Update: All of my Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? DVDs are available for downloading or viewing online here.
The DVDs also include audio bytes from those who disagree with women in ministry and we break down the arguments and compare the arguments to the Scriptures.
The 4 DVDs are broken up into scriptural passages as follows: …
The comments on the original post have gone over 400 comments and for some reason the original page is not properly loading just by the link so I will need to find out what the problem is. It does look fine when one goes to http://mmoutreach.org/wim and then scroll down to the March 26, 2010 post called “Adam and Eve and the sin nature that comes through the man – how does this affect the issue of women in ministry?” It is loading okay that way so that one can read the post but when one tries to read the comments that page won’t load. **update – It looks like the 175 pages of comments was just too much for the blog post and there is nothing I can do to get the comments to show up. In future I will try to start a second page sooner so that this doesn’t happen again** (Note – Dec 2012: I have updated the blog and I think all the comments are now back.)
The dialog has been lively and Mark our regular complementarian blog visitor has been going through his Calvinist proof texts with me as we dialog on John 6 verse by verse discussing sin and free will. Future comments should continue on this new part 2 post.
CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) has set itself up as a go-to organization for those complementarians who have not been able to figure out from the Bible which things are allowable for women and which things are not. But does their counsel exceed the Bible? I would like to present the evidence and then let you decide.
In a sermon preached by J Ligon Duncan III and reproduced on CBMW’s website, Ligon Duncan writes that the “teaching office” of the Church is restricted to men. But what is the “teaching office” of the church? According to Ligon, the “teaching office” is the ministry of preaching and teaching in the church that is undeniably “vested in the men who serve as the elders of the church.” So the on-going preaching and teaching to the body of Christ is to be done by men. The problem really gets sticky for complementarians when it comes to women teaching other women. …
The 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 …
The question has come up on this blog about whether Adam had a sin nature at the fall that would have been passed on to all of us, and if this is an issue that is important regarding women in ministry. After all, we need to know why it is that only Adam would bring sin into the world and if all of us have something “hanging” onto us from just on man, why is that? We need to know why sin didn’t come into the world through the woman. Is this because she was “under” the man so that anything she did was not placed on her account but on his account? These questions and more will be answered in this post. …
In our continuing topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam’s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve.
In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr headship is defined as a right that the man possesses to lead women in a God-glorifying direction. Ortlund writes:
First, the issue is framed in terms of “equal rights.” That sounds noble, but does God really grant husbands and wives equal rights in an unqualified sense? Surely God confers upon them equal worth as His image-bearers. But does a wife possess under God all the rights that her husband has in an unqualified sense? As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. Under God, a wife may not compete for that primary responsibility. It is her husband’s just because he is the husband, by the wise decree of God. The ideal of “equal rights” in an unqualified sense is not Biblical.
According to Ortlund’s definition of head, women are not allowed by God to have any part in “competing” with men for the responsibility of leading. This is where the idea comes from that Eve sinned against Adam by taking a leading position. According to this complementarian thinking Eve usurped Adam’s authority and his responsibility to lead the relationship. But is this Biblical fact or complementarian fiction? The only way that we will know is to test this truth claim by the Scriptures.
Is there any Biblical text that gives rules and regulations for Eve regarding who she can talk to? Are there also any Biblical texts that show that Eve could not make any decisions on her own without consulting with her husband?
In our discussions on Genesis, there has been one puzzling question. If Adam alone sinned willfully and the woman fell into sin through deception, then why did God punish Eve so severely for her sin?
I would like to propose that we have had a misunderstanding of what happened when God dealt with Adam, the woman, and the serpent. There are only two acts by God that deal with guilt and curses and not three as tradition has taught us. Let’s look carefully at the passage. First of all, let’s look at how God dealt with the serpent:
Genesis 3:14 (NASB) The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;
God speaks of blame by saying “Because you have done this…” and the result of the blame to the serpent is a curse. It isn’t a guess that God cursed the serpent because the inspired text says “cursed are you…”
Adam is also blamed by God in a very similar way:
Genesis 3:17 (NASB) Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.
Notice again that God says “Because you have…” This is God’s blame and with the blame brings a curse. “Cursed is the ground because of you.” The “you” here is singular masculine, and the ground was cursed because of only one man’s sin. …
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.
CBMW’s statement of their position says that Genesis 2 as viewed in its own context will show Adam’s authority over Eve as God’s original design, and this is borne out in the act of Adam naming Eve. Let’s have a close look at the context of Genesis 1-3 to see where Adam could have been given authority over Eve.
In my post on February 17th on Common Objections to Women in Ministry: God’s Design in Genesis we saw that Adam and Eve were given equal authority over all of God’s creation in the land, air and the sea. If God had wanted to add to Adam’s authority the responsibility to a rule over the woman, Genesis 1 would have been a perfect place to list that authority, but God never gives Adam an authority over his wife in the original design. The authority of rulership for Adam is clearly over animals and the earth, not people. So if God did not give authority for Adam to rule Eve in the original creation, when is God supposed to have given him that authority? Let’s look to Genesis chapter 2 for any evidence of an added authority given to Adam.
How is it that there are millions of Christians who all look to the same Genesis account yet find themselves with different and contradictory truth claims from the same account? While many conclude that man was designed in a special way that sets him above the woman with special God-given privileges, there are still many others who conclude that God created both man and woman as equal rulers over creation. We all need to be careful that we don’t just see what we want to see because there is a tendency for each one of us to read our own position into the account. But as Christians, we should desire to value truth above all else for it is God’s design that we want to discover, not mankind’s aberration of God’s design.
As we search diligently in the creation account in Genesis, we look for how God conveyed His design differences to the attention of the first man and woman. Did the man know that he had been designed differently? Did he know that his design gave him special privileges that were withheld from his wife because she did not have the same design? And was it conveyed to Eve that she was not on the same level as Adam? According to Ray Ortlund, God gave the man a special mission, and a special “call” to accomplish and the woman had a special mission to please him. …
I am creating a new post to continue the great discussion that we have been having on a previous post while I am out of the country. The original discussion is on this post https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/07/05/wayne-grudem-part-2/ and since we have grown to over 240 comments, I would ask that we continue our discussions with Mark the complementarian here.
Those who argue for the permanent subordination of women will frequently use the argument that Adam named the animals and that this showed his unique “role” given to him by God.
In a CBMW article written by Bruce Ware, Dr. Ware makes it clear that Adam was given authority in the beginning of creation that the woman was not given.
Under the heading B. Fallen Disruption of God’s Created Design, Dr. Ware states that there is an authority given to Adam at creation that is not given to Eve.
Gen. 3:15-16 informs us that the male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation…
What authority is Ware talking about? Both the man and the woman were explicitly given the rule over animals in Genesis chapter one. However Ware believes that no one knows how Eve was going to rule, but Adam was special, and as the designated ruler of the world he had the right to rule by naming the animals. Ware writes:
Neopatriarch has taken a second stab at trying to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as he has rewritten his article. Once again he has failed to poke a hole in my argument, but this time, he has dropped the charge that I am exasperating. Good for Neopatriarch for taking a much kinder tone in his introduction! He now calls it his “canned response.” From reading the comments, it appears that Neopatriarch has come to the understanding that brothers and sisters in Christ can argue their position passionately without attacking the other person’s character and their motives. This is certainly a change in his approach, and I commend him for that.
I must also give Neopatriarch credit for trying to answer my interpretation when others who make their living off of promoting the complementarian message just run and hide. However, Neopatriarch has major flaws in his argument, and his argument fails to present contradictions or holes in my own argument, so I am very pleased to be able to present this second refutation of Neopatriarch’s attempt to tear down my argument.
I will start my response by saying that I have no doubt that Neopatriarch is a brother in Christ. However, on the issue of patriarchy, he is dead wrong. It is a loving thing to confront a brother in Christ with his errors so that he can learn from his mistakes. I am certain that Neopatriarch continues to read my blog, even though he doesn’t want to post here any longer, and since my blog seems to have a higher following, I am posting my response here.
At this time I would also like to commend Mike Seaver for his willingness to debate me in this public setting. I do not take this kind of bravery for granted. Although Mike’s answers were not very weighty, the fact that he was willing to work with me to bridge the gap between complementarians and egalitarians was truly a remarkable act on his part. Hats off to Mike for being brave, loving and kind!
Now back to Neopatriarch’s second attempt at refuting me. Neopatriarch writes:
Schatz’s view has cropped up in various discussion groups like CARM and Worthy Boards, and, you might see it in various blogs as well. If you’re thinking about engaging her in a debate or discussion, you might first want to listen to this debate between her and Matt Slick:
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.)
This is the sixth 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 has been patiently waiting to question Paul on his reference to the order of creation in 1 Timothy 2:13. Let’s listen in. (The previous interviews are linked at the bottom of this post.)
____________________________________________________
Paul: Grace and peace brother Doug.
Doug: It has been days since you were here last. I was worried that you might not come back. What took you so long? …
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. …
One of the most bizarre teachings of CBMW is the one taught in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in chapter 3 written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. Here Mr. Ortlund states that God pronounced the death sentence on Adam alone so that Eve died not because she ate of the forbidden fruit. According to Ortlund she died because of Adam’s sin. On page 110, Mr. Ortlund writes:
The fourth point here is that God told Adam alone that he would die. But Eve died, too. Why then did God pronounce the death sentence on Adam alone? Because, as the head goes, so goes the member. [emphasis mine] …
In our discussion of CBMW’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, continuing on in chapter 3 in the writings of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Mr. Ortlund redefines the creation account in such a way that God’s creation of the male first is said to be necessary in order that the nature of the male and female is not obscured. Ortlund writes on page 102:
God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction. Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman. He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear. (emphasis is mine)
Ortlund’s presumption here is quite clear from this chapter. God made man first, according to Ortlund, to show that woman-
…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.
and
A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God. A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)
In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, chapter 3 is written by Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. and called “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3” but honestly, I think it could be retitled “The Emperor has no clothes” a thoughtful comment from a child in the fairytale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes“. This chapter in CBMW’s book is one of the most fanciful reworking of the Genesis account that I have ever seen. Take for example the reworking of sin to be “operating on Eve’s mind” even before sin entered the world.
On page 106 Ortlund writes:
Eve hadn’t even known that there was a “problem”. But the Serpent’s prejudiced question unsettles her. It knocks her back on her heels. And so the Serpent engages Eve in a reevaluation of her life on his terms. She begins to feel that God’s command, which Adam had shared with her has to be defended…Eve’s misquote reduces the lavish generosity of God’s word to the level of mere, perhaps grudging, permission…
After the words “which Adam had shared with her”, Ortlund inserts a note number 39 and the end notes from chapter 3 note 39 reads: …
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and on page 73, John Piper and Wayne Grudem write that Adam was ordained as the one responsible for the life of the garden. The reference is in response to a quote from 1 Timothy 2:14 where Adam is said to have not been deceived. Some take this as a proof that women are more gullible than men and easier to deceive, but Grudem and Piper say that this is not so. Instead, CBMW brings a new meaning to “not deceived”. They say “not deceived” means that Adam was not approached by the deceiver. They write:
If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this: “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”
Since when does “not deceived” mean that you must have a direct interaction with the deceiver? …
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. …
We have been looking at Jesus’ words in John 8:44 which says that there is no truth in satan. We are comparing this to satan’s words through the serpent in Genesis 3:5 and God’s words in Genesis 3:22
Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that in the day that you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; …”
Let’s compare the words in these two verses.
Genesis 3:5 the serpent said that God knows. God knows what? The serpent gives a time frame “in the day that you eat from it”. What will happen on that day? Their eyes will be opened (this is presented as a good thing) and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
Here we have the serpent saying that Adam and his wife will become something that they are not now and it will be a good thing. It will make them “like” God. The implication then is also that God experiences both good and evil. But does he? The word for “knows” and “knowing” is the Hebrew “yada” and its primary meaning means to know relationally and experientially. What the serpent is saying is that God experientially “knows” evil as well as good.
Now let’s see what God says that is different from what the serpent has said:
In Genesis 3:22 the English is opposed to the original Hebrew and the most authentic versions. The Hebrew “hayah” (English translated as “has” become) is the third person preterite tense, and signifies was, not is. The same tense is translated in the Samaritan text, the Samaritan version, the Syriac, and the Septuagint. Adam Clarke says that “These lead us to a very different sense…” God is saying “Behold the man was like one of us…” God is not agreeing with satan that the likeness with God came on the day of their eating the fruit but the likeness started on their day of creation. They were like God in the beginning.
The distortion here is in the time frame and the grammar. The serpent said that they will become like God on the day they eat the fruit. That is a lie. God said they already were like him…until they ate the fruit.
Adam Clarke says that there is “an ellipsis of some words which must be supplied in order to make the sense complete.” This apparently is not uncommon with Hebrew where the basic information is given and you complete the sense. Adam Clarke goes on to quote a very learned man who fills in the blanks this way:
“And the Lord God said, The man who was like one of us in purity and wisdom, is now fallen and robbed of his excellence; he has added “ladaath” to the knowledge of the evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever in this miserable state, I will remove him, and guard the place lest he should reenter.”
The deception was that there was something more in store for them to be like God. But God does not experience evil. Instead of finding themselves like God, they became very much unlike him because they added evil to their experience of good.
So it is true what Jesus said that there is no truth at all in satan. Even though he comes as close as he can to the truth, he twists it and distorts it so that it says something completely different. Adam and his wife did not become like God on the day that they ate the fruit. Their sinless existence was shattered and they became very much unlike God in their experience. Their eyes were opened as the serpent said they would be, but the opening of their eyes was to evil and not to a new dimension of Godhood.
In this post I would like to talk about one verse and its application to the book of Genesis.
John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
What does it mean when it says that there is “no truth in him”? Does this mean that Satan is incapable of telling the truth? If Satan is incapable of telling the truth is Genesis 3:5 a lie?
Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
We have God telling us in Genesis 3:22
Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; …”
Is there any difference between what Satan said and what God said?
Before I tell you what I think, I would like to know what you think. How do you reconcile Jesus’ words that say that there is no truth in Satan and the words in Genesis 3:5 compared to Genesis 3:22?
Next post we will discuss more answers.