Browsed by
Category: In the beginning – Genesis

The case against Eve

The case against Eve

In this continuing look at the creation and fall of man, today we come to the conversation between the woman and the serpent.

The first thing that we notice about the question that the serpent gives to the woman is that it is an attack on God as the source of supply for both Adam and his wife.  The serpent asks:

“Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

What the serpent is saying to the woman is that God has not given them permission to eat at all.  Is it just one tree that he says they are not to eat from?  No. The serpent says that God hasn’t given them permission to eat from any tree.  At this point the woman doesn’t quote from God, but she gives her conclusion.  Remember in Genesis 1:29 God said:

Genesis 1:29  Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

Notice that in Genesis 1:29 God didn’t say to Adam and his wife that they could freely eat.  He said they were given permission to eat from every single tree that passes the test.  The test is that it must have fruit that yields seed.  That is pretty understandable isn’t it?  The woman understood it and she applied it.  So when the serpent questioned her saying that God hadn’t given her permission to eat, she states that she does have permission to eat.  She knows she has permission to eat because she has applied the test that God gave her and because she did what God asked of her, she ended up with the conclusion that she has permission to eat from the fruit of the trees in the garden.

At this point the woman now quotes God.  She says:

Genesis 3:3  but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'”

There are several options regarding why the woman said what she did, but I will only be discussing two diametrically opposed options that leave the woman either faultless or guilty of a crime against God.

The first option that I will look at very carefully is the very common argument from hierarchists that the woman added to God’s words.  The claim is that the words “or touch it” was not recorded in scripture anywhere else saying “God said” therefore we must believe that the woman’s testimony is not true.  She is presumed to have added words and illegally attributed them to God.

Now let’s think this one through.  Does God make adding to his words a prohibition? Absolutely, yes he does.  It is given as a prohibition three times from Deuteronomy and Proverbs and then specifically later on it is given about the words in the book of Revelation:

Deuteronomy 12:32  “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Deuteronomy 4:2  “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6  Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

In Proverbs we see that the result of breaking God’s prohibition is a reproof from God and God will prove the person is a liar.  Thus those who add to God’s words are liars and will be disciplined by God himself.

This is an extremely serious sin and not one to be taken lightly.  Is the woman guilty of adding to God’s words?  One thing we know for sure.  We cannot find someone guilty of sin without two or three witnesses:

Deuteronomy 19:15  “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

We can see from God’s standard that the woman cannot be found guilty of any sin unless there is evidence of two or three witnesses.  It is through two or three witnesses that we will find the matter confirmed or without these witnesses the matter is unconfirmed and the accused person goes free.

Is it a serious matter to charge someone to be guilty who is not proven guilty by the required witnesses?

Deuteronomy 19:16  “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
Deuteronomy 19:17  then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
Deuteronomy 19:18  “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,
Deuteronomy 19:19  then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Here we can see it is an evil thing to accuse someone of a sin without the matter being established with two or three witnesses.  We cannot just accuse someone of sin without a solid foundation of evidence.

Since this is a serious matter, let’s take God’s method of judging the matter and apply it to the case against Eve.

Okay, let’s list two witnesses since that would be the minimum witnesses that are required for a finding of guilt against the woman.

Who is the first witness?  Who charge the woman with adding to God’s word?

The first person to interact with the woman was the serpent.  Did the serpent charge the woman with adding to God’s words?  No he didn’t.  Isn’t this odd?  Satan himself speaking through the serpent didn’t even charge the woman.  Let’s move on to the next witness.

Did Adam charge the woman with adding to God’s words?  No he didn’t.  When Adam faced God he did not say “The woman who you gave to be with me is more guilty than I am because she added to your words.”  No Adam was silent about the woman’s guilt.  No witness here either.

Well what about God Himself?  Surely God himself would follow his standard and reprove her of adding to his words and thus prove her to be a liar, right?  (Proverbs 30:6)  Did God reprove Eve?  Did God say that the woman was guilty of adding to his word?  No one, not even God Himself charged the woman with adding to His own words.  Do you know what this means?  It means without a single witness against a person charging them with sin, we are forbidden by God’s word to attribute guilt to them.

The question is, what will you do?  Will you take the position of accuser?  Will you be a malicious witness falsely accusing the woman of sin when there are no witnesses charging her with sin?  I think those of us who love God’s word and hold to the scripture’s authority would not want to be the one to cast the first stone.  There are no witnesses that can be found in scripture that charge the woman with adding to God’s words.

My view is that if there are no witnesses to charge the woman with adding to God’s word (and there are no witnesses) then I accept her word that she told the truth.  Indeed God did speak to both Adam and his wife and even though these words are not recorded elsewhere in scripture, we can accept the record of God’s words by the testimony of the woman.

Now where do you stand?

The unfaithful Watchman

The unfaithful Watchman

In the last article we saw that God gave additional information to Adam and his wife regarding what they were allowed to eat and God gave freedom for them to be fruit inspectors as he gave them a test to know what was good food.  In another post we will talk more about Eve’s words to the serpent and what happened that caused her to change her method of testing fruit.

In this article we will be discussing God’s requirements for Adam as watchman and the reason why God held Adam accountable for bringing sin and decay into the world. In Genesis 2:15 God sets up Adam as the very first watchman of the garden of Eve. God said:

Genesis 2:15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

The Hebrew word translated as “keep” is “shamar” which means guard or protect as a watchman or doorkeeper.

Darby’s translation renders Genesis 2:15 this way:

(Darby) Genesis 2:15  And Jehovah Elohim took Man, and put him into the garden of Eden, to till it and to guard it.

Read More Read More

Adam and Eve as fruit inspectors and God’s prohibition

Adam and Eve as fruit inspectors and God’s prohibition

In my last post I showed how in Genesis 1:29 God spoke to both the man and the woman directly and told them both what they were given permission to eat. This effectively destroys the argument that Adam was the one delegated to give direction to the woman regarding what she could and couldn’t eat. God did not delegate this important instruction but took the initiative to make sure that the woman also knew from his own mouth what was permitted. In the permission given in Genesis 1:29, God said that they could eat from two different categories of food. The first category was an addition to what God had previously told Adam. God added permission to eat the plants of the field that yielded seed. The second category of food was the qualification which added the information that they could eat from every tree that had fruit yielding seed. This was additional information given to both the man and the woman but not given by God to Adam alone when God first created Adam. God had not stated at that time any information about the seed bearing fruit neither did he say anything about permission to eat from seed bearing plants. Thus more information about permissible food was given at a subsequent time and God saw no problem in repeating himself or adding additional information. The permission given by God in chapter one in essence made the woman a fruit inspector. She was to inspect the fruit to see if it qualified as good food permissible to eat.

Now let’s explore this further and look at what transpired in Genesis chapter 3.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Read More Read More

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 Adam a type of Christ?

Was Adam a type of Christ?

Recently I received a request to post my ideas on why Adam chose to sin when he was not deceived. The writer went on to ask:

“Could it have been intentional (prophetically typical of Christ), and as sacrificially paying the cost to be with his beloved. Paul also then confirming that the redemption from that sacrificial love would ultimately come from progeny through their union? What were Adam’s choices? Would God have cast her out, and taken another of Adam’s ribs for Eve number 2? Would that have been the end to humanity?
Also—if Adam (even the first Adam) is a type of Christ, that puts Eve as the type of the Church, which is both male and female.”

There are a lot of questions here that deserve to be answered in a thoughtful and biblical way. I have heard pastors preach that Adam ate the fruit because he was acting in a sacrificial way to be with his wife. She had already sinned by eating first and so it is said that he lovingly stands by her side and chooses to die with her.

While this view of the events is very romantic and sounds good as a story, it has a problem in matching up with the actual facts recorded for our benefit. (1 Corinthians 10:11) Let’s start with what we know for sure and move to what we can rightly surmise from the events.

1. We know that Adam was with Eve while she was being deceived. (Genesis 3:6)

2. We know that Adam was not deceived. (1 Timothy 2:14)

3. We know that Adam did not take the blame for his wife or try to shield her from God’s charge. Instead of fighting for Eve, he blamed Eve for his own sin (Genesis 3:12)

4. God charges Adam with dealing treacherously with him and thus deliberately transgressing the covenant with God. (Hosea 6:7)

So here are the questions that we need to ask – if Adam ate the fruit because of his great love for his wife…

1. how come Adam waited until after she ate the fruit before he “gave himself up” for her?

2. how come Adam didn’t try to protect her from God’s anger and judgment?

3. how come Adam wasn’t showing his loving protection of her when he answered God by passing the blame on to Eve?

What the facts show is that Adam failed to show his love for his wife while she was being tempted. The facts also show that Adam was not deceived so he ate the fruit with his eyes wide open. Adam sinned without being deceived so his sin was deliberately disobeying God. Not only did Adam deliberately disobey God, but he did not give himself to save his wife before she ate the fruit. Unfortunately the facts show that Adam ate the fruit for reasons other than his sacrificial love for his wife. Adam’s sacrificial love would have been shown if he would have sacrificially saved Eve by bringing her out of her deception. That did not happen.

Is Adam considered a prophetic symbol of Christ, dying for his bride? No, not at all. Adam did not warn his bride about sin. Christ not only warned his bride but he died to save her from her sin. Only Jesus Christ sacrificed himself as a true godly husband. Where Adam failed his bride, Jesus did not. This next question brings up one of the most important truths of our Christian faith:

“Paul also then confirming that the redemption from that sacrificial love would ultimately come from progeny through their union?”

The truth is that the progeny that saved mankind did not come from the man or his union with the woman. The Messiah was promised to come through the woman alone. The Messiah was not to be tainted by the inherited sin of rebellion and God accomplished through the woman’s seed the destruction of the destroyer himself.

The Messiah is the only picture of the perfect husband. His sacrificial love for us was the true love story and Adam does not qualify to be a foreshadowing of Christ. The first Adam lost it all. The last Adam bought it all back. Adam was not a type of Christ, but Christ is a type of Adam. Christ became the “last” Adam, the one who lived a completely sinless life and was the one who did not abandon his wife but sacrificed for his own bride.

“What were Adam’s choices? Would God have cast her out…?”

God did not cast Eve out when Adam sinned with her. God knew that Eve was deceived and so he extended mercy to her. God judges the intentions of our heart and Eve was not in rebellion when she sinned. Eve fell into sin through deception (1 Timothy 2:14). Being kicked out of the garden was not the original punishment for sin. The punishment was death not removing their garden home. The reason that Adam was kicked out was his rebellion. He had already sinned once by disobeying God’s commandment with his eyes wide open. Would he refuse to listen again when God now withholds the tree of life from them? The fact that God kicks Adam out of the garden shows that God knew what was in Adam’s heart.

The next question is an interesting question.

“Would God have cast her out, and taken another of Adam’s ribs for Eve number 2? Would that have been the end to humanity?”

Adam and Eve both needed a Savior. God promised the Messiah through the woman. Eve did not have to leave the garden with Adam for the Savior to come. After all did Mary need to have a man to become pregnant with the Messiah? No. The promise of the Messiah was through a woman alone. If Eve had stayed in the garden, the Messiah could have come through her without the aid of any man. Eve left the garden not because she needed Adam to have the promised Messiah. She left because she wanted to be with her husband. There was no need for another Eve to be created. God knew that Eve would leave the garden with her husband because he prophesied that her desire (or turning) would be to her husband. He also prophesied that the man would rule over her. I believe that it is fairly clear that Eve left the garden because she wanted to be with her husband and he took his sinful rule over her by demanding that she come with him.

“Also—if Adam (even the first Adam) is a type of Christ, that puts Eve as the type of the Church, which is both male and female.”

Yes, men and women are all part of the “bride” of Christ. Men need to learn how to be part of that “bride” just as women need to learn how to be “sons” of God. All of us can learn from each other. Men need to learn how to submit as well and women also need to learn how to be “warriors” of the faith.

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.

Read More Read More

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.

Read More Read More

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.

Read More Read More

Special authority to Adam – was it given by God?

Special authority to Adam – was it given by God?

This is part two of the response to an article by Matt Slick of CARM called “Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority” found here.

Since Matt Slick has claimed that he has refuted my arguments on women in ministry, it is only fair for me to provide information that will show how his arguments are invalid and his “refutation” needs a whole lot more work. 😆

In Matt’s article he states that Adam expressed dominance over Eve. Matt writes:

But, since we see Adam expressing his dominance over the animals by naming them and we see that Adam names Eve, we can then conclude that Adam’s expressed dominance over Eve by his calling her ‘woman’ before the Fall and ‘Eve’ after it. Remember, as God brought the animals to Adam, he also brought Eve to Adam.

There are several questions that must be asked here and the answers to these questions will be very eye opening. The first question is, who gave Adam authority over Eve? The second question is, for what reason did God bring Eve to Adam? If I could take liberties to answer these questions for Matt, I think his answer would be that Adam’s authority over Eve was not explicitly given by God but implicitly given because of Adam’s actions. I also believe his answer to the second question would be that God brought Eve to Adam just as he brought the animals to Adam, for Adam to name her.

Let’s examine each of these questions and look at the text itself for the answers. Let’s also ask a question that goes back even further. Who gave Adam authority over the animals and did Eve also have equal authority over the animals? The answer will be found in Genesis chapter 1.

Genesis 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

God explicitly said to them (plural) that they were to subdue the earth and rule over the fish, the birds and over every living thing that moves on the earth. The command is not for the earth to be in subjection to Adam and Eve, but for Adam and Eve to subject the earth to their rule. The Hebrew word for “rule” used here according to The Complete WordStudy Dictionary by Zhodiates means to exercise domain over those who are powerless or otherwise under one’s control.

While God gave both Adam and Eve control over the animals, did God give Adam special authority and control over Eve? Did God give Adam the authority to exercise domain over Eve just as he had given them the command to exercise domain over the animals? Wouldn’t it appear odd that God would give explicit authority to exercise domain over the animals but only implicit authority for the man to exercise domain over the woman? Wouldn’t this be a failure of God’s to explicitly delegate authority so that we have to guess this is what he intended? It is my contention that God said what he meant and meant what he said. He explicitly delegated authority to both Adam and Eve and there is no explicit delegation of authority to only one of them. The naming of the animals was not a special act of authority to Adam. It was merely the acting out of the command to exercise domain over the animals. Eve, of course could not act out her domain over the animals at the time since she had not yet been created.

So now, let’s have a look at the creation of Eve. There is no doubt that Adam was aware that there would be a mate created for him since God said:

Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

So while God said “I will make…” he then went on to make or form the animals from the ground and bring them to Adam. Adam was able to verify the nature of each animal by naming it and he was also able to verify that each animal created was unsuitable for him. God had said that Adam’s “helper” (one who gives aid or assistance) would be one “in front of him” or “facing him”. None of the animals qualified as one who would give Adam aid “facing him”.

Genesis 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

We can see from Genesis 2:18 that God had said that he would “make” a “helper” for Adam. In verse 19 he “formed” the animals and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. It is explicitly said that God brought the animals to see what Adam would name them and it is implied from verse 18 that God was allowing Adam to check out God’s creation to see if any of the animals was worthy of being “in front of” Adam as one who “aids” Adam.

Now we come to verse 21 where God brings the solution:

Genesis 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
Genesis 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

It is interesting here to note that God fashioned into an “issah” (woman) the rib (inner chamber, board, side) which he had taken from the man. God called her an “issah” or woman before he even brought her to the man. Why? It is because she was taken from the inner chamber or side of the man.

Genesis 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”

The Hebrew literally reads “And saying is the human, This was once bone of my bones and flesh from my flesh. This shall be called woman, for from her man is this taken.”

The question we need to ask is this – does Adam’s identifying her as “woman” mean that he is taking dominion over her? Or does identifying her as “woman” mean that he is identifying her nature as equal to his – flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone? There is nothing in the text that says that God gave Adam authority over her. There is nothing in the text that says that Adam was taking his domain over her. The very next verse explains the significance of Adam’s identification of her nature. Genesis 2:24 says:

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

It says “For this reason…” For what reason? Eve’s identification by Adam as “woman” because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is for the reason of joining together the two to become one flesh.

So why did God bring Eve to Adam? God did not bring Eve to Adam for him to take dominion over her. God brought Eve to Adam so that Adam could join himself with her as a one-flesh union. God brought the woman, but the man is the one who is to leave and join himself to her. “Join” means sticking to or clinging to. Adam shows that he is joining with her by identifying her as the one whom he was looking for. She is “the one” whom God said he would “make” that is the one who will provide him with the help that he needs and the one who will be “facing him” as an equal being. God brought Adam his own DNA mate and Adam joined himself to her. Adam did not take authority over her but joined himself to her.

While people like Matt Slick would like to see this beautiful event as merely a hierarchical reign of the man taking his authority over the woman, in reality it is a man identifying what God has already identified as his equal and joining himself together with her accepting her as one with him.

Do you see what has happened here? Those who are hierarchists like Matt Slick are wanting to see rule and authority and reign and subordination in the text. Yet none of these things is either explicit or implicit in the inspired test. What is explicit is the reason given in verse 24. “For this reason….” God says, man will join himself with the woman to become one flesh. Did God bring the woman to the man for him to take authority over her? Or did God bring the woman to the man for him to join himself with her? The real question should be – what does the text say? The text is silent about the man’s authority over the woman. The text is explicit about the man’s joining himself together with the one whom he has agreed with God that she is identified as his corresponding equal – the only one who measures up to being worthy of a one-flesh union with him.

While Matt Slick may think that he has refuted me and proven that the man was given rule over the woman before the fall happened, he is dead wrong and his work is faulty and incomplete. It is time that we get back to the text actually says instead of placing our own presuppositions into the scriptures. Let’s let God be true though every man be found a liar:

Romans 3:4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”

We have only just started the refutation of Matt Slick’s article so much more to come later.


Was authority withheld from Eve?

Was authority withheld from Eve?

This article is a response to an article written by Matt Slick of CARM called Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority. The article is found here.

In Mr. Slick’s article, he takes the position that God had different roles for the man and the woman right from the beginning. He says:

“Part of God’s command to Adam to keep the Garden was to name the animals. This was not Eve’s role.”

There are no “roles” mentioned in Genesis and Eve certainly could not have a “role” of naming the animals because she didn’t exist at the time that Adam was given the opportunity to name the animals. God’s purpose was a dual purpose. Not only did Adam get the opportunity to name the animals, but he was given an opportunity to discover that he was the only one without a mate. Every animal had its own mate but he did not have a corresponding mate.

Slick goes on to make a distinction between Eve’s work and Adam’s work. He says:

“She was later made to be a helpmate to Adam and assist him in the calling God had given him, not the other way around. “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake,” (1 Cor. 11:9).”

While Mr. Slick makes only the man to have a distinct calling, saying that the woman was created to “assist” the man in his calling, scripture reveals that they both had the same calling from God.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Gen 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Both the man and the woman were given the mandate to rule the animals and both were told to fill and subdue the earth. Scripture does not say that it is only the calling of the male but of them both. Being a “helper” is not a lesser position for the woman since this term is used mostly of God himself in the Old Testament. God “helps” those who need his assistance and who cannot do the job on their own. Adam needed his mate to provide what he lacked. Together they worked on the same mandate to rule God’s creation.

Mr. Slick makes naming the animals as a unique act of authority given to Adam alone.

“Adam named the animals. Eve did not. Naming them was his first act of dominion and it is a sign of authority and it was God who brought the animals to Adam so that Adam could accomplish what God had commanded.”

Now if Adam and Eve had both been around and God had kept the job of naming the animals away from Eve, then men like Matt Slick would have a valid point. However scripture does not say that Eve was kept away from an authority that was kept only for Adam. Scripture is clear that the job of naming the animals caused Adam to see his need for a mate. It is only when Adam saw his need did God put Adam to sleep and create his very own mate from his own body.  But scripture does not say that if Eve had been around that she would have been kept away from helping Adam in the same mandate as was given to both.

So how can we know that Eve was not without an authority over the animals because of the naming of the animals? We can know that God did not place Eve in a lesser position than Adam because God gave them the exact same mandate in Genesis 1. She was given authority over all of the animals just as Adam was given this authority. We can also know that Eve was not held back from exercising her God-given authority because she was not in existence at the event of the naming of the animals. Think about it this way…if God had brought Adam to a pear tree to introduce him to this fruit before Eve was created, would this prove that God gave only Adam the authority to eat from the pear tree? That would seem a little silly wouldn’t it?  Unless God tells us that an authority is withheld from Eve or God shows us that she was held back when both were there and available, we cannot assume something from the text when the text does not say this.  This is an argument from silence.  If God wanted us to know that Adam had an authority over the animals that she did not, God would have told us.

In the next post we will continue to look at what authority is claimed for the man alone when the woman is finally created.

Eve was deceived, Adam was not

Eve was deceived, Adam was not

For a PDF copy of this article click here Eve was Deceived pdf file

This article is a refutation of Matt Slick’s article that he has written in an attempt to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. **While Matt Slick refuses to debate these teachings in writing on this blog, stating that he is concerned that I would possibly edit his statements (I have promised I would not edit his writings and I certainly do not need to do that to refute him!), my offer extends to another neutral web site that would host the debate where neither one of us would be accused of editing the other’s words. I find it quite odd that someone would use so many excuses to avoid a written debate. Matt has already provided his argument in writing on his web site. Why would I need to edit it? I have no problem in refuting what Matt has already written. I can understand why he would not want to enter into a written debate. He doesn’t do as well in a written form of debate. His style is to verbally attack his opponent and that is much harder to do with a written debate. A written debate would hold him accountable to keep his words respectful since it would be open to be viewed by his peers and the church as a whole. If he continues to refuse a written debate I would suggest that it is time for Matt to stop attacking egalitarians as if they are enemies of the gospel of Christ and go on to something else.**

1 Timothy 2:13, 14 makes it very clear that Adam was first created/Adam was not deceived AND Eve was second created/Eve was deceived. We need to pay attention to what Paul said and to understand how this deception and (no deception) relates to the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12. See my related articles Why Adam was not deceived;
Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? part one
Why was the sin of Adam more serious part two

In Matt Slick’s article he says:

Read More Read More

Scriptural fences

Scriptural fences

One of the helpful things in interpreting scripture is to identify what I call “scriptural fences”. These special verses force us to interpret the passage within the limits set up by the “fence” line. When we can identify a “fence” in scripture, we are well on our way to understanding the apparent contradictions within scripture. In this post I am going to give three examples of scripture “fences”.

The first fence line is found in Revelation chapter 21.

Rev. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Now to some, this may not seem like a “fence” but when we read in Acts 1 that the apostles picked Matthias to replace Judas, we have a contradiction that needs to be dealt with:

Act 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and, ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’

Act 1:21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–

Act 1:22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

Act 1:23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.

Act 1:24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen

Act 1:25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”

Act 1:26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

How could Matthias be an apostle who replaces Judas when Paul claimed to be an apostle picked by the risen Christ? Some may claim that there are actually 13 foundational apostles, but that is impossible. Why? It is because of the scriptural “fence”. The book of Revelation states that they are 12 apostles who form the foundation stones, not 13. If we interpret scripture with the understanding that Revelation 21:14 forms a boundary or a “fence” that places a boundary for our understanding, then we need to make a decision; was Paul the 12th apostle or was Matthias? Did you ever wonder why Paul had to try so hard to prove his apostleship? It is because Psalms 109:8 says that another is to take his (Judas) place and the 11 disciples had already picked the 12th before Paul even came on the scene.

Read More Read More

Dr. Randall Buth refutes accusation made against me on CARM

Dr. Randall Buth refutes accusation made against me on CARM

On one of CARM’s discussion boards, “En Hakkore” accused me of misrepresenting and misunderstanding Dr. Randall Buth the author of chapter 5 in the book “Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics”. My position in my DVD series is that the Hebrew grammar in Genesis chapter 2 shows that the garden of Eden and the animals spoken of in chapter 2 were created after Adam’s creation.

Yesterday I received an email back from Dr. Randall Buth confirming that I do indeed understand his writing correctly and this is how the grammar of Genesis 2 reads and that the NIV incorrectly applies a pluperfect wayyiqtol rule when translating Genesis 2:8 and 2:19 to make these refer to a past event. Instead the verbs in these two verses should be translated as they are intended as sequential within the account in chapter 2.

Dr. Buth also brought up something that is very important in understanding scripture. He commends a “willingness to let the text be whatever it is and not to sub-ordinate it to “presuppositionalism”.

When we assume that God created both male and female animals at the same time, we are then forced to take a passage that shows that the animals were created after Adam (Genesis 2) and make this passage refer to the exact same animals that were created in Genesis 1. Dr. Buth says that we need to just let the text be whatever it is. What the text “is” is a sequential creation of animals after Adam’s creation in Genesis 2.

CARM and especially the vice president of CARM have been quick to try to accuse me of false teaching without ever going to the source of the material that I quote. This is unacceptable for an organization whose goal is to present an apologetic reasoning for the Christian faith. Rather we need to do what the Bible tells us to do:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ISV) Instead, test everything. Hold on to what is good

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.”


Who did the circumcision?

Read More Read More

The original woman – needed or needy?

The original woman – needed or needy?

The foundation of the dispute between egalitarians and complementarians is the creation account found in the book of Genesis. How each side views the creation of woman defines the view of woman throughout the rest of scripture.

Even before God created the woman from the side of the man, God spoke words that define who the woman is and her purpose.

Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”

There are three things here that stand out.

1. The man alone is “not good”.
2. The woman was created as a “helper” for man.
3. The woman was to be “suitable” for man.

The man’s creation alone is said to be “not good” out of all of God’s creation. The man had a need that God was going to meet for the man through the creation of the woman. The word “helper” in Hebrew does not suggest a subordinate role, as the NET Bible translator notes say that

In the Bible God is frequently described as the “helper”, the one who does for us what we cannot do for ourselves, the one who meets our needs. In this context the word seems to express the idea of an “indispensable companion.”

The last thing that we can see from God’s words is that the woman is to be “suitable” for man. Again the NET Bible translator notes say:

The Hebrew expression literally means “according to the opposite of him.” Translations such as “suitable (for)” (NASB, NIV), “matching,” “corresponding to” all capture the idea…The man’s form and nature are matched by the woman’s as she reflects him and complements him. Together they correspond. In short, this prepositional phrase indicates that she has everything that God has invested in him.

The Hebrew word for “suitable” has the meaning of “in front of” as well as “corresponding to”, so we see that the woman was created with everything that God has invested in man plus she has what he doesn’t have so that she is able to provide what he needs, thus in the literal word translation, the verse says:

And-he-is-saying Yahweh Elohim not good to-be-of the-human to-be-alone-of-him I-shall-make for-him helper as in-front-of-him.

Unfortunately some have taken God’s words and have twisted them to re-define the woman as a needy being instead of the one who meets Adam’s need. How is this re-defining accomplished? Complementarian leaders teach that:

1. The woman “needs” a leader who will make decisions on her behalf.
2. The woman “needs” a spiritual leader/priest who will represent her to God and who will also represent God to her.

In essence by making the woman a “needy” human being, if she is without a man to meet these “needs” a woman would not be able to fulfill her God-given “role” and without a husband or a spiritual leader/priest to interpret God’s will to her she is not even able to minister fully to other women. This puts women in a secondary or inferior spiritual “role” so that her place of teaching is inferior to the man’s.

While many complementarians are willing to admit that women are allowed to teach the bible to other women, when this belief is carefully examined, they have to admit that a woman’s teaching is inferior to a man’s teaching. By making a woman “needy”, some complementarians have gone so far as to teach that a woman can never be the best spiritual mentor even for another woman. John MacArthur teaches that the deepest and greatest spiritual source for a woman will always be a man:

Click here to hear John MacArthur audio clip #1

Her significance in the world is then only through following the man’s divine direction:

Click here to hear John MacArthur audio clip #2

Whether complementarians want to admit it or not, this in essence teaches that a woman is spiritually inferior to a man. She cannot provide the deep spirituality that a man can and a woman who has women mentors is missing something spiritually unless she has a man providing bible teaching to her.

What this does is leave a woman as needy – needing a man to provide for her spirituality. But this is not biblical. A woman has everything that man has spiritually and nothing is missing. Paul responded to men who thought that women were to be excluded in the giving and receiving of God’s word. Paul said:

1 Cor. 14:36 What? Was it from you that the word of God went out? Or did it come to you alone?

Paul is saying that the word of God has not come to men alone as the Judaizers taught. Women too are to learn because God’s word is given equally for them. The practice of many Jews to exclude women regarding learning of God’s word is not God’s way. In the same way, Paul says that God’s word did not go out from men only. God has also used women to spread his word speaking through them as prophet, judge and teacher.

In the next post we will look at the other assertion that says that woman is “needy” in that she needs a “priest” in the home to represent her to God.

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.

The Designer Knows Best – Genesis reveals God’s will for women

The Designer Knows Best – Genesis reveals God’s will for women

Understanding the basics in Genesis gives a foundation for understanding the way God views women in ministry. In this segment from the first DVD of “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Genesis is examined and compared against the opposing viewpoint which limits women in ministry.

Click below to watch a free excerpt of part 1 Genesis: “The Designer Knows Best”.

[gv width=”450″ height=”350″ data=””][/gv]




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.”

Mr. Feldick states further that:

“she (Eve) simply inherited her sin nature from Adam.”

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.

Why was Adam’s sin more serious than the sin of Eve? Part Two

Why was Adam’s sin more serious than the sin of Eve? Part Two

Adam’s treason was serious

While we have seen from part one that Adam’s sin was said to have been a deliberate transgression of the covenant and as a result it was a treacherous act against God (Hosea 6:7) where does that leave the seriousness of Eve’s sin?

God has made a dividing line between those sins which come from a deliberate defiance against God and those sins which are done unintentionally. Numbers 15:22, 27, 30, 31 says:

‘But when you unwittingly fail and do not observe all these commandments, which the LORD has spoken to Moses… Also if one person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one year old female goat for a sin offering… But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.’

If one sins unintentionally, it is still a sin, but there is provision given for grace to cover this sin. 1 Timothy 2:14 says that Eve was deceived and fell into sin unintentionally through that deception.

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Read More Read More

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 One

Was Adam’s sin more serious?

While some believe that Adam was the representative head of the human race and merely brought sin into the world because he was “head” (i.e. some say he was the covenantal head of humanity) the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin was more serious than Eve’s and it was the seriousness of his sin that brought humanity along with him into inherited sin.

Before we consider the seriousness of Adam’s sin, let’s make sure it was only Adam who brought sin into the world.

Romans 5:18, NASB says:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men

Who was the one who committed this one transgression? Romans 5:14, 15 NASB:

Read More Read More

Why was Adam not deceived?

Why was Adam not deceived?

1 Timothy 2:13, 14 show that the first creation of Adam is connected to the fact that Adam was not deceived. Why was Adam not deceived? If the Hebrew text shows that God created the animals in two creative acts – one before Adam was created and one after Adam was created (but before Eve was created) – then we can understand that Adam had knowledge about the huge difference between God and creation that kept him safe from deception. See my summary of the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage explained in 20 short points posted here to understand the complete context of what we will be talking about in this post.

The discussion has taken on a question of whether animals could have been created after Adam if the old earth view is considered or if only a young earth model could fit the context. I will be posting several comments that came in under the 1 Timothy 2 passage and placing them under this post so that they can be answered here. I will then take each question and comment on them as time permits in my schedule.

Could the Messiah have been a woman?

Could the Messiah have been a woman?

Coud the Messiah have been a woman?

Since God is neither male nor female, some have suggested that the Messiah could have been born a female. I would respectfully like to differ with that view. In this post I want to show from scripture why the Messiah had to be a male.

The scriptures definitively say that sin came through one man.

Romans 5:12 NASB: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”

Paul carries the thought further by saying:

Romans 5:19 “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”

Although Adam and Eve both sinned, the willful disobedience of the man was what brought sin into the world.

Read More Read More

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

What women really want

What women really want

In Genesis chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about her future. Unfortunately God’s words have been interpreted by male expositors in a way that makes God out to be a false prophet. In Genesis 3:16 in the NASB, God said “In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband

After the fall, God speaks about the future. In the quote above, God says “you will”. This is a prophetic utterance about the future and about the desire that Eve will have for her husband. What is this desire? In the Hebrew the word desire means a stretching out for – a longing for. The Complete WordStudy Dictionary describes this as the strong feelings of desire one had for another, but it wasnt always a healthy one. So is the “desire” of Genesis 3:16 a healthy desire or not? The word translated as “desire” is only found three times in the Old Testament.

In Song of Solomon 7:10 it says “I am my beloved’s, And his desire is for me.” This desire is a very healthy desire of a husband toward his wife. This desire is between a man and a woman.

In Genesis 4:7 it says “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” This desire is a figurative desire of sin wanting to control a person.

So which kind of desire is God prophesying about in Genesis 3:16? Is it like the figurative desire of sin to control and to destroy? Or is it like the longing of one person for another? Almost every commentary you read, the male commentator says that God gave a judgment on the woman so that she will desire to rule over the man. But is this true? Can scripture be properly interpreted that way? First of all the fact that the woman will desire her husband is not God’s judgment against her. It is a prophecy that would be shortly fulfilled and the desire for the man is the natural longing of the woman in spite of the pain that she experiences from having his children and in spite of the domination that the man has over her. She will long for him in spite of all the reasons for her to want to stay away from him.

In a recent bible study class the instructor brought up these verses and said that it was God’s judgment that women would desire to rule their husbands. When we broke up into groups for discussion, the first thing that the women said was “I have no desire to rule or control the man.” Every one of the women in our group said the same thing.

If we take the interpretation that the male interpreters have put onto this passage, then it puts God into dire straits because he has predicted something that on the whole simply is not true. Perhaps the male expositors should have taken the time to ask women what their desires are and then they would have known for sure the proper way to interpret this verse. So what do women really want?

Women want men to love them emotionally. Women long for their men to hold them and speak tenderly to them and to be treated as if they were the only woman on this planet. Yes women want sex too, but sex is an outworking of the emotional bond between man and woman. Women are not like men. Women do not use emotions to get sex. Women throughout the centuries have naturally used sex to get emotional love. So what is it that women want? Women want and desire emotional love. Women’s innate desire is not to rule men.

I have spoken to many women about this verse and most think the concept about them desiring to rule men is abhorrent. They can’t even conceive of it. Think about the women in all the third world countries. Do they desire to rule men? No. They dream about and long for freedom from being dominated and controlled. Women just want to be free to be themselves, they aren’t looking to rule the men, and above all they want to be loved.

So why have men chosen to believe that God said that the woman would desire to rule her husband? It is only because they are men who don’t know the internal nature of women.

Now think about it this way- if God’s intention was to punish women by making them want to rule their husbands, then why is it world-wide that women are not trying to rule their husbands? Why is it that the womanâ’s natural state is one of being easily controlled? It is because the woman’s natural tendency is to please the man and to want to do whatever will get emotional love from him. God’s words about her desire are not a curse on the woman, they are a prophetic statement concerning the innate longing that the woman will have.

And within a very short time, God’s prophetic words will come to life. Think about this – God kicks Adam out of the garden of Eden. He does not kick Eve out. Why is that? Because God knows that Adam in his rebellious state will desire to eat from the tree of life. Eve was deceived into eating the forbidden fruit – she did not eat because she was acting in a rebellious way. So God kicks out the rebellious one.

Genesis 3:23 and 24: therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 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.

God kicks out the rebellious Adam and he is forced out of the garden. So if God doesn’t kick Eve out, then why did she leave? It is so simple. God has already told us. He prophesied what was going to happen. Eve left because she desired her husband.

Wasn’t Adam the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden?

Wasn’t Adam the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden?

Q: Does the fact that Adam was the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden prove that he was given a role of authority that the women was not given?

A: This is a common question and comes from a common misconception about the text in Genesis 2. However scripture does not say that Adam alone was given God’s prohibition in the garden and that he had authority over Eve. Let’s have a look at scripture to see what it actually says. In Genesis chapter two, God gives the prohibition to Adam saying “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Read More Read More

Why do you say that animals were created after Adam?

Why do you say that animals were created after Adam?

Q: In your section on 1 Timothy 2, you state that Adam saw some of the animals being created, perhaps the mates of the animals already created on day six. However, says that God had formed “all of the beasts” (NIV) or “every beast” (NASB). Wouldn’t you say that it’s a stretch to say that means “some” animals were formed when Genesis says that God formed every beast?

A: As we documented in WIM from Hebrew scholars, Genesis shows a second creation of the animals after Adam was created.

Read More Read More

Wasn’t the garden created before Adam was created?

Wasn’t the garden created before Adam was created?

Q: Doesn’t Genesis 2:8 simply say that God had already planted a garden and then put man into it after he was formed? Don’t the following verses then go on to describe what the garden was composed of, not a sequential account of the garden being formed after the man? If 2:8 says there was a garden that God put man in, but he hadn’t yet created the vegetation for it, how could it be called a garden? It’s not a garden until we see green stuff. But as a summary statement, it is simple to see that the vegetation and animals and garden were all in place, and then God put man in it. Adam didn’t witness it.

A: A garden is a garden not because of the green stuff that you see, but because of what has been planted. We can see that very clearly even today. I can go out into my back yard and prepare the soil and plant a garden. My neighbor won’t come by and tell me that I haven’t planted a garden just because he can’t see any green stuff. The fact that it is called a garden even before the green vegetation is seen.

Now regarding your statement that Genesis 2:8 is a summary statement of what has already happened, that is not possible in the Hebrew construction.

Read More Read More

%d bloggers like this: