding Adams right or authority to rule Eve. Did God fail to give a command or is Matt Slick “reading into” the text what God never intended?

Let’s also look at the defense that Adam and Eve gave when they were confronted by God. Did Adam blame the woman for insubordination to his rule? No. In fact he said nothing about her failing to submit to his rule. Eve also did not blame Adam for failing to take authority over her. There is nothing in the testimony of either Adam or Eve that would cause us to imply that Adam had failed in a command to rule Eve or that Eve had failed in a command to submit to Adam. God also did not hold Adam accountable for Eve. Each person was accountable for their own sin.

Lastly, Slick comments about the “divine Zookeeper”:

animals and birds are paraded before the man by the divine Zookeeper for the man to name them, thereby exercising his authority over them.

Not only is calling God a “divine Zookeeper” offensive, but Slick awards Adam with divinely mandated authority over Eve as he implies that the “divine Zookeeper” also paraded the woman before the man. Eve was not paraded before the man in order for him to name her. She was brought to him to be married to him with the blessing of God. Slick has taken a God-ordained marriage ceremony and created a one-woman parade in which the man is given the scepter of rule over her. What a hierarchist can “imply” from the passage is given much more weight than what is actually said in the passage.

Primogeniture

Primogeniture

In the next of Matt Slick’s articles on women in ministry that I will be reviewing is his article called Primogeniture found at http://www.carm.org/womeninministry/primogeniture.htm

Matt gives what he considers to be the meaning of primogeniture:

“Primogeniture, the biblical teaching that the firstborn has preeminence and authority over those that follow in the family.”

I would like to ask where he gets such a definition from the bible? The correct definition of primogeniture from the dictionary is:

  1. The state of being the first born or eldest child of the same parents.
  2. Law The right of the eldest child, especially the eldest son, to inherit the entire estate of one or both parents.

Where does it say that the firstborn has authority over those that follow in the family? The bible doesn’t say this and Matt seems to have picked up an error from CBMW that primogeniture is about people having the right to rule others just because they are first born.

While the first one born had the right to the inheritance from the Father, God bypassed man’s system at times to give the rights to one who was not firstborn. For example God calls Ephraim his firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9 even though Ephraim was the second one born and it was Manasseh who was the first one born. Jesus is the ultimate first born and he is called the first born of or over all creation as he is the pre-eminent one because he created all things. However the bible never says that a human creature is given the right to rule others just because he is the first one born.

The issue of primogeniture would not even come into play regarding men and women since Adam was not the first of siblings. Eve was his wife, not his brother. There is no place in Genesis that God gave Adam the right to rule over his wife and it wasn’t until sin entered the world that God told Eve in prophesy that this is what Adam would do to her, but God never said that it was his will nor did he tell Adam to rule Eve. His words were to Eve prophetically, not to Adam as a command or the giving of a right.

Matt’s article fails the test of truth in his effort to prove that God has given man the right to rule over women because man was created first. There is no right in primogeniture to rule over others and Jesus said that lording over others was something that was not to be heard among the followers of Christ. Matt’s article proves that those who seek to dominate and control others will grasp at straws to try to prove biblically their “right” to do so. However Matt’s “proof” of a man’s right to rule has no biblical basis at all.

Circumcision the woman and the Kinsman Redeemer

Circumcision the woman and the Kinsman Redeemer

Circumcision, the woman, and the Kinsman Redeemer

In dealing with women in ministry, the question has been asked of me, isn’t circumcision a proof that God only wants men to minister through leading and teaching since God gave the sign of circumcision for males only to his people in the Old Testament?  Did God give preferential treatment to males when he brought them into the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament through circumcision?

While some believe that the entrance into the Abrahamic covenant of blessing through circumcision gave preferential treatment for males, the fact is that only the males had a necessary ritual of entrance into the covenant and without this ritual, they were rejected as part of the covenant.  Females entered the covenant without restriction and without rejection.  To understand the reasons why, we need to look at the biblical requirement for circumcision.

Circumcision was performed on babies when they were 8 days old and if the parents did not circumcise their baby boy, the baby was rejected.

Gen 17:14  “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Circumcision

 

Who did the circumcision?

Read More Read More

Adam was blamed but why wasn't Eve?

Adam was blamed but why wasn't Eve?

For those who have been following my comments on Wade Burleson’s post, the three blog articles that I refer to can be found here:

Adam as head of the family

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part one

Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? Part two

If there are any questions, I would love to take them either on this forum or at Wade’s blog.

Is Adam the representative head of the human race?

Is Adam the representative head of the human race?

Those who believe that God created a hierarchical relationship between men and women will usually state that God created Adam as the “federal head” of the human race. This “federal headship” is said to be not only physical in that all of humanity has its origin in Adam, but spiritual because of a divinely-ordained covenant which God instituted between only Adam and himself.

In this view, God gives the prohibition to Adam alone in the garden and God does not include Eve because she is to be represented by Adam in the same way that Adam represents all of mankind. This view is very much embedded in the complementarian mindset so that those who hold this view believe that it is not a tradition but is instead based on scripture itself. But is this true?

While I agree that when Adam sinned he took all of his descendants with him because all of us were produced from the body of Adam after he sinned and thus all of us are physically connected to Adam in his sin nature, however I strongly disagree that God created a special relationship with Adam alone that made Adam a spiritual or physical representative of Eve.

The unscriptural nature of this view is shown by those who take this teaching to its logical outcome. A strong proponent of the teaching of Adam as God’s appointed federal head of mankind is Les Feldick. Mr. Feldick is an Oklahoma rancher and preacher who teaches on a television program called “Through the Bible”.

Mr. Feldick takes the federal headship of Adam to its logical outcome by attributing Eve’s fall to Adam. He says:

“the woman’s fall was not precipitated by Eve’s eating of the fruit. Never! It was Adam who ate and the whole human race fell! We have to see here that Eve was part of that fall because she came out of Adam, just the same as you and I came from our parents. Eve came from Adam.”  http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesbk1.html

Mr. Feldick states further that:

“she (Eve) simply inherited her sin nature from Adam.” http://www.lesfeldick.org/lesbk2.html

If Adam was the federal head of all mankind and appointed as such by God when God made a covenant with Adam alone, then it would have to follow that Eve’s sin did not come from her eating of the fruit. Her sin would have to be attributed to her when Adam sinned just as Mr. Feldick asserts. That means that Eve would have inherited the sin nature even if she had not been disobedient herself because Adam’s sin would also have been attributed to her. Now I agree that this would have been the case if Eve had been created after Adam sinned. When Adam sinned he took all of the future humanity with him because all of us were created from his sin-tainted flesh. We all inherited Adam’s sin nature because all of us were created after Adam sinned. But what about Eve? Eve was not created after Adam sinned but she was created before he sinned. Nowhere in scripture is her sin attributed by God to Adam and nowhere is Adam’s sin attributed to Eve. Eve is held accountable for her own sin just as Adam is held accountable for his own sin. God does not go to Adam and ask him what Eve has done. God goes directly to Eve and deals directly with her without the mediatorship of her husband. If Adam was some kind of representative head appointed by God for all of humanity, then surely he would also have been the representative head of Eve. But God does not treat Adam as a representative head of the woman. Each person is dealt with individually and each person must account for their own sin.

So why if Eve sinned first, did God put the blame solely on the man for bringing sin into the world? It is because Adam’s sin was done in a deliberate and willful way (Hosea 6:7) while Eve’s sin was done through her being deceived and thus she fell into sin (1 Timothy 2:14)

Next the question can be asked, since the seed of the woman was to be born without original sin, does the sin nature pass forward from the male alone? Scripture makes this clear in that it makes the foreskin of the male as a metaphor for sin. Where the seed comes through – that skin is said to represent sin. When God made a covenant with Abraham, all of Abraham’s offspring were to be in the covenant including males and females, yet only the males were required to be circumcised.

Genesis 17:10 “This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.”

The cutting off of the foreskin was a sign of the covenant because only the foreskin is a sign of sin and the physical passing on of the sin nature was through the male alone. If a male was not circumcised, that was a sign of sin not being cut off and God required that person to be cut off from his people.

Genesis 17:14 “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

While the physical transmission of sin is from the male alone, God tells us that each one of us, male and female, need to circumcise the sin in our heart symbolized by the metaphor of the foreskin.

Deut. 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (ESV)

Jeremiah 4:4 “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart.”

God himself promised that he would do the work of removing of the sin in our hearts and he likens it to physical circumcision.

Deut 30:6 “Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.

Spiritually we all need circumcision. However in a physical way only the males were required to go through the cutting off of the physical representation of sin. The foreskin of the male represents sin while the skin of the female (hymen) always represents purity in the Bible. Does this mean that women are pure while men are sinful? No, not at all. We all are sinners in our hearts and all of us have inherited the sin nature of Adam. But only the men’s seed passes on Adam’s seed of rebellion.

One Pastor who has a Masters in Divinity asked me to explain why if the foreskin is a sign of sin, then why was Jesus born with a foreskin that needed to be circumcised? The reason that Jesus was born with a foreskin although he did not have an inherited sin nature, was because the Bible says that Jesus was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Romans 8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Jesus had to be made in our likeness but without the sin nature. That is why Jesus had to be born with the sign of sin in his body. He looked like us in our sinful bodies, but he was completely free of sin. In that likeness of sinful flesh he condemned sin in the flesh. Our sin nature is now spiritually circumcised by Christ himself.

Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

In summary, Adam’s sin has been passed on to all of us through the physical seed of the male, but Christ who is the physical seed of the woman, has become flesh in order to cleanse all of us who through faith will come to him to receive forgiveness. Christ alone is able to permanently deal with the sinful “foreskin” of our hearts.

Adam as head of the family

Adam as head of the family

Adam as Head of the Family

It is common for hierarchists to say that Adam was Eve’s head not because he was her source, but because he had authority over her. While the teaching that Adam was Eve’s ruler before the fall of man is unsubstantiated, the fact that Adam was the source of Eve is foundational to the doctrine of the kinsman redeemer.

Let’s see if we can draw out the important connection regarding Adam’s headship and the new head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ. Adam was the first human creation and from his body, Eve was created.

The fact that Eve was created from Adam’s body and that he was the source of her flesh-and-bone-body is highly important because of what happened next. Although Eve was deceived and she sinned because of her deception, Adam sinned willfully without being deceived. Adam sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing. Adam was charged with bringing sin into the world. The following diagram shows how Adam’s blood line was tainted with sin.

The Redeemer from the woman

God, however, prophesied that the Redeemer, the Messiah, would come from the woman. It is vital that the seed of the woman alone would produce the Messiah because of the inherited sin nature that comes through the man. The diagram below shows that the Messiah is produced from a virgin woman.

Read More Read More

%d bloggers like this: